Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-10 e-packet@5:30 S"iPECIAL MEETING S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MI TNICI1--'AL SERVICES BUILDING Council Chambers 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014 5:30 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the I 0"b day of December, 2014, at 5:30 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: I. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Public Comments—comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. 4. Agenda Review. 5. Smart Parking Meters and other Parking Technologies within the Parking District. (Brian McMinn, Director of Public Works/City Engineer), 6. Draft Housing Element Update for the 2014-2022 planning period. (Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development). 7. Options for former PUC Properties. (Jim Steele, Finance Director/Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development). 8. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 220 Linden Avenue (Metropolitan Hotel) Agency Negotiators: Alex Greenwood, Steve Mattas Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco and Latitude 38 Group Housing Services. 9. Adjournment. st 7 1 Ili, City Clerk SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10,2014 AGENDA PAGE ° pow, Staff Repon-A a� c� a DATE: December 10, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council. FROM: Brian McMinn, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: SMART PARKING METERS AND OTHER PARKING TECHNOLOGIES, WITHIN THE PARKING DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Conneil discuss and provide feedback as to the implementation of smart meter and other technologies within the Parking District. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The South. San Francisco Parking District is comprised of 1,068 parking spaces; 607 on street or parking lot metered spaces, 217 permitted spaces in surface parking lots, and 244 spaces in the Miller Parking Garage. The FY 2014-15 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes a project to replace parking meters with meters that have credit card reading; capabilities.. Additional technologies such as a mobile parking guidance system, pay by phone applications, and vehicle detection sensors can stand alone or be integrated with smart meters to improve customer experience and provide real-time parking occupancies and transaction data. A matrix (attachment 1) is attached that shows the capabilities of the different technologies described below. Smart Meters Smart meters are solar powered meters with battery backup designed to accept multiple payments such as credit cards and coins. Smart meters have LED lights to indicate if the meter is valid or expired. The smart meters can also integrate with parking enforcement applications to increase the efficiency of parking enforcement officers. Some smart meter companies also provide a pay by phone option. As with any credit card payment option, there are additional fees related to each credit card transaction. The City has the option to pay the transaction fee or pass the cost onto the user. Mobile Payment Applications Several companies offer a mobile payment app where users can pay for parking using a smart phone or by calling a local number if they do not have a smart phone. This option can be implemented with little or no upfront cost to the City. Decals are attached to meters with a space number that allows the users to pay for a specific parking space. To pay for the transaction, the users have payment information on file with the mobile payment app. IL Staff Report Subject: SMART PARKING METERS AND OTHER PARKING TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN THE PARKING DISTRICT Page 2 of 3 Mobile Payment Applications can also be configured for use with monthly or annual parking permits. This would allow permit holders to have one decal for their vehicle tied to a license plate number and provide for online payments without the need to go to the Finance Department every month to pay for and receive an additional parking permit. The mobile payment apps usually have a convenience fee attached to each transaction plus the credit card processing fee. The convenience fees are approximately $0.35 with a transaction fee of$0.17-0.23 per transaction. These fees can be passed onto the user or can be subsidized by the City so that the hourly charges are the same as cash. The mobile application includes parking enforcement software that indicates which spaces are paid for from the mobile app. Some mobile apps communicate with the meter so the meter reflects that a space is paid for regardless of the type of payment. Sensors In ground sensors are also another parking technology that uses radar or magnetic fields to detect whether a space is occupied or not. The sensor technology can be deployed in paid or free spaces with a time limit. Sensors have the benefit of allowing parking enforcement officers to identify parking violations without chalking tires or visually inspecting meters. A study conducted between five cities that have implemented sensor technology in a combination with sensor guided enforcement saw between an 80% and 130% increase in parking enforcement effectiveness in the area where sensors have been installed compared to baseline enforcement without the sensors. Sensor technology can also integrate with the City's existing meters or new smart meters and mobile payment technology to reset or zero meters when a vehicle exits the space. The sensor technology gives the greatest reporting capabilities to see real time data of parking usage. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends replacing approximately 600 street meters with smart meters and piloting in- ground sensors. Staff does not recommend replacing meters at former RDA owned parking lots that may be sold to developers in the near future. Mobile payment was considered as a stand- alone option vs. smart meter, but is not recommended at this time. Piloting the sensor technology before going to a mobile payment application may provide data as to the best product available that will allow for future integrations between parking enforcement and mobile payment options. Implementing the recommended smart meter and piloting in-ground sensors will take approximately seven to ten months. The first phase would be to issue a request for proposals for smart meters and sensor technology. Once the smart meters and sensors are installed and online, staff would integrate the sensor and smart meters with parking enforcement operations. After six months to a year of piloting the sensors, staff would return to City Council to recommend whether additional in-ground sensors are warranted and if there is value to implement a mobile payment app. Staff Report Subject: SMART PARKING METERS AND OTHER PARKING TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN THE PARKING DISTRICT Page 3 of 3 Assuming an REP is issued in February 2015, smart meters and in-ground sensors at the Miller Parking Garage should be operational by August 2015 and the parking enforcement integration should be operational by November 2015, FISCAL IMPACT: If staff purses an integrated approach to implementing parking technologies the upfront capital costs will be approximately $500,000 with $80,000 of yearly on-going fees for software licensing and integration costs. The yearly ongoing costs for smart meters may be off-set by increasing parking meter hourly fees by 10-15% or through personnel savings. CONCLUSION Implementing the various parking technologies in the Parking District will give staff a real time picture of parking occupancy, provide various payment options to users, and increase the efficiencies of the parking enforcement officers all while improving the downtown parking experience. Staff will incorporate input from City Council and move forward with issuing requests for proposals for smart meters and parking technology. Once proposals have been evaluated, staff will return to City Council with recommendations for implementation contracts, J X By: "4""­f""'00"——0., Approved: Brian McMinn `ik�'eFutrell I Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 —Parking Technology Matrix Attachment 2 —Power Point Presentation JUDB Parking Meter Technology I atria Smart Meter Mobile Payment Sensor ,F y � err, Accept Coins Accept Credit Card Service, Fee $5.75 per meter/month $0.35 per transaction $12 per sensor/month Real-Time Parking. Availability via website or smart phone app Parking Enforcement Applications for metered spaces Parking Enforcement Applications for permitted spaces Web Based Reporting JR South San Francisco City Council Study Session December 10, 201 Parking '11 ,068�, Spaces Downtown Parking District HIM LiLL mman.ma.xw,mmmem oaam k�ervd Ave ue o m � u +x � I.IIEL [ff1LF# 12/3/2014 iI //I% ,/ % // // O Solar Powered with Battery Backup Accept Credit Gard ,accept Coins / Light to indicate meter status Integrate with parking enforcement software Mo NE0 a y n e nt-Alli p User downloads app on smartphoine Decal attached to meter to indicate space number User has car profile and payment info stored' on app Pay by phone option avaiilab�le Can use imobile apps for monthly/annual permits 2 n s()li d Can be in-ground or on meter Can be used for pits parking lets and unmetered spaces Integrate with:: meters iJ and parking enforcement Real-time parking availability via websitelapip ,iii/l,�� �i; ,✓// / / replace approximately 600 street meters with smart meters Pilot in-ground sensors Integrate new meters with parking enforcement applications Wait 6-12 months before evaluating the benefits of a mobile payment app and expansion of in-ground sensors 3 12/3,/2014 a Approximately $500,000 for upfront costs to replace meters and add sensors in parking district Annual licensing and maintenance fees $80,000 On-going oasts could be offset by a 10®1 '%% increase in meter fees Potential personnel savings from coin collection and more efficient enforcement f i 4 s a n �* Q3 e Staff Report DATE: December 10, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT FOR COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION That the City Council review and take public comment on the Draft Housing Element and provide direction to staff on any changes to be made to the draft document. BACKGROUND California requires each jurisdiction to prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan in order to ensure that all jurisdictions are planning for the projected housing demand throughout the State. A Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated Elements of the General Plan. Unlike other elements of a General Plan, the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the State. The Housing Element is the blueprint for future housing development in the city and includes goals, policies, and programs that direct residential decision-making. The Housing Element is required by state law to identify how and where the housing needs of each community will be met. The process begins with the State advising a region of their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RNHA), which is the estimated number of housing units that will be needed over the planning period (usually seven years). This allocation is further subdivided among four household income categories: very-low, low, moderate and above moderate. The amount that residents can afford to spend on housing depends on their income. Specifically, federal guidelines suggest that people not spend more than 30 percent of their earnings on rent or mortgage, including utilities. Affordable housing income limits are determined by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and is adjusted for family size, as detailed in the table below. FAMILY EXTREMELY LOW VERY LOW LOW MEDIAN MODERATE ABOVE SIZE BELOW 30% BELOW 50% BELOW 80% 100% BELOW 120% MODERATE 1 $23,350 $38,500 $62,200 $72,100 $86,500 > $86,500 2 $26,650 $44,400 $71,050 $82,400 $98,900 > $98,900 3 $30,000 $49,950 $79,950 $92,700 $111,250 > $111,250 4 $33,300 $55,500 $88,800 $103,000 $123,600 > $123,600 5 $36,000 $59,950 $95,950 $111,250 $133,500 > $133,500 6 $38,650 $64,400 $103,050 $119,500 $143,400 > $143 400 Staff Report Subject: Draft Housing Element Date: December 10,2014 Page 2 of 8 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the public process by which this regional allocation is apportioned to each jurisdiction within its boundaries. In addition to demonstrating how the allocated number of units can be produced,policies in a Housing Element must also: 1. Address the removal of governmental barriers to housing production; 2. Ensure the jurisdiction's housing stock is maintained, and 3. Ensure that housing is available to all types of persons on an equitable basis. This housing cycle covers January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023. The City of South San Francisco has a RHNA allocation of 1,864 units for this cycle, with units distributed based upon income group as shown in the table below (Note, the City's RHNA allocation for the previous housing cycle (2006-2014) was 1,635 units, of which 1,062 units or about 65% have been constructed): Income Group Units Percent Very Low/Extremely Low Income 565 30% Low Income 281 15% Moderate Income 313 17% Above Moderate Income 705 38% Total 1,864 100% 2006-2014 Cycle Total(for context) 1,635 If a city does not comply with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements for their Housing Element, there is a risk of Housing Element litigation, loss of local land use control, the RHNA numbers (allocation) may become cumulative over cycles (per AB 1233), and potential ineligibility for qualifying for State Housing Funds and other infrastructure funds. DISCUSSION Community Outreach and Input The City has contracted with Dyett& Bhatia to assist with the preparation of this cycle's Housing Element update. On February 11, 2014 a workshop on the Housing Element update was held, which was geared to stakeholders such as housing developers and advocate groups. Approximately 16 people attended, including two City Council members and four Planning Commissioners, representatives from the Sierra Club, Rotary Club, San Mateo County Union Community Alliance, Office of Assembly member Kevin Mullin and the Housing Leadership Council, as well as neighborhood organizations. Staff Report Subject: Draft Housing Element Date: December 10,2014 Page 3 of 8 Staff also provided information on the Housing Element update at the Housing Resources Fair that was hosted by the City of South San Francisco at the Municipal Services Building on May 10, 2014. Additionally, as part of the 21 Elements Countywide working group that South San Francisco participates in, there have also been a number of outreach efforts for the group that have provided valuable input and count toward the public participation requirements for our Housing Element Update effort, including: • Advocates for the developmentally disabled were invited to present issues at a 21 Elements meeting, and they have also coordinated with the consultant for the 21 Elements working group to summarize the special housing needs section. In December, the 21 Elements meeting hosted a panel with low income housing developers and other developers to discuss trends in housing development and how cities can work cooperatively with developers. • In January, a focus group of housing advocates was held to discuss what can be done to promote affordable housing since the elimination of redevelopment agencies. • In April, the 21 Elements meeting invited a focus group to hear from the special housing needs advocates including senior groups, disabled groups, and other special needs representatives. To date, the City has received three letters with comments regarding the Housing Element update. The letters are attached and summarized briefly below: 1. February 2014 - Kate Comfort Harr with HIP Housing requested inclusion of a policy to support HIP Housing's home share program; 2. February 24, 2014 - Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, San Francisco Organizing Project/Peninsula Interfaith Action and Greenbelt Alliance provided a document titled, "Housing Element Best Practices" comprised of approximately 28 recommended policies and programs for consideration in the Housing Element update; and 3. July 2014 - San Mateo County Association of Realtors (SAMCAR) letter includes approximately 15 recommended policies and programs for consideration in the Housing Element update. Following review by HCD, there will be two subsequent public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council, likely beginning in March where the public can provide additional comments. Opportunity Site Analysis To show that the City has properly zoned land to meet the RHNA numbers, the City is required to complete an adequate site inventory, which is found in Chapter 5, Housing Resources, in the draft Housing Element. The City of South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the RHNA for this housing cycle. There is sufficient land to support the production of 2,083 new housing units and up to 2,163 housing units upon adoption of the Downtown Plan, where 1,864 have been allocated to South San Francisco for this housing cycle. Policies and Programs The updated Housing Element carries over many of the goals, policies and programs from the previous Housing Element. Additionally, in response to comments received by the public and advocate groups, eleven (11) new programs have been included: Staff Report Subject: Draft Housing Element Date: December 10,2014 Page 4 of 8 Program 1-213 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Review: The City shall periodically review the success of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SSFMC 20.380, to determine if the objectives of the ordinance are being met. Consideration shall be made to revising provisions of the ordinance to ensure that a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including households of low-and moderate incomes, are provided. Staff is contemplating a revision to the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee in the near future, which is discussed in more detail in the Potential Revisions for Consideration section of the staff report. Program 141) - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 19.36: The City shall review SSFMC Chapter 19.36, which requires a minimum of 5 units in order to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership. Program 1-513 — Suport Grand Boulevard Initiative Policies: The City shall continue to support the guiding principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which encourages the provision of medium- and high- density housing along El Camino Real in Peninsula communities, in order to create an environment that is supportive of transit, walkable, and mixed-use. The City shall reference this policy direction when considering future land use and zoning changes along El Camino Real, and assess the opportunity for housing development along this key corridor as development proposals arise. Program 3-113 — Funding Prioritization: The City shall continue to give housing rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Funds shall be targeted towards older housing stock and to families earning less than 80 percent of AMI. Program 3-613 —Assist Tenants: The City shall assist tenants displaced by the conversion of at risk units by providing information about tenants' rights, providing referrals to relevant social service providers, and facilitating other support as appropriate. Program 5-213 — Promote Disabled Housing Resources and Programs: The City shall ensure that its website and handout materials regarding housing resources, requirements, and services for the disabled are updated regularly and made available to the public. Program 5413 — Resources for the developmentally disabled: The City shall support the Golden Gate Regional Center in its mission to serve those with developmental disabilities, disseminate information about the Center and its services, and make referrals as appropriate. Program 5-5A — Support a variety of housing unit designs, including larger housing units that can accommodate large families: The City shall seek to broaden the diversity of its housing stock that is affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households to include more units that are suitable to large families. Currently, much of South San Francisco's affordable housing consists of single-room occupancy units and one- and two-bedroom units. The City shall work with housing developers during the entitlement process and encourage them to provide a unit mix with at least 10 percent of units having three or more bedrooms. Staff Report Subject: Draft Housing Element Date: December 10,2014 Page 5 of 8 Program 5-7A — Suport and Promote Home Sharing The City shall support the efforts and services of the HIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternative housing solution for extremely low and very low income individuals and families; female-headed households; those at risk of homelessness; and others in need. The Housing and Economic Development Division will provide information about the HIP program, provide referrals, and support residents of South San Francisco who are interested in participating. Program 5-8A —Provide referrals to Veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: The City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Resources for referrals include the Veteran's Administration (VA) National Call Center of Homeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint effort between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into permanent housing through a voucher program that allows homeless Veterans to rent privately owned housing. Program 6-IA — Suport Equal Housing Opportunity Laws: The City shall require that all recipients of locally-administered housing assistance funds and other means of support from the City acknowledge their understanding of fair housing law and affirm their commitment to the law. The City shall provide materials to help with the understanding of and compliance with fair housing law. Nexus Study Due to the loss of redevelopment agencies and the state court prohibition of rental inclusionary zoning, many cities have increasingly relied on impact fees to support affordable housing. Currently, the City of South San Francisco is participating in a multi jurisdiction affordable housing nexus and impact fee study, coordinated by 21 Elements for each jurisdiction in the county. Specifically, the study will document the permissible and recommended fee levels for each jurisdiction for both residential and commercial development, but does not obligate any jurisdiction to adopt such fees. If implemented, such an impact fee would require new construction to pay money into a fund which, in this case, would be used to support affordable housing. To enact an affordable housing impact fee, however, cities must first conduct a nexus study that demonstrates the relationship between new housing or jobs and the need for affordable housing in the community. The fees listed in the upcoming report will be unique for each city and will be based on local conditions. The recommended fees (residential and commercial) will be based upon what is supportable considering all other development fees currently applicable to development in South San Francisco. The existing Housing Element includes Program 1-3A,which recommends the City investigate the feasibility of a commercial linkage fee to support affordable housing. That Program, 1-3A, remains and was reworded to reflect the current study being spearheaded by 21 Elements. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY State Law requires that all elements of the General Plan "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." Staff has reviewed the proposed Housing Element Update and determined that it will not create any inconsistencies within the City's General Plan. Staff Report Subject: Draft Housing Element Date: December 10,2014 Page 6 of 8 Airport Land Use Committee - C/CAG The draft Housing Element was submitted to the City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County on October 29, 2014. It will be scheduled for a consistency review by the Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) at their December 9, 2014 meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION No environmental review has been prepared for the draft Housing Element. Once comments are received from the City Council and public, a CEQA determination and document will be circulated, as necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION At the November 6, 2014 Planning Commission hearing, the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element. The following comments were provided by the public: 1. Tracy Choi—Housing Leadership Council complimented the City on the draft document and suggested that the City consider modifying Program 3-6A to monitor both deed-restricted and non-deed-restricted housing conditions and displacement rates throughout the City. 2. Pedro Gonzalez —HOTHRA suggested that adding new housing units could exacerbate parking issues in the downtown area. The Planning Commission provided a number of comments on the draft document, summarized below: 1. The City should consider any additional ways to address the displacement and affordability issues facing the City. 2. Supported the HIP Housing Home Share program, including the draft Housing Element as Program 5- 7A. 3. Shared concerns regarding parking impacts in the Downtown area, which staff suggested would be studied with a parking analysis once the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan is adopted. The complete discussion is included in the attached minutes, as reference. POTENTIAL REVISIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Based on suggestions during the review process, staff has identified a few efforts that the City Council could consider for implementation. In particular, the following actions could respond to the concerns that both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed at the joint study session and recent Planning Commission hearing regarding housing affordability. 1. Add a new draft Housing Element program to Policy 3-4: The City shall support the preservation of public affordable housing stock Program 348 Support r! ,gional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower-income households and consider programs to address identified housin needs.eeds. Include in this research any impacts on affordable housing(new and existing) in Priority Development Areas. to Report Subject: Draft Housing Element Date: December 10,2014 Page 7 of 8 Similar language has been included in the City of San Mateo's 2014 draft Housing Element in response to concerns from the public related to housing displacement at or around Priority Development Areas comparable to South San Francisco's downtown corridor. Although the suggested draft program would not bind the City to study affordable housing and tenant displacement, it would recommend that the City support any future efforts to evaluate the impacts of new development on existing housing stock in the downtown or to the El Camino corridor. 2. Consider revisions t o t he current in-lieu fee calculation under the Inelusion ary Housing Ordinance The newly proposed Program 1-2B — Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Review suggests that the City periodically review the success of the Inclusion ary Housing Ordinance to determine if the objectives are being met. Staff will research the in-lieu fee (fee required of developers instead of on-site affordable housing production) component of the inclusion ary housing ordinance of other San Mateo County jurisdictions to evaluate if South San Francisco's provisions are commensurate. The primary concern is that the current in-lieu fee calculation, applied to for-sale housing projects only as required by court determination and case law, is exceedingly high compared with of cities. As a result, developers construct rental housing instead of for-sale housing and the City does not see new affordable housing construction. A more reasonable in-lieu fee could incentivize housing developers to pay the fee, construct new for-sale units, and provide the City with funds that could be leveraged in new affordable housing construction citywide. Attached for the City Council's consideration is a redline and strikethrough excerpt of the Inclusionary Housing section of the draft Housing Element (pages 63-64 of the existing draft) to illustrate changes that the Planning Commission did not review at their November 6, 2014 hearing. The elimination of specific language related to the current inclusionary housing requirements provides future flexibility for staff to investigate how in-lieu fees are calculated and who is required to pay as part of a new development. NEXT STEPS After comments are received from the City Council, the draft Housing Element will be revised and sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. HCD will have 60-days to review the document and then provide the it with comments. Staff anticipates public hearings and consideration of adoption at the Planning Commission and City Council in March/April 2015. .......... By: Approved: Alex Greenwood lizp�: Ake Futrell Director of Economic and Community City Manag�� Development MF/PO/SM/JR/AG/SK/tr Staff Report Subject: Draft Housing Element Date: December 10,2014 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT: 1) Stakeholder Workshop — Summary 2) Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt from November 6, 2014 3) Redline and strikethough changes to Inclusionary Housing Section—Excerpt 4) HIP Housing letter, February 2014 5) San Mateo County Association of Realtors (SAMCAR)letter, July 2014 6) Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, San Francisco Organizing Project/Peninsula Interfaith Action and Greenbelt Alliance-letter & Housing Element Best Practices, February 24, 2014 7) Draft Housing Element 2015-2023 —October 2014 : Link to document: http://www.ssf.net/1833/Housing-Element--Update Attachment 1 Stakeholder Workshop Summary 1 I Urban, and P.e&nal Planners SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COMMUNITY HOUSING FORUM February 11, 2014 Attendees Dyett&Bhatia: Sophie Martin and Nick Cranmer City Staff: Catherine Barber and Susy Kalkin Community Attendees: David Crabbe, Sierra Club SLU; Bill Zemke, Planning Commis- sion; Rich Garbarino, City Council; Tracy Choi, Housing Leader- ship Councip; Cindy Alger, WWMCA; Barbara Becker; Bruce Wright, South San Francisco Rotary; Alan Wong, Planning Commission; Mary Giusti, Planning Commission; Alan Patrick, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employ- ees; Betty Battaglia; Pedro Gonzalez; Ben Cohn, Office of As- semblymember Mullin; Karyl Matsumoto, City Council. HousingNeeds • Overcrowding: Many families are doubled and tripled up, often reflected by the high number of cars parked in residential neighborhoods at night, particularly west of El Camino. Additionally, it is common for multiple generations of fami- lies to live in the same household. • Overpaying for Housing_ Many low- and moderate-income families are paying well above what they can really afford for housing in South San Francisco. • Lack of Supply: Demand for affordable housing (particularly moderate-income housing) is greater than supply. Long waiting lists for affordable units. • Homelessness: Need for shelters/SROs and social services in the Downtown. • Displacement: Families are being displaced as housing prices continue to climb in South San Francisco. • Young v. Old: Younger households, particularly those that work in biotech, have different needs than older households. Many are willing to live in smaller units in close proximity to restaurants and other services. Older households, on the other hand are more interested in single family units. Market and Development Trends • High Housing Prices: Similar to other Bay Area communities, South San Francis- co has high housing prices,which often price out the young, service workers and other low income households. High prices also make it difficult for older resi- dents to downsize and afford a new unit more appropriate for their needs. 755 Sans©me St,Suite 400 T 415 956 4364 San Francisco,CA 941 1 1 I F 415 956 7315 2 "vorw.dy i �CHM • Competitive Housing Market: The housing market is highly competitive due to the limited supply of housing in the city and region. Cash-rich buyers often have the advantage over other buyers who may qualify for mortgages, but cannot put down a large down payment. Constraints Governmental • Political Will: High-density housing is a highly contentious issue in South San Francisco. One participant noted a perceived lack of political will among deci- sion-makers to upzone districts within the city; others pointed out that it is of- ten residents themselves that oppose higher density projects (see below). Constraints Non-Governmental • Funding/Financing: Lack of funding sources for new affordable housing devel- opment,especially with loss of redevelopment funding. Financing is also difficult to obtain. • High Land Costs: Similar to other Bay Area communities, South San Francisco has high land costs. Landowners in California tend to have an over exaggerated sense of the value of their land, and frequently seek above-market land prices, which make land acquisition for housing challenging and expensive. • CommunitLpposition: Residents frequently oppose high-density residential projects or increased densities throughout the city. • Limited Number of Opportunity Sites: City has little in the way of truly vacant land, though there is redevelopment potential for underutilized sites. One resi- dent noted that the only way for to City to accommodate its housing need would be to increase heights and build upward. Programs/Services • Land Banking: City owns a number of parking lots. Opportunity for City to part- ner with affordable housing non-profits to develop affordable housing projects. • Anti-Displacement Programs: Renters and families are being displaced due to high housing prices. City needs programs that encourage housing production and preservation as well as anti-displacement. • Public Education Materials: Residents expressed a general lack of understanding of who currently qualifies for affordable housing and at what income levels. • Senior Housing: Program to incentivize seniors to downsize to rent- al/condominium units and return the larger housing unit stock to the market. • Density Bonus: Refine density bonus program to further encourage develop- ment of affordable housing. • Second Units: Develop program to encourage development of second units and/or bring illegal second units into conformance with the City's Building Code. • Unit Design: Encourage developers to experiment with new and innovative unit types. 2 3 Attachment 2 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt from November 6, 2014 4 EXCERPT MINUTES FROM 11-06-14 Planning Commission Meeting Housing Element Update City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant Citywide P14-0012: GPA14-0001 & ND14-0001 Study Session - General Plan Amendment to update the General Plan Housing Element as required by state law. Chairperson Martin called for the staff report. Senior Planner Barber presented a staff report giving an overview of the City's Housing Element. She discussed the State Law surrounding Housing Elements and the contents of the City's draft Housing Element, including the purpose and requirements, background information on the City's housing needs, constraints and inventory of housing sites, and presented new proposed actions and programs. She further explained that this study session is to obtain the Commission's and public's input on the content of this document. The document will be back to the Commission at a public hearing at a later date. She informed the Commission that the deadline to adopt the Housing Element is January 31, 2015, with a 120-day grace period that pushes the deadline to mid May, which will provide ample time for comments . Commission thanked Senior Planner Barber for the clean and complete presentation. Tracy Choi, San Mateo County Housing Leadership Council, commended staff for a great presentation and all the work with the document. She stated that they have been working with Senior Planner Barber and planning staff throughout the process, and that staff has been responsive and proactive in reaching out to the Housing Leadership Council to gather input. They are very pleased to see the additions of the 11 programs addressing the different needs around special need populations, including disabled, elderly and veterans. She acknowledged that the City stands by its commitment to provide affordable housing. She expressed that this is one of the best Housing Elements she has reviewed. She recommended that when a development is constructed the City should expand its monitoring of housing to not only the Downtown Station Area Plan but to the rest of the City. She also recommended that the City include a program in the Housing Element to address at-risk units that may be converted to market-rate units, not only for those that are deed restricted, but also for non-deed restricted rental units in the area. Ms. Choi further stated that they would be providing a more detailed letter to the City throughout this process and look forward to working with the City. Pedro Gonzalez, HOTHRA president, presented a list of problems regarding building new housing, including lack of parking in the area, building on property lines and no sidewalks and a possibility of people renting their properties to compete with hotels. There being no more speakers, the public hearing was closed. Commission comments/questions: • Commission stated that the Housing study was well done and a tremendous source of data. • Commission inquired about the allocation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Senior Planner Barber replied that it started with MTC and ABAG. They formed a regional transportation plan called OneBayArea, which adopted the numbers formally in July. As far as the affordability numbers, that is dictated by ABAG. She further explained that a Nexus study is being prepared to help cities determine appropriate fees to assist in providing more affordable residential development. • Commission noted its frustration with the supposed affordability and feels the City needs to have a bigger discussion and be more specific on what can be done, because more people are being priced out. They noted an interest in hearing more about how other cities are addressing this issue. • Commission inquired about the two at-risk properties noted in the report that expired in August. Senior Planner Barber responded that the at-risk properties were the Fairway 5 Apartments, 77 Westborough Blvd., and the Rotary Plaza, 433 Alida Way. She further stated that the former Housing Manager met with San Mateo County Housing staff, California Housing and Community Development staff, and U.S Representative Jackie Speier to determine ways to stop the expiration or work with existing tenants and get them relocated. A lot of effort was put forth well before this deadline. The Rotary Plaza appears on the list of properties eligible for conversion away from affordable units, but it is currently not proposed to be converted. • Commission asked for clarification whether the RHNA allocation of 1824 units have to be built. Senior Planner Barber stated that the City is not mandated to construct those units but required to have a certified Housing Element that identifies places that are zoned properly and have infrastructure in place to accommodate that number of units for development. • Commission was very supportive of the HIP Housing home share program. They thought it is unique and wants to be made aware of any successful projects in other cities. Senior Planner Barber stated that the City has good communication with that organization and they will update the City. She further advised that there will be an annual report on Housing Element status done in May. • Commission shared the same sentiments as speaker, Pedro Gonzalez of HOTHRA, regarding parking and inquired whether there would be mitigation measures to address this problem. Chief Planner Kalkin stated that following the adoption of the Downtown plan a subsequent study was anticipated that would analyze Downtown parking in more detail. • Commission asked how our RHNA numbers are determined compared to other cities. Chief Planner Kalkin stated they are extremely complicated formulas that ABAG comes up with and every city receives a similar breakdown. • Commission asked what happens when you meet your objectives. Chief Planner Kalkin responded that meeting the objectives is having a certified Housing Element; implementing the policies and reporting back to the State. She further advised that the City is not required to produce these units but maintain an adequate inventory of sites where they could be accommodated. Senior Planner Barber added the penalties if the Housing Element is not certified and the deadlines are not met are that the City would be put on a 4-year Housing Element cycle for 2 housing-cycles, rather than an 8-year cycle, and that the State can withhold gas tax funds and grant opportunities. • Commission asked how the effectiveness of these programs is measured. Senior Planner Barber responded that the annual report, which is reviewed by the State HCD, would state how the City is doing. 6 Attachment 3 Redline and strikethrough changes to Inclusionary Housing Section - Excerpt Redline and Strikethrough Suggested Edits for the Draft Housing Element—City Council Study Session 12/10/14 TablTotal $16,978.06 $650,877.01 $928,547.26 Notes: 1.In addition to the above fees,the City requires parkland dedication in accordance with Quimby Act and requires the provision of affordable housing units on site through its inclusionary housing ordinance.Developers have the option to pay in-lieu fees to avoid these exactions. Source: City of South San Francisco,2014;Dyett and Bhatia, 2014. Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, South San Francisco's fees were found to be comparatively low, and they do not to pose a significant constraint to housing development in the city.' INCLUSIONARY HOUSING Revised in 2010, Chapter 20.380 of the Zoning Ordinance details the City's inclusionary housing regulations. The City's objective is to ensure that all residential development provides a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including low- and moderate-income households. The inclusionary housing regulations require that all approved residential development projects with four or more units have a minimum of 20 percent of the units restricted to and affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Additionally, the City requires that at least 20 percent of all new dwelling units are restricted to and affordable to low- or moderate-income households. Development projects tllia ha;e tell....o )OR" hots siiltt uili(� must provide affordable units on-site, although under certain conditions, alternatives are provided to this requirement as a means of providing affordable units in the City. Housing developments :NA-4.1i between �oull� and 11ille tll�ips can pay an in-lieu fee as an alternative to the requirement of constructing inclusionary units. These requirements apply to all residential market-rate dwelling units that are newly constructed for sale as well as the conversion of apartments to condominiums that will be for sale. Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate homes, studies have shown evidence to the contrary. One school of thought is that the cost of an inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through higher market rate sale prices. Another significant body of research and analysis suggests that in fact the cost of inclusionary housing and any other development fee "will always be split between all players in the development process."' Some academics have pointed out that over the long term, it is probable that landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other homeowners or the developer(Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985). The most definitive empirical study on inclusionary housing was completed in 2008 by the Furman Center of New York University working for the Center for Housing Policy of the National Housing Conference. Entitled "The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas," this 1 21 Elements Working Group,2014. 2 W.A.Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges."Land Economics 75(3). 1999. 8 N study measured the impact of inclusionary housing ordinances on median homes sale prices and residential development activity in these three regions. While findings for the DC and Boston regions were mixed, the study found definitive evidence that inclusionary ordinances do not lead to higher home prices or a decrease in building activity in the Bay Area. This is attributed in large part to the more flexible nature of the ordinances in the Bay Area region and to the number of options that developers have to meet inclusionary requirements. In addition to this study, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study found that housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary housing ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.' In keeping with the Furman Center study findings cited above, the City of South San Francisco recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain production. As suelli, th The City's Zoning Ordinance allows alternatives to constructing new affordable units on-site as a means of providing affordable units in the City, es... Wea tllie N,4miieipal..A�A�e. If the City Council finds that new construction of affordable housing units would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship for a developer, an alternative may be approved (for example, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units or the construction of special needs housing projects or programs). Additionally, under certain circumstances, developers may satisfy the affordable housing requirement with off-site combined inclusionary housing projects or in-lieu fees. The City also offers a series of developer incentives, per State Density Bonus Law, that help offset the added cost of the inclusionary units. Finally, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to seek modification of the requirements due to undue hardship. These policies are in line with recommendations in On Common Ground: Joint Principles on Inclusionary Housing Policies, published by the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) and the Home Builders Association of Northern California (HBA) in 2005. The report points to the need for flexible inclusionary housing requirements, such as those established by South San Francisco, to allow for financially feasible residential development. PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of development applications adding to financing costs, in particular. The City has worked to establish transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development applications. 'David Rosen."Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets."NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review 1(3).2004 9 Attachment 4 HIP Housing Letter, February 2014 10 Ig", TO: Catherine Barber,City of South San Francisco FR: HIP Housing RE: 2014 Housing Element DT: February 2014 BY: Kate Comfort Harr Executive Director HIP Housing i lI l"housing OBJECTIVE: The inclusion of HIP Housing's Home Sharing program in every housing element in San Mateo County as a solution for providing a permanent affordable housing option for people who are: • Homeless ■ Disabled • At risk of homelessness ■ Female head of household • Seniors ■ Low,very low and extremely low income Executive Summary: HIP Housing's Home Sharing program matches those who have space in their home with those who need an affordable place to live, maximizing housing inventory and turning existing housing stock into a new affordable housing option. It is the only program of its kind in San Mateo County and provides a housing option for over 700 people each year. Over 90% of those using the Home Sharing program are low to extremely low income. Due to the extraordinarily constrained environment for the developing new affordable housing that exists in San Mateo County, finding creative solutions like Home Sharing is a critical component to a local municipality's ability to provide fair housing choice and should be part of every municipalities efforts to provide housing for people at every income level. Housing Element Suggestions: Section H - Policies and Practices: Prominently list HIP Housing's Home Sharing Program when addressing the housing options and needs for people who are: • Homeless; At Risk of Homelessness; Seniors; Female Head of Household; Low,Very Low and Extremely Low Income Useful Resources: • Previous/Current Housing Elements for the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, and San Mateo • Current Housing Element Draft for the City of Menlo Park Sample Language: The City of South San Francisco supports HIP Housing Home Sharing Program as part of a collection of policies, programs and practices for addressing the housing needs of those at the lowest income levels including seniors,those living with disabilities,those at risk of homelessness and female head of households. HIP Housing 1 Housing Element Submittal January 2014 11 Why Home Sharing works for municipalities in San Mateo County: Home Sharing programs like those provided by HIP Housing are a critical source of permanent housing for low-income households in San Mateo County. As explained in the Executive Summary, Home Sharing partners those who have space in their home with those who need an affordable place to live,turning existing housing stock into a new affordable housing option. While the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment countywide is $2095, the rents in home sharing ranges between $600 and $800. The wait list with Home Sharing is never closed as new home providers are constantly recruited. As a result, Home Sharing is one of the few affordable housing options continually available in San Mateo County, especially for those at the lowest income levels. HIP Housing offers the only Home Sharing program in the County. Established in 1972, it is a well-established program with many best practices. The program provides criminal background checking, income verification, mediation, living together agreements and long-term case management to ensure the best possible matches possible. As a result, the average home sharing match is 2.5 years. The program has wide ranging support from local jurisdictions which is critical to the programs credibility and viability. Additionally, HIP Housing collaborates with a wide array of local nonprofits creating a strong referral network. Of those placed in housing through Home Sharing: • 91% are low-income - 20% low(80%AMI) - 25% very low(50%AMI) - 46% extremely low(30 or below AMI) • 53% are seniors - 70% of the home providers are seniors • 38% are disabled • 58% at risk of homelessness • 8% of are homelessness • 61% are female head of households Every municipality in San Mateo County benefit's from the HIP Housing Home Sharing Program. Someone in Pacifica could be matched with someone in Daly City; someone from Menlo Park with someone from Redwood City; San Mateo and Belmont. Preschool teachers, law clerks, students, construction workers, medical assistants,bank tellers, home health aides, seniors and single parents as well as many others use the program. Home Sharing meets the housing needs of low,very low, and extremely low-income people. Because so few affordable housing options exists in San Mateo County, it is important that Home Sharing be included in every cities housing element as part of the policies and practices employed to ensure that there are housing options for those at every income level, including those at the lowest income levels. HIP Housing 2 Housing Element Submittal January 2014 12 Constraints to Affordable Housing that make Home Sharing Critical: When it comes to providing affordable housing, San Mateo County exists under a variety of unique and significant constraints that make Home Sharing a critical component to any local affordable housing strategy. Calculated by any standard, San Mateo County is in the top five most expensive places to live in the United States. Desirable weather, limited land options, and proximity to both Silicon Valley and San Francisco collide to create one of the most competitive housing markets, for both buyers and renters, in the nation. This competition is exacerbated by significant constraints to the development of new affordable housing making it extremely difficult for low-income people and families to find housing. Market Constraints: Over the past 30 years, housing costs have skyrocketed out of proportion to many peoples ability to pay. Escalating construction costs, exceptionally high land values and an abundance of high wage earners who can pay high rents and high home prices, create market forces that perpetually drive housing costs up. The average rent for a one bedroom in San Mateo County is currently$209S(6)and the average cost of a family home is $825,000(5). Because the local market forces have, and will continue, to drive prices up,building new affordable housing units is difficult. This is especially true for building units that will accommodate the lowest income earners. Construction costs and land values alone make it nearly impossible to create housing developments where rents can remain low and still pencil out financially. Social Constraints: The foreclosure crisis of 2008 pushed many former homeowners into the rental market. Similarly, many who rented homes that went into foreclosure were also pushed into the rental market. Foreclosures have also provided investor opportunities for the purchase of multifamily apartment complexes. In scenarios occurring all over the County, investors are purchasing apartment buildings. To get the highest return on their investment, rents are pushed up dramatically, displacing current residents in exchange for those who can pay higher rents. Meanwhile a booming technology industry continues to bring employees to the area and with each new high paid worker, as many as 4 lower paid service positions are created. The combination of these social forces has made competition in the rental market fierce. Governmental Constraints: Additional constraints to the creation of affordable housing in San Mateo County are governmental. The tools that local municipalities have historically used to create affordable housing have been dramatically reduced in recent years.At the Federal level, HUD reductions to HOME and CDBG funding and ongoing Sequestration cuts have dramatically reduced the funding available to help underwrite affordable housing developments. Meanwhile,the State of California's decision to eliminate Redevelopment Agencies stripped municipalities of their primary financing source for affordable housing. Equally devastating to affording housing development in California has been the 2008 Palmer Decision restricting the use of inclusionary housing ordinances.As a result, municipalities in San Mateo County have very few tools to facilitate affordable housing development other than the creation of local policies and practices. However,with the unusually competitive Market and Social Constraints that exist countywide, even with the best policies in place, convincing developers to create affordable housing is still very difficult and financially challenging. HIP Housing 3 Housing Element Submittal January 2014 13 Outcomes of Constraints: San Mateo County currently has a 97% occupancy rate and there is an estimated shortfall of 9,610 units of affordable housing countywide. Homelessness is up 12% since 2011(1), housing inventory is at the lowest levels in decades(2) and the gap between those at the highest income levels and those at the lowest levels has expanded(3). Every affordable housing complex and emergency shelter in the county has a waitlist and most waitlist are closed, leaving home sharing as one of the only open doors in the County. Currently, 57% of San Mateo and Santa Clara county residents are low-income earning 60% or less of AMI(4)and the local housing authorities are bracing for a new round of sequestration cuts that will reduce the amount covered in a rental subsidies. With a medium home price of $825,000(5) and the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment over$2000(6), people living in San Mateo County must earn between $84,000-$124,000 annually to afford housing.As a result, the United Way of the Bay Area is reporting that 1 in 5 families can't afford their current housing situation(7). Equally daunting, it is estimated that 184,000 people commute into the County each day to work because they can't afford to live close to where they are employed($). Due to the circumstances surrounding affordable housing,the County of San Mateo formally recognizes the lack of affordable housing throughout the county as an over arching impediment to fair housing choice. Conclusion: Creative affordable housing solutions are desperately needed in San Mateo County as the long- term effects of the 2008 recession coupled with market, social and governmental constraints continue to drive housing costs up. HIP Housing's Home Sharing program is a practical solution that benefits every city in the County and allows for greater housing choice. Formal adoption of policies that support the Home Sharing program will help to ensure that there are greater housing opportunities and choice for housing people at all income levels. References: 1;2013 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey 2-4: Index Silicon Valley,Joint Venture 2013 5: Zillow 6.San Mateo County Housing Indicators,June 2013 7: United Way,2012 S.Source:Moving Silicon Valley Forward,NPH 2012 and OnTheMap Census data) HIP Housing 4 Housing Element Submittal January 2014 14 Attachment 5 San Mateo County Association of Realtors (SAMCAR)letter, July 2014 15 SANMATE.0, COUNTY ASSOUX1,'10N of[iEA1,,3%X4,S4 jurisdictions across San Mateo County are updating their local Housing Elements and renewing and/or proposing policies to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). To that end, the San Mateo County Association of REALTORS@ (SAMCAR) is a resource to policy makers and housing staffs to help ensure that their respective Housing Elements meet the requirements of state law and adequately reflect the community's need for ALL housiugtVpes - offordobleosvvell as fair market. As an organization, we have long been an advocate for affordable housing, the protection of private property rights and represent the interests of home owners and over 2,7OOQE/\LTOQ8@ and real estate professionals iu San Mateo County. Housing Elements represent ou opportunity to increase the ability for residents to live iu the communities iuwhich they work. How that is achieved, however, is the difference between encouraging the production of housing and government flat. SAMCAR encourages you to review the enclosed inventory of policies with an eye toward incorporating them into the draft and final versions of the Housing Element. There are two primary methods to achieving a goal of providing more housing, both affordable units and fair market units: incentive programs or punitive mandates. 8/\0YC/\Q urges you to research and implement the former os part of deliberations during the Housing Element update. Measures such as rent stabilization (AKA rent control), so-called "just cause"regulations, and relocation benefits on rental properties along with the traditional mandatory iuclusiouory exactions (assuming the nexus study being funded by the county and the cities finds o means around the Palmer decision) have, ivactuality, proven over time tobe anathemas to the provision of affordable housing. They are counterproductive to the goals and objectives mandated for oHousing Element. According to the California Association of REALTORS@ (C .A.R.) Housing Affordability Index (HAI), only 12 per cent of households can afford to purchase the median priced home in San Mateo County ($1,126,500 ' Source: 0YL8 Listings, May 2Ol4). However,when home prices are weighted by eliminating such high cost areas as Atherton, where the median home price is $5,O45,OOO; 8illsborough'$4,2O9,344; VVoodside'$3,lO2,562; Portolo Valley-$2,69O,625; and, Menlo Park-$2,3l6,O68,the median home price for San Mateo County drops to $818,193 and the HAI index rises to 23 percent (compared to a statewide HAI of 33 M perceu-'. Nonetheless,this still points to a need to provide more affordable housing opportunities. We would recommend the county implement a Homeownership Policy goal as one method of increasing housing opportunities. The City of Hayward amended its Housing Element a decade ago to increase the percentage of households who become homeowners from 51% to 70%. In the intervening years,the City Council has adopted amendments that included new policies and programs to help increase the city's homeownership rate while simultaneously reducing regulation and cost thereby assisting median income households become homebuyers. Creating a larger pool of potential homebuyers to purchase moderately priced homes also helps open up additional socio-economic housing opportunities. The cities and the county have identified a list of informational goals such as the maximum and recommended fees permitted on new residential development; allowable inclusionary zoning levels; and, the maximum and recommended fees for new commercial development. We understand why jurisdictions are turning to fees more and more for affordable housing as a result of the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies and the dwindling availability of state bonds. The funds are meant to give the county and the cities the means to build/procure affordable housing although,with land at a premium in San Mateo County,that can be its own challenge unless or until local governments answer with the obvious solution: opening/zoning/rezoning more land for housing. As noted and proven in other jurisdictions, the more successful approach to providing affordable housing is by use of incentive programs. SAMCAR recommends the following be researched and included in the county's Housing Element: >Allow fee waivers for affordable rehabilitation: Consider amendment to the Master Fee Schedule to allow for waiver of permit fees for rehabilitation of affordable housing. >Broad Distribution of Affordable Housing Funding Sources: The costs for`affordable housing' are often not broadly distributed. By comparison, an increase in baseline property tax rates would spread the costs of affordable units across all households, current and new. The legal nexus is that affordable housing is a community-wide need and should therefore, be spread on a community-wide basis... not placed on the backs of those who happen to be able to build new housing, or as proposed,build a new commercial structure. >Re-Evaluation of Vacant and Underutilized Property: While local government typically analyzes the property within its jurisdiction as part of a Housing Element update,we would re- emphasize the goal of creating more affordable housing. To maintain the fiscal viability of any given jurisdiction means having a sufficient supply of land available for economic development and job growth.Vacant parcels, long zoned for other uses, may no longer be viable for said use given growth and development patterns. For example, when done in conjunction with a re- evaluation of underutilized property, it allows a city, for example, to look at land next to freeways for mini-storage facilities,thereby freeing up land elsewhere zoned for that same purpose but which can now be made available for housing. >True Density Bonus Programs: Density bonuses are a zoning tool that that permits developers to build more housing units,taller buildings, or more floor space than normally allowed, in 17 exchange for provision of a specified number or percentage of affordable units included in the development. Many jurisdictions already have some form of density bonus program. However,the density bonus program must be structured to provide a true density bonus making the project economically feasible and not just to offset the provision of affordable units. Working collaboratively, developers/builders and local government can ascertain the true density bonus needed to make a project`pencil out.' Density bonus programs encourage developers to create affordable dwelling units in areas where a need has been identified and density bonuses can be used to entice development to specific neighborhoods or zones. Two areas of caution: A.) It will take a commitment on the part of local government to approve (i.e., not reduce) said density bonuses as such incentives often provoke residents to protest the bonus and/or the project itself. B.) Simply relying on projects that are transit-oriented (the current popular planning maxim) often leads to exactions such as including open space (or park in-lieu fees) or other costs given the project's urbanization which negates the effects of the density bonus. In addition,the affordable housing density bonus should apply to and supersede any regulation on any property located within the boundaries of a Certified Local Coastal Plan. The last point may take state legislation to enact. >Density Bonus Set Aside Provisions: If a project can be made to work financially, targeting specific `set asides' refines the provision of affordable housing. Remember, a project can qualify for a density bonus if they provide the following set-asides for a period of at least 30 years as established by state law: • 5% of the dwelling units for very low income households, earning no more than 50% of the AMI and paying no more in rent than the amount established for households earning up to 50% of the median income, OR • 10% of the dwelling units for low income households, earning no more than 80% of the AMI and paying no more in rent than the amount established for households earning up to 80% of the median income, OR • 10% of the dwelling units for moderate income households, earning no more than 120% of the AMI and paying no more in rent than the amount established for households earning up to 120% of the median income. Projects may qualify for an additional density bonus to a maximum of 35% provided the numbers of set-aside units are increased as follows: • For each 1%increase in the percentage of very low income affordable units, projects will receive an additional 2.5% density bonus. • For each 1%increase in the percentage of low income affordable units, projects will receive an additional 2% density bonus. >Senior Housing Projects: State law provides an automatic 20% density bonus for housing projects where 100% of the units are set-aside for senior citizens. There are no income or rent restrictions for this bonus.According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the fastest growing population segment in the United States is persons 60 and older. In addition,the requirement that senior housing projects be constructed using a Special Use Permit (SUP) should be deleted.A s an incentive to provide affordable housing for seniors, senior housing projects that set aside at least 10% of the units for low or moderate income seniors will qualify for an additional 15% density 18 bonus, for a total density bonus of 35%. Typically, all senior housing projects are required to sign a covenant assuring that the units are restricted to seniors for a period of 30 years. >Accessory Dwelling Units: Reviving the `Granny Flat' concept can help municipalities generate more housing (and in particular, affordable housing); maintain sustainable communities; and, create dwellings where people can "age in place." Granny Flats also address the changing needs of single-family home neighborhoods,which increasingly are accommodating young singles and couples, the elderly, immigrants, and the poor. In addition, Granny Flats can provide additional income for homeowners in a tough economy, low cost housing in a tight market, and (if the subject properties are so located) support transit-oriented development. There is also the benefit of increasing taxable property values and enabling growth without requiring new infrastructure. Since 1986, California has had a Granny Flat law in place. Known as Government Code Section 65852.2 (The Second Flat Law), the statute is designed to provide affordable housing in population-dense areas, ease rental housing deficits and increase the property tax base.While California statutes recognized the need for and therefore authorized the construction of Granny Flats, there are still several challenges that can stymie the Granny Flat concept. The biggest(and most overblown) are the fears from existing homeowners'that there will be negative impacts on density and on their quality of life.And (real or perceived) this occurs with more frequency in more well-to-do neighborhoods. Following closely in as a concern is adapting existing zoning codes to allow granny flats, particularly parking requirements. There is also the challenge of drafting local ordinances that preserve community character yet remove artificially placed barriers and/or facilitate the addition of Granny Flats. Lastly, there are some local governments that are resistant to the concept. The basics are covered under state law.Where local government can significantly reduce barriers to the provision of accessory dwelling units is by: ✓ Taking each Granny Flat proposal on a case-by-case basis. (Most local governments handle the processing applications for Granny Flats in this manner.) ✓ Limiting the required parking to one uncovered parking space. Most local governments that are resistant to Granny Flats use parking requirements as a de facto prohibition against approving ADUs. (NOTE: The required two covered parking spaces for the main house are a separate issue to be addressed as a separate item by code compliance. In older neighborhoods, what may have started out as two covered parking spaces could easily have morphed over time [and with government approval] into something else.) ✓ Be flexible with setback requirements.While we recognized that locating the Granny Flat least 20 feet from the rear and 6 feet from the side property lines represent a minimum requirement, staff should be given the authority to approve a Granny Flat proposal with a rear setback of less than 20 feet (and similarly with side yard setbacks). 19 ✓ Be flexible with the size of the ADU. If the existing lot warrants it, provide staff with the authority to approve a larger unit. (State law equates to a structure 25'x 25' which must include its own kitchen, bathroom but no more than 1 bedroom. Larger lots and/or a slightly larger ADU can easily be accommodated without stirring NIMBY fears.) >For-Sale Condominium Developments: Condominium developments that set-aside 10% of the dwelling units for buyers who meet the criteria of moderate income households will qualify for a density bonus of 20%. For each additional 1% set-aside,the developer may receive an additional density bonus. It is the intent of this program that these units will be owner-occupied. Also key to this program is equity recapture. The owner of the set-aside unit can sell that unit any time at an unrestricted price. However,by requiring that 50% of the difference in equity between the sale price and the initial sale price of the unit, the county can recoup affordable housing funds. This also allows the owner of the set-aside unit to capture a portion of their equity. These funds are to be used within three years for the construction, rehabilitation, or preservation of affordable housing by the county or they revert to the seller. >Streamlined Review Processes: Most jurisdictions have utilized some form of`fast track' processing when it comes to affordable housing projects. Setting up a true "One Stop Shop'will assist. Coordinating the departments responsible for reviewing housing projects (for example, planning, public works, parks, police, and fire) such that they ALL meet with the project proponents at the same time for review sessions avoids the A-to-B-to-C review scenario as often occurs. The key here is to ensure representatives from the departments responsible for reviewing housing projects have the authority to approve changes/modifications. In addition, the county must establish specific time frames for review and approval of projects that include affordable housing components and/or give staff the authority to do so. >Land banking: Vacant, abandoned or underutilized properties are a challenging problem for any community. By viewing these properties as potential housing assets, rather than barriers to revitalization, affordable housing advocates (such as SAMCAR) can foresee this as a new way to reinvest in once-neglected neighborhoods. Land banks are public authorities created to acquire, hold, manage and develop vacant properties. The concept behind a land banks is to convert vacant/underutilized properties that have been bypassed by the open market (or by local government in its review of housing inventory needs) into additional and for housing. A land bank acquires title to vacant, underutilized and abandoned properties via the fair market; eliminates barriers to redevelopment; and,transfers property to a new owner in a way that supports affordable housing needs and priorities.As such, land banks often provide marketable title to properties previously impossible to develop. One of the most well-known land banks is the Genesse County Land Bank in Flint, MI. The Genesse County Lank Bank has raised surrounding property values by$109 million and has spurred $60 million in new private investment, all during a major recession and foreclosure crisis. >Affordable Housing Along Transit Corridors/Near Major Employment Centers Projects that meet the following criteria will be granted an additional 10% density bonus: 20 •At or within a 1,500 foot radius of an existing or fully funded major bus center,bus stop along a major bus route, or mass transit station; or, •At or within a 1,500 foot radius of an intersection of transit priority arterials; or, • In or within a 1,500 foot radius of the boundaries of a major employment center; or, • In or within a 1,500 foot radius of boundaries of a major economic activity area (such as a regional or sub-regional shopping center); and, • Within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of a college or university. >Project-Specific Incentives: Individual housing projects may request one or more of the following incentives, depending upon the income level of the targeted households,the percentage of set-aside units, and the location of the project/property orientation, in order to provide the affordable units: • Up to 20% deviation from yard/setback requirements, or • Up to 20% deviation from lot coverage requirements, or • Up to 20% deviation from lot width requirements, or • Up to 20% deviation from floor area requirements, or • Up to 20% deviation from open space requirements, or • Up to 20%additional building height, except as limited by local statute, or •A reduction or waiver in parking to include: >A reduction in parking requirements to 1 parking space per restricted dwelling unit irrespective of the number of habitable rooms. >A reduction in parking requirements to not less than 1/2 parking space per dwelling unit for dwelling units restricted to Very Low or Low Income senior citizens. >Priority Development Areas (PDAs): Local government will ultimately have to comply with the One Bay Area plan via MTC and ABAG (particularly if they have received the `strings attached' funds from either entity as part of street/transit/other community services revisions). The One Bay Area plan calls for placing all growth to the year 2040 on four percent of the land in the nine Bay Area counties. That will severely impact the cost of land (for all uses) and mandates all future development will be a minimum of four to seven stories. By designating specific of these PDAs for housing (or at worst, mixed use), local government can meet its RHNA despite the constraints of the One Bay Area plan. ---------------------------------------------------------------- References >Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse: Cities with Rent Control >"Rent Control: Myths and Realities" Walter Block, Milton Friedman, et al.; 1981 >City and County of San Francisco Rent Board: The Rent Ordinance >SF Examiner: Landlords Create Vacancies to Beat Rent Control Laws >City of Los Angeles Housing Department: Economic Study of the Rent Stabilization >New Challenges and Opportunities for Inclusionary Housing By Robert Hickey, Center for Housing Policy, February 2013 >A Critique of the Legal and Philosophical Case for Rent Control By Walter Block, Journal of Business Ethics, 2002 >"Is Rent Control Hurting San Francisco's Middle Class?" By Joel P. Engardio, S.F. Examiner, January 5, 2014 >"Affordable housing crunch: Silicon Valley cities weigh new developer fees" 21 By Lauren Helper, Silicon Valley Business Journal,January 31, 2014 »»»»»»»»»»»»>N O T E S««««««««««««««« 22 Attachment 6 Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, San Francisco Organizing Project/Peninsula Interfaith Action and Greenbelt Alliance—Cover letter and Housing Element Best Practices, February 24, 2014 23 February 24, 2014 Catherine Barber City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: Housing Element Policy Best Practices Dear Catherine, As jurisdictions across San Mateo County prepare their local Housing Elements for the latest cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)process, a coalition of concerned community groups has formed to engage with these local processes and provide constructive input to the drafts that are submitted to HCD for consideration. Borne out of concern for the increasing inability of average people to live in the communities in which they work, the interest of this coalition is to serve as a resource to policy makers and housing staffs and to help ensure that the housing elements adequately reflect the community's urgent affordable housing need. Enclosed is a document that we hope will serve to inform staff and policymakers about options that are available to them to meet their community's escalating housing needs. Given the gravity of our current housing situation, the loss of vital tools and funding sources for affordable housing creation, we maintain that it is time for our local jurisdictions to make a determined effort to address the affordable housing crisis in our communities. We encourage you to review the enclosed inventory of policies with an eye toward incorporating as many as possible in your housing element draft. The current housing element cycle is the last substantive opportunity jurisdictions will have to make a comprehensive review of affordable housing policies for another eight years. On behalf of a community in need, we ask you to take the greatest possible advantage of it. For more information, please call Joshua Hugg, Program Manager at Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, at J shugg(;hl csmc.or-g or(650) 872-4444, 2#. Sincerely, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County San Francisco Organizing Project/Peninsula Interfaith Action Greenbelt Alliance cc. Paul McDougall, California Department of Housing and Community Development 24 Housing Element Policy Best Practices Version 1.0 Updated: February 21, 2014 1 25 Introduction: Policies,programs, and parcels. Every eight years cities and counties across the Bay Area are charged with identifying policies,programs, and parcels that will help ensure their respective communities take stock of their current housing needs and identify how they will meet the challenges of changing demographics, new workers, and shifting funding sources in the future. Given the changes that have taken place over the last several years, the need for robust housing policies in the Bay Area has reached critical levels. Cuts in local, state and federal funding sources; the continuing search to find an alternative to local inclusionary housing programs scuttled by the Palmer v. City of Los Angeles case; and the loss of local Redevelopment Agencies have created an environment in which the creation of inclusive communities that meet larger sustainability goals is becoming exceedingly difficult. In addition, while Plan Bay Area promotes greater sustainability and equity for the region in the long term, its emphasis on growth in Priority Development Areas has the potential to add to these challenges in the short term. This compilation of policies is intended to serve as a resource for local government practitioners and housing stakeholders to help meet the community challenges that are felt so acutely here in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Bay Area is known across the globe for its innovation and dynamic culture and so this resource is also meant to be a living document that will help to capture policy innovations and best practices in the housing arena as they are identified and make them available to those who wish to make our region as livable,prosperous, and inclusive as possible. If you have comments, questions or additions to make,please contact Joshua Hugg, Program Manager, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County - (650) 872-4444, 2#or . vlz ��)lalcv • Acknowledgements Thank you to the following organizations who contributed to the creation of this resource: • Association of Bay Area Governments - w. r r,.,,ahas,c..4,,ggy • East Bay Housing Organizations w in✓ chb.o QM • HIP Housing - ,.,p t.)ho��sinug Or • Law Foundation of Silicon Valley w lea F.o ,n.d a t off o..g • Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County - ww 111cs l�;c,,.,M • www.rcuc lt.oa°g Northern California Land Trust ............................... 2 26 Contents Anti-Displacement A!!.ti Diwj.4!�.gm.ml Policies .c 0.1 1 d o C o t..i v c i.�..s i o t..i !!..1�921�j 1.1.1 c t I t S.. ................ ........... ........................................ ... ..................... ..... J. tl.s t C a tl.s c E..v..i c ti.o tl. 11'reservation of..Exi.stin s I ..................................................................................................................................................... ill 1!.21!.5 i t 8. 11'reservation of Mobile 11.1ome Park Ho �,-,i g ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................i 5 I E A ction Relocation Benefits and First Rig!'j.1 gf j gjjt:jp. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Rent Stabilization ....................................................................................................................... Return Foreclosed 11ro)crtics tol--�,Owcr �Irlcomc SU Y.)l .......................................................................................................................................... Inclusion QL�111.y t I c c t I IJ v..c Z Of I J t I Z.1 !m.5 t i c I g...s i o t i a i.-Y III .... ...................... ....... . ............ S. o tl.rc. c off`1111c c o ill c rd..j t..i a t..i c c.. Local Funding Sources Commercial L,inkne Fee ................................................................................. .....................................- j[..jjj.L)act F cc Rededication of"Boom.er-an.g' Funds Back to Affordabl.e 110 S"t. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... . .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Optimized Affordable Housing Sites Affordable llott.siflg-�, itcs ........................................................................ .............................................. flij.O.d� D ........ .... .... Site and Building Regulations Parcel Assemb.ly ....................................................................................................... ... Site and 1.1g;i1ding .Re�wja�tions .......................................................................................................... j f..i i v..c i.�.gal. 12.c. s .......................... . ....... . State Requirements I 'I less Persons (�'j�32 ..... .......��..d I I olll c.................................................................................. Reasonable Accommodations (,,-1.3.520 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .S. c c of i d I....J.Dit l..,aw (A.B 18661 ...................... .............. . ..... State Den.sit I onus l..,aw ................................................................................y 3.................................................................. Miscellaneous 1110111c Sharing ........................................................................................ Affordable Homeowners.h.iL C Tricsts 'I _Lomintmity Land ................................................................................................................................................................................. Additional LJseful lResources ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 27 Anti-Displacement Policies Sununat- More intensive development in Priority Development Areas and other transit-served locations carry with it the risk of displacement of existing low income populations. To ensure that Transit Oriented Development(TOD) serves all economic levels,provisions need to be in place to protect against such displacement. Local Housing Elements should address the risk of both direct and indirect displacement and should include anti-displacement policies in their implementation programs. Potential Policies: • Establish a policy commitment and orientation to development without displacement. • Consider displacement risks early in the development process. By the time displacement becomes apparent, the process may be too far gone to halt or reverse. • Focus on both direct displacement (evictions, demolitions, etc.) and indirect displacement(rent increases, cultural displacement as existing retail/entertainment/services uses are replaced with uses serving higher income populations). • Stabilize existing lower income residents/housing. Consider such policies as a;. rrul,,,,,s,tailizalru„ pest c ase ev ction...oa ditiatices one-for-one replacement of any housing removed from the supply, gorcual,mirrdum,....corru:�.e:r:s.%.orcu:....c,orru9rols.. • Make affordable housing a key component of development strategy from the beginning. It's far easier to include affordable housing early on than to try to incorporate after property values (and land costs) rise. Specific policies/programs to consider: • Rerrut Stabilizatioru ....................................................................................................................... • .lust Cat sc EYJc ti.oru Corutrols • Reloc tioru ll etieffis and First st:IR gl t off`Il�et�r�„rrI„ • Return Foreclosed Properties to the Lower Income Supply • (laic Foa (brae lRe lacemeta If Nousitug:Il��cl�dremerrits • Il'aeservatiog of E xpiri! I.Jse .IE1rol)erties • "�mall...atid Scattered Site Accatisitioru 1nu I?1..)As aril Other T arrusit Served I ocatlorus„ e I arru�l ll:la>uki>u;iru :IE�:II::IA aru�l (.ltl�c�° l�°arusrt Sc�°vea ]:.,ocatiorus ... .... ... e ]ItiFill I[tucerrutives Fred to Affordable llot srrrl :Il1rovisiorris Many of these policies are described in more detail elsewhere in this document. e City of East Palo Alto, link: http://www.ci.east-Palo-alto.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=469 4 28 Condo conversion requirements Sununat- Condominium conversions refer to the process of converting a multi-unit rental property held in single ownership into one in which the units may be individually bought or sold. Jurisdictions generally receive condominium conversion requests when selling housing becomes more profitable than renting or leasing. Under California law, tenants have certain protections such as the exclusive right to purchase the property under the same terms that the unit is being offered to the general public and 180 days' notice of intent to end the tenancy W2E 2.12). Though tenants enjoy these protections, they often cannot afford the necessary down payment or the monthly mortgage to own their home. Hence, while condo conversions may offer a more affordable homeownership opportunity for some households seeking to buy, they can displace existing tenants and reduce a jurisdiction's rental housing stock without increasing housing supply. Through their zoning power, jurisdictions have the authority to put in place additional restrictions on condominium conversions. These ordinances may be justified due to jurisdictions' limited housing stock and their state mandate to maintain an adequate housing supply for all economic segments of the population. As of May 2013, 55 of the Bay Area's 109 jurisdictions have some sort of condominium conversion ordinance. These ordinances greatly vary in the types of protections they offer to tenants and may or may not impose numerical limits on condo conversions. Potential Poli ie : • Stricter provisions for condominium conversions through additional tenant protections including: relocation assistance, lifetime leases, restrictions on rent increases, discounts for tenants on the sale price of the property • Limitations on the number of units that can be converted in any given year • Provide one for one replacement of converted units • Require that a percentage of converted condos be sold at affordable prices • Mandate payment of a fee into an affordable housing trust fund • League of California Cities Primer on Condominium Conversions: ttl // w �1t1cs„oag/lJl loadea�flles/l ca„g!�clfntca„rr ct/c5/c5c5O4c3 c2G1 '1986 b983::. • City of Lafayette requires owners to pay tenants moving expenses and limits the number of conversions, link: ll x?documcfgJ 7412 • City of Larkspur imposes restrictions on rent increases, requires that some of the converted units be sold at below market rates, and limits the annual number of conversions, link: url838.litmI418.38.030 • City of San Carlos limits the number of annual conversions based on the vacancy rate and provides tenants with relocation assistance, link: l tt ://w w.codc ��blisl lru .coa��/ca/sarucaa°los/l ta��1/saficarlos 17/saficarlos 174I8.litinI417.4I8.020 5 29 Just Cause Eviction Sununat- Just cause eviction ordinances protect tenants from arbitrary, discriminatory or retaliatory evictions, while ensuring that landlords can lawfully evict tenants as long as they have a good reason. Just cause eviction ordinances are an important tool for promoting tenant stability,particularly in low- vacancy and expensive housing markets where landlords may be tempted to evict tenants in order to obtain higher rents. Benefits of just cause eviction ordinances include the following: • limits the ability of landlords to evict existing tenants • protects tenants who have short term (month-to-month)leases • slows down rapid increases in rent • stabilizes communities by slowing down evictions and decreasing turnover rates Potential Policies: • Partner with local non-profit to provide tenant rights education and mediation services • Consider just cause eviction ordinances or provisions that: • Specify actions that can lead to a just cause eviction, such as: • Failure to pay rent • Use of premises for illegal purposes • Failure to follow rules and regulations the landlord has for the tenants of the building • Failure to meet obligations toward the property as required by state law • Landlord seeks to recover possession of the rental unit for landlord's own use as principal residence or for the use of landlord's family members as principal residence • Landlord seeks to permanently remove rental unit from the housing rental market • Require landlord to specify just cause in the notice of termination • Allow expedited review of unjust evictions Model P:mm:iin:nces/11 e 1 out- : • City of East Palo Alto, link: http://www.ci.east-Palo-alto.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=469 • City of Oakland: ttl // ww2 ��tkl4rua ruct � vcanua pout/ /� �a / />f�crutA.:aj'��stincrrut/IX)W]I:::Dt008773 • City of Berkeley: , . 9284.. • PolicyLink- Just Cause Eviction Controls: 1 ttRI//www.t.)olicyIi I< orair / /pl �t ,l. ?c 11<ifX1f..,bMKIrF?, b -5 138001) 6 30 Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Preserving the supply of affordable rental housing, both subsidized and unsubsidized, enables people to stay in their homes and communities (part of the larger anti-displacement strategy). Under programs such as Section 8 and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC), owners agree to maintain affordable rents for a set period, usually 15-30 years, in exchange for federal subsidies. When those agreements expire, owners can re-enroll in the affordability programs or convert their properties to market-rate units. In some cases,private owners can leave subsidized programs before rent restrictions expire by prepaying their mortgages after a set number of years. Another reason for loss in affordable units is when owners are ineligible due to financial/physical problems or the property is located in an area with high vacancy rents and high contract rents. Based on the National Housing Preservation Database, CHPC compiled a list of fcdcrally assisted 11�°ol cftLes...at iLs k o1 cot.bve➢51o1[b„due to the expiration date of a rental assistance contract or the maturing of a HUD mortgage with affordability restrictions. For San Mateo County, 430 affordable units are at-risk within the next year and another 164 affordable units will be at-risk by 2016. • Preservation typically costs about one-half to two-thirds as much as new construction (HUD). According to a 2013 study by the Center for Housing Policy on affordable multifamily rental housing, savings from rehabilitation are realized even when accounting for the full lifecycle of a property. Although costs such as maintenance expenses may be higher over the life of a rehabilitated property, rehabilitation is still more cost effective than new construction. According to the study, when controlling for location,project size, average unit size, building type, and year of development, new construction costs between $40,000 and $71,000 more than acquiring existing developments.1 • Preservation has positive for the community. For example, in gentrifying neighborhoods, preserving affordable rental housing promotes economic diversity, creating/sustaining a mixed- income neighborhood. Helping residents stay in their neighborhoods allows them to take advantage of improvements such as increased access to transit,jobs, and services. Potential Policies: • Update inventory of at-risk and lost units/properties o Track changes in affordability levels, subsidy type, conversion status, building conditions, conditions that may cause loss of properties in 5, 10, 20, 30 years (tax-credit time limits,loan maturities, etc.) • Require one-to-one replacement of any affordable units that are razed, removed from stock, or converted to condominiums • Provide/require platform for public input(such as public hearings or comment period) during the 12 months when owner gives notice with intent to discontinue subsidies or expiration of rent restriction 1 Maya Brennan, Amy Deora,Anker Heegaard,Albert Lee,Jeffrey Lubell,and Charlie Wilkins. 2013. "Comparing the Costs of New Construction and Acquisition-Rehab In Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing:Applying a New Methodology for Estimating Lifecycle Costs," Center for Housing Policy, 11. 1 7 31 • Provide funding for rehabilitation and/or purchase of at-risk properties • Prioritize and utilize funds from HOME and CDBG for preservation (South San Francisco, Housing Element Policy 3-2, 3-3) • Early coordination to identify sources of financing to enable non-profit ownership • Waive permit fees for affordable housing rehabilitation conducted through CDBG or other San Mateo County programs (San Bruno, Housing Element Program 1-I) • California Housing Partnership Corporation, "Local Preservation Strategies": j ttl ://cli1)ccud d ot l Q 22 df • City of South San Francisco, Iflotuslrru.g..: Policy 3-2, 3-3 • City of San Bruno III Program 1-1 8 32 Preservation of Mobile Home Park Housing Sununat- Mobile home parks are a hybrid of rental housing and ownership housing; in most parks, residents own their homes and rent the spaces where the homes are located. Mobile home parks represent one of the few remaining sources of unsubsidized affordable housing in California, and they also provide opportunities for homeownership to individuals and families who might not be able to afford other housing purchase options. As the economy continues to rebound and development picks up, mobile home parks are particularly at risk for closure. Park owners, eager to profit off of rising land costs, seek to close parks so that the land can be sold and converted to other uses. Current examples from Santa Clara County include Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo Altoi and Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park in San Jose. In both cases, owners have indicated their intention to close the parks and sell the land to real estate development companies who, in turn, will construct luxury apartments in their place. Displacement of mobile home park residents due to rent increases, eviction, or closure of the park can have very serious consequences for the park residents and the community. Despite the terminology, mobile homes are generally not mobile—it is difficult to move a mobile home once it is installed in a park, and older mobile homes generally cannot be moved. As such, if a mobile home park resident is evicted, or if her park closes, she is likely to lose her investment in the mobile home in addition to losing the right to continue living in her community. Pursuant to Government Code section 65583(a), which requires cities to analyze their existing housing stock, cities should do an assessment of their existing mobile home parks and identify mobile home parks that are at risk of closure during the planning period. Government Code section 65583 (c)(4), which requires housing elements to include programs to preserve and improve the jurisdiction's existing affordable housing stock, requires jurisdictions to develop and implement programs to prevent the conversion or closure of mobile home parks. See, e.g., ll llt to;;;. See, e.g., ll /mobile liome tmrks san�i jose nbceds.L ret.tir 1...1l.i s. Potential Policies: Every city that has one or more mobile home parks should have the following types of local policies to preserve this important source of affordable housing: e Mobile home park rent control/rent stabilization protections—the California Mobile Home Residency law provides mobile home park residents with certain protections above those afforded other tenants under California law, including protections against eviction without good cause. However, the state does not regulate rent increases by mobile home parks. Cities can and do impose local mobile home park rent control regulations—over 100 cities in California have rent control or rent stabilization for mobile home parks. Typical ordinances limit rent increases 9 33 to in-place residents to a certain percentage, although some may provide a procedure for larger increases where a park owner is seeking to recoup expenses of capital improvements to the property. • A stand-alone zoning category for mobile home parks—zoning that makes mobile home parks the sole allowable by-right use for a particular parcel or area creates extra protection against the conversion or closure of mobile home parks to other uses. • An ordinance regulating the conversion of mobile home parks to cooperative/condominium ownership—subdivision of mobile home parks to convert to resident ownership (similar to condominiums)is an increasingly common phenomenon. While some conversions may be initiated by residents as a means of preserving the park from sale or closure, others are initiated by the owner against the majority of residents' wishes. SB 510, passed in 2013, makes clear that local governments have the authority to block such conversions where they are opposed by park's residents. Cities should have local ordinances governing the subdivision of mobile home parks, and these ordinances should specify that the city will deny approval of the subdivision of the park where it has not been demonstrated that a majority of park residents support the subdivision. • An ordinance regulating mobile home park closures—cities may place conditions on mobile home park owners' ability to close the park, including requiring substantial relocation benefits and assistance to park residents who are facing displacement. Every city that has a mobile home park or parks should have an ordinance that has strong protections for mobile home park residents, including requirements that a park owner who is seeking to close the park must provide financial and logistical assistance that will allow residents to access homeownership opportunities that are as good as or better than the housing that they are being forced to leave. The ordinance should take into consideration community amenities like schools, access to public transit,parks,jobs, and infrastructure. The ordinance should also lay out a clear process and procedure for how the city will determine whether or not to approve a park closure, and the process should be protective of residents' rights. Cities that do not have one or more of these policies should incorporate programs for adoption of such policies into their housing elements. Additionally, if a city has identified a mobile home park that is at risk of closure during the planning period, the housing element should include concrete programs for assisting in the preservation of that park. Cities may consider helping to facilitate a resident purchase of the park(if the residents are amenable), helping to facilitate a non-profit purchase of the park, and/or using city funds (e.g., CDBG)to help preserve the park. • HCD's Building Blocks website has a sample housing element program here: l�tt.�://w�nrw.l�cd.ca_ Gov/l� .�d/l�o��sirru� cica�r�crrut2/l�:lE�(::1 corruscavc. .�1�.� • Sample Ordinances: • City of Sunnyvale Conversion Ordinance 1 ��1 //s��nunu„ valc.ca_ Gov/l oatals/tl/S guru vale/C:II:DII::D/llo��siru /COgobilc%20.11iotiic%201Elarks/2 2.13.:::::.:j:. ..11.O • Santa Cruz County, 10 34 ■ § Conversion Ordinance: b. laml/SafaaCruzCouf ay I 3/Sa faaC.ruzCoufav I 330,litml ............................................................................................- ■ § Rent Ordinance: .f..i ta CrI.A.z C o t..J.,!i tv 1 3 3 2 b.till I • City of San Jose Mobile Home Rent Ordinance: b. 96 • City of Goleta Rent Control Ordinance: d�e-t�.�/c�ode�/l�oleta�/ (Ch- 8-14) .. ............ • City of Escondido Rent Control Ordinance: sj./m.c a L.)d .,/Mobilefiotii&.I[Zcrit('oritrolA.rticle.5,,.)df ......................................................................................I...........i...........0. .................C /.................................dJ fs ...........................j_ Resources for helpful input on policy options: • California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), Housing Elements and Regional Housing Need Allocation, Link: • Local legal services programs: • Residents' association as mobile home parks: • Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League (GSMOL) 35 RDA protections — Continue compliance with RDA protection ° nunat- i'Ben i s Although redevelopment agencies were dissolved in early 2012, most of the State Community Redevelopment Law was not repealed. Of particular importance is making sure that existing redevelopment-assisted housing remains in compliance with long-term restrictions on rents and tenant incomes. Some advocates have argued that obligations for affordable housing production and provision of replacement housing are also still in effect. Potential Policies: • Housing elements should describe policies and procedures for ongoing monitoring of redevelopment-assisted units • Noticing rules for eviction–90 day vs. 30 day • Continue to require one-for-one housing replacement in redevelopment areas, with displaced households having first priority for occupancy in replacement units and new affordable units. Model Ordinances/11seful Sources: • California Health & Safety Code § 33410 et seq. governing Redevelopment Agency relocation assistance, Link: lt1t ://www.lelrufo.c�t_ �,l.blly�a�cl ?�e�l%�ru ls,c&, u° �1 .33001... 34000&61e 334 b 0 334 b 8 • City of Mountain View, Tenant Relocation Assistance: I ttl . //jibrary M.Ij.nu��a!20c cotii/I.IT I./b 6508/lcvcl3/P 1"IIII I�I1C(. C 11136 (::1 All�Fl�lf?�FI�I�;II EAS,11tiIII • Cornerstone Partnerships, Strengths, Challenges & Opportunities: An Assessment of Affordable Homeownership Programs in San Mateo County, Link: l tt. :// foa°dableowruc °sl l . .oa° /.��blicatl�rus/sa��� its cSSITIefit/ 12 36 Relocation Benefits, Replacement Housing, and First Right of Return Sununat- Projects assisted with Federal and State funds are subject to requirements to provide relocation assistance to households displaced by those projects. And lower income housing units removed from the supply by such projects generally have to be replaced with new units that are comparable in size and affordability. Similar requirements also applied to redevelopment projects. However,privately financed development projects are often exempt from such requirements. As PDAs are developed with higher density housing, there is a risk that existing housing occupied by lower income households will be demolished and the tenants displaced. Relocation benefits ensure that displaced households are able to find comparable housing that they can afford. One-for-one replacement ensures that new development doesn't come at the expense of the affordable housing supply. Potential Poli ie : • Require relocation benefits at the same level as required by the Uniform Relocation Act for households displaced by new housing development, particularly in PDAs. These requirements should apply equally to publicly financed projects and private projects. • Require that when units affordable to lower income households are removed from the supply, they must be replaced with comparable units on a one-for-one basis, within 3-4 years of demolition. • Provide displaced tenants with the first right to return to replacement housing units and to affordable housing units in PDAs. Model OrdinancesIllseful Sources: • California Health & Safety Code § 33410 et seq. governing Redevelopment Agency relocation assistance, Link: 11t ://www.lelrufo.��t_ �,l.blly�a�a ?�e�l%�ru ls,�&, u° �1 .33001... 34000&61e 334 b 0 334 b 8 • California Uniform Relocation Act, Government Code § 7260 et seq., Link: p�ttl // vww l g�n1o.:.ca...Gov/c i..bin/dis la code?sections Gov&. ��°��� a17t1t11 118000 fiIc ::::726 7277 13 37 Rent stabilization Sununat- Deed restricted affordable housing properties offer protections from market vacillations and provide stability for families. In contrast, market-rate units fluctuate with changes in the housing market. With the Bay Area housing market bouncing back, rent increases have exceeded 20%per year in some municipalities. These rapid rent increases have made homes that were previously affordable to lower-income families and households on a fixed income too expensive. Rent stabilization ordinances limit the amount that rents are allowed to increase as market values increase. Landlords continue to obtain ever higher returns on their rental properties while tenants have the certainty that their rents will not increase more than a certain amount each year. Once a tenant moves out vacancy decontrol takes effect, that is, rents "reset" to market rate values for new occupants. While the Costa-Hawkins Act of 1995 limits the use of rent stabilization for new construction, these rules can apply to units built prior to February 1, 1995. Below are a few examples of the diverse approaches to rent stabilization undertaken by Bay Area jurisdictions: East Palo Most Rental 80% of the increase in the Consumer Alto Properties Price Index Hayward All rental properties 5% annual increase Los Gatos Properties with three Cannot exceed annual increase of 5% or more rental units or 70% of the increase in the Consumer Price Index San Rafael Mobile Homes 75% of the increase in the Consumer Price Index San Jose Applies to triplex or 8% annual increase larger units built If rent is increasing for first time in 24 before 1979. Does not months limited to 21% apply to condominiums, single family homes, or properties paid by federal subsidies. Potential Policies: • Consider implementing controls on the rate of rent increases -note the distinction between rent control and rent stabilization. Rent control generally applies to setting the price of rent, while rent stabilization speaks to the rate of rent increase. New York City has bot"I,. • Consider implementation of Just Cause provision for tenant evictions 14 38 Model Ot-dinance�511h5eful Sout-ces: • City of East Palo Alto, link: //www cr cast a t o c a t.1,.s. /J f..i d c x a s I..?..x?N 11 Q::::::::4 6 9.. • City of Hayward Rent Stabilization Ordinance, link: ttl les/.FZcsideritiattZerit(..)rdiriaricc..._IL)df oars ..................................................................................................................................................... ........................ . . • Town of Los Gatos, link • San Rafael municipal code, link: b. 10&state 11 d::::::::5 ,state Nam c::::::::Call Forf i i a • City of Berkeley Guide to Rent Control, link: b. rd/lIome/Ggide to lZefit Cogtrol,aqnx • San Jose, link: 15 39 Housing Overlay Zone (HOZ) Sununat- Using a"carrot," rather than a"stick," approach to encourage the creation of additional affordable housing, Housing Overlay Zones (HOZ)provide a flexible tool that sits on top of conventional zoning designations. These areas offer developers incentives to provide the community with specific amenities and community benefits in exchange for specific concessions by the city. On sites where land is not zoned for residential use but a city would like to see affordable housing built, a housing overlay district may eliminate the time consuming process of amending a general plan to construct such housing. Public Advocates, a Bay Area law firm specializing in social justice issues, points out: To achieve these goals, HOZ policies are centered around four basic parameters that can be customized to best fit local needs: 1. Geographic scope of applicability; 2. Baseline affordability qualifications for developments to access HOZ incentives; 3. Incentives given to qualified developments; and 4. The extent of exemptions from discretionary project-level approvals. Determining the most effective balance of these factors will depend on work by local communities; however, in general, more effective HOZs will have broad geographic applicability including in lower-density or commercial zones, meaningful affordability qualifications, valuable incentives, and reliable exemptions from discretionary approvals. Potential Poli ie : • Consider the implementation of a Housing Overlay Zone over locally designated Priority Development Areas (PDAs), and transit-accessible areas, to incentivize affordable housing inclusion in areas close to amenities and transit alternatives. • Among the potential incentives it could include: • Enhanced density bonuses -possibly to encourage Wj��j q.5..5 ��Rjb l.y as well • Reduced parking ratios • Expedited permit processing • Increased allowable heights • By-right zoning or administrative approval of projects • In-lieu fees • Impact fee waivers • City of Menlo Park, link: //rww IIIerulol��tak Via: �/dc.�aa°ta��cruts/�lnu/lac/aa��cruda��cru�s/�7�73 If NE �1`lordablc IFlo��sircu, (:.lvca° lay pa � htt ://www.codc ��blisl��in�� .�oa�n/C; ./a��cn��lo aa�°1 J` gcn�dolllarkI6/McfdollIark I698.laml • City of Alameda, link: l�tt ://alaancda. °an�i���s.�oa��/ ctaVicwc� 1� ?ancta Ld :::37217 .vzcw:::: .sliow Dd1 ::::I ................. • King County,Washington, link ill. ://www.k�ru$co��ru9 ov/socialsc�vi�cs/1No��siru /`ci°viccsAfid.1l'i°obi°ai,iis/l?i'°o rai,iis/.Ilousi $lac 16 40 ycj.2.j.?mcnt/I1ncctqiv s.,.as )x ............................................................................................. .................... Orange County, Affordable housing incentive withing commercially zoned properties, Llink: ttl r r tiit�.tiicode,cotii/I.ITMI..,/I 1378/IcvcI3/TIIT7l..,ALJSl LJRE DIV911I.I..., ART2T.IjC0Z0 ii Y..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3.................................. 'I Co ,I,ittiil4TII'I.'7.1...,Al..JSI.3l..JRE IDIV91I[I.I..., AfZT2T.IIC()Z()C() S7 9 14 8,1,111 LJ 11 N .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Public Advocates,Factsheel: Housing Overlay Zones, b c fact . SlIect .........................................� 7.27 I tl. d 17 41 Incentive Zoning/Density Bonus and Public Benefit Zoning Sununat- Incentive Zoning/Density Bonus and Public Benefit Zoning are two "market-based strategies" that confer property rights (such as additional density) to a developer in exchange for public benefits to the community. Incentive Zoning, also known as "Density Bonus," grants developers the right to build additional space in exchange for providing community amenities. This will work if the developer calculates that the value of the incentive provided is greater than the cost of providing the amenity. It is, therefore, voluntary. In addition to higher densities, other incentives commonly include reduced parking or modifications to height and setback requirements. Benefits range from affordable housing to accessible roof gardens, ground level public plazas,public art, miniparks and other desired amenities. Public benefit zoning (PBZ)— also known as Land Value Recapture -is based on the premise that land use changes and enhancement enacted by a public agency contribute to increased real estate values. It is reasonable to expect that if a private landowner benefits from public action that benefits are extended towards the community as well.. In addition to the value created by the upzoning for the developer(as under incentive zoning) additional value is extracted from the landowner and dedicated to community benefits. Both PBZ and Incentive Zoning can be based on negotiations, adjudicative and discretionary approvals, and ministerial entitlement based on compliance determination. But for PBZ, development agreements —in the case of significant developments - and areawide application, as in specific plans, work best. The tool of"tiers" of additional density/height has been utilized, with additional requirements for each additional tier. The benefits for PBZ are very similar to those of incentive zoning. In both cases, these benefits are in addition to existing Development Impact Fees, Inclusionary Housing, and Commercial Linkage Fees. Potential Policies: • For localities with Inclusionary Housing and/or Commercial Linkage Fees, both mechanisms can lead to additional units or fees required over existing regulations, either on a case-by-case basis or on the basis of a plan. • For localities without, PBZ can lessen political opposition to Inclusionary Housing and/or Commercial Linkage Fees by tying those programs to increased densities and plan changes that increase the value of the land. • Nico Calavita& Alan Mallach. 2009. Inclusionary Housing, Incentives and Land Value Recapture," in Land Lines, January 2009 (Available in the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Website) • Dyett & Bathia. 2012. "Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance Update. Community Benefits and Incentives: Issues, Options, and Case Studies;" Prepared for the City of Santa Monica, August 2012. • Patrick J Rohan & Eric Damian Kelly. 2013, Incentive & Bonus Zoning. Matthew Bender & Co Inc. ................. It includes a presentation on the differences and similarities between Incentive Zoning and LVR 18 42 Additionally, a White Paper on the Theory, Economics and Practice of Land Value Recapture is being finalized for publication in March 2014. The paper, authored by Nico Calavita and Marian Wolfe, is being prepared for the East Bay Housing Organizations and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 19 43 Inclusionary Housing °rrrrrrnat- rrrrri'P en It : With the emphasis on Priority Development Areas under SB 375, the difficulty of eliciting any appreciable "natural affordability" in these targeted growth locations increases substantially. Dedicating a percentage of housing units produced to deed-restricted affordability ensures that lower income households have access to transit and helps increase transit ridership, since lower income households are more likely to use transit. The ability of jurisdictions to mandate inclusionary housing was severely restricted in 2009 with the California Appellate Court ruling Palmer v. City of Los Angeles, which determined that inclusionary requirements on rental units conflicted with the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act, which regulates rent control. Ownership units are not constrained. The recent surge in construction of for-rent units, many of which, are being approved with"condo maps," may be an opportunity to ensure a degree of affordability should they to ownership units. From Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California's (NPH)Inclusionary Housing Advocacy Toolkit: • [Inclusionary Housing] creates housing choices in communities: IH policies ensure that every community provides homes affordable to a range of income levels. By providing these housing options, a community's labor force—hospital workers, retail clerks, and childcare workers—can afford to live in the communities they serve. Hardworking families can have access to good schools and safe neighborhoods. Moreover, typical NIMBY opposition is often mitigated by creating both market-rate and affordable homes in a single development. • [Inclusionary Housing] creates new affordable homes without needing new government funding: IH policies have broad appeal to local governments because these policies help provide affordable housing needs with little extra cost to governments. Furthermore, IH policies complement other affordable housing programs, like bond financing, rent and development subsidy programs, and tax credits. • [Inclusionary Housing] levels playing field for all developers: By adopting IH policies, local governments remove uncertainty from the development process. It gives a clear message to landowners and developers so that all can make informed financial decisions before building. Potential Policies: • City adopts an inclusionary housing ordinance for ownership units with no less than 20% of affordable units in new construction. Tiered income policies should also be considered with a smaller percentage of affordable units required for deeper affordability, or a range of affordability levels that equate to 20%. Affordability should be maintained for a minimum of 55 years with an ideal of permanent affordability. Consider inclusion of an in-lieu fee sufficient to exceed the number of units that would have been built on-site. Consider affordable units specially set aside for seniors. • City adopts a develovinef.t Lr.. irate that includes an option to build units in-lieu of paying the fee. • City leverages Land Value Recapture concepts as part of a larger Community Benefits Program within Priority Development Areas or other areas targeted for growth. Afod'el Pr dir ances 11se " l Sources: : e Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California(NPH),Inclusionary Housing Advocacy Toolkit, 1r d 20 44 • California Rural Housing Association,Inclusionary Housing Database: littai//www,calri�ralliot�siti or /"? a e� jd b b 0 • Institute for Local Government (IL,G), California Inclusionary Housing Reader: http://www.ca- il�org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/resources California®Inclusionary®Housinz Reader.pdf • Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California(NPH),Protecting Inclusionary Housing Requirements, December 5, 2013, Link fill.//war 2 b clemetit� coat/Dowtiload doct�metit/603 Il��otc lttug Iflu;clt�storcuaTy :[ cNjjjT., attet.1t..s .)ta11.1 • Goldfarb and Lipman Attorneys, Presentation: Inclusionary Housing- Current Legal Issues, January 23, 2014, Link: 1;191. ://www.2bcicattctuts.coatt/Dowtuload doc �attctut/C53 The Curretit Mate o� Ifnclustotial' If Nc� �sttu ..1/22/13.lttattl .. Y • San Mateo County 21 Elements, Development Impact Fee 21 Jurisdiction Grand Nexus Study, Link: To be added in 2014 to www.21eleinents.coin. 21 45 Source of Income Ordinance Sununat- Since the 2009 ruling on Palmer v. City ofLos Angeles, which restricted local jurisdictions' ability to promote mixed-income housing, there have been few avenues available to ensure low-income households have the ability to live in to high opportunity areas. Federal rent subsidy programs like the federal Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8) offer the ability for low income residents to pay market rate rents and more effectively compete for housing. The advantages of vouchers over project-based housing assistance depend on the ability of voucher recipients to locate a landlord who will accept the voucher. Some landlords wish to avoid the administrative burden associated with the voucher program. Other landlords perceive voucher recipients to be undesirable tenants and/or fear their other tenants would object to voucher recipients as neighbors. Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, or disability. Source of Income anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher recipients solely on the basis of their having a voucher. Potential Policies: • Consider an ordinance similar to East Palo Alto's Source of Income Ordinance EPAMC § 14.16.010.A.4 which prohibiting Income-Based Rental Housing Discrimination. • For further consideration - Consider requirement for the inclusion of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program tenants in new developments within the plan area where a community benefit agreement or development agreement is negotiated. Model Ordinanc , 11sef l Sources: • City of East Palo Alto, link: HERE • Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Appendix B:State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-of-Income Discrimination, link l�tt. ://www. .�°rac.o�° / • Fair Housing Law Project,Housing Discrimination Based on Income, link: ttl / w wlo� ud tl u o /r )ositor /income.�Af/ l pn na • U.S. Department of Housing, The Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes, 1 tt. ://win w.1 ��a ��sca°.oa° / ��blicatiorus/.a 1%fa°cca��aru If u .actl..,aws Assistedl'I ousifI 'fL(,',FZ06. .?d1` ...................F. • 21 Elements Policy Best Practices: HERE 22 46 Commercial Linkage Fee Sununat- A portion of jobs created by new commercial development—hotel, retail, office, etc.- are low-paying and the new employees cannot afford market-rate housing. With commercial linkage fees — also known as job-housing linkage fees - developers are expected to ameliorate some of the housing impacts generated by such projects. This impact is measured through a Job-Housing Nexus Analysis that shows the connection between the construction of new commercial buildings, employment, and the need for affordable housing. They are usually performed by consulting firms that have specialized in this type of analysis. Methodologies vary, but in most cases the analysis begins with an estimation of the number of employees for a prototypical 100,000 sq.ft. building and ends with the cost per-square foot for that building to provide housing for those employees who would live in that locality but could not afford to live there. Consultants routinely recommend fee levels much lower than the maximum. Given that, depending on the land use, there are different concentrations of employees per area of buildings, fee levels vary, with office usually the highest, and warehousing the lowest. Some localities, heavily impacted by specific types of development, might exact fee from only those uses, as is the cases in some Silicon Valley cities targeting the high tech industry. Commercial linkage fees are adopted at the local level, and as such they reflect the diversity of each locality's economic, political and cultural traits. Linkage fees can vary by development type, fee level, exemptions, options/thresholds, terms of payment, and results. About twenty cities in California have enacted commercial linkage fees. Compared to the number of localities with inclusionary housing programs, the number of localities with commercial linkage fees is rather low. A possible explanation is fear of discouraging economic growth. However, reasonable fees enacted in areas experiencing high levels of economic growth and strong demand for commercial space should not negatively affect the rate of commercial development. This is especially true if one considers that the additional costs to developers will bring about a readjustment of land prices in a period of a few years, i.e., the landowner will pay the additional cost of development though a reduction of the price of land. (See below, Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Prepared for the City of San Diego by Keyser Marston associates, Inc. August 2013,page 62). Potential Poli ie : e Some cities in the Bay Area already have commercial linkage fees. Those cities experiencing high levels of growth should consider increasing their existing fees. In some cases there are no provisions for inflation adjustment, as in Berkeley. The City of San Diego passed legislation last year to increase their fees to reflect the failure in adjusting their fees since 1990, the date of adoption of their program. Finally, cities without commercial linkage fees but experiencing high rates of commercial growth should consider adopting a commercial linkage fee program. Model Ordinances/11seful Sources: • City of Menlo Park Commercial Development Fee - Zoning Code Chapter 16.96.030, Link: O tt. ://w w.�ode.��Flis� ru .�oa��/C`A/a��erulo.eta°k/`?Mctdollark b 6/CO etiIolllark b 696.litml ................. • City of Oakland Jobs/Housing Linkage Fee - Building Code Chapter 15.68. Link: ttl. ://11ba°aa°y.a����ru �ode.�oa��/�NFr ql:.,/b 631 8/level2/Tlf 115131JC(..1 0111 b 5.68J(..1:If N()IIM F EAF:If N(.)TR .............................................................................................................................................. 23 47 • City of Oakland Jobs/Housing Linkage Fee Nexus Study and related reports. Link: b. ata/D0W1)0086924fi tika Lie • Jobs- Housing Nexus Study Prepared for the City of San Diego by Keyser Marston associates, Inc. August 2013: Force/S.II.),IIIC`/`2OJob`/`20.11iot�.si • City of San Jose, Housing Needs and Strategy Study Session Follow-up Administrative Report, Link: litu):Hsat ' ov/Doct.iiietitCetitei�/View/12862 ..................�,//,.,ari�oseca�.Z.................................... • San Mateo County 21 Elements, Development Impact Fee 21 Jurisdiction Grand Nexus Study, Link: To be added in 2014 to www.21eleinents.coin. .................................................................................................................................................. 24 48 Housing Impact Fee Sununat- In the wake of the Palmer decision, which limits the ability of cities to apply inclusionary zoning requirements to rental housing unless some form of financial assistance is provided, many cities have turned instead to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing development. Known as "Housing Impact Fees", these fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate housing generates additional demand for affordable housing. As is the case with Commercial Linkage Fees, adoption of a Housing Impact Fee requires the preparation of a nexus study. Typically, this study will assess the extent to which new market-rate development attracts higher income households who will spend more on retail and services. That increased spending creates new jobs, attracting new workers to live in the city, some of whom will be lower income and require affordable housing.. A financial feasibility study is also recommended to ensure that any Housing Impact doesn't render development infeasible. Potential Poli ie : • Commit to conducting a nexus study and financial feasibility study for a Housing Impact Fee to assess new market rate development for the increased demand that it creates for affordable housing. • Adopt a Housing Impact Fee, with funds dedicated to an affordable housing trust fund to be used to preserve and expand the supply of affordable housing. • City of San Carlos Housing Impact Fee, Affordable Housing Program - Zoning Code Chapter 18.16, Link: b. afiCarlos b 8/SafiCarlos b 8 b 6.litmI4 b 8.b 6, Nexus Study and Fee Analysis: ttl // w 2 b cIciilciits coiil owiiIo..ad docl 112cf tZ.A. 92 "g a nu::. . arlos.:Ncxtl `StI.J.d.Y Uc ::: nualy is hta .I • City of Fremont Housing Impact Fee, Affordable Housing - Establishment of Fees - Zoning Code 18.155.090, Link: ttl // ww od .��blisl iru .coa��/ca/ a°ca��orut/l tanl/fa°ca��orutb 8/fa°ca��ofal 8 b 55.1aa 1418.b 55.090 • City of Berkeley Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study, Link: ttl // ww 1 bcal lcy Ott„��s/t loadcdfilcs/C`lca°k/]..,cvcl 3 C`it C`o��rucil/2tl b b/0 b Jafi/20 b b..0 b 25 11teal] b4 a; A ft ;dablc,,,. 1.No1j,5Jf W 1[.M act .fcc.L_ • San Luis Obispo County Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study, Link: 1tlj//a ctida_slocotgq .ca_ ,ov/a,ctida/satluisobispgj6b2/(;) ll�t�� Nob V��a�C`BC`IfC`tl �lJa W]I�1 rullZ Q.gfZtiVIIIE5lcIfNVzlfl�NO 1125 O t�.cG.11ZZ il/b2/fl/9978 ....� .doc ............................ • San Mateo County 21 Elements, Development Impact Fee 21 Jurisdiction Grand Nexus Study, Link: To be added in 2014 to www.21eleine nts.coin. 25 49 Rededication of"Boomerang Funds" to Affordable Housing ° nun y an 1'pc nc It : With the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies (RDA), the State of California deprived local jurisdictions of their largest and most significant source of local funding for affordable homes. Across the state redevelopment was responsible for over $1 billion in direct funding for affordable housing with its 20% tax increment set-aside. These local funds often served as "first in" money that could be leveraged to acquire other sources of funding. Some Bay Area affordable housing developers report that over 75% of their projects in recent years involved some level of RDA funding. A portion of those former tax increment funds come back to local jurisdictions as both a one-time lump sum from their former Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (LMIHF) and an ongoing bump to their property tax. Counties receive such funds from each former redevelopment agency within the county. These have been referred to as "Boomerang Funds." Potential Policies: • Consider dedication of 100% of the one-time lump sum distribution of former Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund money back into funding for affordable housing. • Dedication of at least 20% of the ongoing year-over-year tax-increment distributions now realized as increased property tax distributions back into funding for affordable housing. • County of San Mateo, Administrative Report, Use of Unrestricted General Funds Derived from One-Time Distribution of Housing Trust Funds of Former Redevelopment Agencies, Link: af1112at. o s1T.Ctcchfiolo$ies.coi,ii/sii°e.)tab/caclic/2/c43oowlizorkxi,°l v2ailz`3s'$w/2976401 302 0 14051731203,11?:II:D1{ ...................................................................................................................................... • County of Santa Clara, Resolution, Resolution establishing a policy regarding the use of new revenues from the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, Link: tti // ccgov.:lcla��2.:.�oa��/ 1tlzeru /l��et 6801 1,c$i{ilc.as ) ?I[D ::: 14C` l • City of Oakland, Ordinance establishing set aside of boomerang funds. Link: tti s //o�tkl rud 1 istaa°.coa��/View.�ts1 ?C01 1{ ,IC1C� 26 36� ,(i1.JIf1C� :II)42A.51?35 CC52 41)92 .0211...A.Q1?,J6291: D4C1?2 26 50 Affordable Housing Sites: Sununat- A key part of every Housing Element is the identification of adequate sites to serve a range of incomes, including households at very low and low income levels. Since both Plan Bay Area and the RHNA site the majority of new growth within Priority Development Areas, local housing elements should identify affordable housing opportunity sites within PDAs. Also, while the law requires only that the sites be adequately zoned, for these sites to become affordable housing sites, they must be competitive for affordable housing funding,particularly Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Potential Policies: • Site the majority of affordable housing parcels entirely within local Priority Development Areas or Transit Priority Areas/PDA-like places • Site affordable housing locations to maximize Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) potential. Jurisdictions are encouraged to work with affordable housing developers active in their area to analyze whether identified sites would be competitive for tax credits. • C aIi1 !]ia ax C 1.cdit Alto..cation C oal.i. lr�lttcc.; Adopted Regulations (January 29, 2014) 14/20140129/rc tflatiog-.-A F- Regulation Section 10325 - Application Selection Criteria • ABAG GIS Catalog, Plan Bay Area Priority Development Areas, Link: llittp,//jsaba gov/ • San Mateo County 21 Elements,LIHTC Fact Sheet, Link: ttl. ://wv w.2bcica��cruts.coa��/Dowruload doc �a��crut/553 1..,ow lftuconic 1iou.sit Tai Credit fact S�reet.� trl2 ....................................................................... 27 51 Priority Development Areas °anon y an i'P en it : Plan Bay Area- the regional land use and transportation plan designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled -identifies Priority Development Areas (PDAs) throughout the region where most growth is to be concentrated. These are areas close to transit stations or along major transit corridors. However, these PDAs were established voluntarily by cities and there are some areas well served by transit that have not been designated. In addition, it is up to localities to identify policies and establish plans for siting affordable housing in PDAs. Expanding PDAs to cover all "PDA-like" places and having strong policies for developing affordable housing in PDAs are critical for regional housing equity. Local housing elements should include such actions in their implementation program. Potential Policies: • Expand designated Priority Development Areas to additional locations that are transit accessible. • Jurisdictions should identify specific policies that promote inclusion of affordable housing within PDAs Model Ordinances/11seful Sources: • ABAG, FOCUS: Priority Development Area, l s.litfill • ABAG GIS Catalog, Plan Bay Area Priority Development Areas, Link: 1i11 //g„ , g, ,gv/ • ABAG, Inner Bay Area Corridors PDA Implementation Memo, January 7, 2014, Link: .gov� g/cvcnts/a ,cndm/c0l l C b 4a Ilteiii�/�2()08x`�/,�201[t ifici`%2013ay`�/;�2OAt�ca`�/,�20.111.1I.)A`�/;�2t 1J11ogl!t por 28 52 Parcel Assembly Sums at- P its: Infill development is often difficult due to the presence of small, oddly-shaped parcels in older parts of cities and towns. Generally, to build sites that fit with the character of the neighborhood at densities that are economically feasible, developers assemble larger sites from smaller parcels. Parcel assembly can be problematic, however, as owners of the last parcel needed to assemble the whole site can exact significant financial concessions from developers in turn incentivizing all neighbors to be the last to sell. Jurisdictions have traditionally responded through the use of eminent domain, a highly unpopular and rarely invoked option. Graduated density zoning provides jurisdictions with another tool to assemble larger sites from smaller parcels. Jurisdictions are able to keep lower-density zoning for sites less than a given size but allow higher density development on sites that exceed a certain "trigger" size. Owners are motivated to sell if the values of their assembled parcels at higher densities greatly exceed the current value of their parcel alone. All owners have to sell in order to achieve economic gains from their parcels as the density bonus is only triggered when the site reaches a certain minimum size. As a result there is an incentive to not be the last one to sell, as the last owner could be left with an oddly shaped parcel that would be difficult if not impossible to assemble into a larger site. Potential Policies: Jurisdictions can choose to institute an"abrupt" or"sliding" scale of graduated density zoning or even downzone in certain instances: • Abrupt: If an assembled site achieves a minimum size then higher densities are triggered. • Sliding: A site's density is increased with each subsequent increase in size up to a maximum density. • Graduated density does not require upzoning. A neighborhood that is zoned at higher densities (i.e. 50 du/acre)but is holding out for higher prices could also be downzoned to allow the original density (50 du/acre) only on sites larger than a minimum size. Table 1 Abrupt vs. Sliding Graduated Density Zoning : Taken from Donald Shoup "Graduated Density Zoning"Journal of Planning Education and Research Abrupt Sliding Area Density Units Density (Acres) (units/acre) (units/acre) Units 0.2 5 1 14 3 0.4 5 2 23 9 0.6 5 3 32 19 0.8 5 4 41 33 29 53 1.0 50 50 50 50 1.2 50 60 50 60 For either option the aim is to create a situation where the base density is much lower than developers want while offering a substantial density bonus for larger sites. The"abrupt" option creates a stronger incentive for the last owner to sell as the density bonus is not realized without the last parcel. By gradually increasing density, the "sliding" option creates stronger incentives for the initial owners to sell and puts less pressure on the owner of the last parcel. Hodel Ordinan 1h5eful Sources: • Shoup, Donald. "Graduated Density."Journal ofPlanning Education and Research. (2008): n. page. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <httl? //1ts ucIa cd /S 1 ��1i/gu a t� lea a ru�llyzoru rug.l d �. • City of San Bruno's 2009 General Plan allows for higher FARs on lots bigger than 20,000 sq ft, see section 2-8 "Multi-use Residential Focus": ��tt. ://www.s�tn�b�°ur�o.ca. Gov/coa �dcv is �a acs/ lann�n /(�cn�c�°�t1�/�2t aE�lan�/�.. .a°ovcd/Sl Q jj:) Coa1�. ................. lctcQ jj:). ................................................. • City of Glendale provides a 25% density bonus in some neighborhoods: • Simi Valley provides a graduated density bonus in its Kadota Fig neighborhood on sites larger than 13 acres lttl „//1ts,ul�t cd /S10��1/ga�tdittcddru�11 z�ruru . 30 54 Parking ° nr nat rrnri'P en it : Parking policies impact the design, location, and financial viability of new developments. The costs of providing parking can affect whether a project is viable and the level of affordability that can be achieved, as providing a single parking space ranges from $5,000 per surface parking spot to as much as $60,000 per each underground parking space. Also, even though such spaces come at great cost, they may not be fully utilized—particularly in affordable housing developments. Parking requirements have a disproportionate impact on housing for low income households because low income households consistently own fewer vehicles than their higher income counterparts and are more burdened by the extra expenses. In a study of affordable housing and parking needs, the City of San Diego found that residents of affordable housing owned cars at half the rate of residents of market rate rental housing. In addition to reducing housing costs, modifications to parking policies can encourage residents to own fewer cars, drive less, and increase use of transit, walking and biking which contributes to better health. In the Bay Area, Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are an excellent location for affordable housing development. The proximity to quality transit warrants lower parking levels for new housing, which lowers per-unit developmental costs and allows for more housing for a given budget, while providing other less expensive modes of access for residents. Potential Policies: 1. Reduce or eliminate unnecessary parking requirements: Eliminate requirements for additional parking for new development in downtowns and town centers, allowing customized approaches. a. Unbundle parking (residential and commercial): Require the cost to own or lease a parking space to be unbundled from the price to rent or own a commercial or residential space. This increases housing affordability for households that do not use parking. b. Share parking: Adopt policies to encourage or require shared parking between uses rather than reserved parking for specific users and tenants. c. Allow tandem parking(when two spaces are located end to end) to count toward satisfying parking requirements. d. Consider parking maximums for very transit-rich, walkable and congested areas to reduce local congestion and enhance the environment for walking and use of alternative modes. 2. Promote alternative modes (with transit passes, car sharing, bike lanes,pedestrian amenities, etc.): Incorporate requirements for free or discounted transit passes, carshare incentives, bicycle parking and pedestrian amenities in lieu of some parking. 3. Coordinate prices for on-street and off-street parking: Pricing parking reduces parking demand, ensures that end-users carry more of the cost, and promotes turnover. Coordination of pricing between on-street and off-street is essential to achieve parking management goals. Adopt a parking availability target: Set a goal that parking availability be maintained at around 15 percent through the use of pricing, time limits and adjustable rates/regulations, and allow parking staff to adjust prices to achieve this goal. 4. Manage parking: engage inactive parking management to better utilize existing parking and use of revenues. a. Track parking utilization in buildings and the neighborhood: This allows residents of buildings with less parking to park elsewhere in the neighborhood and enables buildings 31 55 to be built with fewer parking spots than would normally be required. b. Establish parking benefit districts: Net revenue collected from parking pricing and permit revenues could be dedicated to funding community priorities within designated Parking Benefit Districts. c. Establish Transferable Parking Entitlements: Jurisdictions could designate the number of parking spaces made available for a development as an "entitlement" that could be bought or sold if they are unused. 5. Establish and publicize policies to require or encourage employers to offer alternative access for employees. Transportation Demand Management refers to a range of policies and programs to reduce vehicle miles travelled(VMT)which, in turn, decrease the need for parking. Possible policies include carpool parking,parking pricing, flexible work schedules, and ridesharing. The Air District and MTC are developing a Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program to promote the use of alternative commute modes such as transit, ridesharing, biking and walking. The program would require employers with 50 or more full-time employees in the Bay Area to offer one of the benefits, see httl //www, iitc ca g2yZ!.u�wy.,5 Model Ordinanc 1h5eful Sources: • MTC's Parking Policies for Smart Growth: lttl // ww ,gov/llitnununu,g/�a�!a�,t„ glc� tl /la�::ln:: / • Parking Code Guidance: Case Studies and Model Provisions: lttl // ww a �tc.ca,gov/llitnununu,g/�a�laa°t„ ga /laa,lJnu„ ,/C b 2/Pa�;kifig C g& (�I6da;gcc 1�;�ge 2t�...b 2 p�r • Redwood City Article 30 Parking and Loading: l ZT30()IIZll IE'AI.,(.).littiil4AIIZT3 • The city of Berkeley recently partnered with AC Transit and several regional agencies to provide free transit passes and expand access to car sharing in their downtown through their GoBerkeley program htl:li //o I.fue wsp com/article/P.11Z CO 1 20130627:9 b 0529 html • San Francisco's award winning SF Park program uses demand pricing and innovative payment schemes to encourage parking in underutilized areas: • For a study considering lower rates of auto ownership and affordable housing please see San Diego's Affordable Housing and Parking study: 1 t91. ://www.s�trudie� l l�truruirug/1 � ,g a�� /t� ru ,.o�°tatioru/a��obilit /.a l%b 112-31 sdallf linal .?.O 32 56 Site and Building Regulations Sununat- Developers estimate that every month required for processing a development application adds at least 1 to 2 percent to the overall cost of a housing development. When development processing requires a year or more, the resulting impact on housing costs can be significant. In order to cut down development costs and facilitate the construction of multi-family affordable homes, localities can employ a number of policies to ease or streamline development requirements. These include an array of options such as fee reductions for affordable housing development, streamlined review processes, modifying building height restrictions, and allowing the payment of in-lieu fees to meet certain obligations such as open space or park land requirements. Below are a few examples of approaches that Bay Area jurisdictions have taken to ease the developmental process: City of Fremont Developments with 5 or more units qualify for a density bonus if affordable housing is included. 'Th it also provides developers with site identification assistance, marketing and tenant screening, modification of development standards, and streamlined processing of plans and permits. City of Milpitas Created the id��own 5n pe IlIn�.Plan focusing on a 252 acre area that can accommodate up to 4900 housing units. The plan takes advantage of VTA and future BART rail stations in the area to increase housing choices and densities. Redwood City Adopted a Downtown Precise Plan that used extensive community input to create a streamlined permitting process to channel regional housing demand to their downtown. The plan provides developers with clear guidelines that, if followed, allows for certainty in permit processing times. Potential Policies: Streamlining the Approval Process: • Provide clear and objective regulations and guidelines to prospective applicants so that proposed projects conform to local priorities and goals • Consider"by right" approvals and form-based codes for designated uses • Provide streamlined permitting review processes for affordable housing Flexibility in Planning Requirements e Encourage mixed-use zones: mixed-use zones create flexible investment opportunities for and locates infill housing in office or retail districts where it may be less controversial. It also has the added benefit of reducing development costs by sharing amenities and parking with other uses. 33 57 • Let infill developers meet open space and parkland requirements by paying"in-lieu" fees • Maximize development potential through the removal of building height restrictions in designated Priority Development Areas • Limit requirement for ground-floor retail to key nodes, and allow for residential uses on the ground floor in certain locations Model Ordinan lh5eful Sources: • A Place to Call Home: Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area, link: ��t1�1.�://www.aba� �l.�lanunuinu��/l�o���lrru �rr c�a��/l�dl%a°c�o��a°�c�/A IE�la�c �o C`�tll IfNoa�r�c 2t1t�7.l�dl` • Blueprint 2001: Housing Element Ideas and Solutions, link: ��t1�1.�://www.aba� �,ov/1.�lanunuinu��/l�o���lrrunccd�/Ihl��cl.�a°irrut.l�ta�r�l • City of Redwood City's Downtown Precise Plan, link: l tt ://www.a°cdwood�it .oa° / l cd/ lanunuinu / a°c�i c/f Ifi°iAI II:DFI PIII/New.lI:DFI P.111II:Dowfiload.littiI ................. • City of Fremont Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives, link: l��tt. ://www.codc.��.blisl��in�� .coa�n/ca/li,.canon��t/l�tanl/fav inon�itI8/f��emon�itI8165,litmI418.165, 9 ................. • City of Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan, link: t9 . ://www.�i.a��il .ita .�a. Gov/ ovca°rua��crut/.laruruiru /l larru 111id.t .w!i ,l.c ci F c.as 1. 34 58 Universal Design Standards for Apartments Sununat- The goal of universal design is to make the built environment as accessible as possible to people of all ages and abilities without adaptation or specialized design. Universal design features come at little to no extra cost if incorporated in a project as it gets built while significantly reducing or eliminating the need to later retrofit the structure for accessibility. The principles of universal design as defined by the Center for Universal Design are as follows: • Equitable use: the design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities • Flexibility in use: the design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities • Simple and intuitive use: use of the design is easy to understand regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level • Perceptible information: the design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities • Tolerance for error: The design minimizes and the adverse consequences of unintended actions • Low physical effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably with a minimum of fatigue • Size and space for approach and use: Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility For residential properties universal design features could include: • No-step entry • Wider interior doors and hallways • Audio &visual doorbell • At least one bathroom or powder room on the primary entry level • Hand-held adjustable shower head • Kitchen on an accessible route of entry. Potential Poli ie : e The City of Dublin requires that all new construction of single family homes and apartment buildings in excess of 20 units, include certain universal design features to make properties as accessible as possible. • City of Dublin, link htti .:.//ww I1 • City of Dublin universal design checklist httl. ://d��.blin��.ca.Gov/Doc��a��enbtC;en��tca°/i:ioa��e/View/5�7 • HCD Model Universal Design Ordinance 111 //w w l �aj.e _gv/�a�aj �/�hl/3 I�e�1�::: IJrcuiv .1°S.a :I1 eS.1. n M, ga e1 (l�dlf..iafucc;,., • Principles of Universal Design from the Center for Universal Design: 35 59 Emergency Shelters and Homeless Persons (SB2) ° mmar .y ani' nit : SB2 (Chapter 633 Statutes of 2007) clarifies and strengthens the housing element law by ensuring that local zoning encourages and facilitates emergency shelters. SB2 also limits the denial of emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing under the Housing Accountability Act. SB2 planning and approval requirements include: identify at least one zone to permit emergency shelter by-right conduct need assessment for emergency shelter addressing both seasonal and year-round need o need may be reduced by the number of supportive housing units that are identified in the jurisdictions 10-year plan to end homelessness,provided that units are vacant or will be constructed during the planning period with funding identified demonstrate that transitional housing and supportive housing are permitted as a residential use and are subject to restrictions that apply to other residential units of the same type and in the same zone standards must be objective and promote the use for or encourage development/conversion to emergency shelter • jurisdictions with existing ordinances for emergency shelter have flexibility in meeting zoning requirements or if they demonstrate that need for emergency shelter can be met in existing shelters or through a multi jurisdictional agreement • zones must include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter o if existing zoning does not allow for zoning for emergency shelter by-right or if the identified sites have insufficient capacity to meet the need, the housing element must include a program to identify a specific zone(s) and amend the zoning code within year of adoption of the housing element Potential Poli ie : e Amend/adopt zoning ordinance that provides standards to ensure the development of emergency shelters. Standards permitted for regulation include: • Development standards common to the zoning district • Maximum number of beds • Off-street parking • Size and location of exterior/interior on-site waiting and client intake areas • Provision of on-site management • Length of stay • Lighting • Provision of security during hours of operation • Non-discretionary design standards • Proximity to other emergency shelters • Voluntary or incentive based standards • Chapter 633, Statues of 2007: lit w w lcg fo c� g 7 l 0_ � l lll t 050/sb 2 bill 20()II t ,., • HCD Memorandum on SB 2 Zoning for Emergency Shelters, Transitional housing, and 36 60 Supportive Housing (Updated April 10, 2013): j'j.ttRj//www,hcd,ca,�,ov/h )�d/sb2�memo�05070�8, )df San Mateo County 21 Elements, "Zoning in the Wake of SB2: Best Practices for Emergency, Transitional, and Supportive Housing" !'1 2 Ionu the Wake of S1.3 2 Best....111ractices ti ve afid Trafisitiogal .......... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................. 37 61 Reasonable Accommodations (SB520 and S13812) Sununat- Consistent with state and federal law, housing elements should contain policies and programs to implement fair housing laws and to provide housing for persons with disabilities. Housing element law requires local jurisdictions to conduct a housing needs assessment for persons with disabilities. In recent years, the state has amended the housing element law to remove barriers to housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. • SB520 (Chapter 671, Statutes of 2001) amended the housing element law by requiring local jurisdictions to: • analyze potential and actual constraints on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities (i.e. land use policies, building codes/enforcement, fees,parking requirements, and local processing and permit procedures) • analyze local efforts to remove governmental constraints that present barriers to providing housing for persons with disabilities • adopt universal design elements in its building codes that address limited lifting, flexibility, mobility, and vision • identify/analyze whether it has a reasonable accommodation policy,procedure, or ordinance • provide programs to remove identified constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities • SB812 (Chapter 507, Statutes of 2010) amended the housing element law by requiring local jurisdictions to: • as part of special housing needs analysis, include an evaluation of the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities • estimate the number of persons with developmental disabilities • assess housing need and availability of programs (i.e. shared housing, permanent supportive housing/programs) • identify potential funding sources designated for persons with developmental disabilities • develop and implement programs to meet housing needs for persons with developmental disabilities Potential Poli ie : e Amend zoning ordinance or adopt a reasonable accommodation ordinance that provides a procedure for requesting reasonable accommodation and flexibility in the application of zoning and land use regulations and procedures (See below `HCD Reasonable Accommodation Model Ordinance') 3 o i'el Ot-dinan 11seful out- : • HCD Memorandum on SB 520 Analysis of Constraints on Development of Housing for Persons With Disabilities: 1;1tt1 // ww 1„ d.��t_g�v/11aj/lad/.l�tru/1e/sb52t1 1 .d. .d1° • HCD Memorandum on SB 812 Analysis of Special Housing Needs for Persons With Developmenetal Disabilities li l //w w licd,ca.:.gov/1i .)d/ otiecC`over. tta Sll1812. .)d1° • HCD "Constraints: Housing for Persons with Disabilities” 38 62 //www,li cd,Ca.,...ggL/hj)d/h ousi rill c1cmcra2/(,'( .)N disab . .ifiticsj)hL ............................................................................................. . ....... ....................... ..) • HCD Reasonable Accommodation Model Ordinance w w 12 c d C a EASONABL,E ACCOMO 1.)ATION 0.11Z.1)INANCE,por ....................................................................................................................................................................... ..... • City of Santa Rosa, Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance: O nefits/Reasofiable Acconunodatiofi Ordifiafi ,c....c. S a i I . ............"... • Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc., "Fair Housing Reasonable Accommodation: A Guide to Assist Developers and Providers of Housing for People with Disabilities in California" 1,2.ttai//w w w,i n I�ias I a,�or /1�)c�vc I o)c�r(-i t�i d�6 1) 0�5, )df 39 63 Second-Unit Law (AB1866) ° nat-y ndd'Bene it : AB 1866 amended the state's second-unit law by requiring local governments with a local second-unit ordinance to ministerially consider second-unit applications without discretionary review or a hearing. Jurisdictions without a second-unit ordinance are required to ministerially consider second-unit application according to state standards. Second units approved ministerially are statutorily exempt from CEQA2. AB 1866 also clarified existing housing element law to allow local governments to identify the realistic capacity of new second-unit development to meet its RHNA requirements. Jurisdictions may count the realistic potential for new second units within the planning period considering the following: the number of second units developed in the previous planning period an estimate of potential increase due to policies,programs, and incentives that encourage the development of second units other relevant factors Potential Poli ie : • Adopt a second-unit ordinance that includes, in addition to elements required by state law, design/development standards, zones permitted for second units,permit procedures, and incentives that encourage the construction of second units • Review existing second-unit ordinances for compliance to updated law and make necessary amendments • Include incentives in second-unit ordinances such as: • flexible zoning requirements and development standards • reduced or modified parking requirements • reduced setback requirements • prioritized processing • certain fee waivers of developments that involve second units for low or very-low income households • allow for owner-occupancy in either primary or secondary unit • Create an amnesty program to allow owners of illegal units to legalize their units • Provide informational materials to homeowners and developers to market second-unit construction that includes a second unit application, explanation of the application process, and benefits/incentives of constructing or legalizing second units • HCD Memorandum on AB 1866 Second Unit Law and the Creation of Second Units in Meeting Regional Housing Need: w 11„cd.ca, Gov/h )d/ljmd mcmo ab 1866.L)d�f • HCD "Second Units" ll1t econidunfts X1,1,1.1. • San Mateo County 21 Elements, Second Units Memo"Best Practices and Sample Housing Element Language" 1.111 ://www.21 clea�iien�its.coa�n/Down�iload docunien�it/485..Best....11:1ractices for ccor d !jf it fact 511cet 1oa 5afI.. M a.l.c o C 0t.l!1..t jittill • City of Santa Cruz, Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Program: tttl // ww ltyot ltrutac ,tjz co al1/tnu dc as ... l., Section 15268 of thee CEQA guidelines and Section 21080(b)(1)of the Public Resources Code: 17 1 h(ni , . 40 64 • City of Santa Cruz, Accessory Dwelling Units Zoning Regulations: b. ocumctaid::::::::8862 • Marin County, Second Units Amnesty Program: w w 2 1 c I c 1.12 c t i t s c o 1.1.2 o w t..i I o..a d .d..o c t.1112 c t i t../..4 8 3 A 11.2 t.- t..Y jl)rogj.� For Second I.Jpits Fact Shect,litfill ................................ ................................ .. .... .. ... .................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ • University of California, Berkeley, Center for Community Innovation, Yes in My Backyard.- Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units, Link: berkele edu./r orts/secotida dF 41 65 State Density Bonus Law S°mot°ttnat y and' ene It : In 2010, the state updated is density bonus law which requires local jurisdictions to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers of affordable housing who commit a certain percentage of units for persons who fall within certain income levels. Density bonus may only be approved in conjunction with a development permit. Density bonuses are granted when a developer agrees to construct a housing development that includes at least one of the following: 5% of total units for very low income households 10% of total units for low income households 10% of total units (within a common interest development) for moderate income households Local jurisdictions must also provide bonuses in response to certain land donation, if developments include the construction of a childcare facility, and certain developments of senior housing. Concessions and incentives will be granted at the applicant's request based on specific criteria. San Mateo County's 2 b �;;?lea;��„ents provides a breakdown of how concessions and incentives are granted based on the following criteria: ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Target Group* Target Units Density Bonus Concessions or Incentives Very Low Income(i) 5% 20% 1 10% 33% 2 15% or above 35% 3 Lower Income(2) 10% 20% 1 20% 35% 2 30% or above 35% 3 Moderate Income (3) (condominium or planned developent) 10% 5% 1 20% 15% 2 30% or above 25% 3 California Civil Code Section 65915 applies only to proposed developments of five (5) or more units. (1)For each I%increase over 5%of the Target Units the Density Bonus shall be increased by 2.5%up to a maximum of 35% (2)For each 1%increase over 10%of the Target Units the Density Bonus shall be increased by 1.5%up to a maximum of 35% (3)For each I%increase over 10%of the Target Units the Density Bonus shall be increased by I%up to a maximum of 35% 42 66 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Target Group Target Units Density Bonus Concessions or Incentives Senior Housing (1) 100% 20% 1 Land Donation (2) 10% (very low income) 15-350"0 . 1 .... ....... .... . ... ..t .. io ... . ......... ... ... ...i .... �...Co ... � ...... (1) 35units dedicated osenrhousing asdef inednCivil de Sections 51.3 and 5112 (2)For each I%increase over 10%of the Target Units the Density Bonus shall be increased by I%up to a maximum of 35% Potential Policies: • Amend density bonus ordinance to demonstrate how compliance with updated density bonus law will be implemented • Identify specific incentives and concessions within the ordinance to encourage the construction of or conversion to affordable housing units, such as: • reductions in site development standards or modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions • reductions in setback or square footage requirements • approval of mixed use zoning if it will reduce costs of housing development • other incentives that result in identifiable cost reductions Model Pt-dinance , 1':1sef l So t-ce : • California Government Code §65915: 1...jj.t://www.le inufo.ca_ $ov/cam lain/dis.tla cove?sectiont ov none t G5t1t11 E>E>t1t1t1 111e ::65915 65918 • San Mateo County 21 Elements: httut://www.21 clements.com/Download document/515 State on l,aw.lntDy �sml ...........e • ABAG's Housing Element Tool Kit"Density Bonuses" nttlt // wwag.ctt„gov/.tlanunuinu,/toolkit/24denusit .lntnntl • American Planning Association's Model Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance: nttlt // ww l lanununnug.2f$/research/s.,mart$rowtln/.tdF% ection44. .tdl° 43 67 Permanently Affordable Homeownership — Community Land Trusts Sununat- A community land trust(CLT)is a nonprofit organization formed to hold title to land to ensure long- term availability for affordable housing or other community uses. CLTs acquire property through public or private donations of land or use government subsidies to purchase land on which affordable housing can be built. The homes are sold to low or moderate-income families, in accordance with the deed restriction, and the CLT retains ownership of the land and provides long- term ground leases and stewardship to homebuyers in return for a minimal fee. The CLT restricts the resale of the home to a formula-driven price and retains an irrevocable option to purchase to ensure future affordability. CLTs have been a particularly strong and unique development option in the San Francisco Bay area, where the land trusts are able to provide a variety of homeownership opportunities not often available to low and moderate income individuals in areas experiencing a rapid rise in land value. CLTs in the Bay Area have been able to provide housing opportunities in the form of single family homes, limited equity condominiums, limited equity housing cooperatives, and zero equity cooperatives to low and moderate income individuals. These options allow low and moderate individuals and families the opportunity for homeownership at a lower buy-in than many other formers of ownership. Since the early 1970s, Community Land Trusts have been used to permanently preserve affordable ownership housing for low and moderate-income families. Recently, there has been a national boom in CLT formation with nearly 20 new community land trusts being created each year. Two key policy needs are driving this new interest in CLTs—particularly in jurisdictions with a social priority of promoting homeownership for lower-income families and a fiscal priority on protecting the public's investment in affordable housing: • Long-term preservation of subsidies. With local governments now assuming greater responsibility for creating affordable housing,policy makers must find ways to ensure that their investments have a sustained impact. CLT ownership of land, along with long-term affordability constraints over the resale of housing units built on that land, ensures that municipally subsidized homes remain available for lower-income homebuyers for generations to come. In the Bay Area market rate home prices are outstripping growth in incomes, as shown by the median home price to median income ratio growing from 4.9 in 1999, to 6.8 by the end of 2012. • Long-term stewardship of housing. Preserving affordability requires long-term monitoring and enforcement, an administrative burden that local governments are neither equipped for nor generally interested in taking on. CLTs are well positioned to play this stewardship role by administering the municipality's eligibility, affordability, and occupancy controls, while also backstopping lower-income owners to protect subsidized homes against loss through deferred maintenance or mortgage foreclosure. Potential Poli ie : e Promote the formation of start-up CLTs: • Facilitate public information/outreach activities • Create municipally supported CLTs • Provide start-up financing • Commit multi-year operational funds 44 68 o Commit project funding and/or municipal property for permanently affordable ownership housing in the CLT model • Subsidize affordable housing development by either donating land and buildings from the municipality's own inventory to a community land trust or selling the properties at a discount • Regulatory concessions: Municipalities sometimes support development of CLT homes by reducing or waiving application and impact fees, relaxing zoning requirements for parking or lot coverage, and offering other regulatory concessions • The City of Petaluma has encouraged developers of several subdivisions to meet its city- mandated inclusionary requirements by conveying homes to the Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County. Under these agreements, developers sell the homes to CLT-selected buyers and simultaneously donate the land under the homes to the land trust. This program allows developers to meet their inclusionary requirements without having to monitor and report. CLT oversight is also in the jurisdiction's best interest because many for-profit development companies dissolve after they complete their projects. See 2.3 page 9 of clemep ;,2009 2Qb1 llo • A broad overview of how cities and CLTs are partnering to create and preserve permanently affordable ownership housing: "The City-CLT Partnership: Municipal Support for Community Land Trusts" 1...11...1... s://www.lin�icoNin�ist.cdu/.ubs/d1/1395 712 Cit C]f..,r ivic F ............ • A very useful policy paper with several case studies of cities using the CLT model for TODs is "The Role of Community Land Trusts in Fostering Equitable, Transit-Oriented Development: Case Studies from Atlanta, Denver, and the Twin Cities" bttts://www.lirucolrr�n�ust.cd��/t��bs/dl/22�3 1579 IfIicicy W III b 3:IE�1 N b.ldl° • The City of Irvine plans to place most of the inclusionary housing units constructed in future years into the CLT's portfolio. • The city council of Washington, DC, committed $10 million in public funds to help subsidize the first 1,000 units of resale-restricted, owner-occupied housing developed by City First Homes, a District-wide CLT that plans to eventually create 10,000 units of affordable housing. • The City of Minneapolis provides interest-free, deferred loans with a 30-year term to the City of Lakes CLT. The loans are forgiven at maturity as long as the CLT consistently meets the city's performance standards. 45 69 Home Sharing ° nr nat rrnrl'Ben it : Home Sharing partners those who have space in their home with those who need an affordable place to live, turning existing housing stock into a new affordable housing option. While the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Mateo County is $2095, the rents in home sharing range between $600 and $800. As a result, home sharing is one of the few affordable housing options available in San Mateo County. An example of this is HIP Housing in San Mateo County. Established in 1972, it is a well- established program with many best practices. The program provides criminal background checking, income verification, mediation, living together agreements and long-term case management to ensure the best matches possible. As a result, the average home sharing match is 2.5 years. Outcome data from HIP Housing's work indicates that of those placed through home sharing: 90% are low-income 0 20% low (80%AMI) 0 25%very low (50%AMI) 0 46% extremely low (30 or below AMI) 53% are seniors o 70% of the home providers are seniors 38% are disabled 58% are at risk of homelessness 8% are homelessness 61% are female head of households In San Mateo County, every municipality benefits from the HIP Housing Home Sharing Program. Someone in Pacifica could be matched with someone in Daly City; someone from Menlo Park with someone from Redwood City; San Mateo and Belmont. Preschool teachers, law clerks, students, construction workers, medical assistants, bank tellers, home health aides, seniors and single parents use the program as well as many others. Home Sharing meets the housing needs of low, very low, and extremely low-income people. Because so few affordable housing options exists in San Mateo County, it is important that Home Sharing be included in every city's housing element as part of the policies and practices they employ to ensure that there are housing options for those at every income level, including those at the lowest income levels. While Home Sharing may not create RHNA-recognized units, it is a vital option to be considered in any municipality's strategy to meet the growing need for housing, especially in communities that have numbers of residents that are considered "house rich, cash poor." Potential Policies: e Prominently list local home sharing organization's Home Sharing Program when addressing the housing options and needs for people who are: 46 70 • Homeless • At risk of homelessness • Seniors • Female head of household • Low, very low and extremely low income e Sample Language: [Insert City Name] supports [local home sharing organization] Home Sharing Program as part of a collection of policies,programs and practices for addressing the housing needs of those at the lowest income levels including seniors, those living with disabilities, those at risk of homelessness and female head of households. • Housing Elements currently in place for the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, and San Mateo • HIP Housing, San Mateo County, link: ' ✓.l).Jl.Lfioul irru .o l 47 71 Additional Useful Sources e Public Interest Law Project, California Housing Element Manual, 3rd Ed., November 2013, Link: httV�),//pil )caor /w ) 0 it fl t P12qd'5z2Q j.3/1 I/Cali Forgia III ottsi f _I .. A," !�. ! �Z ............................................................................................................................................... E d November 20.1.. ...................................................................................................................................3.. ....f 0 Public Interest Law Project, California Housing Element Manual Appendices, 3rd Ed., November 2013, Link: 21B C III t I ots'f ........ ... ........ ............ ................................................................................................................................................................... ............................ Element Mafwal 3rd Eda 0 21 Elements, San Mateo Countywide Housing Element Update Project, .w..w..w..,.2 I cl c I I.).c I I t..s c o]I..) e Association of Bay Area Governments, Blueprint 2001 for Bay Area Housing, L s/blujc')rinthttnl 48 72 Attachment Draft Housing Element 2015-2023 Link tnDocument: 73 Cl.tlfo Staff Re,.port DATE: December 10, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Steele, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Study Session on Public Use Options at the Fon-ner Public Utilities Sites at El Camino and Chestnut RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the information in this staff report at the study session, and provide direction on staff s recommended locations for a new Police Station, Main Library, and Park and Recreation center. Information in this staff report is intended to be broad and general only, and will need to be refined over the next few months, depending on Council direction. BACKGROUN D/DI S CU S SION In a Council Study Session on August 20, 2014, members of the City Council and the Successor Agency Board discussed possible public uses at the former Public Utilities Commission sites adjacent to El Camino Real and Chestnut Ave. A Long Range Property Management Plan, approved by the Redevelopment Agency Oversight Board, is being reviewed by the State Department of Finance, and contains a component that authorizes the Successor Agency to retain the foriner PUC parcels for a period of time in order to obtain a master developer to develop the sites. The El Camino Chestnut Plan contemplates higher density, mixed use at the site. Due to the narrow shape and steep elevation of the parcels near El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, economic analysis indicates a developer would likely prefer not to utilize these parcels as part of a mixed use development, as they would be expensive to build on. Therefore, these parcels could be contemplated for public use. Staff believes that public facilities at these parcels, depending on the type of public use, could make the overall development more attractive for private developers. Council provided direction to staff to consider options for a new Police Station, as highest priority, followed by a new Main Library and a Parks and Recreation facility. In consideration of Staff Report Subject. Study Session on Public Use Options at the Former Public Utilities Sites at El. Camino and Chestnut Page 2 of 3 the upcoming need to sell the former Redevelopment site at 200 Linden Avenue, the relocation of the Infona,ation Technology Department was included in this study. Another option, to talk to the County regarding the possible use of the Saar Mateo County Northern Courthouse on Mission Road,has been omitted for consideration in this site study, as the County plans to use that site. Public Options at the PUC Site Staff obtained the services of Group4 Architecture to assist departments in compiling programming needs and modelling square footage combinations at the sites under review for the City departments that Council identified as priority for a new facility. Due to department prograrn requirements and the size and layout of the PUC site, the PUC site alone would be insufficient to house the minimum program functions of all departments, so the use of the Municipal Services Building site was factored into potential space. Because the Municipal Services Building (MSB) was built in 1969 as a department share, and is not up to current earthquake safety standards, staff, for this exercise, asked the architect to only consider options that involve completely new facilities, i.e., only demolishment of the MS13. In all options considered, staff sought to house the police Department with the Information Technology Department, as both are considered mission critical functions, and should be housed in a secure facility that could withstand a mayor earthquake, to maintain functionality and responsiveness to the public in an emergency, In addition, the Police Department (PD) is a major client of Inftrrnation. Technology'(IT) after the Library, and due to the ability to share computer server space and a backup generator, IT and PD make logical sense located together. Study Session: The attachments to this staff report follow the basic presentation of information to the City Council at the study session, which is as follows: 1. Overview of PUC Site . Inadequacy of current departmental sites 3. Potential program areas that could be addressed with new facilities 4. Options for configuration at the MSB and PUC sites 5. Recommended option Staff Report Subject: Study Session on Public Use Options at the Former Public Utilities Sites at El Camino and Chestnut Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION This infortnation is all being provided as background. Council concurrence on pursuing next steps related to the recommended option is requested. Prepared by: Approved by Tien St Mike Futrell Fina�ftireetor City Manager Attachment: Materials fi-om Group 4 Architects AT/JS'MF:mc / / / / / / / / / / Sl1Thi SAN FRANCISCO P.11.C. FEASIBILITY STUDY j PROJECT SCHEDULE j j j j Ilk 111�1 jklad6rJPJ64 KO° 9/29 10/6 10/13 10/20 10127 11/3 11/10 11/17 11/24 12/1 j j ,,uu. uu, uu aw aw w. III j 11111 ml ll hl II lm III II IIII 111111111 m11111 II II Ill III III Ill II mhl Ell ml II IIII � j j •Draft Space Needs for the Library,Police Department and Packs and I j Recreation j •Draft CiOSrb Models I j j •4 Site Base D—ir s j g j •Meeting Agendas and Minutes j •Site pnd Massing Strategies for up ro4sires , Ij •Preli'mina Pro'ecr Costs Models{or Site Ij ry j jStraleg" j •Draft Evaluation Criteria and Mal is Matrix j :. •Meeriny Ayendas and Minutes j •Plans and reohnicel specification documents{or I j j ! B.Hdin De'artmenr Review. j j g P j •One set o{dlgdal documents. I j • d U ate r'ecr bud et. Project Management Team Meetings j :. P of g I j , I, •Updated P d p schedule. hedule. I j I PMT#1 PMT#2 PMT#3 Council 10/9 11/03 , City Ma nager Packet 11/24 12/3 Department Working Sessions , Session#1 10/27 Session#2 11/12 Sr dy5 o R.A—He 9 •Malys Si r ft PI badge •MSt—ing ss udy ProlecY Milestones g a c onf Council City Meeting m G u � j � j j 9 / 'v / / / / f f i a 1 �PI�i r, pq Q III VIII III�W"� III� III 111..5 Social Hall � U Catering Kitchen j Raised Platform Atrium Catering Kitchen `"Y °' a 11 ! filfiul 17,400 SP ;/ Butterfly Room / fl ,/, Detty Weber Room r/%i A .,eX�N /G✓j/ j 3,575 SP I✓. � P I.Ad 55 1 fi.,11 fi.,11 Mvll,"��u. Dellom Room r!���������%/i �,��/i ii n�ir� y'r�6u.Eli Soft Classrooms ii//����� / f. ,�,„ j 4,300 SP Ily tl �m Dance Studio � tl�i�otl.. CUlhUCIIIL j ,I CHAMBERS i/ � 7,600 SF NWiIIW"II @•u Offices JI wu ivaa 4,125 SF r' t, r /JJJ/iy oxislifirig ��A„La S11111 5ulllwkulllalll 4 333 S11111 i ✓ l ILru.11uuua au Id rig Sll , l eP ON r r„ i b l ,rl / >r ........................................ . /i IL.A'411�'ll.:"if” Classrooms Outdoor Play Area / Restrooms II Il,"YVUU,,",A4II"II @:aIII"�I t 8,700 SP fjx:uslluu°ug 0 auIV"' Suullkwk�u'11falll 8,700 5111 I ariin'u'lluuuay llYPa:uulldirig 0 In ","o1l..li°r3 IS1"'f „ s ,da Icwaasa o>lrh ® ' I Lab Space ace fI�I� IIIIflllll t v I i aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax " ' r' m „J!,"JG,,�' r €aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa' iru r r / I T / r / ex/ R III A113* r 2,700 SF j r/„r, ;<'�✓r, ..,1 I L AIw4 a I... Dance Studio c. i �r F / 3,000 SP l � a S OCll/ ILI1/JILJIL Lobby LOBBY Cafe 2,300 SIP j i.. .;j a inlliu°ua V Q sl4 5�ulllwku'llla=.,lll 8,3,33 5YI 1 11 rl lluuN aa llau � S l Va ","o 1, Cotlre clltse s T clIIII 0 0 0 S III” oiire ECE TotaIIII 48,700 5 III atlre II New ����II 56,700 r�,�now�,.w,�nuumu�mx 2,750 sill: d I r / o�w w n: w it a / , / �s r N6 r / I uu,U99) I ol. n r r W/ r e J r eau u` Public Entrance& Lobby Technologyrand Training Center 5,000 SIP ! Friends Bookstore 1 Friends Workroom I 800 SIP Maker Space m 2,700 SIP ///rrrrrrrrrrr� AIDU LT Adult collection rrrrrr�r 9 Study Rooms l SIP , 12 ..m., oJ� III i III III L.�.III S Children's s collection %/' Children's Story Time Area " Y Computer&Homework tenter p � I Preschool Area children's Study Room ( 9,600 5P PROJECT READ Literacy collection&tenter Literacy Staff ', wnum 1P150SIP r ( ,,;,,;,4' Young Adult Area ; �I 2,650 SIP J I �� conference Room Multi-purpose Room Kitchen 6,150 511 rrrrrrr� I l - � ^^ ^^ Admin Offices w IIII IIII IIII IIII"���� l 0 iF Staff Workareas „nN �r Technical Processing dial ) 1P9fi01%/d '91)�y;,,, �p��Yh Jrrr Locker Area and Staff Lounge aarl0 I r��rrrr //irriirviirr f Restrooms I ;� 6,500 5P ," " ' Illl3AClllh( 01111ll ...Public Restrooms „,N: Computer/Telecom Room 1 ' IIII U wIIII�� �3 Shipping and Receiving ' t ",. 2,850 5P �, arr yall�pmwt�wnuwD,g{(� «s" „..,, „Fl, a u �:. D: :.: : ,% : : :D: 4 �,p 4 �C.�gull wmu.IILwIIN:nIIN.e:ll „r9Y 9Y9Y9Y�„ull II�uwII u u ua: .��I,C�C: AS11folril Ila'aalu„Ilr,:uuva�r 94 ullu / P ,.P ” � Il4a,,,.w II uIInIlcrruy Mine R,duca vh m II oaol,d Mwh N n II 750 SF, /,S1: I � rrr W,” r r / r I „ / I / rte, rr rr „ rrrrrrrrr ; rrrrrrrrr„ r , r l FIRE DEPARTMENT MI I Uvmnnm AVO mo° Nrc N f uu Iluuu ullullllll W uul uu ;I 11, lllllllm luau uuu luau II11111111111 mm Illlllli FUII(IIIIIIII VIII uII uiiiiii ulllllu a uuuu 1111111 IIFUII IIIIIIII iiiiii �, A1lIP111111P lIII12A1111 US 111143AU1f Apparatus Boy ' au m 3,35®5F It1111!11!1 It S,0 1 A11111 Decontamination Room t IIII 1 ��° IC 11 Extractor(Decon Washer) j � Turnout Room r � IIII U IIII 111/11111 1111N 11111 375 5F �! III Ill III II I" (Ill! Medical Supply Room n, " f captains Office "ry Medic Office � l 600 5F / ! m ILIIVIIIN G Laundry Room UAIRTII Bathroom&Shower Dorm m(. Dayroom/Kitchen Exercise room - 3,100 5F wwwuu�mWNmwwwwwwwmw o ,', S,U III Ill,11D 11111T Wor1shop/ ,• Illlt IIII a Maintenance ... ... uuuuuumuU4Ngp�wriflIIl4NNpnp 47��pIV S�allka�IllN.mlllm�allll �f��f SII i X75 5F a�II II II II IIa�;U " P � " " � Exi Ilfiri Il aalullr.diri 110 NII rI n / f G Came: Spaces III III&III 7,700 SIP: n m as �aa III� rvaan , I�I11 One M—III vNna m i c 111-at,d vrvvllm II+,N :,a IIm,prvav nvry vn 100 SII I @II I�@NI I n , i i F, ! f✓ ! f /I 1 ri I(u� 'Mme'�N Nm4111 II'! + Get r Iulilll IIII ""' ���� ulilll iiiiiii "'o lum dlllul II IIII Iliiiil IIIIIIII IIII Vliu II lum VIII Iliiii �111� �/� u Illullu I I III III IIIIIIII I IIII III III I ulI � I S�rru„++,.. '�^ ,� � i POLICE DEPARTMENT IICI IIIIIIIIII III irlIlf ll"IIIII��'lllllllllllll Chief of Police J/+ Administrative Staff Conferece Room r �C�IJJIJ�J/L, / 1,900 SF � WWII- 0 P III I111A 11II 0 IM Officer Workspaces Prisoner Processing/Holding ,, �✓,i Vehicular Sallypart(2car) I� Report Writing Room Patrol Debriefing Room Training Area Sleeping Quarters �upppO�uC”' 9,200 SF II INII G III S"FlIIGAf"IIIGfIIINIIS Officer Workspaces "'j w w CIB Workspaces SffIII III GIII"f" p 'l SIII III villcIIII'i:S Property and Evidence Si Server Room �a 15,300 SF 11)111 S 11111INTC III Dispatch . Lobby COMMOIN All Lobby SF 'di jf, /d ,u w1i Soft Interview Room r, i((AiS Public Restrooms °olul9 + " Conference Rooms i i'yi i f 4 I Locker Rooms&Gym �° i d �A,li' d% J ➢ Kitchen/Breakroom Gun Range/Office/Armory SWAT Room "I 1�,650 SF.... Au Ilouua 29,207 IIV"� SwulI III m:mf 111 39,250 SllIll 4iS �uuio P �u.ulluuuap II�'a:aiu IlMUUUip u, �f u�...ouuu / *IID M III III IIISII"IIfMir111110,l1 Administrative Staff + r 150 SF f ^ P Il.111A 'III 0 111 Officer Workspaces Sleeping Quarters ism 925 SFr,,, II WIIIAIII SYY'III G AT'III0 IIINIIS Officer Workspaces w II, SffIII2III2GIII" CIB Works p aces i SllllllfGIIIIII' Records @Ft cF5ifklsEvidence r Tn 1,555 SF i y it I COMMOIN All roe, 1,300 SF Ill A u 5 I11iril,p 0 SIV Swulllulllolll 111 3,900 SIII A Ilduua;p Ihaaiullr.iiuua,p 0 SII, err: ........ ......................... ......... .............. "ire SlIll "1 39,25 0 SIIF �tiNl 13 11 S 311 i rm� olre Multi-City 0III i %i" r �r }VProauVP%i//��� IIIIIII Ilmlllllllll�����ll IIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIII IIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIII�Illlllllllllml��ll���lllllllllll IIIIIII IIII IIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIII I IIIIIIIIII Illluu RIIII � IIIIII IT DEPARTMENT 111,If.'MIllkrlNllllSIlIQ1'A11IIfi:YIkNk Director 1� �$ IT Manager � Admin Assistant II �u Reception Conference Room 950 5F iry GIIIS GIS Specialist CIS Scanner/Printer 275 5F P hi SYSTEMS AND Project Manager � System Administrator PC TECH PC Technician Multi-Media Recording Training Areai� Gl, Tech Room 1,600 5F S'TAIII��III�� SIlj%ClII;iS Lobby Testing Area ,k Lunch Room/Meeting Room 875 5F G BACK OF Storage Rooms HOUSE/ Vault Server/Telecom Room STORAGE Restrooms � r1 i iii ff l!/ 1,700 5F ' jli N1,f l�h �u x u Ilifiri g 4,878 511 SU113111ollialll 51400 Sllh d xo Ilifiri p IlI lkhrig SIP �r�i I'irrrq �I� f Coiire Spaces 111 5,400 SIIF ��ljjj ri M / (f a ,°Q k,e i, kf ��1�„0 �0/�Var�azR«hres0al�fbOir„pii�i���%i/�r I� t G� �y t,� d� ~ 111011 }I�� I 1�1 X111111�1 i(�rrr,S�Irc llfllll11111111���, ijpllr�rd ul ! t I�u IryryII I Ih � „II llll�%Illl1111111l111 I Ji IIII I I 11111111111 i�� 111111 Ikii lull 1111111 ��� II.I.I.I I uVpip f(f 1f ��,I.I.IIII IIIIIIIIIII III 1( I.I.I.I.I I.I.I IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII I.I.I. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II II II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I:::: 1111114 �fi ilk ! 1111+r � ! 11111111 .1 1�\111111111111 ��,1 �1111111�1111111111111111I11�11 111 1 . I y. . ti :e 1� i d N�.,�,,,� �� �„-, "✓r�,� ,n� i=,: ,�..,,. { �, .r ^ s,•,,,ec � .:.... ..:. ..N...+: � era w i 1 , n / a Y { fnr � r 1 li r , r r r o ,iii err,, 2 r i rC✓ 1 � l r 1 w r l r. r ^ J III IIII ,, . I i a /3 r r,r l/ r i r, Irc IIIIHill �r „ . .. /!/ , ,. .. / . , ,. .. / . , ,. .. / . , ,. .. / . , ,. .. / ,,, / . ,,, ,. / ,.,. // . ,.,. // .. / ,. /, ,. /, ,. /, /, /, /, /, / /, / /, / /, / /, / /, / .,.,. /, / .,.,. /, / ,. /, / i. /, / i. / i. i. / i. / i. / i. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, // i.... / i, i /� /� �j//����/ , , � �� Yr ���,� � �� a ,�,�, �, , � ,.. .. �. I a� a. . ,,, .�� �ry ��. ., �.,�, ,; �� .t: ,,, ..,�. � �r �, � �„� .. ., � �� �, �. g w ,;� W w ,, � .,�,� ., , s. ,,...,. : i ,�: .., .. Iry ,,, �, ,� , � ,,. ,, xw ,. � ri�. .., .;. s i•w, �, ,.� Y, w � ., � . .- , 1 � ' .. ». i� �,� ��M Yea � , � Y %� �,, ,fi �. �; a��,,,,. ., �, �. ,, __ �� _.. �, .,« � .. ., ,, 7 ., � ., , v w.. .,, a,4 �� „, .. .� � �,, . ,�, , ,. � , „ �, , . ��` , ., b , �., , �.w , , ,. u .,. �� �� , �: x �_ �, .�,. �, �, � .. ., ,, ,. �, .� � A ,�, „„ �,,. � ,' � ,.. /i/ , ,, i /i ,, /,, � * , �� i �n ., ,,,,,, III III,' IV �, i ,. �, ,; /� i,, � „. r . ;�. � ,� ,/ /, � .,. ,, ,l , i �� J, i � _� / , ,/ , �,. � , ,� �/i ,,,, �, %,,, _� �. /. , . , ,, ,, ,, M ,,� ,,. w, � „, ✓, H ,��,, „, i �„r i �� „ .� ,� ...�: r i,� � i ie ,.. a �dv ,.. ,; a / M i i i f� ,.,,.1 ,./,.✓ .Ni i ,.., .,,i. Y r � Pion ....., , � � i... i„ ,.o /i u, III,,,III III, III [[[[[[[ h [[[[[[ M,,. ,, [[[[[[[[[[[,,,,,,,,,,,,, � ,. ;%�„ ,,.,, �. -. �..., „�,.:, �„ .;, .. '' ;;urn:,. r.,.. ,� v „� � i r � i� €€€„ r t „, �,- �� � i � � , r.. ,.., ::.:,. � .. » rr,,,.. I� r n ., ry �� iii iIV / `wYrw r i/,,, p...., iii i ( ':� ,,,,,,:.. N i/,.. W iJ r / ,, i4 i o. � /„ w �i � � i l/ f� �� w � /r i i ., �, l� rrr ., � �b !! � � r�, � y ,� ��,�� ! o n„. r ,w, ,MAa- r �'' „I .,, r. , ,. p �„ � r I � i li ,, s- , , �, � �, 9 s. s �,, m -� m,. r u,- ,. .„ f �. r I /- i o � � ,,aw.fr.,�, �� r r a � �., m � ,., ., �f� .. ., ,,. ��� .. !' m :, w � IIIIII,� i w �,� ,, „,. ,.. , i rs W � -,.p �, ; / ��� r � � a ������ ,iii r. vi i H .. , . i eu ;�„ / � J iit .. .�����, a �,�� i ,. � �. � � � u� i. ,,�� r� �„` „� » � ,� � <,,,, � ,� ii ', � N �„ i ( J �� )�� �. �. i ' � .. i ii � ., ,, � s �� / ,, VIII i m l/ u a w m i 1,l,Jr i� ✓ i � ,,.. � a l ,.lr, fri llJll,11 i ,,,/r .r [[ [[...� i � i �r .�s ii r IY ,,,, .,, � ^.0 jl� r � 1 ,., ��„ [[[[. emu i�-., ��, .r,� �� .�m w uu!� m �, ... A� c,,,. ,.,„,,, ,,, ,. �, u( m d �,,. �, .. �,, ,- J yq J' J � / J /2 r 1 ;c / .,. <.i i, i i „,,, i � ; /i/ / � //, // �� f ��,, i ,. ' i� , s / «„ , , ,,,,, _ �_ �,. �� fi w. 1 � , , +�� :r 00 Il i ����"� � � o ��„ � 1 ! �,:, �, �� L l �. �, , I I ;iii,,, �„ i i�a..u m � ,,�, � ., d �, f a �. III ,ii off II ,i � i � ' �>_ i �� � 1 i �. � , � u � ,, � J I I �, i,, � �� � ���I ) i l�r, ,,, / �, / , , i., a i � 1 � r r i i � �„ .�, !� ,t /,. <, i,r ,. � ,,, i „� � / i/i J [[[€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ i I JJ� [[[[........................ „ai .„ ,,,��������a�a�i���,,,�,,,����% �///// ��% ////////���� ///////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////�///////////////////////////////// ���1 �f , � �. i i , , i , i , , , , , , , , , , , / , , , , , , , , ,,, ,,,,,,, „//�/////////�%// /////O/%�O///�0///���/0/////%///////%///0//%///////////////////////////O/�� <� ,. , . .� ,�,,,>, �, d ..�..e. ,,, �.- � �r � .:. _�.., ,�, �� _„�� ��� ... � �, � ..:-� r� ., � � r; w ..,. _.�..... l W �� `., � ��,� „ � �.�,� � r ,,,... �����, ., ��.,� ..,.w r uh ..._.� ,°°_ ... �� �ru III� V� 1'�, A� � V �, � � �,,. r, � ;,, t .,,: i ��� �� �,; ,�;: �� �,,- i ... 'C� :,; �,,, h. �.. �. � �� ,< i I �I ., � � �� ��. � �,o,r �:. w � � ����� ... o. I L a ,, �” �, , �� r M I � .c .. � ��� i i� mw � � � a [[[[[[, � � r r ,�i , ✓ Iry iy,, ;" n I w �� .. � �i � .. �� ., i �� .r� „u � v� .�. ��- „. ,.., � N„�,iM i „M � x ., �,. �4 ,, _,, ,� fi, s ,�,<,,, , .,� � ,�r �� i ,. „ ,n„. ,�,,:tea .., $��` �,. /,.,.. ,,,... � ,. d � � „.. urn ��.., ,;;, i. ",..- ,,�� ,.... . ..,,. ,,, �, � �u ,., c. � ,,. ,,� � w .. �d � i - �, �.., � :.� 1 '�, � . ,a .., ,,.. .� �. // 1 �- r N ,,, �_, �... r. ,�,� n �. r ,., .� ,� .,M.., i ,;,. . i � - ,.,,m �'.... [[[[[€€ _ >” �. i , �� � ...� , i i i /, ,. i r .. i .. ,.>,. w�, .,. � d . u 4. ,,, /r .., ��- ,. w ,� .. � .. ,,. �� / �� i, I r , �. �, ) i �'� i, rl ,, �u w 1��� III ' �r,. „' „� „,ice ,, �l , � � „ ;,, %° �� '� � / r � ,,,�� ., w �.. � „/ .,�� �. � //- .— �r- , �.. .. , ,. .� ,,. i, i, ,. u,, G -,,,, ,,, , a�r ,.. .� �� , » ' ,. I / ,,, i .. .. ', iii€ ��r - iia”, .��.e i� � .,,.�,. � l ,, ii �r � ,,..., ;„. �. ,� r ,,... r, � �, �.� .. � ,.i r.. ,. � f ,, "., ,,, ., .o�. N ,.. „.r, r I ,, Y.,. .,mow ,, ,. r ,, ��� ��� � �... ., .., i� ,� r„ y �” w u, ?� �� -,, amw... ,. III, III,,, III,,,III,,, III III,,,III"�” [[[[[[[[[[[[[[� ,,,, .. ,. , „.,,..,. ,aa, ,,, , ,,,,,,€, I ,,.,i,, a .. rn i c. .�-' ,%' „ , , „,), . � r � ,�,.- iu �, � < ”"i i 0 ii, P.,„ �� �� .� III,,,III III, � , , .- dui ; /� , ra i. v � i-. I 3 � , , •.�. r I �i, � � � l aru „ r„ a ,,, r i, i �� i t r n /i ,�,, � � 1 ., � r , � r �i �muumu i � l i i� �� ,�� ... �, �. ea V i rP� k d' � � �� i (III L,�,/ � � 9 , �� � r if i I i r, i, ��-- i „ � �. � I. i r ,,,,,���� / , ���� 5 �, ”: � u I u Y y„ � ...� � rr„ it ��, / vui%I �. ,... it /, �� d ,� �u '.,� q » ui � n ,� 1, �i I � J I, S ii � , � _I �� i r, � ,� � � �. i �%” u,> r � � u ± w ,, t � � _ r .. /,/ �, r. ,,, i..l�. ,r v / P 1 r. i W 1...... ../ l � ✓, ,....a � m. � w 1, ,: J,,,,, / e >,✓/. i / � s„ � � .. 1,,��i .... � �. .l � i i � .� ���/ , �, � d � , � , � , , �sr� �,�. �u _., ,�� „ i , �„ r II � ,�� %`" � i r " � . ,��, � m. �� i. �, U ra r, /. �� -,� r �� I i i ��,,, �� ,,, ,� .., �, u� �;� ,��, .. � n,,, �;, /,,, � ..,. „� ,c� 1 i i�, �. , � ,. i �r / � III III, iii. rl/ ,. L ., � �,,.. i � , l :;� ,, / r.�. i r� � r� %/ �� ii9 / / r ,, i „u i ���rr�, ai i „{, ri t �� �� / .. a� . . r , , i. �.,, i i r a �����:,, , Ili ,.�� I 1 rr l l �,/ i i i i x � � - � �/ / �� � R, ,,- w:=:: iii,,, r�i r � ;, ✓/ ,� i, �l I r„ ��i' �� �' i I I V ������ h r i ....a',,,; ��. �� ,I�� I ii t ,, � �, �, i ii/// " ' ��� �� � � i ,�� ! � r�. 1 / i �� �, ,,� � ��: ��� ,. , ! r4 l � ,i i ii,/ _. ,. t� , � i .�.� °� /.. l _. ,, i ,� I„� ,, , �i r �^ �� o � ri / / � i,�r r i/ii / , � � g °� �4 �� w �� i � � �, u � �� '� , ��. // / % J �I .:,���i��,� 6 v [[[[[[[[,,,:,, ....�uY / ,,�,,,;� d r. �,., �r � ..,rt/%/�///,��� � , � � .�4 m Na, . a �, � � � � � [[[;;� � � _, ,, ,,, � m. ,, � i � ��, ��' , li i % i ,, ��� I �, ,,/i �i., �� ���, � t�;,, i m „� ,. 1 n i �� a. i i �� /< [[[[[[� i, � / ,, i �� i r � k �. �, �,. d, ,, .W �� i � ,� r // � � � i r l t i / / i i G �. � R , 1 ,� � i � n � / i � ® � � � / � ,,�/ � �i 1 � �. i , � �. i/ i/ �' , , � ,, , i ® ,� ,,/ � � i,, �/ � �� „ ,. i � ua _ � ,. v� w_ m �� � i� 1 i ,. r /� �� _,, r �� �� i �, ,/� � , , /. . ,, .� ��� �� ,�� ���� �< � � , ��� H� �� �. �� ,. �� i ,, �� I , G_ � �� ��� �`� , . 1�� / � � ��, ., . r �� ���� �� / / a � ,. �� �� �/ ,� �� � y s ,, �� u i � � t , � , I � b , i �, „� � ,,. l� l r � , , �;; ��� � u� _ � � i �. ���� �, J /. r � / � / � i �i« t .� ii i �� I �rr �� i i �- �� il� aii ,,,,,, <; ��� ���5 I� ��� ., �� �� I�I ��� /,,, ,, r 0� .��� t l / ,� i J ,„ V� �� , �N4i,_ i �. ,. r � � u a r f �. � � � , i I ,,.>� r ��� ii, / Sri a,,, / � � i i � i% 1 r � ® / r � , �1 r /, ,� � ,i �� ,r,,; ��� W rt /� � i ,r i r��, �� a � � ,, �, ��a � �� ,,,� ,, ,,,,�����������.,,,,,,,,,,����//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// � ���%�/////////////// �/////////////////i� %/ din i r� p� s L u /i I / / / r P ,w i i / F / v c. / /i m s � i J IIIIII IIIIIIw IIIIII ,,, WN'EEL W lw i r i 1, r gyp, iu / r, / i n i / a IIII � � u ��IIII II uuuh „ IIIIIII IIII pllllllllllllllllllll IIIlpuuu II V Illl � rll 7111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII i ii l to 1 i 1 alai � i u 1lff�i/1l a ill l . 0 , .................................... FAR IBM r FD J; /m/ ///%%%///% , %l%%/////////%///lldli %/ P % r r B N t / I FAR FCC //%////r P i / r / I / T / u0 % ¢- FD Ul1UlU1111111�Ill11UlylllJUl ir So 1 IT I1%/ 1.1 S FAR FD PCB I l [r Ili P l l.f r, FAR / / FD MHH PD r 1 / J / 10��)%%% I i >f IT i r 11 ilk 1 co i YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY r, r I I i�rl Rog � atu i I � � a tll rlr ii tip/ tom �y `/���^ r �I� ��iJ�j�"�%� I� ' �' � r ,;,,,, ., `;'fib. W�`� .... `„ '4P4„'Y. •I�n�, � n rg o� r Yrt U n, r _A r Jr, h. PROJECT DATA re, o�F MSB SITE I'll SITES mm mmm��nr came, _ LIB+P&R TA He 2B srm/rn��,rn�r,e, PD,IT,FD Construction Hard Costs $43,779,000 $55,864,000 r,iok�e s,aoo�F Construction Contingency $4,551,000 $5,890,000 TE OE�E�oENT FF&E $1,727,000 $3,056,000 Soft Costs $16,517,000 $22,387,000 Pe X0,99,�F Pe Subtotal $66,574,000 $87,297,000 emo„o� 111111111111mmim lillip pil III f f f WWWWw�g�erd,i,re ro