Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-25 e-packet PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. PEDRO GONZALEZ Mayor KARYL MATSUMOTO Mayor Pro Tem MARK N. ADDIEGO Councilman RICHARD A. GARBARINO Councilman PRADEEP GUPTA Councilman FRANK RISSO City Treasurer KRISTA MARTINELLI City Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 7:00 P.M. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 AGENDA PAGE 2 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATIONS · Proclamation – Fire Prevention Month accepted by Fire Marshal Da Silva. · Presentation of Annual Beautification Awards by Beautification Committee Chair Dorothy Buhagiar. · Recognition of Esposto’s Inc. and Your Party Rental Co. for obtaining their Green Business Certification from the San Mateo County Green Business Program received by Gabe Esposto and Victor Esposto. · Proclamation – recognizing September 19, 2013 as Online Voter Registration Day accepted by Claudia López from the Office of State Senator Leland Yee. AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements. · Committee Reports. · Farmers' Market Student Volunteer Program. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of the meetings of September 11, 2013. 2. Motion confirming payment registers for September 25, 2013. 3. Motion to approve submittal of a Grant Application for the Safe Routes to Transit Cycle 5 Program. 4. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement between Nilmeyer & Nilmeyer Associates Architects and the City of South San Francisco for architectural design services for the retail space at 636 El Camino Real in an amount not to exceed $52,250. 5. Resolution accepting $99,215 for personnel overtime, training expenses, and high school traffic safety presentations from the State of California- Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for the “Selective Traffic Enforcement Program” and amending the Police Department’s operating budget for fiscal year 2013/2014. 6. Resolution amending the salary schedule effective July 5, 2013 by assigning a new salary range for sworn classifications in the Police Association Bargaining Unit pursuant to a classification and compensation study and the 2012-14 Memorandum of Understanding with the unit. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 AGENDA PAGE 3 7. Resolution amending the salary schedule effective July 5, 2013 by assigning a new salary range for all police classifications in the Public Safety Managers Bargaining Unit pursuant to the 2012-2014 Compensation Plan, and amending the Compensation Plan to add an additional classification. 8. Resolution awarding a Construction Contract to Ashron Construction and Restoration, Inc. of Milpitas, California, for the Repair of City Bridges Project (Project No. st1009) in an amount not to exceed $335,360; rejecting all bid protests; and amending the 2013- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget by accepting additional grant funds in the amount of $100,224 and addition of a City match of $11,495.69. 9. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Program Supplemental Agreement No. 022-N with the State of California, for the preliminary engineering of the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive traffic signal located in the City of South San Francisco (City). 10. Resolution amending the Economic & Community Development operating budget for fiscal year 2013-14 in the amount of $565,600 to provide for increased services and staffing. 11. Resolution approving an Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and the Town of Colma for Police Communications Services. 12. Resolution accepting $49,200 for personnel overtime and equipment from the University of California at Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SAFETREC) “Sobriety Checkpoint Grant Program” and amending the Police Department’s operating budget for fiscal year 2013/2014. PUBLIC HEARING 13. Resolution authorizing submittal of the 2012-2013 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 14. “Centennial Village” Safeway Shopping Center Shamain Partnership/Owner WT Mitchell Group, Inc,/Applicant 180 El Camino Real (APN014-183-110) P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001, ND12-0004 and DA13-0002 Resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND12-0004) and Approve Planning Project P11-0065:UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001 and DA13-0002 in accordance with the SSFMC Chapters 19, 20.090,20.300, 20.330, 20.350, 20.400, 20.440, 20.450, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 AGENDA PAGE 4 COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT P1 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER             Lead Agency:   Department of Economic and Community Development    Prepared By:   Housing and Community Development Division    Adopted By:   Resolution #  Consolidated  Annual  Performance  and  Evaluation  Report   (CAPER)    2012‐ 2013   City of South San Francisco   Fifth Program  Year CAPER  P2 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 1   Fifth Program Year CAPER    Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report includes Narrative Responses to  CAPER questions that CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG grantees must respond to each year in  order to be compliant with the Consolidated Planning Regulations.     TABLE OF CONTENTS  Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2  General Questions ........................................................................................................................................................ 4  Managing the Process ................................................................................................................................................. 11  Citizen Participation .................................................................................................................................................... 11  Map 1: Low‐Mod Census Tracts ................................................................................................................................. 13  Map 2: CDBG Funded Activities .................................................................................................................................. 14  Institutional Structure ................................................................................................................................................. 15  Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................................. 16  Lead‐based Paint......................................................................................................................................................... 18  Housing Needs ............................................................................................................................................................ 18  Public Housing Strategy .............................................................................................................................................. 27  Barriers to Affordable Housing ................................................................................................................................... 27  HOME/ American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI) ........................................................................................ 28  Homeless Needs . ....................................................................................................................................................... 28  Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) ................................................................................................................................. 30  Community Development ........................................................................................................................................... 31  Antipoverty Strategy ................................................................................................................................................... 49  Non‐homeless Special Needs ...................................................................................................................................... 50  Specific HOPWA Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 50  Attachment A ‐ Summary of Accomplishments .......................................................................................................... 51  Attachment B ‐ Summary of Housing Accomplishments ............................................................................................ 65  Attachment C ‐ PR‐26 Financial Summary .................................................................................................................. 66  Attachment D ‐ Public Notification Efforts ................................................................................................................. 69    P3 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 2 GENERAL    Executive Summary    Program Year 5 CAPER Executive Summary response:    Executive Summary  The 2012‐2013 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) describes how the City of South  San Francisco addressed the City’s housing, economic, and community development needs during the 2012‐2013  fiscal year. In April 2008, the City of South San Francisco adopted a Five Year Consolidated Plan (“Con Plan”) for  housing and non‐housing community development activities for 2008‐2013. The Con Plan identifies the  community’s needs in housing, neighborhood improvements, social services, and economic development. It also  sets priorities for addressing those needs and describes how the City will use Community Development Block  Grant (CDBG), HOME administrative funds, and local funds to address those needs. This document, the 2012‐13  CAPER, is consistent with the priorities established in the Con Plan. This plan covers all of the areas requested by  HUD and provides a wide array of information concerning the community and its residents.     Overview of 2012‐2013 Achievements   In fiscal year 2012‐2013, the City used CDBG funds, HOME administrative funds, and its General Fund to address  housing, homelessness, public services, economic development, and accessibility needs of the community. Listed  below is a brief overview of the City’s accomplishments for the year. (See Attachment A ‐ Summary of  Accomplishments for further information)    Housing  This year the City used CDBG funds to support the City‐Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation program and multiple  minor home repair programs.     City‐sponsored Housing Rehab Program  Issued 3 loans and completed a fourth loan that was started in FY 11‐12  Issued 3 Emergency Home Repair Vouchers  Issued 2 Debris Box Vouchers  Made emergency gas and sewer line repairs at city‐owned affordable rental units    Minor Home Repair Programs  ●   Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID):  The City uses CDBG funds to support CID’s  Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program. This year the HAM program provided accessibility  modifications to 8 South San Francisco households.     ●   North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) Home Revitalization Program: Although NPNSC  disbanded this program in December 2012 the program did provide free home repairs to 9 South San Francisco  households.     ●   Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP): The City uses CDBG funds to support three RTP programs: Attic Insulation  Program, National Rebuilding Day, and Safe at Home. This year the three programs provided free home repairs to  20 South San Francisco households.     P4 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 3 Homelessness  In prior years the City used Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds to support the operating costs of local homeless  shelters. However, due to the recent dissolution of the RDA, the City no longer had the funds to support any of  the operating costs of emergency, transitional, or service enriched housing programs. The City was unable to  offset the loss of RDA funds with CDBG funds because these activities fall under the CDBG public service category.  Under the public service category there is a far greater need than funds available as only 15% of the City’s grant  and 15% of prior year program income can be used on public services. Instead as part of the City’s FY 12‐13 Action  Plan, the City allocated funds to be used for homeless facility improvement projects as this activity doesn’t fall  under the public service category. This year the City provided funding for new flooring and mattresses to Shelter  Network’s Haven Family House, a transitional family homeless shelter.     Public Services  This year the City utilized CDBG funds , HOME administrative funds, and its General Fund to support eleven (11)  non‐profits that provided a wide range of social services to 3,695 South San Francisco residents. These services  included youth, battered spouses, disabled, home sharing, legal and general social services.     CDBG Funds  Bay Area Legal Aid  Health Mobile  John’s Closet  North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) – Social Services  Rape Trauma Services   Sitike Counseling Center   Youth Service Bureau    HOME Administrative Funds  Project Sentinel    General Fund  HIP Housing  PARCA  Star Vista    Sustain Economic Activities  CDBG funds were used to support the City‐sponsored Commercial Rehabilitation Program. This program provided  financial and technical assistance to businesses to improve the appearance in the historic downtown area.     Public Facility Improvements Projects  The City used prior year uncommitted funds and program income to make accessibility improvements at five (5)  City‐owned public facilities this year. Additionally, CDBG funds were used to rehabilitate and improve the Boys &  Girls Club and Haven Family House.     City‐owned Public Facilities   ●   Buri Buri Park Picnic/BBQ Area ADA Upgrades: CDBG funds were used to improve two of the picnic BBQ areas  at Buri Buri Park to make them usable and ADA accessible.     P5 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 4 ●   City Hall ADA Upgrades: CDBG funds were used to remove and replace the handicap parking lot and pathway  at South San Francisco City Hall in order to be ADA compliant. This project was started in FY 11‐12 and was  completed in FY 12‐13.    ●   Grand Avenue Library ADA Tables: The Grand Avenue Library received a printer table and adjustable tables  that comply with ADA height requirements.     ●   Magnolia Senior Center Elevator Refurbishment Project: CDBG funds were used to pay for the refurbishment of  the 25 year old elevator at the Magnolia Senior Center in order to bring the elevator equipment into compliance  with safety standards and ADA regulations.     ●   Orange Park ADA Upgrades: CDBG funds were used to replace damaged asphalt pathways at Orange Memorial  Park to make them ADA accessible.     Non Profit‐owned Public Facilities   ●   Boys & Girls Club: The Boys and Girls Club had a roof failure that caused severe water damage and mold to  portions of the roof and along a main exterior wall. Therefore the City issued the Boys and Girls Club two grants to  abate the mold and remove the damaged wall. Additionally, in FY 13‐14 the Boys and Girls Club will receive CDBG  loans from the City and County of San Mateo to rebuild the damaged wall and roof.      ●   Shelter Network Haven House Improvement Project: CDBG funds were used to replace the carpet with durable  flooring. The Haven Family House, located in Menlo Park, is home to 24 transitional family housing units that  serve South San Francisco residents as there are no transitional family shelters within the City’s jurisdiction. In  addition, funds were used to purchase new mattresses.     General Questions    1. Assessment of the one‐year goals and objectives:  a. Describe the accomplishments in attaining the goals and objectives for the reporting period.  b. Provide a breakdown of the CPD formula grant funds spent on grant activities for each goal and objective.  c. If applicable, explain why progress was not made towards meeting the goals and objectives.    2. Describe the manner in which the recipient would change its program as a result of its experiences.    3. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:  a. Provide a summary of impediments to fair housing choice.   b. Identify actions taken to overcome effects of impediments identified.    4. Describe Other Actions in Strategic Plan or Action Plan taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved  needs.    5. Leveraging Resources  a. Identify progress in obtaining “other” public and private resources to address needs.  b. How Federal resources from HUD leveraged other public and private resources.  c. How matching requirements were satisfied.      P6 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 5 General Questions  Assessment of one‐year goals and objectives  This year the City made tremendous efforts to implement activities and expend CDBG funds. Highlights of this  year’s accomplishments include using CDBG funds to improve seven different public facilities. The majority of  these were ADA improvement projects that also helped improve the overall function of the facility. For example,  the Magnolia Senior Center Elevator Refurbishment Project updated the outdated elevator to be ADA compliant  along with improving overall safety, aesthetics, and usability of the elevator. Additionally, at Buri Buri Park the  City made two unusable picnic/BBQ areas, due to broken tables and BBQ pits, usable for all City residents  including those with disabilities.        Additionally, the majority of the City‐funded non‐profits met or came close to meeting their goals. For those non‐ profits that did not meet their goals, the City is actively working with them to identify areas of improvement and  new outreach/marketing methods. Additionally, many of the non‐profits have expressed that the demographic  and income documentation they are required to collect has reduced the number of individuals they can report as  served. The City is also working with the non‐profits to make sure that future proposed goals are reasonable and  feasible.     The tables on the following pages describe the goals and accomplishments for each funded activity along with  how the City allocated and expended its funds. (See Attachment C for further financial information)     Magnolia Senior Center Elevator         Buri Buri Park        After Before  Before After P7 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 6                                                                                           Agency/Program FY 12‐13 Goals  (Individuals) FY 12‐13  Individuals  Served% of Goal PUBLIC SERVICES Bay Area  Legal Aid 6765 97% Health Mobile 140138 99% John's Closet 204155 76% NPNSC ‐ Social Services 2,6762,811 105% Rape Trauma Services 130136 105% Sitike Counseling Center 7036 51% Youth Service Bureau 5021 42% PUBLIC SERVICES (General Fund) HIP Housing 120144 120% PARCA 144126 88% Star Vista 1813 72% FAIR  HOUSING (HOME Funds) Project Sentinel 10050 50% Agency/Program FY 12‐13 Goals  (Households) FY 12‐13  Households  Served% of Goal HOUSING CID 208 40% City‐ Sponsored Housing Rehablilitation 312400% Habitat for Humanity*2 0 0% NPNSC ‐ Home Revitalization Program**15 9 60% Rebuilding Together ‐Attic Insulation Prog5 2 40% Rebuilding Together ‐Nat'l Rebuilding Day3 3 100% Rebuilding Together ‐Safe at Home 1515 100% Agency/Program FY 12‐13 Goals (Facilities) FY 12‐13  Facilities  Improved% of Goal PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL  FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS City‐Sponsored C o mmercial Rehabilitation3 1 33% Public  Facility Improvement Projects 2 7 350% *This activity was cancelled **This program was discontinued after Quarter 2 (December 2012) FY 12‐13 Goals and Accomplishments P8 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 7 Program Name Prior Years Uncommitted Funds FY 12-13 Funds FY 12-13 Program Income Total Funds Committed Funds Expended in FY 12-13 Balance Rebuilding Together Attic Insulation 26,966.38 - - 26,966.38 11,884.96 15,081.42 City Hall - ADA Pathways 19,355.00 - - 19,355.00 19,355.00 - Subtotal 46,321.38 - - 46,321.38 31,239.96 15,081.42 ADMINISTRATION CDBG Administration - 81,673.00 - 81,673.00 105,148.70 (23,475.70) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT City-Sponsored Commercial Rehab 162,573.51 - 12,426.49 175,000.00 34,219.03 140,780.97 HOUSING City-Sponsored Housing Rehab 166,255.90 50,838.41 82,905.69 300,000.00 358,450.66 (58,450.66) CID - 13,500.00 - 13,500.00 3,164.10 10,335.90 Habitat for Humanity*- 60,000.00 - 60,000.00 - 60,000.00 NPNSC - Home Revitalization Prog - 6,656.59 13,343.41 20,000.00 14,967.41 5,032.59 Rebuilding Together - NRD - 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 8,523.71 1,476.29 Rebuilding Together - Safe at Home - 20,000.00 - 20,000.00 19,711.34 288.66 Subtotal 166,255.90 160,995.00 96,249.10 423,500.00 404,817.22 18,682.78 PUBLIC SERVICES Bay Area Legal Aid - 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 10,000.00 - Health Mobile - 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 9,936.00 64.00 John's Closet - 5,000.00 - 5,000.00 5,000.00 - NPNSC - Social Services - 17,485.00 6,515.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 - Rape Trauma Services - 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 10,000.00 - Sitike Counseling Center - 8,898.00 - 8,898.00 8,896.38 1.62 Youth Service Bureau - 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 9,999.98 0.02 Subtotal - 71,383.00 6,515.00 77,898.00 77,832.36 65.64 PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Boys & Girls Club Rehabilitation 79,847.59 - - 79,847.59 79,847.59 - Buri Buri Park - ADA Upgrades 31,922.21 - 5,433.40 37,355.61 37,355.61 - Grand Ave Library - ADA Tables 4,676.08 - - 4,676.08 4,676.08 - Magnolia Senior Center Elevator 9,134.00 94,316.00 - 103,450.00 99,580.40 3,869.60 Orange Park - ADA Pathways 15,900.00 - - 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Shelter Network Haven House Flooring38,500.00 - - 38,500.00 38,500.00 - Subtotal179,979.88 94,316.00 5,433.40 279,729.28 275,859.68 3,869.60 TOTAL CDBG555,130.67 408,367.00 120,623.99 1,084,121.66 929,116.95 155,004.71 FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES Project Sentinel - 9,370.00 - 9,370.00 9,370.00 - PUBLIC SERVICES HIP Housing - 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 10,000.00 - PARCA - 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 10,000.00 - Star Vista - 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 10,000.00 - Subtotal - 30,000.00 - 30,000.00 30,000.00 - TOTAL FUNDS (ALL SOURCES)555,130.67 447,737.00 120,623.99 1,123,491.66 968,486.95 155,004.71 *Activity was cancelled GENERAL FUND CDBG FUNDS HOME ADMIN FUNDS CARRIED OVER FROM FY 11-12 P9 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 8 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing  This year the City adopted an updated Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and supported Project  Sentinel which provides fair housing services in its efforts to further fair housing.     Analysis of Impediments  This year in conjunction with the County of San Mateo and the cities of Daly City, Redwood City, and San Mateo,  the City updated the its Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The AI was adopted on May 1, 2013  by the City Council and was utilized in developing the City’s upcoming Five Year Consolidated Plan for fiscal years  2013‐14 to 2017‐18.  The AI identified the following private and public sector impediments to fair housing and  actions to address those impediments:    Private Sector Impediments & Actions     Impediment 1: Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities in the rental markets.   Action1.1: Continue to support testing and enforcement activities and document the outcomes of                             enforcement actions   Action 1.2: Continue to support efforts to educate landlords and property management companies about fair  housing law   Action 1.3: Continue to support efforts to educate housing consumers in fair housing rights     Impediment 2: Discriminatory refusal to rent or negotiate for rental.   Action 2.1: Continue to support testing and enforcement activities and document the outcomes of enforcement  actions   Action 2.2: Continue to support efforts to educate landlords and property management companies about fair  housing law   Action 2.3: Continue to support efforts to educate housing consumers in fair housing rights     Impediment 3: Failure to make reasonable accommodation or modification.   Action 3.1: Continue to support testing and enforcement activities and document the outcomes of enforcement  actions  Action 3.2: Support efforts to educate housing providers about requirements for reasonable accommodation or  modification     Impediment 4: Discriminatory patterns in predatory lending.   Action 4.1: Support efforts by outside groups to educate buyers through credit counseling and home purchase  training     Impediment 5: Unequal distribution of small business loans.   The City of South San Francisco does not have the capacity or resources to monitor or enforce equal distribution  of small business loans however should an opportunity become available to do so, the City would consider it.   Action 5.1: Support efforts by outside groups to monitor small business loan distributions     Public Sector Impediments & Actions     Impediment 1: Lack of 2012 HUD funding for Project Sentinel, local Fair Housing Initiative Program agency.  Action 1.1: Encourage Project Sentinel to identify and evaluate causes of denial of HUD funding in 2012 and to  diversify its funding sources    P10 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 9 Impediment 2: Ineffective fair housing outreach and education efforts by Project Sentinel.   Action 2.1: Collaborate with the County and other entitlement jurisdictions to evaluate Project Sentinel’s current  fair housing outreach and education efforts and to identify improvements to make them more effective  Action 2.2: Support efforts to enhance fair housing outreach and education activities     Impediment 3: Failure to adequately document fair housing activities done by Project Sentinel.  Action 3.1: Require Project Sentinel to improve documentation of activities such as testing and enforcement     Project Sentinel                                                   $9,370 (HOME) – 100 Proposed  Project Sentinel provided fair housing services including complaint investigation, community outreach, and  education for home seekers, in‐place residents, and housing providers. This year Project Sentinel investigated 9  fair housing cases in South San Francisco and in total helped 50 South San Francisco residents with fair housing or  tenant/landlord concerns. In addition to those 50 residents served, Project Sentinel responded to numerous  information/referral calls and consultations however these were not included in the demographic data reported  because demographic information was not disclosed. Project Sentinel also had Rent Watch articles published in  various periodicals and public service announcements were submitted to various radio stations in the area. The  City is also working with Project Sentinel to address the public sector impediments listed in the AI. These efforts  included improving the effectiveness of Project Sentinel’s outreach and the quality of Project Sentinel’s  documentation and reporting.       Project Sentinel Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)124310 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)8715 51% - 80% AMI (Low)1702322 80% - 120% AMI 213 > 120% AMI TOTAL 1812146 50 Project Sentinel Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 11 2 Elderly Household (62+)1 1 Disabled Household 1326 Race/Ethnicity # TotHisp White 3822 Black/African American 2 Asian 6 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native 2 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White 2 Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other TOTAL5022 Number of Persons Project Sentinel Persons Number of Households   P11 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 10 Actions Take to Address Obstacles  The major obstacles the City faces in addressing underserved needs are declining funds and the federal spending  limits for public services. With the loss of RDA funds and declining CDBG entitlements, the City has limited  capabilities in meeting the needs of the community. There is a great need for a wide variety of public services  however this need far exceeds the funds available to provide those services. This year to help offset the reduction  of public service funding available, the City issued three (3) General Fund grants to public service organizations.  Additionally, the City worked closely with non‐profits and other local jurisdictions to streamline processes and  reporting to relieve some of the public service providers’ administrative burden. The City continued to look for  new funding sources and find creative ways to leverage and utilize existing funding. Further, the City encouraged  collaboration between itself and other jurisdictions and non‐profits, along with encouraging non‐profit to  non‐profit collaboration.    Leveraging Resources  In prior years, the City heavily used Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds to leverage its CDBG funding. Projects  leveraged with these funds included: housing development projects, homelessness prevention, and minor home  repair programs. However, with the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies, the City was unable to support  housing development projects and homeless prevention services in FY 12‐13. Additionally, in FY 12‐13 the City  experienced an approximately 25% reduction in its entitlement. This significantly reduced the amount of funding  the City was able to allocate for public services. In order to help offset this cut to public services, the City was able  to allocate $30,000 of its General Fund in grants to the following public services: Hip Housing, PARCA and Star  Vista. However, these were one time grants and are not available for FY 2013‐2014. The non‐profit organizations  that received CDBG funding also leveraged their CDBG grants with their own funding from foundations, state and  county grants, private donors, corporations, in‐kind donors, and/or fees for service (see table below).      Agency Total FundsCDBG*FederalStateLocalPrivateOther Bay Area Legal Aid 397,956$ 35,000$ 332,956$ 10,000$ 20,000$ CID - HAM Program 261,304$ 164,584$ 61,776$ 34,944$ -$ Health Mobile225,000$ 10,000$ 200,000$ 15,000$ John's Closet 23,501$ 10,951$ 12,550$ NPNSC - Social Services 711,387$ 24,000$ 6,000$ -$ 151,184$ 68,645$ 461,558$ Rape Trauma Services 337,900$ 25,900$ 220,000$ -$ 42,000$ 50,000$ Rebuilding Together - Nat'l Rebuilding Day861,000$ 106,000$ -$ -$ -$ 505,000$ 250,000$ Rebuilding Together -Safe at Home 319,393$ 155,469$ -$ -$ -$ 143,924$ 20,000$ Sitike Counseling Center 313,455$ 8,898$ -$ 266,089$ -$ -$ 38,468$ Youth Service Bureau 11,385$ 10,000$ -$ 1,385$ Total3,462,281$ 550,802$ 820,732$ 301,033$ 203,184$ 815,119$ 771,411$ *This amount can include CDBG funds received from other jurisdictions FY 2012‐13 Leveraged Funds               P12 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 11 Managing the Process    1. Describe actions taken during the last year to ensure compliance with program and comprehensive planning  requirements.    Program Year CAPER Managing the Process response    Managing the Process    Lead Agency  The City of South San Francisco’s Housing and Community Development Division (HCD) is the lead public agency  responsible for developing and implementing the City’s Con Plan and administering the City’s Community  Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.  HCD is responsible for many of the activities and programs identified  in the Con Plan including the City’s housing rehabilitation program, debris box and home repair voucher  programs, first time homebuyer program, new housing development programs, public service grants oversight,  commercial rehabilitation program, and improvements of the City’s public facilities and infrastructure.    Compliance with Planning Requirements  The City has established procedures, such as its monitoring protocol and Citizen Participation Plan, that ensure  City programs and non‐profit agencies comply with federal program requirements and City policies. For agencies  that receive grants, the City requires agencies to submit quarterly/annual reports of their accomplishments and  financial transactions. These reports keep the City informed about the progress agencies are making towards  meeting their objectives.     Staff members also work closely with counterparts in other entitlement jurisdictions within the county as part of a  CDBG workgroup. This workgroup allows the different jurisdictions to better track sub‐recipients and address  issues as many of the jurisdictions fund the same non‐profits. Furthermore, staff collaborates with the workgroup  on streamlining and standardizing processes in order to improve compliance with planning requirements.     The City Council has reviewed the City’s annual reports to ensure that the City is applying its resources to meet  community goals. The reports reviewed this year included the CAPER, Five Year Con Plan, Annual Action Plan, and  the annual City audit.    Citizen Participation    1. Provide a summary of citizen comments.    2. In addition, the performance report provided to citizens must identify the Federal funds made available for  furthering the objectives of the Consolidated Plan.  For each formula grant program, the grantee shall identify  the total amount of funds available (including estimated program income), the total amount of funds  committed during the reporting period, the total amount expended during the reporting period, and the  geographic distribution and location of expenditures.  Jurisdictions are encouraged to include maps in  describing the geographic distribution and location of investment (including areas of minority concentration).  The geographic distribution and expenditure requirement may also be satisfied by specifying the census tracts  where expenditures were concentrated.    Program Year CAPER Citizen Participation response:  P13 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 12 Citizen Participation  This year staff further revised the City’s Citizen Participation Plan and it was formally adopted on May 1, 2013.  This revised Citizen Participation Plan clearly incorporates all federal regulations, explicitly states its record  keeping protocol, and encourages citizen participation.     Summary of Citizen Comments  A notice announcing the 15 day public comment period and a public hearing for the CAPER was published in the  San Mateo County Times on September 9, 2013 and a public hearing was held on September 25, 2013. All notices  informed citizens about the purpose of the CAPER and invited them to review the document and to either submit  comments or provide them at the public hearing. All notices included the phone number and address of the HCD  office in order to address any community inquiries. This notification was written in English and Spanish in an effort  to reach the City’s Spanish language community. Draft copies of this report were made available at all public  libraries, to community members online, at the City’s Department of Economic and Community Development, and  the City’s civic engagement website SSF Connect. (See Attachment D – Public Notification Efforts)    Geographic Area of Service & Funds  The City of South San Francisco is a very diverse community of 63,6321.The City has designated Census Tracts  6021 & 6022 as the “CDBG target area” because more than 51% of the residents met the federal HUD criteria for  a “Low‐Moderate Benefit Area”2 (See Map 1 below).     ● 18% of the City’s total population, or 11,427 persons, reside in census tracts 6021 & 60223 and in those tracts  approximately 75% of the residents qualify as low to moderate income.4     ● In addition, the median household income for tract 6021 is $58,718 and the median household income for tract  6022 is $50,778, both of which are way below 80% of the County’s Area Median Income (AMI) for a family of  four5. Additionally, this is $16,825‐$24,765 less than the City’s overall median household income.     ● Approximately 67% or 7,662 of the residents in 6021 & 6022 are Hispanic.6 Only 17% of the residents in these  tracts have a bachelor’s degree or higher whereas approximately 31% of the City’s overall residents have a  bachelor degree or higher. 6,175 residents report as foreign‐born and 4,779 residents “speak English less than  ‘very well’”. 7      Although many of the City’s key services are targeted towards this area, the agencies that are funded will serve  low‐income residents from other parts of the City of South San Francisco as well as these two census tracts   (See Map 2 below)    1 2010 Census Data: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml  2 Those at 80% of area median income or below are considered Low Income, those below 50% are Very Low Income and those below 30%  are Extremely Low Income: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/systems/census/lowmod/   3 Based on 2007‐2011 American Community Survey 5‐year Estimates  http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP05&prodType=table   4 FY 2013 HUD Low to Moderate Income Estimates http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/systems/census/ca/index.cfm   5 2007‐2011 ACS 5‐Year Estimates  http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_S1903&prodType=table   6 2007‐2011 ACS 5‐Year Estimates  http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_B03003&prodType=table   7 2007‐2011 ACS 5‐Year Estimates  http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP02&prodType=table   P14 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fi f t h P r o g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 1 3 Ma p  1:  Lo w ‐Mo d  Ce n s u s  Tr a c t s             Ma p  2:  CD B G ‐Fu n d e d  Ac t i v i t i e s    60 2 2   60 2 1 P1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 1 4    Ma p  2:  CD B G  Fu n d e d  Ac t i v i t i e s   P1 6 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 15 Institutional Structure    1. Describe actions taken during the last year to overcome gaps in institutional structures and enhance  coordination.    Program Year CAPER Institutional Structure response:    Institutional Structure    Overcoming Gaps and Enhancing Coordination  In 2012‐2013 the City continued to work closely with non‐profit social service providers, other cities, and the  County to coordinate the delivery of services and information to residents. Specific efforts included:    ‐ Funding several non‐profits that serve low‐income residents and that address diverse needs such as youth  services, counseling, battered spousal services, and services for disabled people.    ‐ Continuing to work with the County of San Mateo’s CDBG workgroup to enhance the ease of monitoring and  improve processes.    ‐ Providing event space and coordinating outreach for a First Time Homebuyer workshop conducted by the San  Mateo County Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) and Meriwest Mortgage.    ‐ Implementing a Downtown Task Force comprised of key stakeholders such as public leaders, police, homeless  service providerss and Downtown businesses, to address homeless and transient needs in the downtown area.  The Task Force met from August to December 2012. The Task Force identified issues affecting the Downtown and  the inefficiencies of the current homeless shelter referral system. In July 2013 the Task Force made  recommendations to the City Council.     ‐ Working with the County of San Mateo and other entitlement cities to develop an updated Analysis of  Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (See General Questions Section for more information).     ‐ Using City Data Services, an online grant management system, in conjunction with the County of San Mateo and  the other entitlement cities to increase efficiency, consistency, and timeliness of reporting and invoicing for CDBG  sub‐recipients.     ‐ Continuing to work with North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center, Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and CID  to coordinate housing repair and rehabilitation needs throughout the community.    ‐ Providing resources and information through the City’s website to help increase information and awareness  concerning the City’s programs.    ‐ Providing affordable housing resources on the City’s website and mailing housing resource packets to residents  seeking affordable housing.     ‐ Continuing to attend the San Mateo County’s Continuum of Care meetings and provide input on homeless issues  in the County.  P17 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 16 Monitoring    1. Describe how and the frequency with which you monitored your activities.  2. Describe the results of your monitoring including any improvements.  3. Self Evaluation  a. Describe the effect programs have in solving neighborhood and community problems.  b. Describe progress in meeting priority needs and specific objectives and help make community’s vision of  the future a reality.  c. Describe how you provided decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanded economic  opportunity principally for low and moderate‐income persons.  d. Indicate any activities falling behind schedule.  e. Describe how activities and strategies made an impact on identified needs.  f. Identify indicators that would best describe the results.  g. Identify barriers that had a negative impact on fulfilling the strategies and overall vision.  h. Identify whether major goals are on target and discuss reasons for those that are not on target.  i. Identify any adjustments or improvements to strategies and activities that might meet your needs more  effectively.    Program Year CAPER monitoring response:    Monitoring     Frequency and Process  During 2012‐2013, the City conducted on‐site monitoring reviews of Health Mobile, CID, and NPNSC. Prior to the  on‐site visits, staff reviewed the sub‐recipients’ quarterly/annual reports, current budget, requests for payment,  fiscal policies & procedures, audit/financial statements, personnel policies, and profit & loss statements. This  review covers the non‐profits’ ability to manage the organization in relation to finances, grant compliance and  program performance. Once on‐site, staff conducted interviews of key program staff, reviewed program/client  files, and asked any follow up questions that may have arisen from the pre‐visit document review.     In addition to on‐site monitoring, all the non‐profits funded by the City are required to submit quarterly reports as  well as an annual report. These reports update staff as to whether the non‐profit is meeting its annual objectives  and the status of the program. Staff reviews all reports and discusses problems or successes. This year, the City  also implemented City Data Services, an online grant management tool that allowed for online report submission  and tracking.     The City Council also reviewed the City’s Annual Action Plan and the previous year’s CAPER to ensure that the City  applied its resources to meet community goals.     Results and Improvements  Based upon the City’s on‐site monitoring visits, staff found that CID was unable to meet performance goals and  expend its full grant amount. The City noted that staff turnover and a restructuring of CID’s HAM program have  attributed to the program’s performance issues. Additionally, CID expressed that despite an outreach and  marketing effort in South San Francisco, they’ve received less applications than normal. City staff will be working  with CID in FY 13‐14 to look into alternative outreach methods.  P18 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 17 Additionally, NPNSC has experienced changes in leadership over the last few years which affected the  organization’s program and financial performance. In December 2012, NPNSC disbanded its Home Revitalization  Program as the program was unable to recuperate costs. Additionally, the organization experienced financial  difficulties this year and had to reduce its staff size. The City has requested NPNSC demonstrate that it can  stabilize its leadership and finances, through improved financial statements, a leadership plan, and a business plan  before allocating FY 13‐14 grant funds.     Health Mobile struggled the previous year to meet its proposed goals however this year the organization came  very close to meeting its goals. The City found that Health Mobile could improve on the quality of its client files  and that the organization needed to have a written procurement policy.     Self‐Evaluation  City staff reviewed quarterly and annual reports submitted by all of the non‐profits funded by the City. In addition,  regular meetings with the County of San Mateo CDBG workgroup has helped increase awareness about the issues  that are being faced by the various non‐profit agencies.     A. Effect that these long term programs have in solving neighborhood and community problems: All of the  programs supported by the City meet national objectives and provide services that benefit the community. The  City funds a wide range of programs in order to address the various problems that affect the community. For  example, programs that serve families with housing, food and other types of assistance help break the cycle of  poverty and end their need for resources.     B. Progress in meeting priority needs and specific objectives and help make communities vision of the  future a reality: The City has a Citizen Participation Plan that is used to ensure that the community has ample  time and information to become involved in decisions related to CDBG programs. The City utilizes both traditional  and modern approaches in getting community input. For example, the City holds public hearings and community  meetings, publishes notices in the newspaper, provides information in other languages, conducts online and  paper surveys, and sends mails notifications.     C. How HCD provided decent housing, suitable living environments and expanded economic opportunity  principally for low and moderate income families: The City of South San Francisco has a variety of programs to  provide decent housing and suitable living environments. For example, the City‐sponsored Housing Rehabilitation  Program provides loans for large scale home rehabilitation projects such as bathroom rehabilitations, mold  remediation, and roof replacements. HCD also funded three organizations that provide minor home repairs and  accessibility modifications: Center for Independence of the Disabled, Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and the  North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center Home Revitalization program.    D. Activities falling behind schedule: The Magnolia Senior Center Elevator Refurbishment Project experienced  delays throughout the year caused by an unresponsive contractor. However, the majority of the project was  completed within the year with the exception of a few punch list/close out items. Additionally, the City had to  cancel the Habitat for Humanity Neighborhood Revitalization Program due to the program no longer being  feasible. This program proposed to use CDBG funds with other leveraged funds to acquire two vacant Real Estate  Owned (REO) homes in South San Francisco that would be rehabilitated and sold to low and very low income  families. However, Habitat for Humanity has been unable to find any vacant REO properties at a price that would  keep the homes affordable for very low income families.     E. How activities and strategies made an impact on identified needs: This information is provided in the  Specific Housing Objectives, Homeless, and Community Development Sections.  P19 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 18 F. Indicators that best describe results:  This information is provided in the Specific Housing Objectives,  Homeless, and Community Development Sections.    G. Barriers that had a negative impact on strategies and vision: The recent dissolution of Redevelopment  Agencies by the California Legislature has been a significant barrier to implementing a well‐rounded community  development strategic plan. Redevelopment Agencies statewide had bolstered the federal CDBG program,  leveraging nearly $20 of RDA funding to every $1 of CDBG funding. The City typically used RDA funds to support  new affordable housing development, homeless shelters, transitional housing, and home sharing programs.  Another barrier the City faces in addressing underserved needs is the federal spending limits for public services.  There is a great need for a wide variety of public services however this need far exceeds the funds available to  provide those services. Over the years as the City's entitlement has declined, so have the funds available for public  services. These funding shortfalls have impacted the City’s ability to provide maximum impact in the community.    H. Major goals and whether they are on target: At this time, all goals are on target    I. Adjustments or improvements that may meet needs more effectively: The HCD office makes changes and  adjustments throughout the year as needed. For example, if a program is under performing, HCD provides  technical assistance to the non‐profit in order to improve performance.     Lead‐based Paint    1. Describe actions taken during the last year to evaluate and reduce lead‐based paint hazards.  Program Year CAPER Lead‐based Paint response:    Lead‐based Paint   The City continued to incorporate lead testing and clearances for all rehabilitation projects it sponsors in order to  ensure that all federal lead safe practices are met. The City also made lead‐based paint information available to  local non‐profit agencies and to homeowners and renters in the City. Additionally, the City continued to have  lead‐based paint information on its website.     HOUSING    Housing Needs  1. Describe Actions taken during the last year to foster and maintain affordable housing.  Program Year CAPER Housing Needs response:    Housing Needs  The City worked to maintain the supply of affordable housing through the multiple home rehabilitation programs  it funded. The City also continued to manage its First Time Homebuyer loans and disseminate affordable housing  information to low income residents. (See Attachment B – Summary of Housing Accomplishments)    Maintaining Affordable Housing  The City has focused on providing funds to housing rehabilitation programs in order to maintain the current  housing stock within the city. More specifically, the City used CDBG funds to fund its Housing Rehabilitation  Program. This year the program provided three (3) new residential loans and completed a fourth loan, two (2)  P20 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 19 debris box vouchers, three (3) home repair vouchers, and emergency sewer and gas line repairs to City‐owned  affordable rental units. The City also allocated CDBG funds to CID’s Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM)  Program, NPNSC’s Home Revitalization Program, and Rebuilding Together’s Safe at Home, National Rebuilding  Day, and Attic Insulation programs. These programs help homeowners make the necessary repairs and/or  accessibility modifications to maintain acceptable living conditions and to safely remain in their own homes. For  more detailed information regarding the City’s actions to maintain affordable housing, please see the Specific  Housing Objectives Section.     Affordable Housing Information  The City worked with the County, other cities, and non‐profit organizations to collect information concerning  affordable housing and to create affordable housing resource packets. Each affordable housing packet contains a  list of affordable rental properties throughout San Mateo County, handouts on how to find affordable housing,  home sharing information, senior housing information, and disabled housing information. Furthermore, much of  this pertinent information is provided in Spanish. These resource packets are updated on a regular basis by City  staff and disseminated to the general public. This year City staff mailed and/or emailed sixty‐five (65) affordable  housing resources packets in addition to fielding numerous phone calls and in person inquiries regarding  information on affordable housing. City staff also updates the City’s website with affordable housing information  and resources on a regular basis.     First Time Homebuyer Loan Program  The City’s First Time Homebuyer (FTHB) Loan Program has been placed on hold due to the housing market crash  and the loss of RDA funding, which was the main funding source for this program. However, City staff still  provided major technical assistance to existing borrowers. In the past two years, there has been a notable  increase in borrowers refinancing senior loans as well selling their units. This year staff prepared documents and  assisted thirteen (13) borrowers with refinancing or selling their units as well as provided information and  assistance to many other borrowers.  This increase in unit sales/loan payoffs also explains the City’s significant  increase in program income received for FY 12‐13 (see the Community Development section for more information  about program income). Although the City’s FTHB program is on hold, the City sponsored a workshop for new  borrowers seeking down payment assistance through the County HEART program.    Inclusionary Housing  Under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance developers are required to provide affordable units in new  market rate projects. No public funds are used to develop BMR units because the private developers pay for the  entire development. No new BMR units were developed in FY 12‐13 however the City continues to oversee the  monitoring, resales and refinancing of its existing BMR housing stock.     Specific Housing Objectives    1. Evaluate progress in meeting specific objective of providing affordable housing, including the number of  extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income renter and owner households comparing actual  accomplishments with proposed goals during the reporting period.  2. Evaluate progress in providing affordable housing that meets the Section 215 definition of affordable housing  for rental and owner households comparing actual accomplishments with proposed goals during the reporting  period.  3. Describe efforts to address “worst‐case” housing needs and housing needs of persons with disabilities.  Program Year CAPER Specific Housing Objectives response:    P21 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 20 Specific Housing Objectives  The City of South San Francisco provided an array of housing options to meet the demographic needs of the  community. The City used CDBG funds to provide and maintain affordable housing. Listed below are the specific  accomplishments of each program the City funded.    Housing Rehabilitation Programs   This year the City funded six (6) different housing rehabilitation programs with CDBG funds. These various  programs offer a wide range of housing rehabilitation services such as accessibility modifications, minor home  repairs, and major rehabilitation loans.     The Center for the Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID)                      $13,500 (CDBG) – 20 Proposed   CID’s Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) program provided free home modifications such as grab bars or  ramps for those with physical disabilities. They had planned to serve 20 households this year however the  program only served 8 households. The program had a remaining balance of $10,335.90 in CDBG funds which has  been recaptured.     CID Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)213 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)123 51% - 80% AMI (Low)22 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 04228 CID Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 112 Elderly Household (62+)4228 Disabled Household 4228 Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 5 Black/African American 1 Asian 1 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 1 TOTAL80 Number of Households CID Households Number of Households         P22 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 21 City Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program                       $300,000 – 3 Proposed  This program provides low interest loans, grants, and technical assistance to low income homeowners in need of  repairs to their home such as roof replacements, sewer line repairs, and legalizing homes that are in violation of  building codes. This year staff sent out twenty‐six (26) applications for the City’s housing rehabilitation program.  The City was able to issue three (3) new loans and complete a 4th loan that was started in FY 11‐12. Additionally,  the City used CDBG funds to make emergency sewer and gas line repairs to City owned affordable rental units.  The City expended $358,450.66 on this program.     Debris Box Vouchers – This is a subprogram of the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program. The vouchers allow low  income homeowners to remove years of accumulation of garbage, furniture and other debris that need to be  removed before general issues can be addressed in a home or in conjunction with the repairs conducted by the  individual. It also removes debris that is and/or can become a fire or sanitary hazard. This year the City issued two  (2) debris box vouchers.     Emergency Home Repair Vouchers – This is a subprogram of the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program. These  vouchers serve as a grant for homeowners to make emergency repairs to their home. This year the City provided  three (3) home repair vouchers.     Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)415 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)11215 51% - 80% AMI (Low)112 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 613212 Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 4217 Elderly Household (62+)415 Disabled Household 311 5 Race/Ethnicity # TotHisp White 75 Black/African American 1 Asian 1 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native 11 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl.1 Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 11 TOTAL127 Number of Households City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program Households Number of HouseholdsCity-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program     P23 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 22 NPNSC – Home Revitalization Program                                                                   $20,000 (CDBG) – 15 Proposed  The North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) Home Revitalization Program provided minor home  repairs for low to extremely low‐income homeowners. These repairs included roof and gutter repairs, water  heater replacements, and installation of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Although NPNSC disbanded this  program in December 2012, the program did provide free home repairs to 9 South San Francisco households and  expended $14,967.41 of its funding. The remaining balance of $5,032.59 has been recaptured.     NPNSC - Home Revitalization Program Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)22 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)22 51% - 80% AMI (Low)14 5 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 18009 NPNSC - Home Revitalization Program Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 15 6 Elderly Household (62+)16 7 Disabled Household 12 3 Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 71 Black/African American Asian 1 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 1 TOTAL91 Number of Households NPNSC - Home Revitalization Program Households Number of Households                       P24 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 23 Rebuilding Together Peninsula ‐ Attic Insulation Program              $31,213 (CDBG) – 6 Proposed  The Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP) Attic Insulation Program, a one‐time program funded with Department  of Energy EECBG funds, was extended in order to provide assistance to the attic insulation program at El Concilio,  a local non‐profit El Concilio’s attic insulation program had a few participants whose homes didn’t meet certain  electrical requirements. However, the proper testing and repairs needed to address these electrical requirements  were beyond El Concilio’s capabilities. The City allocated CDBG funds to RTP, so that RTP could provide El  Concilio’s program participants with proper electrical safety inspections, electrical repairs (if needed) and new  attic insulation. This grant was issued in FY 11‐12 and was completed in FY 12‐13. In FY 12‐13, RTP served 2  households. In the two years, the program served 3 households and expended $16,131.58. The program did not  meet its proposed goals of serving 6 households due to non‐responses from El Concilio’s clients. The remaining  balance of $15,081.44 in CDBG funds was recaptured.     Rebuilding Together Attic Insulation Prog. Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD < 30% AMI (Extremely low)11 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low) 51% - 80% AMI (Low)11 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL22 Rebuilding Together Attic Insulation Prog. Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4YTD Female-headed household 1 1 Elderly Household (62+) Disabled Household 1 1 Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 21 Black/African American Asian Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other TOTAL21 Number of Households Rebuilding Together Attic Insulation Prog.Households Number of Households           P25 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 24 Rebuilding Together Peninsula – National Rebuilding Day                         $10,000 (CDBG) – 3 Proposed  National Rebuilding Day is completed annually on the last Saturday in April where approximately 3,000 volunteers  give their time and skills to help neighbors live more independently in safer, cleaner, and healthier environments.  Rebuilding Together met its goals and served 3 South San Francisco households as part of National Rebuilding  Day. This year, volunteers in South San Francisco made repairs to increase home accessibility and safety as well as  improve energy efficiency and health at all sites.     Rebuilding Together National Rebuilding Day Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)22 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low) 51% - 80% AMI (Low)11 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 3 3 Rebuilding Together National Rebuilding Day Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 2 2 Elderly Household (62+)1 1 Disabled Household 2 2 Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 1 Black/African American Asian Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 22 TOTAL32 Number of Households Rebuilding Together National Rebuilding Day Households Number of Households                       P26 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 25 Rebuilding Together Peninsula – Safe at Home                                           $20,000 (CDBG) – 15 Proposed   The Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP) Safe at Home Program addresses minor repair needs before they  become more serious safety or deferred maintenance issues; the repairs included debris removal, exterior  painting, light yard work, minor plumbing, minor electrical, heating repair, roof repair, window  repair/replacement, door repair/replacement, energy efficiency measures, and some accessibility modifications.  The projects were completed with a combination of skilled volunteer labor and RTP staff. Because of this  volunteer‐based program, RTP is able to utilize funds further and complete more repairs. Rebuilding Together  Peninsula met its proposed goal of serving 15 households.     Rebuilding Together Safe at Home Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)3710 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)22 51% - 80% AMI (Low)33 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 3 1215 Rebuilding Together Safe at Home Household Type Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Female-headed household 268 Elderly Household (62+)31114 Disabled Household 178 Race/Ethnicity # TotHisp White 93 Black/African American 2 Asian 1 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native 11 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl.1 Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 1 TOTAL154 Number of Households Rebuilding Together Safe at Home Households Number of Households                   P27 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 26 Home Sharing    HIP Housing – Home Sharing Program                                                                $10,000 (General Fund) – 120 Proposed  Human Investment Project (HIP) Housing provides a home sharing program that matches people with housing to  share (providers) with those seeking housing (seekers), thus reducing the housing costs for both parties and  preventing homelessness. The program also promotes independence, adds security for participants, and enables  the workforce to establish sustainable residency in San Mateo County. The Home Sharing Program utilizes the  existing inventory of homes in the area to provide low‐income residents with permanent, affordable housing. This  year the City used its General Fund to support HIP Housing with a one‐time grant. This was necessary with the loss  of RDA funds and reduced CDBG entitlement funds. HIP Housing proposed serving 120 individuals and actually  served 144 individuals.     Income Level Q1Q2Q3Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)3218172592 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)12109637 51% - 80% AMI (Low)52512 80% - 120% AMI 213 > 120% AMI TOTAL51292836144 HIP Housing Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 2011717 55 Elderly Household (62+)158812 43 Disabled Household 1811810 47 Race/Ethnicity# TotHisp White 537 Black/African American 16 Asian 24 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl.8 Amer. Indian/White 2 Asian/White 42 Black/White 1 Amer. Indian/Black Other 3629 TOTAL14438 Number of Households HIP Housing Persons       P28 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 27 Affordable Housing Acquisition    Habitat for Humanity ‐ Neighborhood Revitalization Program                       $60,000 (CDBG) – 2 Proposed   Habitat for Humanity’s Neighborhood Revitalization Program proposed to use CDBG funds with other leveraged  funds to acquire two vacant Real Estate Owned (REO) homes in South San Francisco. Habitat for Humanity would  also refurbish the homes with volunteer labor and required sweat equity participation from the selected families.  The homes would be sold to low and very low income families at no down payment and zero percent interest.  However, Habitat for Humanity has been unable to find any vacant REO properties at a price that would keep the  homes affordable for very low income families. Therefore this project was cancelled and the City was forced to  reprogram those funds for FY 13‐14.    Efforts to address “worst‐case” housing needs and housing needs of persons with disabilities  The City of South San Francisco referred the “worst‐case” housing needs situations to homeless shelters, the  County Housing Department or the City of South San Francisco Public Housing Authority. Although the HCD office  does not manage Section 8 vouchers, staff provides information concerning their availability and occasionally  assists low income tenants with filling out the application. Due to limited resources, partnership poses the best  opportunity for managing special cases.     The City also made efforts to address the housing needs of persons with disabilities by funding non‐profits that  serve people with disabilities. For example, the City funded CID’s Housing Accessibility Modification Program  which provides free accessibility modifications to the homes of those with disabilities. These modifications include  items such as ramps and grab bars. Additionally, the City funded PARCA which provides support, information,  referrals, advocacy, employment, education, social events, and recreation to individuals with developmental  disabilities.     Public Housing Strategy  1. Describe actions taken during the last year to improve public housing and resident initiatives.  Program Year CAPER Public Housing Strategy response:    The South San Francisco Public Housing Authority (PHA) operates as a separate entity and submits a Consolidated  Plan to HUD separately from the City of South San Francisco. The South San Francisco PHA manages 80 units of  affordable public housing. Information about the needs and strategy of the South San Francisco PHA can be found  in the South San Francisco PHA Annual Plan.    Barriers to Affordable Housing    1. Describe actions taken during the last year to eliminate barriers to affordable housing.  Program Year CAPER Barriers to Affordable Housing response:    Barriers to Affordable Housing    Removal of Barriers/Governmental Constraints   In an effort to foster and maintain the supply of affordable housing and to remove barriers to affordable housing  development, the City of South San Francisco continued to monitor its policies to identify areas where the City can  make improvements. In 2009, the City adopted an updated Housing Element. The Housing Element reviews and  analyzes the City’s housing stock, demographics, availability of land, constraints to developing housing, and many  P29 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 28 other factors. The City has utilized this Housing Element in order to continue to foster, maintain, and remove  barriers to affordable housing. Some of HCD’s projects included the following activities:      1. Updated and implemented density bonus ordinance  2. Continued to encourage Transit‐Oriented developments  3. Expedited reviews of affordable housing projects and provided technical assistance to developers  4. Applied amended zoning ordinance to give disabled residents greater flexibility making accessibility  modifications to their homes  5. Allowed higher densities in senior housing projects  7. Permitted reduced parking requirements for senior‐care facilities  8. Required builders to include disabled‐accessible units in new apartment projects  9. The City distributed affordable housing resource packets to inform resident about affordable housing options,  senior housing, and disabled housing     HOME/ American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI)  1. Assessment of Relationship of HOME Funds to Goals and Objectives  a. Evaluate progress made toward meeting goals for providing affordable housing using HOME funds,  including the number and types of households served.  2. HOME Match Report  a. Use HOME Match Report HUD‐40107‐A to report on match contributions for the period covered by the  Consolidated Plan program year.  3. HOME MBE and WBE Report  a. Use Part III of HUD Form 40107 to report contracts and subcontracts with Minority Business Enterprises  (MBEs) and Women’s Business Enterprises (WBEs).  4. Assessments  a. Detail results of on‐site inspections of rental housing.  b. Describe the HOME jurisdiction’s affirmative marketing actions.  c. Describe outreach to minority and women owned businesses.  Program Year CAPER HOME/ADDI response:    Not Applicable     HOMELESS    Homeless Needs  *Please also refer to the Homeless Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.  1. Identify actions taken to address needs of homeless persons.  2. Identify actions to help homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living.  3. Identify new Federal resources obtained from Homeless SuperNOFA.    Program Year CAPER Homeless Needs response:        P30 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 29 Homeless Needs  For many years the City used RDA funds to support the operating costs of two homeless shelters for individuals  and one homeless shelter for families. However, with the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies and very limited  public service funding, the City no longer had the funding available to support the operating expenses of homeless  shelters. Therefore, the City opted to make funds available for rehabilitation and/or ADA modifications at the  emergency and transitional housing facilities, since this type of activity is not subject to the public service  spending limitations.     Facility Rehabilitation & ADA Modification – Emergency/Transitional Housing          $94,316 (CDBG) – 2 Proposed  The City provided funding for emergency and/or transitional housing organizations to complete accessibility and  facility improvement projects.     Predicted outcome: Sustainability for the purpose of suitable living environments    Shelter Network Haven House Improvement Project               $38,500  CDBG funds were used to replace the carpet with durable flooring at Haven Family House. The Haven Family  House, located in Menlo Park, is home to 24 transitional family housing units that serve South San Francisco  residents as there are no transitional family shelters within the City’s jurisdiction. In addition, funds were used to  purchase new mattresses. These facility improvements improved the quality of living conditions and increased  sleeping capacity for all the current and future South San Francisco families living at Haven Family House.     Haven House Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low) 5 - - - 5 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low) 51% - 80% AMI (Low) 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 5 - - - 5 Haven House Household Type Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Total Female-headed household 1 1 Elderly Household (62+)0 Disabled Household 0 Haven House Race/Ethnicity # TotHisp White Black/African American Asian Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native 55 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other TOTAL 5 5 Number of Persons Number of Households Persons     P31 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 30 Specific Homeless Prevention Elements    1. Identify actions taken to prevent homelessness.    Program Year CAPER Specific Homeless Prevention Elements response:    Specific Homeless Prevention Elements     Homelessness Prevention  The City of South San Francisco has struggled with homelessness issues during the 2012‐13 year. The economy  has left many individuals who might have otherwise been housed, to instead live on the streets, in cars, or in  overcrowded housing. In order to help prevent homelessness, the City provided funding opportunities for  homeless shelters to undertake necessary rehabilitation and/or ADA modifications. These funds were made  available to offset the loss of funds available for the shelters’ operating expenses.  The City also funded an array of  non‐profit agencies that provide services to families at‐risk of becoming homeless (See the Specific Housing  Objectives Section and Community Development Section). The City of South San Francisco also worked with North  Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) to prevent homelessness.  Families that have been identified as  being at‐risk for homelessness are referred to NPNSC for assistance and follow‐up. Staff provides at‐risk families  with resources and information concerning affordable housing options such as applying for Section 8, public  housing, or home sharing.     Task Force on Homeless/Transient Issues  Additionally, the City has experienced a significant increase in homeless individuals loitering in the downtown  area which is negatively affecting downtown businesses. This led the City to form a Task Force to assess and  understand the homeless/transient issues in the downtown. This task force comprised of key stakeholders  including the City Council, County representatives, police department, downtown merchants, and local homeless  shelters. The task force met from August to December 2012 and focused on:   ‐ The impact of homeless/transient issues on Downtown merchants, residents, and visitors  ‐ Developing a common understanding of how social services are provided, which agencies and organizations    offer services, and characteristics of the population being served.   ‐ How to improve the living, working, and visiting environment in the Downtown.    ‐ Reducing the negative impact on Downtown while meeting the needs of homeless/transient clients for shelter  and social services.    The Task Force determined that on‐going, day‐to‐day case management is the key to linking homeless individuals  to housing, financial assistance, training programs etc. Currently, there is no case management or systematic  referral system for single, unhoused persons to access social services in the City. Intensive case management has  proven to be the most effective strategy for addressing the needs of the chronically homeless because it results in  greater success and interrupts the revolving door syndrome of moving from one shelter to another. The Task  Force made recommendations to the City Council and similar actions are taking place at the County level for  funding for case management services. Two to three case managers, working in the City, would be able to address  the needs of the homeless community.     Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)    1. Identify actions to address emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless individuals and  families (including significant subpopulations such as those living on the streets).  P32 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 31 2. Assessment of Relationship of ESG Funds to Goals and Objectives  a. Evaluate progress made in using ESG funds to address homeless and homeless prevention needs, goals,  and specific objectives established in the Consolidated Plan.  b. Detail how ESG projects are related to implementation of comprehensive homeless planning strategy,  including the number and types of individuals and persons in households served with ESG funds.  3. Matching Resources  a. Provide specific sources and amounts of new funding used to meet match as required by 42 USC  11375(a)(1), including cash resources, grants, and staff salaries, as well as in‐kind contributions such as  the value of a building or lease, donated materials, or volunteer time.  4. State Method of Distribution  a. States must describe their method of distribution and how it rated and selected its local government  agencies and private nonprofit organizations acting as sub recipients.  5. Activity and Beneficiary Data  a. Completion of attached Emergency Shelter Grant Program Performance Chart or other reports showing  ESGP expenditures by type of activity. Also describe any problems in collecting, reporting, and evaluating  the reliability of this information.  b. Homeless Discharge Coordination  i. As part of the government developing and implementing a homeless discharge coordination policy,  ESG homeless prevention funds may be used to assist very‐low income individuals and families at risk  of becoming homeless after being released from publicly funded institutions such as health care  facilities, foster care or other youth facilities, or corrections institutions or programs.  c. Explain how your government is instituting a homeless discharge coordination policy, and how ESG  homeless prevention funds are being used in this effort.    Program Year CAPER ESG response:    Not Applicable    COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    Community Development  1. Assessment of Relationship of CDBG Funds to Goals and Objectives  a. Assess use of CDBG funds in relation to the priorities, needs, goals, and specific objectives in the  Consolidated Plan, particularly the highest priority activities.  b. Evaluate progress made toward meeting goals for providing affordable housing using CDBG funds,  including the number and types of households served.  c. Indicate the extent to which CDBG funds were used for activities that benefited extremely low‐income,  low‐income, and moderate‐income persons.    2. Changes in Program Objectives  a. Identify the nature of and the reasons for any changes in program objectives and how the jurisdiction  would change its program as a result of its experiences.    3. Assessment of Efforts in Carrying Out Planned Actions  a. Indicate how grantee pursued all resources indicated in the Consolidated Plan.  b. Indicate how grantee provided certifications of consistency in a fair and impartial manner.  P33 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 32 c. Indicate how grantee did not hinder Consolidated Plan implementation by action or willful inaction.    4. For Funds Not Used for National Objectives  a. Indicate how use of CDBG funds did not meet national objectives.  b. Indicate how did not comply with overall benefit certification.    5. Anti‐displacement and Relocation – for activities that involve acquisition, rehabilitation or demolition of  occupied real property  a. Describe steps actually taken to minimize the amount of displacement resulting from the CDBG‐assisted  activities.  b. Describe steps taken to identify households, businesses, farms or nonprofit organizations who occupied  properties subject to the Uniform Relocation Act or Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community  Development Act of 1974, as amended, and whether or not they were displaced, and the nature of their  needs and preferences.  c. Describe steps taken to ensure the timely issuance of information notices to displaced households,  businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations.    6. Low/Mod Job Activities – for economic development activities undertaken where jobs were made available  but not taken by low‐ or moderate‐income persons  a. Describe actions taken by grantee and businesses to ensure first consideration was or will be given to  low/mod persons.  b. List by job title of all the permanent jobs created/retained and those that were made available to  low/mod persons.  c. If any of jobs claimed as being available to low/mod persons require special skill, work experience, or  education, provide a description of steps being taken or that will be taken to provide such skills,  experience, or education.    7. Low/Mod Limited Clientele Activities – for activities not falling within one of the categories of presumed  limited clientele low and moderate income benefit  a. Describe how the nature, location, or other information demonstrates the activities benefit a limited  clientele at least 51% of whom are low‐ and moderate‐income.    8. Program income received  a. Detail the amount of program income reported that was returned to each individual revolving fund, e.g.,  housing rehabilitation, economic development, or other type of revolving fund.  b. Detail the amount repaid on each float‐funded activity.  c. Detail all other loan repayments broken down by the categories of housing rehabilitation, economic  development, or other.  d. Detail the amount of income received from the sale of property by parcel.    9. Prior period adjustments – where reimbursement was made this reporting period for expenditures (made in  previous reporting periods) that have been disallowed, provide the following information:  a. The activity name and number as shown in IDIS;  b. The program year(s) in which the expenditure(s) for the disallowed activity(ies) was reported;  c. The amount returned to line‐of‐credit or program account; and   d. Total amount to be reimbursed and the time period over which the reimbursement is to be made, if the  reimbursement is made with multi‐year payments.    P34 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 33 10.  Loans and other receivables  a. List the principal balance for each float‐funded activity outstanding as of the end of the reporting period  and the date(s) by which the funds are expected to be received.  b. List the total number of other loans outstanding and the principal balance owed as of the end of the  reporting period.  c. List separately the total number of outstanding loans that are deferred or forgivable, the principal balance  owed as of the end of the reporting period, and the terms of the deferral or forgiveness.  d. Detail the total number and amount of loans made with CDBG funds that have gone into default and for  which the balance was forgiven or written off during the reporting period.  e. Provide a List of the parcels of property owned by the grantee or its sub recipients that have been  acquired or improved using CDBG funds and that are available for sale as of the end of the reporting  period.    11. Lump sum agreements  a. Provide the name of the financial institution.  b. Provide the date the funds were deposited.  c. Provide the date the use of funds commenced.  d. Provide the percentage of funds disbursed within 180 days of deposit in the institution.    12. Housing Rehabilitation – for each type of rehabilitation program for which projects/units were reported as  completed during the program year  a. Identify the type of program and number of projects/units completed for each program.  b. Provide the total CDBG funds involved in the program.  c. Detail other public and private funds involved in the project.    13. Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies – for grantees that have HUD‐approved neighborhood revitalization  strategies  a. Describe progress against benchmarks for the program year.  For grantees with Federally‐designated EZs  or ECs that received HUD approval for a neighborhood revitalization strategy, reports that are required as  part of the EZ/EC process shall suffice for purposes of reporting progress.    Program Year CAPER Community Development response:    Community Development   1. Assessment of Relationship of CDBG Funds to Goals and Objectives  To help create a healthier and thriving community, the City of South San Francisco used CDBG funds to support an  array of non‐profit agencies that provide essential social services to low income families. All of the funded non‐ profits also leveraged their CDBG funding with donations from private individuals, foundations, corporations, in‐ kind donations and/or fees for service (see the General Questions section for further information on fund  leveraging). Funded services range from youth programs to safety net services. The City also used CDBG funds to  improve facilities that provide services to low‐income residents and make public buildings and spaces accessible  to people with disabilities. All of the funds contributed to these projects/programs were fully utilized to meet the  City’s community development priorities specified in its 2012‐2013 Annual Action Plan and Five Year Con Plan.    Below describes how the City utilized funds to meet its Community Development priorities and objectives and  extent to which funds benefited extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income persons. For detailed  information regarding how CDBG funds were used to provide affordable housing, see the Specific Housing  Objectives Section.   P35 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 34 Priority: Provide core public services activities to improve the quality of life for low‐income individuals  and families, including those at risk of becoming homeless and special needs groups.    The City provided funds to various non‐profits that provided counseling, health, general, battered spouses, and  youth services that improve the quality of life for low‐income individuals and families.     General Social Services    North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center                                                         $24,000 (CDBG) – 2,676 Proposed  North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) provided food, clothing, shelter referrals, emergency  hotel vouchers, transportation, counseling, information and referral services, rental security deposits and  assistance with utility bills to 2,811 individuals.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments and decent affordable housing    NPNSC - Social Services Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low) 780 1,087 497 396 2,760 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low) 9 7 25 5 46 51% - 80% AMI (Low) 3 2 5 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 789 1,097 522 403 2,811 NPNSC - Social Services Household Type Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Female-headed household 12014011852 430 Elderly Household (62+)61814943 234 Disabled Household 15132110 59 NPNSC - Social Services Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 19001274 Black/African American 144 Asian 252 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl.26 Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 489 TOTAL 2,811 1,274 Number of Persons Number of Households Persons          P36 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 35 Sitike Counseling Center               $8,898 (CDBG) – 70 Proposed  Sitike Counseling Center provided low cost substance abuse services in the hopes of preventing homelessness and  other problems associated with substance abuse. They offer three different programs: A First Offender Drinking  Driver Program, an outpatient evening co‐ed program, and an intensive day treatment program for adult pregnant  and parenting women. The program served a total of 36 individuals.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments    Sitike Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)3137427 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)1214 51% - 80% AMI (Low)1225 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL51311736 Sitike Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 253313 Elderly Household (62+)112 Disabled Household 213 Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 194 Black/African American 5 Asian 3 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl.31 Amer. Indian/White Asian/White 1 Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 52 TOTAL367 Number of Persons Sitike Persons Number of Households                       P37 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 36 Youth Services Bureau – Latino Parents Group                                                                 $10,000 (CDBG) – 50 Proposed  The Youth Service Bureau provided critical group counseling and referrals for parents to improve their parenting  skills, family functioning, and increase their child’s school performance. Low income, monolingual Spanish‐ speaking families were the focus of this group. This year the program did not meet its stated goals and only served  21 individuals.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments      Youth Service Bureau Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)373114 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)235 51% - 80% AMI (Low)2 2 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL573621 Youth Service Bureau Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 1124 Elderly Household (62+)0 Disabled Household 112 Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White Black/African American Asian Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 2121 TOTAL2121 Number of Persons Youth Service Bureau Persons Number of Households                     P38 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 37 Battered Spouses Services    Bay Area Legal Aid                          $10,000 (CDBG) – 67 Proposed   Bay Legal Domestic Violence Legal Safety Net Project was able to provide civil legal assistance to 65 low‐income  residents of South San Francisco who are survivors of domestic violence. Bay Legal helped clients establish safety  and security by obtaining restraining orders, stabilizing housing, securing support orders, establishing child  custody, etc. Bay Legal also provided legal education, community service referrals and assistance with social  services applications. For almost every individual who was helped, there were additional members of the  household who also benefitted from Bay Legal’s services.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments    Bay Area Legal Aid Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)167910 42 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)455115 51% - 80% AMI (Low)1124 80% - 120% AMI 1 1 > 120% AMI 213 TOTAL2314151365 Bay Area Legal Aid Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 11768 32 Elderly Household (62+)1 1 Disabled Household 325 Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 9 Black/African American 1 Asian 16 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native 3635 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 3 TOTAL6535 Number of Persons Bay Area Legal Aid Persons Number of Households           P39 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 38 Rape Trauma Services Center                        $10,000 (CDBG) – 130 Proposed  Rape Trauma Services Center (RTS) provided information, resources, advocacy and counseling to a total of 136  South San Francisco sexual‐assault survivors. This exceeded their goal of serving 130 individuals. During FY 12‐13,  RTS advocates provided support during Forensic Medical Legal exams to 24 survivors living in South San Francisco.  Of these survivors, the youngest was a 6 year old female and the oldest was a 70 year old female. The connection  made with these survivors allowed for follow up support and on‐going counseling and advocacy services. Rape  Trauma Services provided survivors with ongoing counseling and provided at‐risk high school students with  trauma counseling and Ending Cycles of Violence group support. Rape Trauma Services continues to support an  increasing number of children seeking services who are victims of CSEC (Commercial Sexual Exploitation of  Children). During this past year, RTS provided services to 3 children who identified being victimized by commercial  sexual exploitation while residing in South San Francisco.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments     Rape Trauma Services Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)7911431 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)1114125 42 51% - 80% AMI (Low)1316147 50 80% - 120% AMI 13239 > 120% AMI 1124 TOTAL32434021136 Rape Trauma Services Household TypeQ1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 121895 44 Elderly Household (62+)112 Disabled Household Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 6648 Black/African American 10 Asian 384 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native 1 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl.9 Amer. Indian/White 0 Asian/White 2 Black/White 0 Amer. Indian/Black 0 Other 105 TOTAL13657 Number of Persons Rape Trauma Services Persons Number of Households       P40 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 39 Disabled Services    PARCA                                      $10,000 (General Fund) – 144 Proposed  Peninsula Association for Retarded Children and Adults (PARCA) provided support, information, referrals,  advocacy, employment, education, social events, and recreation to individuals with developmental disabilities.  Through outreach and support groups, PARCA educates family members on health challenges, legal rights, special  education rights, and planning for a child’s future when the parents are no longer able to provide for them. PARCA  received a General Fund grant and served 126 individuals this year.     PARCA Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)18287 35 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low)18 18 51% - 80% AMI (Low)4111 10 62 80% - 120% AMI 74 11 > 120% AMI TOTAL8417817126 PARCA Household TypeQ1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 32117 Elderly Household (62+)1 1 Disabled Household 2114 Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 8468 Black/African American Asian 38 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White 4 Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other TOTAL12668 Number of Persons PARCA Persons Number of Households                     P41 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 40 Youth Services    Health Mobile                                                                                                                         $10,000 (CDBG) – 140 Proposed  The Health Mobile provided free, on‐site dental services to low income children in South San Francisco. The  services were offered through a self‐contained, state‐of‐the‐art, full service dental clinic in a refurbished motor  home. Their goal was to serve 140 South San Francisco residents and Health Mobile served 138 individuals.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments     Health Mobile Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)138 138 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low) 51% - 80% AMI (Low) 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 138 138 Health Mobile Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 0 Elderly Household (62+)0 Disabled Household 0 Race/Ethnicity # TotHisp White 10895 Black/African American 2512 Asian 5 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other TOTAL138107 Number of Persons Health Mobile Persons Number of Households                   P42 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 41 John’s Closet                                                                                              $5,000 (CDBG) – 204 Proposed   John’s Closet provided clothing to very low and low income school aged children. John’s Closet operates only with  volunteers so all funds were spent to provide new clothing this year. This year the program served 155 children.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments      John's Closet Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)6730508155 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low) 51% - 80% AMI (Low) 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL 6730508 155 John's Closet Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 691117 Elderly Household (62+)2 2 Disabled Household Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 129124 Black/African American 1 Asian Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl.13 Amer. Indian/White Asian/White 6 Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 62 TOTAL155126 Number of Persons John's Closet Persons Number of Households                           P43 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 42 Star Vista                                                                                                    $10,000 (General Fund) – 18 Proposed  Star Vista’s Transitional Housing Placement Plus program provided subsidized apartments in South San Francisco  and case management services for emancipated foster youth aged 18‐25. Star Vista received a General Fund grant  and served 13 emancipated foster youth.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments     Star Vista Income Level Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total < 30% AMI (Extremely low)1010213 31% - 50% AMI (Very Low) 51% - 80% AMI (Low) 80% - 120% AMI > 120% AMI TOTAL1010213 Star Vista Household Type Q1Q2Q3Q4Total Female-headed household 61018 Elderly Household (62+)0 Disabled Household Race/Ethnicity # Tot Hisp White 55 Black/African American 7 Asian Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Isl. Amer. Indian/White Asian/White Black/White Amer. Indian/Black Other 1 TOTAL135 Number of Persons Star Vista Persons Number of Households                   P44 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 43 Priority: Sustain and increase the level of business and economic activity in areas that serve or have a  high percentage of low‐income residents.    The City’s economic and community development strategy for Downtown includes structural improvements to  maximize the use of commercial buildings and façade improvement assistance for businesses.    City‐Sponsored Commercial Rehabilitation                                          $175,000 – 3 to 5 Proposed  The City‐Sponsored Commercial Rehabilitation Program provides financial and technical assistance to property  owners undertaking structural, façade, and business sign improvements. These improvements help owners  improve the appearance of the downtown. The program is available in the Historic Downtown District which  serves residents who are primarily low‐income and Hispanic. More than 51% of the residents within close  proximity to the downtown are considered low‐income.    This year the City completed one commercial rehabilitation grant for painting at the County Health Clinic that was  started in FY 11‐12. The City was unable to meet its goals due to a reduction in the number of businesses that are  seeking loans. Economic decline has made it difficult to issue loans because business owners not willing or able to  take on more debt. The City has faced difficulties in issuing commercial loans and therefore the City has  reallocated uncommitted and unspent funds from this program to public facility improvements (see below).     Priority: Preserve and improve public facilities that serve a high percentage of low income residents    Public Facility Improvement Projects         The City completed ADA modifications/improvements at five (5) City‐owned facilities this year and provided funds  to two (2) non‐profit owned facilities. The City spent $295,214.66 in uncommitted funds and program income to  complete these projects. These projects improved both accessibility and overall aesthetics of the facilities.     City‐owned Public Facilities    Buri Buri Park Picnic/BBQ Area ADA Upgrades                               $37,355.61 (CDBG)  CDBG funds were used to improve two of the picnic BBQ areas at Buri Buri Park to make them usable and ADA  accessible. The work included removing the existing and broken picnic tables and BBQ pits, removing the  decomposed granite, paving the area with asphalt, and installing new ADA picnic tables and BBQ pits.    Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments      After After  P45 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 44 City Hall ADA Upgrades             $19,355 (CDBG)  CDBG funds were used to remove and replace the handicap parking lot and pathway at South San Francisco City  Hall in order to be ADA compliant. This project was started in FY 11‐12 however due to construction delays the  City was only able to spend $102,870.96 of the total project budget ($122,225.96) in FY 11‐12. The remainder of  the project was completed in FY 12‐13 and the City expended the remaining project balance of $19,355.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environment          Grand Avenue Library ADA Tables                                  $4,676.08 (CDBG)  The Grand Avenue Library received a printer table that meets ADA height requirements and tables that  automatically adjust their height so that they are usable for all residents including those with disabilities.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environment              Before After  After After  P46 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 45 Magnolia Senior Center Elevator Refurbishment Project                             $99,580.40 (CDBG)  CDBG funds were used to refurbish the 25 year old elevator at the Magnolia Senior Center in order to bring the  elevator equipment into compliance with safety standards and ADA regulations. The majority of the project is  complete with the exception of a few punch‐list items. The project budget is $103,450 and the City has expended  $99,580.40 of the total project budget. The remaining retention payment will be spent in FY 13‐14.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environment            Orange Park ADA Upgrades                                       $15,900 (CDBG)  CDBG funds were used to replace damaged asphalt pathways at Orange Memorial Park to make them ADA  accessible.     Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environment        Before After  Before After After  P47 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 46 Non Profit‐owned Facilities     Boys & Girls Club                    $79,847.59 (CDBG)  The Boys and Girls Club suffered a roof failure that caused severe water damage and mold to portions of the roof  and along a main exterior wall. Therefore the City issued the Boys and Girls Club two grants to abate the mold and  remove the damaged wall. Additionally, in FY 13‐14 the Boys and Girls Club will receive CDBG loans from the City  and County of San Mateo to rebuild the damaged wall and roof.      Outcome: Sustainability for the purpose of creating suitable living environment        Shelter Network Haven House Improvement Project                                                                                 $38,500 (CDBG)  As mentioned in the Homeless Needs Section, the City allocated funds to be used for facility improvements and/or  ADA modifications at emergency and transitional housing facilities. The City used CDBG funds to replace the  carpet with durable flooring at Haven Family House. The Haven Family House, located in Menlo Park, is home to  24 transitional family housing units that serve South San Francisco residents as there are no transitional family  shelters within the City’s jurisdiction. In addition, funds were used to purchase new mattresses. These facility  improvements improved the quality of living conditions and increased sleeping capacity for all the current and  future South San Francisco families living at Haven Family House.    Outcome: Sustainability for the purpose of creating suitable living environment     Before Before After After  During Construction During Construction  P48 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 47 2. Changes in Program Objectives  There were no changes to the program objectives in the 2012‐2013 fiscal year. However, given the current  economic crisis, the program will seek to remain flexible in an effort to provide resources for the community.    3. Assessment of Efforts in Carrying Out Planned Actions  The vast majority of the programs funded by the City of South San Francisco reached their goals for the 2012‐2013  fiscal year.     4. For Funds Not Used for National Objectives  All of the funds allotted to the CDBG program for the City of South San Francisco were used to meet the CDBG  national objectives.     5. Anti‐displacement and Relocation – for activities that involve acquisition, rehabilitation or  demolition of occupied real property  The City of South San Francisco CDBG program did not have any permanent relocation or displacement of tenants  during the 12‐13 fiscal year. The CDBG program conducts rehabilitation efforts on a regular basis but rarely  engages in acquisition or demolition. All of the activities thus far have not required any displacement.     6. Low/Mod Job Activities – for economic development activities undertaken where jobs were made  available but not taken by low‐ or moderate‐income persons  Not Applicable    7. Low/Mod Limited Clientele Activities – for activities not falling within one of the categories of  presumed limited clientele low and moderate income benefit  All of the programs operated or supported by the City’s CDBG program fall within the categories of Low/Mod  Limited Clientele (LMC) or Low/Mod Area Benefit (LMA). For LMC activities, information collected from the clients  is used to determine that the program is serving at least 51% of low to moderate income clients. For the majority  of programs receiving CDBG funding, 100% of clients served meet the low to moderate income requirements.  Additionally, for the LMA activities the City uses census tract and block group data to determine that over 51% of  the population in the surrounding area are low to moderate income.     8. Program Income    Loan Type Program Income CDBG Commercial Rehab Loans     0 CDBG Housing Rehab Loans 11,802.60 First Time Homebuyer Loans 108,821.39 Total Program Income 120,623.99 Program Income Receipted in 2012‐2013     9. Prior period adjustments – where reimbursement was made this reporting period for expenditures  (made in previous reporting periods) that have been disallowed, provide the following information:   There was no prior period adjustments made this year.    P49 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 48 10. Loans and other receivables    Outstanding Float‐funded Activities N/A N/A Total Outstanding Loans381,130,192.51        Deferred Loans 13  343,432       Forgivable Loans  1   15,000 Loans in default and forgiven/written off 12‐13  4   33,078 Loans and Other Receivables Type Number Principal Balance Owed  as of June 30, 2013   11.  Lump sum agreements   There were no lump sum agreements    12.  Housing Rehabilitation – for each type of rehabilitation program for which projects/units were  reported as completed during the program year  Below is a list of housing rehabilitation accomplishments for the year. See the Specific Housing Objectives Section  for more information about each program.     Program Units  Completed Funds  Allocated Total Funds  SpentBalance CID813,500$         3,164.10$        10,335.90$   City‐Sponsored Housing Rehab Prog12300,000$       358,450.66$  (58,450.66)$ Habitat for Humanity1 0 60,000$          ‐$                  60,000.00$    NPNSC ‐ House Helpers2 9 20,000$          14,967.41$      5,032.59$      Rebuilding Together ‐ Attic Insulation2 26,966$         11,884.96$      15,081.42$   Rebuilding Together ‐ Nat'l Rebuild Day3 10,000$         8,523.71$        1,476.29$     Rebuilding Together ‐ Safe at Home15 20,000$         19,711.34$      288.66$        TOTAL49450,466.38$ 416,702.18$  33,764.20$  1 Activity was cancelled Housing Rehabilitation  2 Activity was disbanded in December 2012 13. Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies – for grantees that have HUD‐approved neighborhood  revitalization strategies  The City of South San Francisco CDBG program does not currently have any HUD approved neighborhood  revitalization strategies underway.         P50 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 49 Antipoverty Strategy  1. Describe actions taken during the last year to reduce the number of persons living below the poverty level.    Program Year CAPER Antipoverty Strategy response:    Anti‐Poverty Strategy   The City has a multi‐faceted approach to reducing poverty in the community. The City collaborated with non‐ profits and used CDBG funding along with other funding to support various programs that helped reduce the  number of families living in poverty.    Affordable Housing  The City participates in the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable housing and ensures that  these activities are contingent upon restricting rents to affordable levels for low‐income residents for an extended  period of time (30 to 40 years). This helps reduce the number of families living in poverty by decreasing one of  their largest expenses, rent, to a reasonable level. Additionally, the City‐sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Loan  Program offered low‐ and moderate‐income homeowners the opportunity to bring their homes up to current  building standards by providing low‐interest loans, which facilitate upgrades in a manner that does not burden the  family budget.     City‐Sponsored Programs  The City also used its General Fund and non‐CDBG grants to provide a variety of programs and services to help  reduce poverty.    Magnolia Senior Center ‐ Offers a wide range of programs for senior residents such as blood pressure screenings,  health insurance counseling, exercise classes, English as a second language classes, and meals. Additionally, the  Magnolia Center has an Adult Day Care Program to help frail or impaired adults remain in the community through  social, mental, and physical stimulation. In prior years the Adult Day Care Program received CDBG funding.     Child Care Program ‐ Provides two preschools, four after school recreation programs, two academic support  programs for school age children and camps for children. The program also provides subsidies for low income  families to help reduce their child care costs. In prior years this program was also funded with CDBG funds.     Project Read ‐ Helps low literacy and low income adults and their families improve literacy, financial  opportunities, and independence. By improving their literacy, program participants are able to get higher paying  jobs, make informed decisions, help their children with school, write checks, vote, obtain driver’s licenses, pass  the GED, and attend college. Project Read also has the Financial Well‐Being Project that provides financial  education and coaching to help program participants create spending plans, build emergency savings funds,  and plan strategies to build wealth. In prior years the Project Read received CDBG funding.    Community Learning Center ‐ Provides residents with educational programs that focus on family support,  community building, improving academic performance and keeping children in school, increasing access to  computers, building independent and confident English language learners, and helping residents reach their full  potential. The Center offers English language classes, computer instruction, homework assistance, activities for  children, native language literacy classes (Spanish), job training, and citizenship classes.      P51 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 50 Social Services  The City funded several non‐profit agencies whose services help low‐income residents and those at risk of  homelessness. The chart below breaks out the total number of those assisted using CDBG, HOME Administrative,  and General Fund. Note that this chart does not include the housing rehabilitation programs.     Program Fund Source Total # of  Individuals  Assisted Bay Area Legal AidCDBG65 Health MobileCDBG138 HIP HousingGeneral Fund144 John's ClosetCDBG155 NPNSC ‐ Social ServicesCDBG2,811 PARCAGeneral Fund126 Project SentinelHOME50 Rape Trauma ServicesCDBG136 Sitike Counseling CenterCDBG36 Star VistaGeneral Fund13 Youth Service BureauCDBG21 TOTAL3,695     NON‐HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS    Non‐homeless Special Needs     1. Identify actions taken to address special needs of persons that are not homeless but require supportive  housing, (including persons with HIV/AIDS and their families).    Program Year CAPER Non‐homeless Special Needs response:    Non‐homeless Special Needs   For more information regarding the actions the City took in FY 12‐13 regarding non‐homeless special needs, see  the Community Development and Specific Housing Objectives Sections.   Specific HOPWA Objectives    Program Year CAPER Specific HOPWA Objectives response:  Not Applicable     OTHER NARRATIVE  Include any CAPER information that was not covered by narratives in any other section.    P52 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 51 TABLE 1 - Summary of Accomplishments Housing Activities A. Priority: Increase, maintain and improve the supply of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. Program Activity Outcome Objective 2012-2013 Objective 2012-2013 Accomplishments Five-Year Consolidated Plan Accomplishments New Housing Construction New Housing Construction (RDA Funds) Increase the number of affordable new units in the City of South San Francisco. Complete the construction at 636 El Camino Real and have tenants moved in during FY 12-13 (RDA funded) This property is mixed-use, comprising of commercial space and 109 affordable multi-family rental units. The City contributed the land and approximately $10 million in RDA funding in FY 10-11. Construction of 636 El Camino Real took place in FY 11-12 and the construction was completed in August 2012. The property was fully occupied by tenants in Fall 2012. Years 1-5 - The City partnered with Mid Peninsula Housing to develop 636 El Camino Real, a mixed-use, affordable multi-family rental property with 109 units. Construction was completed in August 2012 and low income tenants have been residing there since Fall 2012. Inclusionary Housing Development and Below Market Rate (BMR) Units Increased availability for the purpose of creating new decent affordable housing. Under the City’s 20% Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, various developers will make new affordable units available to residents at or below 120% of the AMI in the market rate projects they develop. This ordinance only applies to ownership projects. No new BMR units were constructed in fiscal year 2012-2013. However, technical assistance was provided to 11 BMR owners with selling or refinancing their property. Year 1 - 17 BMR units sold in FY 2008-09: 13 to low income and 4 to moderate income Year 2 – No new BMR units were constructed Year 3 – No new BMR units were constructed Year 4 – No new BMR units were constructed Year 5 - No new BMR units were constructed, however, technical assistance was provided to 11 BMR owners with selling or refinancing. P53 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 5 2  A.    Pr i o r i t y :    In c r e a s e ,  ma i n t a i n  an d  im p r o v e  th e  su p p l y  of  af f o r d a b l e  ho u s i n g  fo r  lo w ‐  an d  mo d e r a t e ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  and families continued….      Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Co n s o l i d a t e d  Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Fi r s t ‐ti m e  Ho m e b u y e r s    Fi r s t ‐ti m e   Ho m e b u y e r   (F T H B )  Lo a n   Pr o g r a m   (C D B G  &  RD A  Fu n d s )    In c r e a s e d   af f o r d a b i l i t y   fo r  th e   pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  ne w   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Pr o g r a m  wa s  pl a c e d  on   ho l d  du e  to  th e   pr e v a i l i n g  ec o n o m i c   ci r c u m s t a n c e s  an d  la c k   of  fu n d i n g .        Al t h o u g h  th e  pr o g r a m  wa s   pl a c e d  on  ho l d ,  te c h n i c a l   as s i s t a n c e  is  st i l l  be i n g   pr o v i d e d  to  ex isti n g   bo r r o w e r s .  St a f f  pr e p a r e d   do c u m e n t s  fo r  8 bo r r o w e r s   th a t  we r e  re f i n a n c i n g  or   se l l i n g .    Ad d i t i o n a l l y ,  in  FY   12 ‐13  th e  Ci t y  sp o n s o r e d  a  wo r k s h o p  fo r  ne w   bo r r o w e r s  se e k i n g  mo n e y   th r o u g h  th e  Co u n t y  HE A R T   pr o g r a m .       Ye a r  1 ‐   St a f f  co n d u c t e d  tw o  fi r s t  time homebuyer seminars  an d  bo t h  of  th e m  we r e  he a v i l y  marketed towards teachers  an d  lo c a l  em p l o y e e s .  Th e r e  we r e  4 CDBG loans made to  fa m i l i e s   Ye a r  2 – St a f f  co n d u c t e d  tw o  fi r s t  time homebuyer seminars   Ye a r  3 – Pr o g r a m  wa s  pl a c e d  on  hold due to the prevailing  ec o n o m i c  ci r c u m s t a n c e s .  Te c h n i c a l  assistance was provided  to  FT H B  & BM R  ow n e r s  wi t h  re f i n a n c i n g  or selling  Ye a r  4 – Pr o g r a m  st i l l  on  ho l d  du e  to the prevailing economic  ci r c u mst a n c e s .  Te c h n i c a l  as s i s t a n c e  was provided to FTHB &  BM R  ow n e r s  an d  St a f f  pr e p a r e d  documents for 7 owners who  we r e  re f i n a n c i n g  or  se l l i n g   Ye a r  5 – St a f f  pr e p a r e d  do c u m e n t s  for 8 borrowers that were  re f i n a n c i n g  or  se l l i n g .    Ad d i t i o n a l l y  the City sponsored a  wo r k s h o p  fo r  ne w  bo r r o w e r s  se e k i n g  money through the  Co u n t y  HE A R T  pr o g r a m .      Ho m e  Sh a r i n g    Hu m a n   In v e s t m e n t   Pr o j e c t  (H I P )   Ho u s i n g    (G e n e r a l   Fu n d )     Ac c e s s i b i l i t y   fo r  th e   pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Pr o v i d e  sh a r e d  ho u s i n g   ma t c h i n g  se r v i c e s  to   lo w ‐  an d  ve r y ‐lo w   in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s .    In  Ye a r s  1‐4 HI P   re c e i v e d  RD A  fu n d s .  In   Ye a r  5 HI P  re c e i v e d   Ge n e r a l  Fu n d s .     HI P  Ho u s i n g  se r v e d  14 4   in d i v i d u a l s    In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 92 Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 37   Lo w  In c o m e  = 12   Ot h e r  = 3   Ye a r  1 ‐   As s i s t e d  13 1  in d i v i d u a l s  and 105 households.  Ye a r  2 – As s i s t e d  12 4  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  3 – As s i s t e d  14 0  in d i v i d u a l s  and 101 households  Ye a r  4 ‐   As s i s t e d  98  in d i v i d u a l s   Ye a r  5 – As s i s t e d  14 4  in d i v i d u a l s  and 108 households  P5 4 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 5 3 A.    Pr i o r i t y :    In c r e a s e ,  ma i n t a i n  an d  im p r o v e  th e  su p p l y  of  af f o r d a b l e  ho u s i n g  fo r  lo w ‐  an d  mo d e r a t e ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  and families continued….      Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Consolidated Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Ow n e r ‐Oc c u p i e d  Re h a b i l i t a t i o n    Ci t y ‐ Sp o n s o r e d   Ho u s i n g   Re h a b i l i t a t i o n   Lo a n  Pr o g r a m   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   fo r  th e  pu r p o s e   of  cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .     As s i s t  lo w  an d   mo d e r a t e ‐in c o m e   ho m e o w n e r s  wi t h   ho u s i n g  re p a i r s  by   pr o v i d i n g  lo w ‐ in t e r e s t  ho u s i n g   re h a b i l i t a t i o n  lo a n s .     Th i s  ye a r  HC D  is s u e d  3 lo a n s ,   co m p l e t e d  a 4th  lo a n  st a r t e d  in  th e   pr i o r  ye a r ,  an d  ma d e  em e r g e n c y  ga s  &  se w e r  li n e  re p a i r s  at  Ci t y ‐ow n e d   af f o r d a b l e  re n t a l  un i t s .  Th e s e  ef f o r t s   he l p e d  a to t a l  of  7 ho u s e h o l d s    Ho u s e h o l d s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 4  Lo w  In c o m e  = 1     Ye a r  1 ‐   Pr o v i d e d  fu n d s  for a shelter rehabilitation  pr o j e c t  th a t  wi l l  ho u s e  3‐5 households  Ye a r  2 – Pr o v i d e d  fu n d s  for 2 loans   Ye a r  3 – Pr o v i d e d  fu n d s  for 1 loan and staffing to  ov e r s e e  re h a b i l i t a t i o n  on 8 City‐owned residential  un i t s   Ye a r  4 – Pr o v i d e d  fu n d s  for 1 loan and provided  ma j o r  te c h n i c a l  as s i s t a n c e  to 6 households.   Ye a r  5 – Is s u e d  3 lo a n s ,  completed a 4th loan  st a r t e d  in  FY  11 ‐12 ,  an d  made emergency gas &  se w e r  li n e  re p a i r s  at  City‐owned affordable rental  un i t s .  As s i s t e d  7 ho u s e h o l d s  in total   Em e r g e n c y   Ho m e  Re p a i r    Vo u c h e r s   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   fo r  th e  pu r p o s e   of  cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .      Pr o v i d e  ho m e o w n e r s   gr a n t s  of  up  to   $2 , 5 0 0  to  cl e a r  up   co d e  vi o l a t i o n s  in   th e i r  ho m e s .    Th i s   pr o g r a m  is  av a i l a b l e   ci t y w i d e .    Th i s  ye a r ,  th e  Ci t y  is s u e d  3 em e r g e n c y   ho m e  re p a i r  vo u c h e r s .     Ho u s e h o l d s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2  Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 1  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0   Ye a r  1 ‐   Fu n d e d  2 em e r g e n c y  home repair  vo u c h e r s   Ye a r s  2‐4 ‐  No  em e r g e n c y  home repair vouchers  we r e  fu n d e d   Ye a r  5 – Is s u e d  3 em e r g e n c y  home repair vouchers   De b r i s  Bo x   Vo u c h e r s   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   fo r  th e  pu r p o s e   of  cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    He l p  lo w  in c o m e   re s i d e n t s  re m o v e   ac c u m u l a t e d  de b r i s   an d  ya r d  wa s t e  fr o m   th e i r  pr o p e r t i e s .     Th i s  ye a r  th e  Ci t y  is s u e d  2 de b r i s  bo x   vo u c h e r s .    Ho u s e h o l d s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 1  Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0  Lo w  In c o m e  = 1   Ye a r  1 ‐   Is s u e d  3 de b r i s  box vouchers  Ye a r  2 – Is s u e d  6 de b r i s  box vouchers  Ye a r  3 – Is s u e d  2 de b r i s  box vouchers  Ye a r  4 – Is s u e d  3 de b r i s  box vouchers  Ye a r  5 – Is s u e d  2 de b r i s  box vouchers    P5 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 5 4 A.    Pr i o r i t y :    In c r e a s e ,  ma i n t a i n  an d  im p r o v e  th e  su p p l y  of  af f o r d a b l e  ho u s i n g  fo r  lo w ‐  an d  mo d e r a t e ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  and families continued….      Pr o g r a m    Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Consolidated Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Ow n e r ‐Oc c u p i e d  Re h a b i l i t a t i o n  co n t i n u e d …    No r t h  Pe n i n s u l a   Ne i g h b o r h o o d   Se r v i c e s  Ce n t e r   (N P N S C )  – Ho m e   Re v i t a l i z a t i o n   Pr o g r a m   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   fo r  th e  pu r p o s e   of  cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Pr o v i d e  fr e e ,  mi n o r  ho m e   re p a i r s  to  lo w  in c o m e   ho u s e h o l d s .       NP N S C  Ho m e  Re v i t a l i z a t i o n   Pr o g r a m  pr o v i d e d  mi n o r  ho m e   re p a i r  fo r  9 ho u s e h o l d s .    Ho u s e h o l d s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2  Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2  Lo w  In c o m e  = 5   No t e :  Pr o g r a m  wa s  di s b a n d e d  in   De c e m b e r  20 1 2    Ye a r  1 ‐   Ho u s i n g  fo r  32 individuals and 22  ho u s e h o l d s .   Ye a r  2 – Pr o v i d e d  minor home repairs for 21  lo w  in c o m e  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  3 – Pr o v i d e d  minor home repairs for 21  lo w  in c o m e  hous e h o l d s   Ye a r  4 – Pr o v i d e d  minor home repairs for 25  lo w  in c o m e  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  5 ‐  Pr o v i d e d  minor home repairs for 9 low  in c o m e  ho u s e h o l d s .     Re b u i l d i n g   To g e t h e r   Pe n i n s u l a  – At t i c   In s u l a t i o n   Pr o g r a m    (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   fo r  th e  pu r p o s e   of  cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Pr o v i d e  el e c t r i c a l   in s p e c t i o n s / t e s t s  an d  at t i c   in s u l a t i o n  fo r  ho m e s  th a t   ar e  be y o n d  th e   ca p a b i l i t i e s  of  El  Co n c i l i o ’ s   At t i c  In s u l a t i o n  Pr o g r a m     Re b u i l d i n g  To g e t h e r  pr o v i d e d   at t i c  in s u l a t i o n  fo r  2 ho u s e h o l d s    Ho u s e h o l d s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 1  Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0  Lo w  In c o m e  = 1     Ye a r  4 – Pr o v i d e d  attic insulation to 1  ho u s e h o l d   Ye a r  5 – Pr o v i d e d  attic insulation to 2  ho u s e h o l d s    Re b u i l d i n g   To g e t h e r   Pe n i n s u l a  –  Na t i o n a l   Re b u i l d i n g  Da y   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   fo r  th e  pu r p o s e   of  cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Pr o v i d e  fr e e  ho m e  re p a i r s   to  lo w  in c o m e  ho m e   ow n e r s ,  ut i l i z i n g  vo l u n t e e r   he l p ,  on  Na t i o n a l   Re b u i l d i n g  Da y .     Re h a b i l i t a t e d  3 ho m e s    Ho u s e h o l d s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2  Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 1  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0   Ye a r  1 ‐   Re h a b i l i t a t e d  3 homes  Ye a r  2 – Re h a b i l i t a t e d  4 homes  Ye a r  3 – Re h a b i l i t a t e d  3 homes and 1  co m m u n i t y  ki t c h e n .    Ye a r  4 – Re h a b i l i t a t e d  3 homes and 1  co m m u n i t y  fa c i l i t y .   Ye a r  5 – Re h a b i l i t a t e d  3 homes  P5 6 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 5 5 A.    Pr i o r i t y :    In c r e a s e ,  ma i n t a i n  an d  im p r o v e  th e  su p p l y  of  af f o r d a b l e  ho u s i n g  fo r  lo w ‐  an d  mo d e r a t e ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  and families continued….      Pr o g r a m  Ac t i v i t y       Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Year Consolidated Plan Accomplishments  Ow n e r ‐Oc c u p i e d  Re h a b i l i t a t i o n  co n t i n u e d …    Re b u i l d i n g   To g e t h e r   Pe n i n s u l a  – Sa f e   at  Ho m e   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   fo r  th e  pu r p o s e   of  cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Pr o v i d e  fr e e ,  mi n o r  ho m e  re p a i r s  to   lo w  in c o m e  ho u s e h o l d s    Pr o v i d e d  ho m e  re p a i r s  to  15   ho u s e h o l d s    Ho u s e h o l d s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 10   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2  Lo w  In c o m e  = 3   Ye a r s  1‐3 – Program did not exist  Ye a r  4 – Provided home repairs for 18  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  5 ‐   Provided home repairs for 15  ho u s e h o l d s   Ac q u i s i t i o n  & Re h a b i l i t a t i o n      Do w n t o w n   Af f o r d a b l e   Ho u s i n g  Pr o g r a m   (Ci t y  Ho u s i n g   Fu n d )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y   fo r  th e  pu r p o s e   of  cr e a t i n g   de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Ho u s i n g  fu n d  es t a b l i s h e d  to  pr o v i d e   af f o r d a b l e  re n t a l  ho u s i n g  fo r  lo w ‐  an d  ve r y ‐lo w  in c o m e  re s i d e n t s   th r o u g h  th e  ac q u i s i t i o n  an d   re h a b i l i t a t i o n  of  di l a p i d a t e d  ho u s i n g   st o c k .  Th e  Ci t y  co n d u c t s  fe a s i b i l i t y   an a l y s i s  on  a re g u l a r  ba s i s  to   de t e r mi n e  vi a b i l i t y  of  acqu i s i t i o n s .    Sh o u l d  an  op p o r t u n i t y  to  cr e a t e   af f o r d a b l e  un i t s  pr e s e n t  it s e l f ,  th e   Ci t y  wi l l  im m e d i a t e l y  al l o c a t e  fu n d s   to  th e  pr o j e c t .    On g o i n g  ma n a g e m e n t  of  18  ci t y ‐ ow n e d  af f o r d a b l e  un i t s .     Ye a r s  1‐5 ‐ Ongoing management of  18  ci t y ‐ow n e d  affordable units.               P5 7 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 5 6 B.  Pr i o r i t y :    Pr o v i d e  se r v i c e ‐en r i c h e d  sh e l t e r  an d  tr a n s i t i o n a l  ho u s i n g  fo r  ho m e l e s s  in d i v i d u a l s  an d  fa m i l i e s .       Pr o g r a m  Ac t i v i t y       Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Consolidated Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Em e r g e n c y  Sh e l t e r  an d  Tr a n s i t i o n a l  Ho u s i n g  fo r  Ho m e l e s s  In d i v i d u a l s    Sa m a r i t a n  Ho u s e   ‐  Sa f e  Ha r b o r   (R D A  Fu n d s )      Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to   th e  lo s s  of  RD A  fu n d s      Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to   th e  lo s s  of  RD A  fu n d s      Ye a r  1 ‐  Se r v ed  61  in d i v i d u a l s  and 61 households  Ye a r  2 – Se r v e d  74  in d i v i d u a l s   Ye a r  3 – Se r v e d  65  in d i v i d u a l s   Ye a r  4 – Se r v e d  60  in d i v i d u a l s   Ye a r  5 – Ag e n c y  di d  not receive funding   Se r v i c e  Le a g u e  of   Sa n  Ma t e o   Co u n t y   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a  re d u c t i o n  in  th e  Ci t y ’ s  CD B G   en t i t l e m e n t  fu n d s      Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a  re d u c t i o n  in  th e  Ci t y ’ s  CD B G   en t i t l em e nt  fu n d s      Ye a r s  1‐2 – Ag e n c y  did not receive funding  Ye a r  3 ‐   As s i s t e d  2 in d i v i d u a l s    Ye a r  4 – As s i s t e d  1 in d i v i d u a l   Ye a r  5 – Ag e n c y  di d  not receive funding   Sh e l t e r  Ne t w o r k   – Ma p l e  St r e e t   (R D A  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to   th e  lo s s  of  RD A  fu n d s      Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to   th e  lo s s  of  RD A  fu n d s      Ye a r  1 ‐  Pr o v i d e d  sh e l t e r  to 28 individuals   Ye a r  2 – Pr o v i d e d  sh e l t e r  to 40 individuals   Ye a r  3 – Pr o v i d e d  sh e l t e r  to 39 individuals  Ye a r  4 – Pr o v i d e d  sh e l t e r  to 26 individuals  Ye a r  5 – Ag e n c y  di d  not receive funding  Em e r g e n c y  Sh e l t e r  an d  Tr a n s i t i o n a l  Ho u s i n g  fo r  Ho m e l e s s  Fa m i l i e s    Sh e l t e r  Ne t w o r k   – Cr o s s r o a d s   (R D A  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  de c e n t   af f o r d a b l e   ho u s i n g .    Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to   th e  lo s s  of  RD A  fu n d s      Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to   th e  lo s s  of  RD A  fu n d s      Ye a r  1 ‐  As s i s t e d  38  individuals and 12  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  2 – As s i s t e d  45  individuals and 12  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  3 ‐  As s i s t e d  28  individuals and 6 households  Ye a r  4 ‐  As s i s t e d  22  individuals and 6 households  Ye a r  5 – Ag e n c y  di d  not receive funding  P5 8 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 5 7 C.  Pr i o r i t y :    Pr o v i d e  se r v i c e ‐en r i c h e d  ho u s i n g  op p o r t u n i t i e s  fo r  in d i v i d u a l s  an d  fa m i l i e s  wi t h  sp e c i a l  ne e d s  in c l u d i n g ,  bu t  not limited to, seniors,  pe o p l e  wi t h  ph y s i c a l  an d  de v e l o p m e n t a l  di s a b i l i t i e s ,  do m e s t i c  vi o l e n c e  su r v i v o r s ,  pe o p l e  wi t h  AI D S / H I V ,  an d  pe o p l e  in  tr e a t m e n t  for substance  ab u s e .       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Consolidated Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Ho u s i n g  Ac c e s s i b i l i t y    Ce n t e r  fo r   In d e p e n d e n c e  of   th e  Di s a b l e d   (C I D )  Ho u s i n g   Ac c e s s i b i l i t y   Pr o g r a m   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g   su i t a b l e  li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s    Pr o v i d e  ho u s i n g  ac c e s s i b i l i t y   mo d i f i c a t i o n s  to  th e  ho m e s  of   lo w ‐  an d  ve r y ‐lo w  in c o m e   pe o p l e  wi t h  di s a b i l i t i e s .    CI D  se r v e d  8 ho u s e h o l d s .     Ho u s e h o l d s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 3  Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 3  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2     Ye a r  1 ‐   Se r v e d  32  individuals and 22  ho u s e h o l d s .   Ye a r  2 – Se r v e d  11  households  Ye a r  3 – Se r v e d  28  individuals and 16  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  4 – Se r v e d  21  households  Ye a r  5 – Se r v e d  8 households                    P5 9 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 5 8 No n ‐Ho u s i n g  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Ac t i v i t i e s    A.  Pr i o r i t y :    Pr o v i d e  co r e  pu b l i c  se r v i c e s  ac t i v i t i e s  to  im p r o v e  th e  qu a l i t y  of  li f e  fo r  lo w ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  an d  fa m i l i e s ,  in c l u d i n g  those at risk of  be c o m i n g  ho m e l e s s  an d  sp e c i a l  ne e d s  gr o u p s .       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Consolidated Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Ge n e r a l  So c i a l  Se r v i c e s    No r t h  Pe n i n s u l a   Ne i g h b o r h o o d   Se r v i c e s  Ce n t e r   (N P N S C )   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r  th e   pu r p o s e  of  cr e a t i n g   su i t a b l e  li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e s  cr i t i c a l  so c i a l   se r v i c e s  to  lo w ‐  an d  ve r y ‐ lo w ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  an d   ho u s e h o l d s  wi t h  im m e d i a t e   ne e d s .    NP N S C  se r v e d  2, 8 1 1   in d i v i d u a l s .     In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d   Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2, 7 6 0   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 46   Lo w  In c o m e  = 5     Ye a r  1 ‐   Se r v e d  5,785 individuals  Ye a r  2 – Se r v e d  1,946 households  Ye a r  3 – Se r v e d  2,676 individuals  Ye a r  4 – Se r v e d  1,970 individuals  Ye a r  5 ‐     Se r v e d  2,811 individuals   Si t i k e  Co u n s e l i n g   Ce n t e r   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r  th e   pu r p o s e  of  cr e a t i n g   su i t a b l e  li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  su b s t a n c e  ab u s e   se r v i c e s  an d  co u n s e l i n g   se r v i c e s    Si t i k e  Co u n s e l i n g  Ce n t e r  se r v e d   36  in d i v i d u a l s .     In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 27   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 4  Lo w  In c o m e  = 5     Ye a r  1 ‐   56  in d i v i d u a l s  served.  Ye a r  2 – 48  in d i v i d u a l s  served  Ye a r  3 – 36  in d i v i d u a l s  served  Ye a r  4 – 17  in d i v i d u a l s  served  Ye a r  5 – 36  in d i v i d u a l s  served   Yo u t h  Se r v i c e s   Bu r e a u  (Y S B )  –  La t i n o  Pa r e n t s ’   Co u n s e l i n g   Gr o u p   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r  th e   pu r p o s e  of  cr e a t i n g   su i t a b l e  li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  pa r e n t i n g  sk i l l s  an d   gr o u p  co u n s e l i n g  to  lo w ‐  an d   ve r y ‐lo w ‐in c o m e  Hi s p a n i c   ho u s e h o l d s .    YS B  se r v e d  21  in d i v i d u a l s .    In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 14   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 5  Lo w  In c o m e  = 2     Ye a r  1 ‐   41  in d i v i d u a l s  served  Ye a r  2 – 48  ho u s e h o l d s  were assisted  Ye a r  3 – 39  in d i v i d u a l s  and 37 households  we r e  as s i s t e d   Ye a r  4 – 29  in d i v i d u a l s  were served  Ye a r  5 – 21  in d i v i d u a l s  served  P6 0 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 5 9 A.    Pr i o r i t y :    Pr o v i d e  co r e  pu b l i c  se r v i c e s  ac t i v i t i e s  to  im p r o v e  th e  qu a l i t y  of  li f e  fo r  lo w ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  an d  fa m i l i e s ,  in c l u d i n g  those at risk of  be c o m i n g  ho m e l e s s  an d  sp e c i a l  ne e d s  gr o u p s  co n t i n u e d …       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Year Consolidated Plan Accomplishments  Ge n e r a l  So c i a l  Se r v i c e s  Co n t i n u e d  Pr o j e c t  RE A D   (C D B G  Fu n d s )      Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o g r a m  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a  re d u c t i o n  in  th e  Ci t y ’ s  CD B G   en t i t l e m e n t  am o u n t     Pr o g r a m  di d  no t  re c e i v e  fu n d i n g  in  FY   12 ‐13  du e  to  a re d u c t i o n  in  th e  Ci t y ’ s   CD B G  en t i tl e m e n t  am o u n t      Ye a r  1 ‐  Se r v i ce to 104 households and  in d i v i d u a l s .   Ye a r  2 – Se r v i c e  to 67 extremely low‐ in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s   Ye a r  3 – Se r v i c e  to 61 individuals  Ye a r  4 – Se r v i c e  to 83 individuals  Ye a r  5 – Pr o g r a m  did not receive CDBG  fu n d i n g   Ba t t e r e d  Sp o u s e s  Se r v i c e s    Ba y  Ar e a  Le g a l   Ai d   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  le g a l  ad v i c e  an d   co u n s e l ,  in c l u d i n g  re f e r r a l s ,   op t i o n s  co u n s e l i n g ,  sa f e t y   pl a n n i n g ,  br i e f  se r v i c e s  an d   as s i s t a n c e  wi t h  re s t r a i n i n g   or d e r s  an d  ex t e n d e d  le g a l   re p r e s e n t a t i o n  to  lo w ‐in c o m e   vi c t i m s  of  do m e s t i c  vi o l e n c e .     Ba y  Ar e a  Le g a l  Ai d  se r v e d  65   in d i v i d u a l s    In d i v i d u a l s  Se rv e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 42   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 15   Lo w  In c o m e  = 4  Ot h e r  = 4   Ye a r s  1 ‐   3 – Agency did not apply for  fu n d i n g .   Ye a r  4 – Se r v e d  62 individuals  Ye a r  5 – Se r v e d  65 individuals    Ra p e  Tr a u m a   Se r v i c e s  (R T S )   Ce n t e r   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  in f o r m a t i o n ,   re s o u r c e s ,  an d  su p p o r t  to   se x u a l  as s a u l t  su r v i v o r s  an d   th e i r  fa m i l i e s .     RT S  se r v e d  13 6  in d i v i d u a l s     In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 31   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 42   Lo w  In c o m e  = 50   Ot h e r  = 13    Ye a r  1 – Se r v e d  461 individuals  Ye a r  2 – Se r v e d  436 individuals   Ye a r  3 – Se r v e d  398 individuals   Ye a r  4 – Se r v e d  133 individuals  Ye a r  5 – Se r v e d  136 individuals  P6 1 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 6 0 A.    Pr i o r i t y :    Pr o v i d e  co r e  pu b l i c  se r v i c e s  ac t i v i t i e s  to  im p r o v e  th e  qu a l i t y  of  li f e  fo r  lo w ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  an d  fa m i l i e s ,  in c l u d i n g  those at risk of  be c o m i n g  ho m e l e s s  an d  sp e c i a l  ne e d s  gr o u p s  co n t i n u e d …       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Year Consolidated Plan Accomplishments  Di s a b l e d  Se r v i c e s    PA R C A   (P e n i n s u l a   As s o c i a t i o n    fo r   Re t a r d e d   Ch i l d r e n  an d   Ad u l t s )   (G e n e r a l  Fu n d )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  su p p o r t ,  in f o r m a t i o n ,   re f e r r a l s ,  ad v o c a c y ,  an d  re c r e a t i o n   op p o r t u n i t i e s  fo r  lo w ‐in c o m e   ho u s e h o l d s  an d  in d i v i d u a l s  wi t h   de v e l o p m e n t a l  di s a b i l i t i e s .  Ye a r s   1‐4 PA R C A  re c e i v e d  CD B G  fu n d s   an d  in  Ye a r  5 re c e i v e d  Ge n e r a l   Fu n d s .    PA R C A  pr o v i d e d  se r v i c e s  to  12 6   in d i v i d u a l s     In d i v i d u a l s  Se rv e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 35   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 18   Lo w  In c o m e  = 62   Ot h e r  = 11    Ye a r  1 ‐   45  Individuals and 17  ho u s e h o l d s  served  Ye a r  2 – 35  individuals served  Ye a r  3 – 14  individuals and 3  ho u s e h o l d s  served  Ye a r  4 – 12 1  individuals served  Ye a r  5 – 12 6  individuals served  Se n i o r  Se r v i c e s    Ci t y ‐Sp o n s o r e d   Ad u l t  Da y  Ca r e   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o g r a m  di d  no t  re c e i v e  fu n d i n g  in   FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a re d u c t i o n  in  th e   Ci t y ’ s  CD B G  en t i t l e m e n t  am o u n t       Pr o g r a m  di d  no t  re c e i v e  fu n d i n g  in   FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a re d u c t i o n  in  th e  Ci t y ’ s  CD B G  ent i t l e m e n t  am o u n t        Ye a r  1 ‐   47  individuals with low  in c o m e s  we r e  assisted.  Ye a r  2 – 42  individuals with extremely  lo w  in c o m e s  were assisted.  Ye a r  3 – 33  individuals with extremely  lo w  in c o m e s  were assisted.   Ye a r  4 – 37  individuals with extremely  lo w  in c o m e s  were assisted.   Ye a r  5 – Pr o g r a m  did not receive CDBG  fu n d i n g   Om b u d s m a n   Se r v i c e s  of  Sa n   Ma t e o  Co u n t y   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e  fu n d i n g  in   FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a re d u c t i o n  in  th e   Ci t y ’ s  CD B G  en t i t l e m e n t  am o u n t    Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e  fu n d i n g  in   FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a re d u c t i o n  in  th e  Ci t y ’ s  CD B G  ent i t l e m e n t  am o u n t      Ye a r s  1‐  3 – Agency did not apply for  fu n d i n g .   Ye a r  4 – Se r v e d  82 individuals  Ye a r  5 – Ag e n c y  did not receive funding    P6 2 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 6 1 A.    Pr i o r i t y :    Pr o v i d e  co r e  pu b l i c  se r v i c e s  ac t i v i t i e s  to  im p r o v e  th e  qu a l i t y  of  li f e  fo r  lo w ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  an d  fa m i l i e s ,  in c l u d i n g  those at risk of  be c o m i n g  ho m e l e s s  an d  sp e c i a l  ne e d s  gr o u p s  co n t i n u e d …       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Consolidated Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Yo u t h  Se r v i c e s    He a l t h  Mo b i l e   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  on ‐si t e  de n t a l  se r v i c e s   fo r  lo w ‐in c o m e  ch i l d r e n  in   So u t h  Sa n  Fr a n c i s c o .     He a l t h  Mo b i l e  se r v e d  13 8   in d i v i d u a l s .    In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 13 8   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0     Ye a r  1 – Se r v e d  193 children  Ye a r  2 – Se r v e d  58 children  Ye a r  3 – Se r v e d  97 children  Ye a r  4 – Se r v e d  76 children  Ye a r  5 – Se r v e d  138 children     Jo h n ’ s  Cl o s e t   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  ne w  cl o t h i n g  to  lo w ‐  an d  ve r y ‐lo w ‐in c o m e  sc h o o l   ch i l d r e n .     Jo h n ’ s  Cl o s e t  se r v e d  15 5   ch i l d r e n     In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 15 5   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0     Ye a r  1 ‐  14 1  in d i v i d u a l s  and 66 households  we r e  gi v e n  cl o t h i n g   Ye a r  2 – 19 2  in d i v i d u a l s  were given clothing  Ye a r  3 – 20 4  in d i v i d u a l s  were given clothing  Ye a r  4 – 18 6  in d i v i d u a l s  were given clothing   Ye a r  5 – 15 5  ind i v i d u a l s  were given clothing   St a r  Vi s t a   (G e n e r a l  Fu n d )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  su b s i d i z e d  ap a r t m e n t s   in  So u t h  Sa n  Fr a n c i s c o  an d  ca s e   ma n a g e m e n t  se r v i c e s  fo r   em a n c i p a t e d  fo s t e r  yo u t h  ag e d   18 ‐25 .  St a r  Vi s t a  re c e i v e d   Ge n e r a l  Fu n d s .    St a r  Vi s t a  se r v e d  13  fo r m e r   fo s t e r  yo u t h    In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 13   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0  Lo w  In c o m e  = 0   Ye a r s  1‐4 – ag e n c y  did not receive funding  Ye a r  5 – Se r v e d  13 youth    P6 3 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 6 2 A.    Pr i o r i t y :    Pr o v i d e  co r e  pu b l i c  se r v i c e s  ac t i v i t i e s  to  im p r o v e  th e  qu a l i t y  of  li f e  fo r  lo w ‐in c o m e  in d i v i d u a l s  an d  fa m i l i e s ,  in c l u d i n g  those at risk of  be c o m i n g  ho m e l e s s  an d  sp e c i a l  ne e d s  gr o u p s  co n t i n u e d …       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Consolidated Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Yo u t h  Se r v i c e s  Co n t i n u e d    Ci t y ‐Sp o n s o r e d   Ch i l d  Ca r e   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Af f o r d a b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o g r a m  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a  re d u c t i o n  in  th e  Ci t y ’ s  CD B G   en t i t l e m e n t  am o u n t       Pr o g r a m  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  in  FY  12 ‐13  du e  to  a  re d u c t i o n  in  th e  Ci t y ’ s  CD B G   en t i t l em e nt  am o u n t        Ye a r  1 ‐  Su i t a b l e  li v i n g  environments for 21  in d i v i d u a l  ch i l d r e n   Ye a r  2 – Se r v e d  24  children  Ye a r  3 – Se r v e d  23  children and 21 households  Ye a r  4 – Se r v e d  33  children  Ye a r  5 – Pr o g r a m  did not receive CDBG  fu n d i n g      B.  Pr i o r i t y :  Su s t a i n  an d  in c r e a s e  th e  le v e l  of  bu s i n e s s  an d  ec o n o m i c  ac t i v i t y  in  ar e a s  th a t  se r v e  or  ha v e  a hi g h  pe r c e n t a g e  of low‐income residents.      Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Consolidated Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s    Ci t y ‐Sp o n s o r e d   Co m m e r c i a l   Re h a b i l i t a t i o n   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Su s t a i n a b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g   ec o n o m i c   op p o r t u n i t y    Pr o v i d e  fi n a n c i a l  an d   te c h n i c a l  as s i s t a n c e  to   pr o p e r t y  ow n e r s  un d e r t a k i n g   ex t e r i o r  bu s i n e s s   im p r o v e m e n t s ,  wh i c h  ca n   in c l u d e  si g n s ,  aw n i n g s  an d   ex t e r i o r  pa i n t i n g .         Th i s  ye a r  th e  Ci t y  co m p l e t e d  a  re h a b i l i t a t i o n  gr a n t  fo r  pa i n t i n g   th a t  wa s  st a r t e d  in  FY  11 ‐12    Ye a r  1 ‐  He l p e d  fu n d  improvements at three  do w n t o w n  bu s i n e s s e s    Ye a r  2 – Fu n d e d  one commercial loan for  $1 5 , 0 0 0   Ye a r  3 – Fu n d e d  2 commercial loans and  pr o v i d e d  te c h n i c a l  assistance to 3 other  bu s i n e s s e s .    Ye a r  4 – Fu n d e d  2 commercial rehabilitation  gr a n t s   Ye a r  5 – Co m p l e t e d  a rehabilitation grant for  pa i n t i n g th a t  wa s  started in FY 11‐12    P6 4 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 6 3 C.  Pr e s e r v e  an d  im p r o v e  pu b l i c  fa c i l i t i e s  th a t  se r v e  a hi g h  pe r c e n t a g e  of  lo w ‐in c o m e  re s i d e n t s .       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Co n s o l i d a t e d  Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s    Pu b l i c  Fa c i l i t y   Re h a b i l i t a t i o n   an d  AD A   Mo d i f i c a t i o n s   (C D B G  Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y   fo r  th e   pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g   su i t a b l e  li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .     Pr o v i d e  AD A   mo d i f i c a t i o n s  an d / o r   re h a b i l i t a t e  pu b l i c   fa c i l i t i e s  th a t  se r v e  lo w ‐ in c o m e  an d / o r  sp e c i a l   ne e d s  re s i d e n t s .     Ma d e  AD A  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  an d   up g r a d e s  to  fi v e  Ci t y ‐ow n e d  pu b l i c   fa c i l i t i e s :   ‐  Bu r i  Bu r i  Pa r k    ‐  Ci t y  Ha l l    ‐  Gr a n d Av e n u e  Li b r a r y   ‐  Or a n g e Me m o r i a l  Pa r k   ‐  Ma g n o l i a  Se n i o r  Ce n t e r    Ma d e  im p r o v e m e n t s  at  2  no n p r o f i t ‐ow n e d  pu b l i c  fa c i l i t i e s :   ‐  Bo y s  & Gi r l s  Cl u b   ‐  Sh e l t e r  Ne t w o r k  Ha v e n  Ho u s e    Ye a r  1 ‐   Ea r l y  st a g e  pl a n n i n g  and preparation are  ta k i n g  pl a c e .   Ye a r  2 – St a f f  co m p l e t e d  the ADA rehabilitation of  Or a n g e  Li b r a r y   Ye a r  3 – no  pu b l i c  fa c i l i ties were renovated   Ye a r  4 – Fi v e  pu b l i c  fa c i l i t i e s  received ADA  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  an d  up g r a d e s   Ye a r  5 – Fi v e  (5 )  Ci t y ‐ow n e d  public facilities  re c e i v e d  AD A  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  and two (2) non‐profit  ow n e d  fa c i l i t i e s  re c e i v e d  funds for  im p r o v e m e n t / r e h a b i l i t a t i o n  projects    Le a d ‐Ba s e d  Pa i n t  Ab a t e m e n t       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Co n s o l i d a t e d  Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s    Le a d ‐ba s e d   pa i n t   ab a t e m e n t   pr o c e d u r e s      Su s t a i n a b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g  su i t a b l e   li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .     Co n t i n u e  to  ap p l y   fe d e r a l  le a d ‐ba s e d   pa i n t  re g u l a t i o n s  in  al l   ho u s i n g  an d  pu b l i c   fa c i l i t y  re h a b i l i t a t i o n   pr o j e c t s    Co n t i n u e d  to  ap p l y  fe d e r a l   le a d ‐ba s e d  pa i n t  re g u l a t i o n s   in  al l  ho u s i n g  an d  pu b l i c   fa c i l i t y  re h a b i l i t a t i o n   pr o j e c t s    Ye a r  1 ‐   Ra i s e d $7 5 , 0 0 0  fo r  abatement at 714‐718 Linden   Ye a r  2 – Pl a n s  to  ho s t  at  le a s t  one lead awareness event   Ye a r s  3‐5 – Co n t i n u e d  to  ap p l y  lead‐based paint  re g u l a t i o n s  in  al l  ho u s i n g  an d  public facility rehabilitation  pr o j e c t s        P6 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 6 4 Fa i r  Ho u s i n g       Pr o g r a m   Ac t i v i t y     Ou t c o m e   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ob j e c t i v e     20 1 2 ‐20 1 3   Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s     Fi v e ‐Ye a r  Co n s o l i d a t e d  Plan  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s    Pr o j e c t  Se n t i n e l   (H O M E   Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e   Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g   su i t a b l e  li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e  co m p r e h e n s i v e   fa i r  ho u s i n g  se r v i c e s  of   co m p l a i n t  in v e s t i g a t i o n   an d  co m m u n i t y   ou t r e a c h  an d   ed u c a t i o n    Pr o j e c t  Se n t i n e l  se r v e d  50   in d i v i d u a l s    In d i v i d u a l s  Se r v e d    Ex t r e m e l y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 10   Ve r y  Lo w  In c o m e  = 15   Lo w  In c o m e  = 22   Ot h e r  = 3     Ye a r  1 ‐  Se r v e d  29  in d i v i d u a l s  and 13 households  Ye a r  2 – Se r v e d  15  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  3 – Se r v e d  11  in d i v i d u a l s  and 5 households  Ye a r  4 – Ag e n c y  di d  no t  su b m i t  application on time and  th e r e f o r e  di d  no t  re c e i v e  fun d i n g  Ye a r  5 – Se r v e d  50  in d i v i d u a l s    Le g a l  Ai d   So c i e t y    (H O M E   Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e   Fu n d s )    Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  fo r   th e  pu r p o s e  of   cr e a t i n g   su i t a b l e  li v i n g   en v i r o n m e n t s .    Pr o v i d e s  le g a l   as s i s t a n c e  to  pe o p l e   th r e a t e n e d  wi t h   ev i c t i o n s  or   su b s t a n d a r d  li v i n g   co n d i t i o n s .       Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e   fu n d i n g  du e  to  a re d u c t i o n   in  th e  HO M E  Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e   fu n d s  th e  Ci t y  re c e i v e s  fr o m   th e  Co u n t y     Ye a r  1 – Pr o j e c t  no t  fun d e d  Ye a r  2 – Su p p o r t e d  13 5  ho u s e h o l d s   Ye a r  3 – Su p p o r t e d  42 4  in d i v i d u a l s  and 141 households  Ye a r  4 – Su p p o r t e d  43 1  in d i v i d u a l s  and 136 households.  Ye a r  5 – Ag e n c y  di d  no t  re c e i v e  funding    P6 6 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Fifth Pro g r a m Y e a r C A P E R 6 5 At t a c h m e n t  B ‐   Su m m a r y  of  Ho u s i n g  Ac c o m p l i s h m e n t s   Ex t r e m e l y   Lo w  In c o m e Ve r y  Lo w   In c o m e Lo w   In c o m e   Mo d e r a t e   In c o m e   Ex t r e m e l y   Lo w  In c o m e   Ve r y  Lo w   In c o m e   Low  In c o m e Moderate Income   (<  30 %   AM I )  (3 1 ‐50 %   AM I ) (5 1 ‐80 %   AM I ) (8 1 ‐12 0 %   AM I )  (<  30 %   AM I )  (3 1 ‐50 %   AM I ) (5 1 ‐80% AMI)(81‐120% AMI) Sp e c i a l  Ne e d s  No n ‐Ho m e l e s s CI D  ‐   HA M  Pr o g r a m N / A N / A N / A N / A 0 33 2 0 8 Ho m e l e s s 1 Sh e l t e r  Ne t w o r k  Ha v e n  Ho u s e  ‐   Re h a b 5 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 1 Re n t e r s BM R  (R e n t a l s ) 2 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HI P  Ho u s i n g 9 2 3 7 1 2 3 1 4 4 7 7 2 0 9 2 1 0 8 SU B T O T A L 92 3 7 1 2 3 1 4 4 7 7 2 0 9 2 1 0 8 Ho m e o w n e r s BM R / F T H B  (O w n e r ) 3 N/ A N / A N / A N / A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ci t y ‐Sp o n s o r e d  Re h a b  Pr o g r a m 1 1 1 3 5 0 2 9 5 5 2 0 1 2 NP N S C  ‐   Ho m e  Re v i t a l i z a t i o n  Pr o g N / A N / A N / A N / A 0 2 2 5 0 9 Re b u i l d i n g  To g e t h e r  ‐   At t i c  In s u l a t i o n N / A N / A N / A N / A 0 1 0 1 0 2 Re b u i l d i n g  To g e t h e r  ‐   NR D N/ A N / A N / A N / A 0 2 0 1 0 3 Re b u i l d i n g  To g e t h e r  ‐   Sa f e  at  Ho m e N / A N / A N / A N / A 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 5 SU B T O T A L 11 1 3 5 0 2 9 2 0 9 1 2 0 4 1 GR A N D  TO T A L 10 8 5 0 1 7 3 1 7 8 1 0 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 5 8 1 So u t h  Sa n  Fr a n c i s c o  Ho m e l e s s  fa m i l i e s  pr o v i d e d  wi t h  im p r o v e d  li v i n g  co n d i t i o n s  wh i l e  in  tr a n s i t i o n a l  ho u s i n g 2 BM R  (R e n t a l )  ‐   On l y  c o u n t e d  ne w  BM R  un i t s  re n t e d 3 BM R / F T H B  (O w n e r )  ‐   On l y  c o u n t e d  ne w  BM R  un i t s  so l d  or  ne w  FT H B  lo a n s  ma d e IN D I V I D U A L S   se r v e d  in  ea c h  in c o m e  ca t a g o r y   To t a l Total HO U S E H O L D S  se r v e d  in  each income catagory  P6 7 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 66 Attachment C ‐ PR‐26 Financial Summary    P68 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 67   P69 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 68   P70 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 69 Attachment D ‐ Public Notification Efforts    P71 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 70   P72 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 71   P73 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 72   P74 City of South San Francisco Fifth Program Year CAPER 73     P75 Staff Report DATE: September 25, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL VILLAGE – USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PHASED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 222,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 284 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A 14.5 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE (ECRMX) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC CHAPTERS 19.60, 20.090, 20.300, 20.330, 20.350, 20.400, 20.440, 20.450, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490. Address: 180 El Camino Real (APN 014-183-110) Owner: Shamain Partnership Applicant: El Camino and Spruce LLC Case No.: P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001, DA13-0002 & ND12-0004 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration ND12-0004; and 2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P11-0065, including Use Permit UP11-0006, Design Review DR11-0019, and Transportation Demand Management Plan TDM13-0001 based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval; and 3. Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement DA13-0002. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION September 11th Staff Report and Discussion The September 11, 2013 City Council Staff Report (without attachments) is attached for background on the project. At that meeting, Council was supportive of the proposed project but Staff Report Subject: 180 El Camino Real - Mixed Use Development Date: September 25, 2013 Page 3 of 3 2. Draft Entitlements Resolution Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval (as attached to the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet) Exhibit B: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (as attached to the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet) Exhibit C: Project Plans (as attached to the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet) 3. Draft Ordinance Exhibit A: Development Agreement 4. City Council Staff Report – September 11, 2013 BMN/MVD/SK/GB/bg Draft CEQA Resolution Attachment 1 1 RESOLUTION NO._________ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14.5 ACRE SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL VILLAGE AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“Applicant”), has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units (“Project”); and WHEREAS, approval of Applicant’s proposal is considered a “Project” as that term is defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, an initial study was performed, the result of which was preparation and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) analyzing the proposed Project and concluding that approval of the Project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels below established CEQA thresholds of significance with the adoption of mitigation measures and enforcement of such measures through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and, WHEREAS, the IS/MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public review period, beginning on April 12, 2013, during which time members of the public were invited to comment on the environmental analysis and conclusions for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, six comment letters were submitted on the IS/MND, from the San Mateo County Health System, San Francisco International Airport, County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, C/CAG, the California Department of Transportation and the City of San Bruno; and WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the IS/MND and prepared a Final MND for circulation, which consists of the IS/MND (incorporated by reference), all comments received on the IS/MND, written responses to comments received on the IS/MND, revisions to the IS/MND where appropriate, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15, 2 2012, to consider the IS/MND, the proposed Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Development Agreement for the Project and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013 which was continued to September 25, 2013, to consider the IS/MND, the Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Development Agreement and take public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the IS/MND, including all comment letters submitted, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the IS/MND, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project’s environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan EIR and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project application; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9 , 2013; the 180 El Camino Real IS/MND, including the Draft and Final IS/MND, the MMRP and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s meeting held on August 15, 2013 meeting, and Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013 which was continued to September 25, 2013, and City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit A) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, included with the Final IS/MND (attached as Exhibit B ) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the land use, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the 3 General Plan (see Gov’t Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 5. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council has considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, and based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the following findings regarding the environmental analysis of the Project: a. In October 1999, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan; in 2001 the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for updates to the General Plan. In 2010, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the South El Camino Real General Plan and Zoning Amendments. CEQA allows for streamlined approval of actions that are consistent with adopted General Plans for which an EIR was certified. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15152, 15183.) An initial study was prepared for the proposed Project and a mitigated negative declaration analyzed the potential for impacts that were peculiar to the Project or not analyzed as significant impacts in the General Plan EIR, Supplemental EIR, or South El Camino Real EIR. The IS/MND, which expressly considers the City’s previous EIRs, concludes that approval of the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. b. Design features of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures proposed in the IS/MND and included in the MMRP, will operate to ensure the impacts of the proposed Project will not exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, and as further documented in the IS/MND for the Project, additional mitigation measures beyond those established in the MMRP are not required for the Project. c. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in a significant environmental effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the IS/MND (ND12-0004) for this Project, attached as Exhibit A, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit B . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of September, 2013 by the following vote: 4 AYES:________________________________________________________________ NOES:________________________________________________________________ ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________ ABSENT:______________________________________________________________ Attest:__________________________________ City Clerk Exhibits: Exhibit A: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration: as attached to the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet Exhibit B: Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: as attached to the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet 2134233.1 5 Attachment 2 Draft Entitlements Resolution 6 RESOLUTION NO._________ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14.5 ACRE SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL VILLAGE AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“Applicant”), has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units (“Project”); and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, Applicant has stated to the City Council their intention to work with appropriate stakeholders to solicit as many contractors that are parties to collective bargaining agreements as feasible to bid on Project work which they control, to include in bid documents provisions expressly encouraging bidders to commit to (a) hiring workers who live in or near South San Francisco, and (b) using subcontractors that are located in or near South San Francisco; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”), and by separate resolution, adopts the IS/MND, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project’s environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing on August 15, 2013 to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND and the proposed entitlements and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND and approve the Project; and, 7 WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013 which was continued to September 25, 2013, to consider the IS/MND, the Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement and take public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan EIR and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9 , 2013; the 180 El Camino Real IS/MND, including the Draft and Final MND and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s meeting held on August 15, 2013, and Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013 which was continued to September 25, 2013, and City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A. 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. General Findings 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A), the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (attached as Exhibit B), and the Centennial Village Project Plans (attached as Exhibit C) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. By Resolution No. ________, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that an IS/MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, which IS/MND adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. For those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA thresholds of significance, the City has identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant. 8 B. 1. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone District. The Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone District, with the exception of the minimum El Camino Real setback, building length and separation, required commercial frontage, depth of required commercial frontage, and the maximum length of street frontage walls without an opening. The stated exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Use Permit 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along El Camino Real and South Spruce Ave, provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the El Camino Real Master Plan and locates parking in a way that is not visually dominant, is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation and provides commercial uses along both El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. 3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the proposed use is consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the commercial and residential. The project proposes mixed-use Commercial and Residential uses on a site located in the City’s El Camino Real corridor, which is intended for this type of use. The General Plan has analyzed this type of use in the South El Camino Real corridor, and concluded that mixed-use commercial and residential uses are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding land uses, approval of the Project will not be detrimental to the nearby properties. 4. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the minimum El Camino Real setback, building length and separation, required commercial frontage, depth of required commercial frontage, and the maximum length of street frontage walls without an opening. The stated exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is located in the El Camino Real Mixed Use District and, subject to the exceptions discussed above in Section B.1, which are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, meets the minimum standards and requirements for that district. 5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the Project proposes commercial and residential uses in the El Camino Real corridor, 9 which is specifically intended for such uses. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the mixed-use commercial and residential uses will benefit from being located in the El Camino Real corridor, and the size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards. 7. The Project is consistent with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above. C. 1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a mixed-use commercial and residential campus which will provide a pedestrian-friendly environment with extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated. Design Review 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the El Camino Real Mixed Use land use designation by encouraging the development of a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity in the El Camino Real corridor. 3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the El Camino Real Mixed Use District Standards included in Chapter 20.090. 4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit, as proposed for modification, for the reasons stated in Section B, above. 5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on April 7, 2013, February 19, 2013, March 9, 2013 and August 1, 2013, and found to be consistent with, each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance, and the Design Review Board. D. 1. The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM (attached hereto as Exhibit B) are feasible and appropriate for the Project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project’s location, size, and hours of operation. Appropriate and feasible measures Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan 10 have been included in the TDM plan to achieve a projected 28% alternative mode usage, as required. The TDM provides incentives for employees to use modes of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities, preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, and an employee TDM contact, among others. Further, pedestrian walkways linking the Project to adjacent BART and bus stops will help encourage alternative forms of transportation. 2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 28% alternative mode use established for the Project by Chapter 20.210 will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and approves a Use Permit (UP11-0006), Design Review (DR11-0019) and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM13-0001) for the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditional approvals herein are conditioned upon the approval and execution of the Development Agreement for the Centennial Village 180 El Camino Real Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 25th day of September, 2013 by the following vote: AYES:________________________________________________________________ NOES:________________________________________________________________ ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________ 11 ABSENT:______________________________________________________________ Attest:__________________________________ City Clerk Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval: as attached to the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet Exhibits: Exhibit B: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan: as attached to the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet Exhibit C: Centennial Village Project Plans: as attached to the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet 2134234.1 12 Attachment 3 Draft Ordinance – Development Agreement 13 ORDINANCE NO. ________ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 222,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 284 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A 14.5 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE (ECRMX) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC (“Applicant”) has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units (“Project”); and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, as part of its application, the Applicant has sought approval of a Development Agreement, which would clarify and obligate several project features and mitigation measures, including payment of existing fees (such as the Sewer Capacity Fee, General Plan Maintenance Fee, Childcare Impact Fee, and Public Safety Impact Fee), and certain future fees (including a Park-in-Lieu Fee); and WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and, WHEREAS, by separate Resolution, the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) on September 25, 2013 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing on August 15, 2013 to solicit public comment and consider the IS/MND and the proposed entitlements and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND, approve the entitlements and recommended that the City Council approve Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013 which was continued to September 25, 2013, to consider the Project entitlements and Development Agreement, and take public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: 14 SECTION 1 . Findings. That based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan EIR and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9, 2013; the 180 El Camino Real IS/MND, including the Draft and Final MND and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s meeting held on August 15, 2013; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013 which was continued to September 25, 2013; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. B. The proposed Development Agreement (attached as Exhibit A), is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance, as if set forth fully herein. C. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. D. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a mixed-use environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Further, the Project provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and El Camino Real Master Plan and locates parking in a way that is not visually dominant, is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation and provides commercial uses along both El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Further, the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov’t Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. Specifically, the General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to redevelop low-intensity commercial uses to pedestrian-oriented high intensity mixed use development, encourage concentrated higher-intensity activity on highly visible locations, promote visually intricate development, provide space for enhanced pedestrian connections, require development to be oriented to El Camino Real, and provide housing at specified densities in keeping with the Housing Element. E. The City Council has independently reviewed the proposed Development Agreement, the General Plan, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and applicable state and federal law, including Government Code section 65864, et seq., and has determined that the 15 proposed Development Agreement complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations and with the General Plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council’s independent review of these documents, oral and written evidence submitted at the public hearings on the Project, including advice and recommendations from City staff. F. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project states its specific duration. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council’s independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 2 of the Development Agreement states that the Development Agreement shall expire twenty (20) years from the effective date of this Ordinance. G. The proposed Development Agreement incorporates the permitted uses, density and intensity of use for the property subject thereto, as reflected in the proposed Project (P11- 0065), Use Permit (UP11-0006), Design Review (DR11-0019), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM13-0001) and Development Agreement (DA13-0002). This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to, the City Council’s independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that the Development Agreement sets forth the Project approvals, development standards, and the documents constituting the Project. H. The proposed Development Agreement states the maximum permitted height and size of proposed buildings on the property subject thereto. This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to, the City Council’s independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that the Development Agreement sets forth the documents which state the maximum permitted height and size of buildings. I. The proposed Development Agreement states specific provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. This finding is based on all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to the City Council’s independent review of the Development Agreement. SECTION 2 . Approval of Development Agreement. A. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the Development Agreement with El Camino and Spruce, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. B. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Development Agreement, on behalf of the City, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A , and to make revisions to such Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not materially or substantially increase the City’s obligations thereunder. SECTION 3 . Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are 16 severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 4 . Publication and Effective Date. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. * * * * * * Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 25th day of September, 2013. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the _____ day of _________, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this _____ day of ____________, 2013. Mayor 17 Exhibit A Development Agreement (Redline of the September 11, 2013 version) 2134171.1 18 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 ______________________________________________________________________________ (Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder’s Use) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC CENTENNIAL VILLAGE 180 EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 19 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of ________, 2013 by and between El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“Developer”), and the City of South San Francisco (“City”), pursuant to California Government Code § 65864 et seq. A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted California Government Code § 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property regarding the development of such property. B. Pursuant to California Government Code § 65865, City has adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements (South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 19.60). This Development Agreement has been processed, considered and executed in accordance with such procedures and requirements. C. Developer has a legal and/or equitable interest in certain real property located at the southern boundary of the City of South San Francisco, west of US 101 at 180 El Camino Real and in the southern part of the South El Camino Real GPA planning area, consisting of a 14.5-acre corner lot with frontages on El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue and as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A (the “Project Site”) . D. The proposed Project (the “Project”) consists of removal of existing buildings and construction at full buildout of six new ones: Buildings A, B, C, D, and Major Tenant 3 (CVS), and a mixed-use building containing ground-floor commercial with parking and residential uses above. Buildings A, B, C, D, and Major Tenant 3 (CVS) consist of two stories (up to 40 feet in height) and the mixed-use buildings consist of five stories (up to approximately 70 feet in height with one tower component at 90 feet in height above Safeway). The proposed commercial component is approximately 222,500 square feet. The proposed residential component comprises a mix of one and two bedroom units totaling 284 units. A total of 1,392 parking spaces will provide parking for the retail and residential components of the project. Ground level parking will provide 580 spaces and a parking structure will provide 812 spaces. The residential parking ratio is 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom units and 1.8 spaces per 2-bedroom units while the commercial parking ratio is four spaces per 1,000 square feet. Additionally, 128 bicycle parking spaces will be provided throughout the project area. E. Development of the Project requires that the Developer obtain from the City the following land use entitlements: Use Permit; Development Agreement; Design Standard Exceptions; Design Review; Transportation Demand Management Plan. Each of these has been approved. It also requires that Caltrans approve the proposed left turn on WB El Camino Real onto the south driveway. The approvals and development 20 2 policies described in this Recital E are collectively referred to herein as the “Project Approvals.” Existing land use entitlements and approvals for the Project Site are shown in Exhibit B. F. City has determined that the Project presents certain public benefits and opportunities which are advanced by City and Developer entering into this Agreement. This Agreement will, among other things, (1) reduce uncertainties in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Project; (2) provide greatly needed commercial and residential development along the El Camino Real corridor; (3) mitigate any significant environmental impacts; (4) provide for and generate substantial revenues for the City in the form of one time and annual fees and exactions and other fiscal benefits; and (5) otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted. G. In exchange for the benefits to City described in the preceding Recital, together with the other public benefits that will result from the development of the Project, Developer will receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the “Applicable Law” (defined below), and therefore desires to enter into this Agreement. H. On ________________,2013, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. [___], recommending that the City Council approve this Agreement. I. The City Council, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, has found that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has conducted all necessary proceedings in accordance with the City’s rules and regulations for the approval of this Agreement. In accordance with SSFMC section 19.60.120 the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing adopted Ordinance No. [___], approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: 21 3 ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS [terms to be reviewed/added/deleted prior to finalizing DA] “Administrative Project Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.01 of this Agreement. “Administrative Agreement Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.02 of this Agreement. “Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement. “Applicable Law” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.03 of this Agreement. “City Law” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.05 of this Agreement. “Deficiencies” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.02 of this Agreement. “Development Agreement Statute” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital A of this Agreement. “Economically Feasible” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.10(b) of this Agreement. “Effective Date” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.01 of this Agreement. “Judgment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.02 of this Agreement. “Periodic Review” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.05 of this Agreement. “Project” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital D of this Agreement. “Project Approvals” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital E of this Agreement. “Project Site” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement. “Subsequent Approvals” shall mean those certain other land use approvals, entitlements, and permits in addition to the Project Approvals that are necessary or desirable for the Project. In particular, the parties contemplate that Developer will seek approvals for Use Permits, sign permits, amendments to the Use Agreement, and amendments to this Agreement. The Subsequent Approvals may also include, without limitation, the following: amendments of the Project Approvals, design review approvals, improvement agreements, grading permits, building permits, lot line adjustments, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, subdivision 22 4 maps, rezonings, development agreements, permits, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. “Tax” and “Taxes” shall not include any generally applicable City Business License Tax or locally imposed Sales Tax. “Term” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.02 of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM Section 2.01. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (the “Effective Date”). Section 2.02. Term. The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence upon the Effective Date and continue for a period of twenty (20) years. ARTICLE 3. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER Section 3.01. Obligations of Developer Generally. The parties acknowledge and agree that the City’s agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and obligations of City set forth in this Agreement is a material consideration for Developer’s agreement to perform and abide by its long term covenants and obligations, as set forth herein. The parties acknowledge that many of Developer’s long term obligations set forth in this Agreement are in addition to Developer’s agreement to perform all the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). Section 3.02. City Fees. (a) Developer shall pay those processing, inspection and plan checking fees and charges required by the City for processing applications and requests for Subsequent Approvals under the applicable non-discriminatory regulations in effect at the time such applications and requests are submitted to the City. (b) Consistent with the terms of the Agreement, City shall have the right to impose only such development fees (the “Development Fees”) as have been adopted by City as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, or as to which City has initiated formal studies and proposals pursuant to City Council action, and which are identified in Exhibit C. This shall not prohibit City from imposing on Developer any fee or obligation that is imposed by a regional agency in accordance with state or federal obligations and required to be implemented by City. Development Fees shall be due upon issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy for the Project, as may be appropriate, except as otherwise provided under the Agreement. 23 5 Section 3.03. Mitigation Measures. Developer shall comply with the MMRP approved in conjunction with the MND for the Project, as it may be modified from time to time in accordance with CEQA or other law. ARTICLE 4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY Section 4.01. Obligations of City Generally. The parties acknowledge and agree that Developer’s agreement to perform and abide by its covenants and obligations set forth in this Agreement, including Developer’s decision to process the siting of the Project in the City, is a material consideration for City’s agreement to perform and abide by the long term covenants and obligations of City, as set forth herein. Section 4.02. Protection of Vested Rights. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall take any and all actions as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the vested rights provided by this Agreement can be enjoyed by Developer and to prevent any City Law, as defined below, from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement. City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. Except as authorized in Section 6.09, City shall not support, adopt, or enact any City Law, or take any other action which would violate the express provisions or intent of the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals. Section 4.03. Availability of Public Services. To the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with its authority, City shall assist Developer in reserving such capacity for sewer and water services as may be necessary to serve the Project. Section 4.04. Developer’s Right to Rebuild. City agrees that Developer may renovate or rebuild all or any part of the Project within the Term of this Agreement should it become necessary due to natural disaster, changes in seismic requirements, or should the buildings located within the Project become functionally outdated, within Developer’s sole discretion, due to changes in technology. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the square footage and height limitations vested by this Agreement, and shall comply with the Project Approvals, the building codes existing at the time of such rebuilding or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA. ARTICLE 5. COOPERATION - IMPLEMENTATION Section 5.01. Processing Application for Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Project Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall not use its discretionary authority in considering any application for a Subsequent Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by the Project Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project as set 24 6 forth in the Project Approvals. Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions. Section 5.02. Timely Submittals By Developer. Developer acknowledges that City cannot expedite processing Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits complete applications on a timely basis. Developer shall use its best efforts to (i) provide to City in a timely manner any and all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder; and (ii) cause Developer’s planners, engineers, and all other consultants to provide to City in a timely manner all such documents, applications, plans and other necessary required materials as set forth in the Applicable Law. It is the express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to obtain any and all Subsequent Approvals. Section 5.03. Timely Processing By City. Upon submission by Developer of all appropriate applications and processing fees for any Subsequent Approval, City shall promptly and diligently commence and complete all steps necessary to act on the Subsequent Approval application including, without limitation: (i) providing at Developer’s expense and subject to Developer’s request and prior approval, reasonable overtime staff assistance and/or staff consultants for planning and processing of each Subsequent Approval application; (ii) if legally required, providing notice and holding public hearings; and (iii) acting on any such Subsequent Approval application. City shall ensure that adequate staff is available, and shall authorize overtime staff assistance as may be necessary, to timely process such Subsequent Approval application. Section 5.04. The City may deny an application for a Subsequent Approval only if such application does not comply with the Agreement or Applicable Law (as defined below) or with any state or federal law, regulations, plans, or policies as set forth in Section 6.09. Section 5.05. Other Government Permits. At Developer’s sole discretion and in accordance with Developer’s construction schedule, Developer shall apply for such other permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in connection with the development of, or the provision of services to, the Project. City shall cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals and shall, from time to time at the request of Developer, use its reasonable efforts to assist Developer to ensure the timely availability of such permits and approvals. Section 5.06. Residential Property Development Developer understands that the planned construction of the residential component of the Project is a substantial inducement to the City to approve this Development Agreement. In furtherance of achieving that goal, City shall have the right to promote the residential component of the Project to the residential development community, including developers, lenders and equity investors with 25 7 the goal of identifying qualified investors and residential developers that wish to negotiate with Developer to obtain the right to build out part or all of the residential component. Developer agrees to negotiate in good faith with any qualified residential developer, lender or equity investor that is identified by the City during such process. Developer shall not be obligated to enter into any agreement with any such residential developer, lender or equity investor, nor to defer the commencement of construction of any part of the Project during any negotiations with any such residential developer, lender or equity investor. The terms and conditions of any agreement that Developer may determine to enter into with any such residential developer, lender or equity investor shall be in Developer’s sole and absolute discretion. Section 5.07. Section 5.6.Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms. (a) Existing Fees . The Parties understand and agree that as of the Effective Date the fees and exactions listed in Exhibit C are the only City fees and exactions. Except for those fees and exactions listed in Exhibit C, City is unaware of any pending efforts to initiate, or consider applications for new or increased fees, exactions, or assessments covering the Project Site, or any portion thereof. (b) Future Fees, Taxes and Assessments. City understands that long term assurances by City concerning fees, taxes and assessments were a material consideration for Developer agreeing to enter this Agreement and to pay long term fees, taxes and assessments described in this Agreement. City shall retain the ability to initiate or process applications for the formation of new assessment districts covering all or any portion of the Project Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer retains all its rights to oppose the formation or proposed assessment of any new assessment district or increased assessment. In the event an assessment district is lawfully formed to provide funding for services, improvements, maintenance or facilities which are substantially the same as those services, improvements, maintenance or facilities being funded by the fees or assessments to be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement, such fees or assessments to be paid by Developer shall be subject to reduction/credit in an amount equal to Developer’s new or increased assessment under the assessment district. Alternatively, the new assessment district shall reduce/credit Developer’s new assessment in an amount equal to such fees or assessments to be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement. ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROJECT Section 6.01. Vested Right to Develop. Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Project on the Project Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to 26 8 eliminate or diminish the requirement of Developer to obtain any required Subsequent Approvals. Section 6.02. Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement. The permitted uses of the Project Site; the density and intensity of use of the Project Site; the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings; provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the location of public improvements; the general location of public utilities; and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project, shall be as set forth in the Project Approvals and, as and when they are issued (but not in limitation of any right to develop as set forth in the Project Approvals), the Subsequent Approvals. Permitted uses shall include, without limitation those uses listed as “permitted” in the El Camino Real Mixed Use zone district. Section 6.03. Applicable Law. The rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications applicable to the Project (the “Applicable Law”) shall be those set forth in this Agreement and the Project Approvals, and, with respect to matters not addressed by this Agreement or the Project Approvals, those rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses, building locations, timing of construction, densities, design, heights, fees, exactions, and taxes in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. Section 6.04. Uniform Codes. City may apply to the Project Site, at any time during the Term, then current Uniform Building Code and other uniform construction codes, and City’s then current design and construction standards for road and storm drain facilities, provided any such uniform code or standard has been adopted and uniformly applied by City on a citywide basis and provided that no such code or standard is adopted for the purpose of preventing or otherwise limiting construction of all or any part of the Project. Section 6.05. No Conflicting Enactments. Except as authorized in Section 6.09, City shall not impose on the Project (whether by action of the City Council or by initiative, referendum or other means) any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, standard, directive, condition or other measure (each individually, a “City Law”) that is in conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or that reduces the development rights or assurances provided by this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any City Law shall be deemed to conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the development rights provided hereby if it would accomplish any of the following results, either by specific reference to the Project or as part of a general enactment which applies to or affects the Project: (a) Change any land use designation or permitted use of the Project Site; (b) Limit or control the availability of public utilities, services or facilities or any privileges or rights to public utilities, services, or facilities (for example, 27 9 water rights, water connections or sewage capacity rights, sewer connections, etc.) for the Project; (c) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals (as and when they are issued); (d) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval, development or construction of all or any part of the Project in any manner; (e) Apply to the Project any City Law otherwise allowed by this Agreement that is not uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and project sites; (f) Result in Developer having to substantially delay construction of the Project or require the issuance of additional permits or approvals by the City other than those required by Applicable Law; (g) Establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project or Project Site any fees, taxes (including without limitation general, special and excise taxes but excluding any increased local sales tax or increases city business license tax), assessments, liens or other monetary obligations (including generating demolition permit fees, encroachment permit and grading permit fees) other than those specifically permitted by this Agreement or other connection fees imposed by third party utilities; (h) Impose against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not specifically authorized by Applicable Law; or (i) Limit the processing or procuring of applications and approvals of Subsequent Approvals. Section 6.06. Initiatives and Referenda. (a) If any City Law is enacted or imposed by initiative or referendum, or by the City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any proposed initiative or referendum, which City Law would conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement, such Law shall not apply to the Project. (b) Except as authorized in Section 6.09, without limiting the generality of any of the foregoing, no moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development) affecting subdivision maps, building permits or other entitlements to use that are approved or to be approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall apply to the Project. 28 10 (c) To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall prevent any City Law from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement, and City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. (d) Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any City Law that would conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement. Section 6.07. Environmental Mitigation. The parties understand that the MND was intended to be used in connection with each of the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals needed for the Project. Consistent with the CEQA policies and requirements applicable to the MND, City agrees to use the MND in connection with the processing of any Subsequent Approval to the maximum extent allowed by law and not to impose on the Project any mitigation measures or conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals and the MND/MMRP or specifically required by CEQA or other Applicable Law. Section 6.08. Life of Subdivision Maps, Development Approvals, and Permits. The term of any subdivision map or any other map, permit, rezoning or other land use entitlement approved as a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall automatically be extended for the longer of the duration of this Agreement (including any extensions) or the term otherwise applicable to such Project Approval or Subsequent Approval if this Agreement is no longer in effect. The term of this Agreement and any subdivision map or other Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall not include any period of time during which a development moratorium (including, but not limited to, a water or sewer moratorium or water and sewer moratorium) or the actions of other public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services to the land, prevents, prohibits or delays the construction of the Project or a lawsuit involving any such development approvals or permits is pending. Section 6.09. State and Federal Law. As provided in California Government Code § 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations. Not in limitation of the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from imposing on Developer any fee specifically mandated and required by state or federal laws and regulations. Section 6.10. Timing of Project Construction and Completion. (a) The Project consists of three phases. Phasing will occur in such a manner as to always preserve the potential for 284 apartment units on the site during the term of the Agreement. 29 11 (i) Phase 1 construction will begin within 18 months after final approval by the City of all discretionary approvals of the overall plan, and the passage of all applicable statutes of limitations without legal challenge and will include: • All retail except Building E on the master plan • All second floor office space • All current site improvements and design features • Second floor parking above Safeway/ Major 2 Building • No change to building architecture as approved by the City Council per DR11-0019. • Structural/foundation enhancements for Safeway/Major 2 building sufficient to support approved residential construction and associated parking above. (ii) Phase 2 will occur when Economically Feasible, and will include: • Building E and at least 141 apartment units • All parking structure levels • Subterranean parking to replace shopping center surface parking under Building E unless the subterranean parking was constructed elsewhere on the Project site as a result of developing residential units as a part of Phase 1 • Second floor parking above Building E and the Health Club (iii) Phase 3 will occur at the conclusion of Phase 2 and when Economically Feasible and will include the remainder of up to 284 total apartment units (b) In the event a total of 284 apartment units have not been constructed prior to ten (10) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, Developer shall determine whether at that time the criteria set forth below are satisfied. If all the Triggers set forth below are satisfied Phase 2 shall be conclusively determined to be “Economically Feasible. ” When Phase 2 is complete, Developer shall once again determine whether at that time the criteria set forth below are satisfied. If at that time, the Triggers set forth below all are satisfied, Phase 3 shall be conclusively determined to be “Economically Feasible. ” When Phase 2 and following it, Phase 3, are Economically Feasible, Developer shall either commence construction or arrange with another Developer to commence construction of a minimum of 141 residential units within two years. Until such time as the earlier of completion of all 284 residential units or the end of the development agreement term, Developer shall every two years after the first evaluation of the criteria repeat the analysis and shall thereafter commence construction of the residential units. The triggers (“Triggers”) consist of three criteria which 30 12 all must be met in order to require Developer to commence or arrange for commencement of construction of the units. The triggers are based on three indices, defined below. 1) A Rent Index. The index will be based on average per-square foot rents for San Mateo County from RealFacts. In the event that RealFacts no longer provides this data, a mutually-agreed upon source that includes historic rent data will be used. If an alternative source cannot be mutually-agreed upon, the “Rent of Primary Residence” component of the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area will be used. The rent index will be calculated as follows: Rent Index = (Future Rent/Base Rent - 1) * 100 + 100 The Base Rent will be as of the First Quarter 2013; for RealFacts the value is $2.57. If an alternative data source is used, that source must be used for both the Base Rent and the Future Rent. 2) A Cost Index. The index will be based on the CCI cost index for San Francisco published by the Engineering News Record. In the event that the Engineering News Record no longer publishes this index, a mutually-agreed upon source will be used. If an alternative source cannot be mutually-agreed upon, the RS Means Construction cost index will be used The Cost Index will be calculated as follows: Cost Index = (Future Index/Base Index – 1) * 100 + 100 The Base Index will be as of March, 2013; for the Engineering News Record the amount is $10,368.09. If an alternative data source is used, that source will be used for both the Base Index and the Future Index. 3) A Cost of Funds Index. The index will be based on the market yield on U.S. Treasury securities at 10-year constant maturity, quoted on an investment basis, as published by the Federal Reserve. The Cost of Funds Index will be calculated as follows: Cost of Funds Index = (Future Treasury Rate/Base Treasury Rate – 1) * 100 + 100 The Base Treasury Rate will be as of March, 2013, 2013; the value is 1.86%. (c) A Trigger occurs when all of the following occur on December 31st of the prior year: 31 13 (i) The Rent Index has reached at least 115. This means that rents have increased by at least 15 percent from the base level. (ii) The Rent Index has grown by at least 5% more than the Cost Index. This means that rents have grown by at least 5% more than costs. The percent difference between the Rent Index and the Cost Index will be calculated as follows: Percent difference = (Rent Index – Cost Index)/Cost Index * 100. (iii) The Cost of Funds Index has not exceeded 200. This means that the monthly ten year treasury rate as reported on the Federal Reserve website has not doubled. (d) Developer shall procure the Rent Index and Cost Index data from RealFacts and the Engineering News Record, or the alternate sources, and provide them to the City 10 years after the execution of this agreement and every two years after thereafter until the commence of construction of the residential units. Alternatively, Developer shall reimburse the City for procuring the Rent Index and Cost Index data. (e) When, beginning on the tenth anniversary of the execution of the Agreement, Phase 2 is Economically Feasible, Developer must apply for a building permit and begin construction within 12 months, for Phase 2 containing a minimum of 141 housing units followed by , upon completion of Phase 2, construction of Phase 3 when it is Economically Feasible resulting in a total of up to 284 units at full build-out. (f) Failure by Developer to take these actions within the prescribed time periods (unless due to causes beyond its reasonable control, a material adverse change in the indices referred to in 6.10 (c)(i), (c)(ii) or (c)(iii), or the actions of City) constitutes a material Default of this Agreement by Developer curable by any remedies set forth in Section 10. (b) (g)Developer will have the option of modifying the unit mix, size of units, and sequencing for later phases of the Project in response to changes in market conditions that may occur from time to time. ARTICLE 7. AMENDMENT Section 7.01. To the extent permitted by state and federal law, any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval may, from time to time, be amended or modified in the following manner: (a) Administrative Project Amendments. Upon the written request of Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, the Chief Planner or his/her designee shall determine: (i) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (ii) whether the requested amendment or 32 14 modification is consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law. If the Chief Planner or his/her designee finds that the proposed amendment or modification is minor, consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law, and will result in no new significant impacts not addressed and mitigated in the MND, the amendment shall be determined to be an “Administrative Project Amendment” and the Chief Planner or his designee may, except to the extent otherwise required by law, approve the Administrative Project Amendment without notice and public hearing. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, minor alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, location of parking stalls on the site, number of required parking stalls if city development standards allow, substitutions of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any final development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, variations in the residential unit mix (number of one, two or three bedroom units), location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections or facilities that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, and minor adjustments to the Project Site diagram or Project Site legal description shall be treated as Administrative Project Amendments. (b) Non-Administrative Project Amendments. Any request by Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval which is determined not to be an Administrative Project Amendment as set forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Law and this Agreement. Section 7.02. Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or their successors in interest, as follows: (a) Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not substantially affect (i) the Term of this Agreement, (ii) permitted uses of the Project Site, (iii) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, (iv) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, (v) the density or intensity of use of the Project Site or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings or (vi) monetary contributions by Developer, shall be considered an “Administrative Agreement Amendment” and shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. Such amendment may be approved by City resolution. (b) Any amendment to this Agreement other than an Administrative Agreement Amendment shall be subject to recommendation by the Planning Commission (by advisory resolution) and approval by the City Council (by ordinance) following a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning 33 15 Commission and City Council, consistent with Government Code Sections 65867 and 65867.5. (c) Amendment Exemptions. No amendment of a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, or a Subsequent Approval shall require an amendment to this Agreement. Instead, any such matter automatically shall be deemed to be incorporated into the Project and vested under this Agreement. ARTICLE 8. ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE Section 8.01. Assignment and Transfer. Developer may transfer or assign all or any portion of its interests, rights, or obligations under the Agreement and the Project approvals to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Project or any portion thereof including, without limitation, purchasers or lessees of lots, parcels, or facilities. Developer will seek City's prior written consent to any transfer, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. City may refuse to give consent only if, in light of the proposed transferee's reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not in City's reasonable opinion be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such transferee. Such determination will be made by the City Manager and will be appealable by Developer to the City Council 34 16 ARTICLE 9. COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE Section 9.01. Cooperation. In the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person not a party to the Agreement challenging the validity of any provision of the Agreement or any Project approval, the parties will cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. City shall promptly notify Developer of any such action against City. If City fails promptly to notify Developer of any legal action against City or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Developer will not thereafter be responsible for City's defense. The parties will use best efforts to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action, and Developer will pay compensation for such legal counsel (including City Attorney time and overhead for the defense of such action), but will exclude other City staff overhead costs and normal day-to-day business expenses incurred by City. Developer's obligation to pay for legal counsel will extend to fees incurred on appeal. In the event City and Developer are unable to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action or proceeding, each party may select its own legal counsel and Developer will pay its and the City's legal fees and costs. Developer shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding or payable to any prevailing plaintiff/petitioner. Section 9.02. Reapproval. If, as a result of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other proceeding, all or any portion of the Agreement or the Project approvals are set aside or otherwise made ineffective by any judgment in such action or proceeding ("Judgment"), based on procedural, substantive or other deficiencies ("Deficiencies"), the parties will use their respective best efforts to sustain and reenact or readopt the Agreement, and/or the Project approvals, that the Deficiencies related to, unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to act otherwise: (i) If any Judgment requires reconsideration or consideration by City of the Agreement or any Project approval, then the City will consider or reconsider that matter in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement and with Applicable Law. If any such Judgment invalidates or otherwise makes ineffective all or any portion of the Agreement or Project approval, then the parties will cooperate and will cure any Deficiencies identified in the Judgment or upon which the Judgment is based in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement and with Applicable Law. City will then consider readopting or reenacting the Agreement, or the Project approval, or any portion thereof, to which the Deficiencies related. 35 17 (ii) Acting in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement includes, but is not limited to, recognizing that the parties intend that Developer may develop the Project as described in the Agreement, and adopting such ordinances, resolutions, and other enactments as are necessary to readopt or reenact all or any portion of the Agreement or Project approvals without contravening the Judgment. ARTICLE 10. DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION Section 10.01. Defaults. Any failure by either party to perform any term or provision of the Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days following written notice of such failure from the other party (unless such period is extended by mutual written consent), will constitute a default under the Agreement. Any notice given will specify the nature of the alleged failure and, where appropriate, the manner in which said failure satisfactorily may be cured. If the nature of the alleged failure is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such 30-day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter, will be deemed to be a cure within such 30-day period. Upon the occurrence of a default under the Agreement, the non-defaulting party may institute legal proceedings to enforce the terms of the Agreement or, in the event of a material default, terminate the Agreement. If the default is cured, then no default will exist and the noticing party shall take no further action. Section 10.02. Termination. If City elects to consider terminating the Agreement due to a material default of Developer, then City will give a notice of intent to terminate the Agreement and the matter will be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing. Developer will have the right to offer written and oral evidence prior to or at the time of said public hearings. If the City Council determines that a material default has occurred and is continuing, and elects to terminate the Agreement, City will give written notice of termination of the Agreement to Developer by certified mail and the Agreement will thereby be terminated sixty (60) days thereafter. Section 10.03. Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of the Agreement, neither party will be deemed to be in default where delays in performance or failures to perform are due to, and a necessary outcome of, war, insurrection, strikes or other labor disturbances, walk- , outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities (including new or supplemental environmental regulations), enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, judicial decisions, or similar basis for excused performance which is not within the reasonable control of the party to be excused. Litigation attacking the validity of the Agreement or any of the Project approvals, or any permit, ordinance, entitlement or other action of a governmental agency other than City necessary for the development of the 36 18 Project pursuant to the Agreement will be deemed to create an excusable delay as to Developer. Upon the request of either party hereto, an extension of time for the performance of any obligation whose performance has been so prevented or delayed will be memorialized in writing. The term of any such extension will be equal to the period of the excusable delay, or longer, as may be mutually agreed upon. Section 10.04. Legal Action. Either party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement in the Agreement, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, and enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the parties thereto. The sole and exclusive remedy for any default or violation of the Agreement will be specific performance. In any proceeding brought to enforce the Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover from the unsuccessful party all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the prevailing party in the enforcement proceeding. Section 10.05. Periodic Review. (a) Conducting the Periodic Review. Throughout the Term of this Agreement, at least once every twelve (12) months following the execution of this Agreement, City shall review the extent of good-faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement. This review (the “Periodic Review”) shall be conducted by the Chief Planner or his/her designee and shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1. (b) Notice. At least five (5) days prior to the Periodic Review, and in the manner prescribed in Section 11.09 of this Agreement, City shall deposit in the mail to Developer a copy of any staff reports and documents to be used or relied upon in conducting the review and, to the extent practical, related exhibits concerning Developer’s performance hereunder. Developer shall be permitted an opportunity to respond to City’s evaluation of Developer’s performance, either orally at a public hearing or in a written statement, at Developer’s election. Such response shall be made to the Chief Planner. (c) Good Faith Compliance. During the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner shall review Developer’s good-faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. At the conclusion of the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner shall make written findings and determinations, on the basis of substantial evidence, as to whether or not Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The decision of the Chief Planner shall be appealable to the City Council. If the Chief Planner finds and determines that Developer has not complied with such terms and conditions, the Chief Planner may recommend to the City Council that it terminate or modify this Agreement by giving notice of its intention to do so, in the manner set forth in California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. 37 19 The costs incurred by City in connection with the Periodic Review process described herein shall be borne by Developer. (d) Failure to Properly Conduct Periodic Review. If City fails, during any calendar year, to either (i) conduct the Periodic Review or (ii) notify Developer in writing of City’s determination, pursuant to a Periodic Review, as to Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement and such failure remains uncured as of December 31 of any year during the term of this Agreement, such failure shall be conclusively deemed an approval by City of Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement. (e) Written Notice of Compliance. With respect to any year for which Developer has been determined or deemed to have complied with this Agreement, City shall, within thirty (30) days following request by Developer, provide Developer with a written notice of compliance, in recordable form, duly executed and acknowledged by City. Developer shall have the right, in Developer’s sole discretion, to record such notice of compliance. Section 10.06. Default by City or Developer. In the event City or Developer defaults under the terms of this Agreement, City or Developer shall have all rights and remedies provided herein or under law. Either party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, recover damages for any default, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the parties hereto, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Section 10.07. California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed and heard in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, California. Section 10.08. Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving development of the Project, the resolution of which is not provided for by this Agreement or Applicable Law, Developer shall, at City’s request, meet with City. The parties to any such meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any such disputes. Nothing in this Section 10.07 shall in any way be interpreted as requiring that Developer and City and/or City’s designee reach agreement with regard to those matters being addressed, nor shall the outcome of these meetings be binding in any way on City or Developer unless expressly agreed to by the parties to such meetings. Section 10.09. Attorneys’ Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by either party to enforce or interpret a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and any other costs incurred in that proceeding in addition to any other relief to which it is entitled. 38 20 Section 10.10. Hold Harmless. Developer shall hold City and its elected and appointed officers, agents, employees, and representatives harmless from claims, costs, and liabilities for any personal injury, death, or property damage which is a result of, or alleged to be the result of, the construction of the Project, or of operations performed under this Agreement by Developer or by Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, whether such operations were performed by Developer or any of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees. Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that Developer shall hold City harmless from any claims of personal injury, death or property damage arising from, or alleged to arise from, any gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of City, its elected and appointed representatives, offices, agents and employees. ARTICLE 11. MISCELLANEOUS Section 11.01. Incorporation of Recitals and Introductory Paragraph. The Recitals contained in this Agreement, and the introductory paragraph preceding the Recitals, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Section 11.02. No Agency. It is specifically understood and agreed to by and between the parties hereto that: (i) the subject development is a private development; (ii) City has no interest or responsibilities for, or duty to, third parties concerning any improvements until such time, and only until such time, that City accepts the same pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or in connection with the various Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals; (iii) Developer shall have full power over and exclusive control of the Project herein described, subject only to the limitations and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and Applicable Law; and (iv) City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of agency relationship, joint venture or partnership between City and Developer and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as creating any such relationship between City and Developer. Section 11.03. Enforceability. City and Developer agree that unless this Agreement is amended or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter enacted or adopted (whether by ordinance, resolution, initiative, or any other means) in any applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or any other land use ordinance or building ordinance, resolution or other rule, regulation or policy adopted by City that changes, alters or amends the rules, regulations and policies applicable to the development of the Project Site at the time of the approval of this Agreement as provided by California Government Code Section 65866. Section 11.04. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is 39 21 held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, either City or Developer may (in their sole and absolute discretion) terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to the other party. Section 11.05. Other Necessary Acts. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals and this Agreement and to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder. Section 11.06. Construction. Each reference in this Agreement to this Agreement or any of the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to refer to the Agreement, Project Approval or Subsequent Approval as it may be amended from time to time, whether or not the particular reference refers to such possible amendment. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both City and Developer, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. Section 11.07. Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural; the masculine gender shall include the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is permissive. If there is more than one signer of this Agreement, the signer obligations are joint and several. Section 11.08. Covenants Running with the Land. All of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring all or a portion of the Project, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to California law including, without limitation, Civil Code Section 1468. Each covenant herein to act or refrain from acting is for the benefit of or a burden upon the Project, as appropriate, runs with the Project Site and is binding upon the owner of all or a portion of the Project Site and each successive owner during its ownership of such property. Section 11.09. Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City or Developer must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by telefacsimile (with original forwarded by regular U.S. Mail) by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal or other similar courier promising overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. If given 40 22 by facsimile transmission, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received upon actual physical receipt of the entire document by the receiving party’s facsimile machine. Notices transmitted by facsimile after 5:00 p.m. on a normal business day or on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday shall be deemed to have been given and received on the next normal business day. If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below: If to City, to: City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: (650) 829-6629 Fax: (650) 829-6623 With a Copy to: Meyers Nave 575 Market Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Phone: (415) 421-3711 Fax: (415) 421-3767 If to Developer, to: El Camino and Spruce LLC c/o WT Mitchell Group Inc. PO Box 5127 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: 925-407-2676 Fax: 925-988-8032 With Copies to: Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Zane O. Gresham Phone: (415) 268-7000 Fax: (415) 260-7522 41 23 Section 11.10. Entire Agreement, Counterparts And Exhibits. This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of [___] pages and [___] exhibits which constitute in full, the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and the Developer. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein for all purposes: Exhibit A: Description and Diagram of Project Site Exhibit B: Existing Land Use Entitlements and Approvals Exhibit C: City Fees and Exactions Section 11.11. Recordation Of Development Agreement. Pursuant to California Government Code § 65868.5, no later than ten (10) days after City enters into this Agreement, the City Clerk shall record an executed copy of this Agreement in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the day and year first above written. CITY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation By:_______________________________ Name:____________________________ City Manager ATTEST: By: ___________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ___________________________ City Attorney 42 24 Developer EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company By:______________________________ Name:____________________________ Its:_______________________________ 2105469.7 2105469.5 43 25 Exhibit A: Description and Diagram of Project Site LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows: ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING LOT 1, BLOCK 2, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED, "TANFORAN PARK, UNIT NO. 2," WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 5, 1967, IN BOOK 66 OF MAPS AT PAGES 5, 6, AND 7, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF EL CAMINO REAL AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 27° 54’ 38" WEST, 86.78 FEET (NORTH 26° 38’ 46" WEST, 86.94 FEET); THENCE NORTH 30° 47’ 29" WEST, 488.12 FEET (NORTH 29° 31’ 37" WEST); THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89° 46’ 45" AN ARC LENGTH OF 39.17 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 58° 59’ 16" EAST, 4.90 FEET (NORTH 60° 15’ 08" EAST); THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 689.75 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27° 31’ 15" AN ARC LENGTH OF 331.31 FEET (R OF 689.95 FEET, CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27° 30’ 30", L OF 331.25 FEET); THENCE NORTH 31° 28’ 01" EAST, 272.47 FEET (NORTH 32° 44’ 38" EAST, 272.47 FEET); THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1961.99 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5° 32’ 44", AN ARC LENGTH OF 189.90 FEET (R OF 1959.86 FEET, CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5° 32’ 02", L OF 189.29 FEET); THENCE NORTH 37° 00’ 45" EAST, 45.82 FEET (NORTH 38° 16’ 40" EAST, 46.42 FEET); THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 52° 59’ 15" EAST, 232.76 FEET (SOUTH 51° 43’ 20" EAST); THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1999.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0° 22’ 21", AN ARC LENGTH OF 13.00 FEET (CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0° 22’ 22", L OF 13.01 FEET); THENCE NORTH 57° 19’ 24" EAST, 130.66 FEET (NORTH 58° 35’ 52" EAST, 130.53 FEET) TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HUNTINGTON AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE ALONG A NON- TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 959.93 FEET, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 53° 05’ 43" WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2° 23’ 28", AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.06 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 57° 19’ 24" WEST, 124.49 FEET (SOUTH 58° 35’ 52" WEST, 124.50 FEET); THENCE SOUTH 32° 40’ 36" EAST, 419.97 FEET (SOUTH 31° 24’ 08" EAST, 419.97 FEET); THENCE NORTH 57° 19’ 24" EAST, 124.99 FEET (NORTH 58° 35’ 52" EAST) TO A POINT IN SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HUNTINGTON AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 32° 40’ 36" EAST, 40.00 FEET (SOUTH 31° 24’ 08" EAST); THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 57° 19’ 24" WEST, 134.99 FEET (SOUTH 58° 35’ 52" WEST); THENCE SOUTH 32° 40’ 36" EAST, 82.92 FEET (SOUTH 31° 24’ 08" EAST); THENCE SOUTH 53° 25’ 00" WEST, 923.20 FEET (SOUTH 54° 40’ 52" WEST, 922.99 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL IS NORTH 58° 59’ 16" EAST ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK "6" OF LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS MAPS AT PAGE 77, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS. APN: 014-183-110 JPN: 014-018-183-11A 44 26 Exhibit B: Existing Land Use Entitlements and Approvals [To be completed when the exact titles and resolution numbers for entitlements approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council are known.] 45 27 Exhibit C: City Fees and Exactions 46 180 ECR - Centennial Village Illustrative calculations of estimated proposed fees Area Estimations* 180 ECR Retail/Commercial SF 187,170 Office SF 35,327 Residential Units 284 Total 222,497 Existing Commercial Demolished 144,821 Net New Gross Sq Ft 77,676 Estimated Existing and Proposed Fees, Including Fee Credits 180 ECR Fee Category Rate Fee Sewer Capacity Fee (1)varies by use Retail/Commercial $84,875 (Resolution 39-2010)Office $96,083 Residential $1,047,108 General Plan Maintenance Fee 0.0015 of construction value, per GSF 117,000.00$ (Resolution 74-2007) Child Care Impact Fee 0.68$ per NN GSF for Commercial 28,797.32$ (SSFMC 20.310)1,851.00$ per High Density Residential Unit 525,684.00$ Park-in-Lieu Fee 3,276.00$ per 1,000 GSF Nonresidential 254,466.58$ (per Draft Parkland Acquisition and Construction Fee) Public Safety Impact Fee 0.44$ per NN GSF for Retail 82,354.80$ (Resolution 97-2012)0.44$ per NN GSF for Office 15,543.88$ 563.00$ per High Density Residential Unit 159,892.00$ Total of Fees 2,411,804.54$ Fees per GSF 10.84$ (1) - Sewer Capacity Fee calculation will vary by use based on application of Resolution 39-2010. * The areas are estimated and provided for the purpose of illustrating the fee calculation. The actual fee and fee credit for each phase will be calculated at the time of building permit submittal. Exhibit C City Fees and Exactions 47 Attachment 4 City Council Staff Report (No attachments) Meeting of September 11, 2013 48 Staff Report DATE: September 11, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL VILLAGE – USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PHASED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE PROJECT INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 222,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 284 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A 14.5 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE (ECRMX) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC CHAPTERS 19.60, 20.090, 20.300, 20.330, 20.350, 20.400, 20.440, 20.450, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490. Address: 180 El Camino Real (APN 014-183-110) Owner: Shamain Partnership Applicant: El Camino and Spruce LLC Case No.: P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001, DA13-0002 & ND12-0004 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration ND12-0004; and 2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P11-0065, including Use Permit UP11-0006, Design Review DR11-0019, and Transportation Demand Management Plan TDM13-0001 based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval; and 3. Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement DA13-0002. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION (A complete discussion of the proposed project is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated August 15, 2013.) 49 Existing Site The Project site is a 14.5 acre lot with frontages on El Camino Real and South Spruce Ave. The existing shopping center on the site was constructed in 1965, and currently includes Safeway, Bally’s Total Fitness, CVS, and Bedroom Express. Firestone Tire & Auto Center is located in a smaller building at the northwest corner of the site, close to the intersection of El Camino Real and South Spruce Ave. The site is bordered by commercial uses to the south, Brentwood Shopping Center and single- family residential to the west across El Camino Real, See’s Candies and single-family residential to the north across South Spruce Ave, and office and other general commercial uses to the east across Huntington Ave. The subject site does not extend all the way to Huntington Avenue – there is a surface parking lot, a professional office building and a Salvation Army facility abutting the eastern edge of the property. The City has in recent years updated General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance standards related to the El Camino Real corridor in an effort to “develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non-residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment” (General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-G-7), and has been working with the applicant to develop a plan to achieve this objective on the site. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing 145,000 square foot shopping center and replacing it with a mixed-use shopping center containing approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial area, with 284 residential units on upper floors, on this prominent 14.5 acre site. El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue would be fronted by a series of two-story buildings (Buildings A, B, C, D and Major Tenant 3 - CVS) providing a total of 42,400 square feet for retail uses on the ground floor and 35,300 square feet for office uses on the second floor. These buildings would serve to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment at the street edge, increase the amount of commercial activity on the site, and obscure views of the interior parking lot. The interior of the site would include an L-shaped five story mixed-use building, with commercial uses on the ground floor, parking on the second level, and 284 residential units on the third, fourth and fifth floors. The residential component of the project would consist of a mixture of one- and two-bedroom apartment units with associated amenities, including open courtyards. The ground floor tenant spaces would include a 58,000-square-foot Safeway, a 30,000-square-foot Commercial/Retail use (Major Tenant 2), a 36,000-square-foot Health Club use, and 21,000 square feet of smaller commercial tenant spaces (Building E). The development could be constructed in up to three phases; following is a breakdown of each specific phase: Phase 1 - Construction of ground level retail for Major Tenants 1 (Safeway), 2 (to be determined), the health club, and both levels of Buildings A, B, C and D and Major Tenant 3 (CVS). 50 - Construction of all surface parking and landscaping improvements. - Construction of 184 parking stalls above Safeway and Major Tenant 2. Phase 2 - Construction of all structured parking and Building E (including basement level parking). - Construction of parking level above Building E and Health Club building. - Construction of a minimum of 141 residential units above the Health Club and Building E. Phase 3 - Construction of the remaining residential units (up to a total 284 units) above Safeway and Major Tenant 2. ZONING CONSISTENCY Upon full build-out, the proposed project will entail a mixed-use development that fulfills all of the purpose statements, standards and regulations of the El Camino Real Mixed Use (“ECRMX”) Zone District, subject to approval of specific exceptions for which the Planning Commission recommended approval. These exceptions are related to “Supplemental Regulations” within the ECRMX District, and the approval body is allowed to grant exceptions for specific standards upon determining that the underlying intent of the ECRMX district is still being met. A more detailed review of the City’s development standards and requirements is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report. PRELIMINARY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN In accordance with the Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Ordinance, a preliminary TDM plan is included as part of the project to achieve a minimum 28% alternative mode use, applicable to all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips. In general, the preliminary TDM plan provides for the requisite mode shift goal, and includes all of the required trip reduction measures, including carpool and vanpool ridematching services, designated employer contact, guaranteed ride home program, and showers and clothes locker facilities. A copy of the preliminary TDM plan is attached. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is El Camino Real Mixed Use (“ECRMX”). The ECRMX land use designation allows for high-intensity active uses and mixed-use developments. The frontage of the site along El Camino Real and other arterial/collector streets are required to be devoted to active uses. Upon full build-out of the project, the development will conform to the General Plan Land Use Policies by creating a mixed-use environment within the required FAR parameters that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along El Camino Real and South Spruce Ave, provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and locates parking in a way that is not visually dominant. 51 Additionally, the Housing Element identifies the subject site as a near-term housing opportunity site. Assuming a density of 60 dwelling units per acre for a third of the site, consistent with densities allowed within the South El Camino Real corridor, the site was identified as being able to accommodate up to 295 units. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant and the City have negotiated a Development Agreement (“DA”) to clarify and obligate Project features and mitigation measures. The applicant has stated that currently the economics of the project do not justify the development of apartments, as the total rental income versus total costs of development are not sufficient to justify the risks associated with the development at this time. Therefore, the primary feature of the DA is the phasing of the residential units. Upon the tenth anniversary of the execution of the agreement, the applicant will be required to perform a calculation of Economic Feasibility; if the performance triggers are met, the applicant would be required to construct Phase 2 within 12 months. Other Development Agreement items include: • The term of the Agreement would be twenty (20) years. • Payment of applicable fees, including Public Safety Impact Fee and Child Care Impact Fee, including annual escalators. • Timing of Project Construction and Completion. o Phase 1 construction will begin within 18 months of final project entitlement approval. o If the 284 apartment units have not been constructed within 10 years of the approval of the DA, then three triggers are identified to determine if the residential units are “Economically Feasible”. The triggers were developed jointly by the project applicant, City staff and the City’s economic consultants. If all three triggers are met, the developer shall either commence construction or arrange with another Developer to commence construction of Phase 2 within 12 months. o Upon the completion of Phase 2, if the same “Economically Feasible” triggers are met the developer shall either commence construction or arrange with another Developer to commence construction of Phase 3 within 12 months. The proposed Development Agreement is attached to the draft Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City adopted the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (“South ECR GPA”) on March 24, 2010. The South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR was prepared as a Program EIR, pursuant to Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and this document was certified by the City Council following public review and comment. 52 Consistent with the CEQA tiering principles and procedures, an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was prepared to determine whether the project could have any significant impacts that had not been adequately addressed in the South ECR GPA EIR. The IS/MND identifies significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant impacts through various mitigation measures, which are discussed in the document. The IS/MND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public review on April 12, 2013. A total of six comment letters were received from commenting agencies: San Mateo County Health System (dated April 29, 2013); San Francisco International Airport (dated May 3, 2013); County of San Mateo Department of Public Works (dated May 8, 2013); C/CAG staff (dated May 13, 2013); the California Department of Transportation (dated May 14, 2013); and the City of San Bruno (dated May 21, 2013). None of the comment letters raised significant environmental issues. A copy of the “Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration” and the “Final Mitigated Negative Declaration”, which includes the comment letters and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, are attached to the CEQA Resolution. REVIEW BY OTHER AGENCIES The project site is located within Airport Influence Area B as defined in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) for San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”). Projects located within this influence area are subject to the ALUCP policies related to noise compatibility, safety compatibility, and airspace protection. When the current ALUCP was adopted by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) in November 2012, the SFO noise contours were updated. Under the previous 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (“CLUP”), the project site was located within the CNEL 65 to 70 dB noise contour, which allows multi-family residential units subject to adequate sound insulation and grant of avigation easement. The 2012 ALUCP updated noise contours located the project site within the CNEL 70 to 75 dB noise contour, which would not allow new residential development. ALUCP General Policy GP-5.3 grants an exception to noise consistency evaluations for development actions in the review process before the effective date of the current ALUCP, provided that the proposed development complies with all other requirements of the current ALUCP. In SFO’s comment letter related to the IS/MND, they verify that the project application was deemed complete before the adoption of the ALUCP, and therefore is to be evaluated under the 1996 CLUP. However, any future proposal (not included in the proposed development application) to construct additional dwelling, subdivide land, or create condominiums for residential use within the CNEL 70-75 dB contour would be considered incompatible with the ALUCP. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING At the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2013, the Commission reviewed the proposed project. Five members of the public spoke on the project, with questions related to 53 54