Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 29-2015 RESOLUTION NO. 29-2015 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA14-0001) TO ADOPT THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2014 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65580 of the State Planning and Zoning Law requires every city to adopt a housing element; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code, "Housing element content," the City of South San Francisco has prepared a General Plan Housing Element Update, which provides detailed background information, an assessment of housing needs, an analysis of adequate sites, resources, and constraints for residential development, an analysis of special needs housing, an analysis of housing for the homeless, and the description of goals and policies for the creation of new residential development and the preservation of the existing housing stock; and WHEREAS, for purposes of Section 65583, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element incorporates the City's housing allocation of 1,864 residential units, determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a general plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update policies are internally consistent with the policies contained in each of the South San Francisco General Plan elements; and WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with Section 65351 of the California Government Code,has facilitated public participation in the preparation of the General Plan Housing Element Update by conducting a public workshop on February 11, 2014 with housing advocates and stakeholders, providing information on the Housing Element update at the Housing Resources Fair on May 10, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City also conducted a publically noticed study session with the Planning Commission on November 6, 2014 and with the City Council on December 10, 2014 to consider the draft Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a public participation program that accomplished the following: a. Informed the public of the ongoing General Plan Housing Element Update, b. Obtained public input regarding major issues, community objectives, and plan policies, c. Provided the public with opportunities to evaluate policies, d. Informed decision makers of public opinions, and e. Worked toward community consensus; and WHEREAS, the City presented the Project to the Airport Land Use Commission/ C/CAG and it was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the City prepared the attached Initial Study/ Negative Declaration and distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate responsible agencies and interested parties on February 27, 2015 for a 30-day public review period; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2015 to consider and evaluate the General Plan Housing Element Update, and at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and General Plan Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2015 to consider and evaluate the General Plan Housing Element Update, and the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2014; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and based on the entirety of the record concluded that there is no substantial evidence that this project will have a significant environmental impact, and has therefore adopted the Initial Study/Negative Declaration by separate resolution; and WHEREAS, the custodian of the record is the City's Chief Planner, and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and the General Plan Housing Element Update, as well as other materials comprising the record for these proceedings, are available and may be reviewed at the offices of the South San Francisco Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, 94080. 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 and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners; the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update for 2015-2023, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners; all comments and testimony received at stakeholders interviews and public workshops; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Airport Land Use Commission meeting held on January 8, 2015; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission Study Session on November 6, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council Study Session on December 10, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed March 19, 2015 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed April 8, 2015 meeting 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 Public Hearing Draft Housing Element Update 2015-2023 (attached as Exhibit A) and the 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference as 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 the Chief Planner. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the Public Hearing Draft Housing Element Update 2015-2023 (attached as Exhibit A) and amends the South San Francisco General Plan (GPA14-0001) to update the Housing Element. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby accepts the 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the 2007-2014 Housing Element of the General Plan (attached as Exhibit B) and directs staff to submit the 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, in accordance with State law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of April, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Karyl Matsumoto, Pradeep Gupta, and Liza Normandy Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego and Mayor Richard A. Garbarino NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Krist rtinelli, City Clerk Exhibit A: Public Hearing Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element Update Exhibit B: 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2421304.1 EXHIBIT A 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OR 4// ol %kj ) 4,/ Prepared by D Y F,"I'll' & 13 111 All A, Uirlbain aind Regloiniall I'llaininicirs March 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................................. 1.1 Role and Content of Housing Element........................................................................................1 1.2 Relationship with General Plan......................................................................................................2 1.3 Related Planning Efforts...................................................................................................................2 1.4 Public Participation...........................................................................................................................3 1.5 Organization of Housing Element.................................................................................................4 2 Review of Housing Element Past Performance ....................................................... 6 2.1 Promote New Housing Development.........................................................................................6 2.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development........................................................................8 2.3 Conserve Existing Housing and Neighborhoods.......................................................................8 2.4 Maintain and Improve the Quality of Life...................................................................................9 2.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs.....................................................................9 2.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing................................................................................................ 10 2.7 Energy Conservation..................................................................................................................... 10 2.8 Housing Element Changes........................................................................................................... 11 3 Housing Needs Assessment..................................................................................... 12 3.1 Regional Context........................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Population and Household Trends............................................................................................ 12 3.3 Employment Trends...................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Housing Characteristics............................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Market Conditions.........................................................................................................................27 3.6 Housing Affordability....................................................................................................................30 3.7 Projected Housing Needs............................................................................................................35 3.8 Special Housing Needs.................................................................................................................36 4 Housing Constraints................................................................................................. 49 4.1 Government Constraints.............................................................................................................49 4.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities.......................................................................................73 4.3 Non-Governmental Constraints................................................................................................76 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 4.4 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints...........................................................................78 4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation..................................................................................78 5 Housing Resources.................................................................................................... 80 5.1 Available Sites for Housing..........................................................................................................80 5.2 Financial Resources.......................................................................................................................97 5.3 Summary..........................................................................................................................................98 6 Housing Plan............................................................................................................ 100 6.1 Promote New Housing Development.................................................................................... 101 6.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development................................................................... 105 6.3 Conserve Existing Housing& Neighborhoods..................................................................... 108 6.4 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life...................................................................................... 112 6.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs................................................................ 114 6.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing.............................................................................................. 119 6.7 Energy Conservation................................................................................................................... 121 6.8 Quantified Objectives................................................................................................................. 123 Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments..................................... 124 ii Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure I: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2014....................................................33 Figure 2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area.................................................................84 Figure 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area......................................................................91 LIST OF TABLES' Table 1.4-1: 21 Elements Meetings - Panels of Experts.............................................................................4 Table 2.1-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2007— 2014...............................................................7 Table 2.1-2: Housing Production by Income Level, 2007 —2014...........................................................7 Table 3.2-1: Population and Household Trends, 2000 to 2012............................................................ 14 Table 3.2-2: Age Distribution, 2012............................................................................................................ 15 Table 3.2-3: Household Income Distribution, 2012................................................................................ 15 Table 3.3-1:Jobs by Sector 2012.................................................................................................................. 16 Table 3.3-2: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2012.................................................................... 17 Table 3.3-3: Employment Trends, 2005 to 2010...................................................................................... 17 Table 3.3-4: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2010 to 2040........................................... 18 Table 3.4-1: Housing Conditions by Neighborhood................................................................................ 19 Table 3.4-2: Housing Structures, Year Built..............................................................................................20 Table 3.4-3: Housing Conditions, 2012......................................................................................................20 Table 3.4-4: Housing Units By Type, 2000 to 2013.................................................................................21 Table 3.4-5: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 2002 to 2012.......................22 Table 3.4-6: Overcrowded Households, 2012..........................................................................................23 Table 3.4-7: Inventory of Deed-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2014...................................24 Table 3.4-8: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis................................................................................26 Table 3.5-1: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco...........27 Table 3.5-2: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco.......................................................................29 Table 3.5-3: Units Sold and Median Price, South San Francisco, 1990-2013.....................................29 Table 3.6-1: Household Income Limits - San Mateo County, 2014.....................................................30 Table 3.6-2:Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2013.......................32 Table 3.6-3: Maximum Funds Available for Housing, by Income Category........................................34 1 Tables are numbered according to the section of the text in which they appear. iii South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.6-4: Housing Need by Income Level, 2010.................................................................................35 Table 3.7-1: Projected Housing Need by Income....................................................................................36 Table 3.8-1: Household Size by Tenure, 2012..........................................................................................37 Table 3.8-2: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2012.............................37 Table 3.8-3: Family Characteristics, 2012...................................................................................................38 Table 3.8-4: Housing Needs of Extremely Low-Income Households, South San Francisco, 2010.............................................................................................................................................39 Table 3.8-5: Households by Age and Tenure, 2012.................................................................................40 Table 3.8-6: Household Income of Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2010.......................40 Table 3.8-7: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2010.........................................41 Table 3.8-8: Persons with Disability by Age, 2012...................................................................................42 Table 3.8-9: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2012.......................................................42 Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012.............................................43 Table 3.8-11: Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Type of Residence and Age.....................45 Table 3.8-12: Homeless Population, San Mateo County,January 2013..............................................47 Table 3.8-13: Farm workers in San Mateo County, 2012......................................................................47 Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2014...................................49 Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts.................................................................................53 Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014...................59 Table 4.1-4: Residential Parking Requirements.........................................................................................62 Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements...................................................63 Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014..........................65 Table 4.1-7: Typical Application Processing Time, 2014........................................................................71 Table 4.1-8: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type, 2014....................................................72 Table 4.3-1: Disposition of Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, 2012..............77 Table 5.1-1: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development Capacity Under Existing Zoning and Under Adoption of Proposed Downtown Plan..........................................80 Table 6.8-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives, 2015-2023............................................................... 123 Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments........................................................................ 126 iv I Introduction Housing is of critical importance to the City of South San Francisco. The long-term vitality of the South San Francisco community and local economy depend on a full range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the City's population. As South San Francisco looks towards the future, the increasing range and diversity of housing options will be an integral aspect of the City's growth and development. Consistent with South San Francisco's long-term commitment to providing suitable, decent, and affordable housing for its residents, this plan sets forth a vision for guiding future residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing existing residential areas. 1 . 1 Role and Content of Housing Element The purpose of this Housing Element is to adopt a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City of South San Francisco. The State mandates the inclusion of seven elements in all General Plans; one of these is the Housing Element. The Housing Element is South San Francisco's primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population within the City's boundaries. Accordingly, this Housing Element identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing needs of the City and states goals, policies, quantified objectives, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including a discussion of available financial resources. The Housing Element must also identify sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City's allocation of the regional housing need. South San Francisco intends to implement a set of programs and projects to meet the goals, policies, and objectives included herein. The City will also coordinate its housing efforts with those occurring within the other areas of San Mateo County and the broader Bay Area region. AUTHORITY All California localities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections 65580-65590) to adopt Housing Elements as part of their general plans, and submit draft and adopted elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review with compliance with State law. HCD is required to review Housing Elements and report its written findings within 60 days for a draft Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585(b)) and within 90 days for an adopted Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585(h)). In addition, Government Code Section 65585(c) requires HCD to consider written comments from any group, individual, or public agency regarding the Housing Element under review. I South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 STATUS This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2010, and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on October 13, 1999. This updated Housing Element corresponds to the planning period of January 31, 2015 to January 31, 2023 and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projection period of January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2022, which are the periods established by State law for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions. 1 .2 Relationship with General Plan State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements"comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." This implies that all elements have equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and it must be closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element must also be consistent with area Specific Plans including those currently being developed in South San Francisco.As part of the implementation process for this Housing Element, the City of South San Francisco will initiate and complete amendments to the City's General Plan as necessary to achieve internal consistency. 1 .3 Related Planning Efforts DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN The City adopted (February 2015) the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP),which is a twenty-year plan that will guide development in the half-mile radius of the City's Downtown Caltrain Station. The DSASP aims to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtown core. It includes strategies to enhance connectivity and improve accessibility to the Downtown and the Caltrain station area for all community members and various modes of transportation, including pedestrians and bicycles. The DSASP identifies opportunities for development near the transit station, and it includes design guidelines and standards for all types of development in the planning area. 2 Introduction 1 .4 Public Participation This Draft Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members of the South San Francisco community, as well as housing advocates, developers, and other interested parties. The City hosted a Stakeholders Workshop on February 11, 2014. This workshop was primarily intended for housing service providers, housing developers (market rate and affordable), stakeholders, and representative organizations to take part in an open discussion about the City's long-term housing goals, needs, and polices. Attendees included representatives from the Sierra Club, Rotary Club, San Mateo County Union Community Alliance, Office of Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, the Housing Leadership Council, and neighborhood organizations. In conducting outreach for the workshop, care was taken to recruit potential participants who would reflect the City's full ethnic and economic diversity. The public outreach efforts for the Stakeholder Meeting included: • Newspaper advertisement printed 10-days prior to the meeting; • Direct mail flyer to 21 Elements Stakeholder list-65 recipients; • Direct mail flyer to HOAs, Chamber, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural organizations, and community members-65 recipients; • Public television notice; • Facebook posting(on Library page); • Flyers posted at 10 kiosks along Centennial Trail; • Flyers posted at both libraries, City Hall,Annex; • E-blast with Parks&Recreation (approximately 8,000 subscribers); • 21 Elements website posting; • Nextdoor webpage posting; and • City website posting. In addition, the City of South San Francisco participated in the 21 Elements project, a collaborative effort of the 21 jurisdictions within San Mateo County to share resources, ideas, data, policy direction, and outreach for the fifth Housing Element cycle.At the request of local jurisdictions, 21 Elements organized four panels of experts to provide information and policy suggestions on affordable housing and special needs populations. As shown in the table below, the four panels focused on the needs and perspectives of people with developmental disabilities; developers (for-profit and non-profit, as well as architects); advocates and funders; and special needs and sustainability. 3 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 1.4-1: 21 Elements Meetings - Panels of Experts Activity/Meeting Description Date 21 Elements Meeting Stakeholder Meeting- Golden Gate Regional Center's June 13, 2013 info on needs and services for people with developmental disabilities 21 Elements Meeting Developer Panel -- addressed concerns in housing December 5, 2013 development, such as community politics,growing senior population, and need for more workforce housing 21 Elements Meeting Advocates and Funders Panel -- answering questions February 6, 2014 about greatest housing needs in the County 21 Elements Meeting Stakeholder Meeting- Special Housing Needs April 10, 2014 Advocates These panels were well-attended by housing advocates, city representatives, and other stakeholders from throughout San Mateo County, and provided valuable insight for South San Francisco into the most pressing needs and constraints that developers and other service providers face in the area. Several themes emerged from all the panels. Many speakers talked about the importance of multi-family housing in mixed use,transit-oriented neighborhoods. This type of development is necessary because it accommodates seniors and people with disabilities who cannot depend on cars for transportation. The reduced dependence on cars and increased density also helps meet sustainability goals.Additionally, many jurisdictions in San Mateo County have little or no vacant land and therefore cannot meet their RHNA requirements without rezoning. Panelists also discussed the importance of adding predictability to the development process and the necessity of removing excessive regulations to encourage development. Finally,the South San Francisco Planning Commission discussed housing needs, constraints, and proposed policies at a study session held on November 6, 2014. The City Council held a similar study session to discuss housing needs, constraints, and proposed policies at a meeting on December 10, 2014. Their comments have collectively been incorporated into the draft Housing Element. As a result of the public outreach process, the City heard from a number of individuals and organizations on the draft Housing Element, including the Housing Leadership Council. In response to the public comments received, a number of issues were carefully considered by the City and incorporated into the Housing Element Update. Changes to the Housing Element as a result of public comments include the addition of 11 programs to the Housing Plan, such as Policy 3-4 and Program 3-413 to address displacement, as well as additional programs to preserve and maintain affordable and market-rate units in the city. 1 .5 Organization of Housing Element Following this introduction,the Housing Element includes the following major components: 4 Introduction • A review of the prior Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production over the previous Housing Element planning period (2007-2014). • An analysis of the City's current and future housing needs. • An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production. • An inventory and analysis of housing resources. • A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to address the City's housing needs. 5 2 Review of Housing Element Past Performance A key component of each Housing Element update is a review of performance under the previous Housing Element, including a quantitative and qualitative description of outcomes, a comparison of outcomes against stated goals, and an evaluation of the continued appropriateness of existing goals,objectives,policies, and programs. Accordingly, this chapter reviews progress under the previous Housing Element, which covered the period from 2007 to 2014. This review is organized around the following seven overarching goals of the previous Housing Element: • Promote new housing development; • Remove constraints to housing development; • Conserve existing housing and neighborhoods; • Maintain and improve the quality of life; • Support development of special housing needs; • Assure equal access to housing; and • Energy conservation. Summarized below are key findings of this review of past performance. Analysis includes the progress on implementation, effectiveness of the element, and the appropriateness of the goals, objectives, and performance. A more detailed review of each of the 45 policies adopted under the previous Housing Element is included in Appendix A. 2. 1 Promote New Housing Development The first goal of the previous Housing Element was to promote the provision of new housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community, a goal that the City actively pursued during the previous Housing Element cycle. The City's Redevelopment Agency (RDA) acquired property within the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and in the Downtown area before the Agency was eliminated in 2011.The City is continuing to work with developers on potential projects; however, due to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, funding is limited and depends on the ultimate outcome of distribution of funds and property. 6 Review of Housing Element Past Performance In 2010, the City adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update. It incorporated a variety of tools and measures to encourage a variety of residential unit sizes, a mix of housing types, mixed-use development, and more intense mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real Corridor and in the Downtown. The updated Zoning Ordinance expanded permissions for residential and mixed-use development, and it included Design Guidelines and an EIR for a General Plan Amendment for the South El Camino Real corridor. The City also supported the development of secondary dwelling units through provisions in its Zoning Ordinance and with brochures at the Permit Center Counter. Detailed land use and design guidelines were created in the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan, which was adopted in 2011 and included regulations for some of the Redevelopment Agency's Successor Agency properties. In addition, the City received a grant in 2012 and began work on the Downtown Station Area Plan. This plan increased residential and mixed use densities near the Caltrain Station and was adopted in early 2015. A number of new residential development projects were completed under the previous Housing Element between 2007 and 2014. Park Station, a residential project near the City's BART station completed in 2007, added to the City's housing stock and included seven new low income units and eight new moderate income units. A total of seven secondary units were constructed between 2007 and 2012. The recently completed the 636 El Camino Real affordable housing development project provided 108 affordable units, including 40 three- bedroom units to accommodate large families. The following section evaluates the City's progress in accommodating its "fair share" of the region wide need for additional housing, also referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), including an examination of new construction activity. As shown in Table 2.1-1, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined a need for 1,635 additional housing units in South San Francisco during the prior Housing Element cycle from 2007 to 2014, including a need for 956 units for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households. Table 2.1-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2007 — 2014 Income Category RHNA 2007-2014 Percent of Total Extremely Low (0-30%AMI) 187 11% Very Low (31-50%AMI) 186 11% Low (51-80%AMI) 268 16% Moderate (81-120%AMI) 315 19% Above Moderate(over 120%AMI) 679 42% Total Units 1,635 100% Source:ABAG,2014,Dyett&Bhatia,2014. The "Great Recession" of 2008 greatly affected the housing market in South San Francisco during the RHNA period of 2007 to 2014. As shown in Table 2.1-2, within the last planning period, the City issued a total of 251 permits. In addition, the City approved but has not yet issued permits for three other development projects totaling 330 units. Table 2.1-2: Housing Production by Income Level, 2007 — 2014 7 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 RHNA Permitted Approved but not Permitted 2007— Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Income Category 2014 Units RHNA Units RHNA Extremely Low 373 108 29.0% 0 0.0% and Very Low Low 268 7 2.6% 1 0.3% Moderate 315 8 2.5% 3 0.9% Above Moderate 679 128 18.9% 326 48.0% Total 1,635 251 15.6% 330 20.2% Source:City of South San Francisco,2014. While the dissolution of the City's Redevelopment Agency and the economic recession did impact the ability of the City to meet their RHNA for housing production during this housing cycle, progress was still made towards producing South San Francisco's "fair share" of housing. 2.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development The City has taken a number of actions during the previous Housing Element period to remove constraints to housing development, the second goal of the previous Housing Element. To provide support for private market construction, the City's One Stop Permit Center continues to provide accessible services by the departments of Planning, Building, and Public Works in one building. The One Stop Permit Center is operated by accessible staff from 8am to 5pm, and permit processing is efficient and timely. To ensure timely processing of applications, the Planning Commission meets twice each month, and the Design Review Board meets once a month. To encourage residential development,the City strives to ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout residential areas. For specific development projects,the City collects"sewer impact fees"to support the ongoing maintenance and upgrading of the City's infrastructure. In addition, the City adopted a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget that included several projects to repair and upgrade infrastructure to support added populations. To ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes with existing neighborhood surroundings, the City adopted a Residential Design Guide and design standards in the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Plan. The City continually provides material to the public regarding affordable housing opportunities, programs, and inclusionary units, including at the City's Economic Development and Housing Division, City's Community Learning Center, on community calendars, on the City's website, and at the Citizen's Academy. 2.3 Conserve Existing Housing and Neighborhoods The third goal of the previous Housing Element was to conserve existing housing and neighborhoods. Related to this goal, the City has continued to encourage private residential 8 Review of Housing Element Past Performance reinvestment in older neighborhoods and fund lower-income housing rehabilitation. The Economic Development and Housing Division manages the Community Development Block Grants Program, which provides funding for a number of housing rehabilitation activities for low income residents. These activities include the following: low interest loans and/or grants through the City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program; free accessibility modifications to houses through the Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities' (CID) Housing Accessibility Modification Program; free home repairs to South San Francisco households through Rebuilding Together Peninsula programs; and through 2012, free home repairs to households through the now-disbanded North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center House Helpers. The City aggressively enforces housing, building, and safety codes. The City's Code Enforcement Division is operated through the Fire Department, and Building Division staff members also enforce the codes when they are out on inspections. To upgrade and maintain housing, streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems, the City's CIP budget includes projects in older neighborhoods. The City also strives to limit the number of apartment units that are converted to condominium units and the number of subsidized units that are converted to market rate units,through regulations in the zoning code. 2.4 Maintain and Improve the Quality of Life The fourth goal of the previous Housing Element strived to maintain and improve the quality of life in South San Francisco, and the City accomplished this goal in several ways. The City has adopted policies to prohibit residential development in areas with major environmental hazards, to abate existing hazards, and to mitigate airport noise for residents. These policies continue to be implemented through the CEQA process as well as the City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program, minor home repair program, and airport noise insulation program. The City's General Plan has been updated to be consistent with the SFO Airport Land Use Plan and its aircraft noise contours. Disclosures are provided to potential buyers of homes that are located in the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour areas, and there are added restrictions placed on new homes within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour. In addition, the updated Zoning Ordinance includes a Special Environmental Studies Overlay District that applies to areas of the City that the General Plan identifies as ecologically sensitive habitats or susceptible geologic hazards. 23 Support Development of Special Housing Needs The fifth goal of the previous Housing Element was to provide housing for people with special needs. Through its policies and programs, the City has worked to address the needs of special needs populations in the City, particularly large families with children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and people who are homeless or in need of transitional housing. The City accomplishes its goal of serving special needs populations in several ways. Housing that serves special needs populations continues to be constructed in South San Francisco. The recently completed affordable housing development at 636 El Camino Real 9 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 includes 108 units, including 40 three-bedroom units to accommodate large families and 20 units for San Mateo County Mental Health clients. The City provides annual grant funds to the Center of Independence of Individuals with Disabilities to allow for disabled access to homes. The Zoning Ordinance allows for requests for parking reductions for senior housing developments and developments near transit. The updated Zoning Ordinance also provides provisions for reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to housing by allowing the Chief Planner authority to grant relief from zoning requirements. The Zoning Update also included a district where an emergency shelter is permitted by right and subject only to the same development and management standards applicable to other uses in the zone. Similarly,transitional and supportive housing are also subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the zone. The City's support for various non-profit organizations varies each year based on the amount of funding available and the organizations' capacity and need. To serve South San Francisco residents who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness,the City provided funding to a variety of San Mateo County service agencies, including Samaritan House, which operates a 90-bed year-round shelter for the homeless in South San Francisco. The City also supported the not-for-profits Shelter Network, which provides emergency and transitional housing for homeless individuals and families, and Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA),which provides emergency shelter for battered women. 2.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing The sixth goal of the previous Housing Element was to promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary,and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of age, race, gender, religion, marital status, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary factors. In conjunction with San Mateo County, Daly City, Redwood City, and San Mateo, the City developed the Analysis of Impediments for Fair Housing Choice. It was adopted by the City Council in 2013. To support equal housing opportunities in South San Francisco, the City contracts with Project Sentinel, a fair housing provider and tenant/landlord service organization, to address fair housing complaints and resolve landlord/tenant disputes in the City. In addition, City staff provides referrals regarding fair housing to appropriate agencies and advocacy groups. 2.7 Energy Conservation The final goal under the previous Housing Element related to energy conservation. To incorporate energy and water conservation in construction and rehabilitation projects, the City adopted a Green Building Ordinance. City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan on February 12, 2014, which will promote energy information and sharing. The City's rehabilitation and repair programs have benefited numerous low-income households with weatherization projects. The City also continues to implement Title 24 requirements for 10 Review of Housing Element Past Performance energy conservation in residential development, and it encourages residential developers to employ the use of solar access, landscaping, building siting, lot configuration, and street design energy conservation measures. 2.8 Housing Element Changes As presented above, the City of South San Francisco has been successful at promoting housing development consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the prior Housing Element. Given the patterns of land use and development in the city, this Housing Element continues the approach of its predecessor by promoting medium- and high-density housing development on infill sites. In South San Francisco, these sites will be located mainly in mixed-use zones near transit, providing the City with the opportunity to promote high- quality transit and pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods that include a full range of housing types and affordability levels. For the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element planning period, the Housing Plan has been organized to complement the City's planning efforts in medium-density, high-density, and mixed-use zones, particularly in the Transit Village and in Downtown. In addition, the guiding policy framework has been simplified by consolidating and eliminating redundancies wherever possible, ultimately resulting in a more efficient and straightforward plan to encourage high-quality residential development, as well as to ensure a full range of affordable housing. The proposed Goals, Policies, and Programs contained in this Housing Element Update have been modified from the prior Housing Element in light of the findings discussed above, and also based on the Housing Needs Assessment, Constraints Analysis, and Housing Resources inventory contained within the document. Most of the programs that have been modified for this Housing Element Update were previously funded and operated by the City's Redevelopment Agency, which was eliminated in 2011. A more detailed description of changes to programs based on their previous successes can also be found in Appendix A. II 3 Housing Needs Assessment The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic conditions in South San Francisco, assess the demand for housing for households at all income-levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist South San Francisco in developing housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs. To facilitate an understanding of how the characteristics of South San Francisco are similar to, or different from the larger area in which it is situated, this Housing Needs Assessment presents data for South San Francisco alongside comparable data for all of San Mateo County and,where appropriate,for the San Francisco Bay Area and the state of California. This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous sources, including the United States Census; American Community Survey; the Association of Bay Area Governments; and the State of California, Department of Finance. 3. 1 Regional Context Located in northern San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula, the City of South San Francisco is known as the birth place of the biotechnology industry. The City measures 9.6 square miles and was incorporated in 1908. Its population has tripled since the Second World War, but population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has become increasingly developed. The City is served by Highway 101, Interstate 280, Interstate 380, BART, and Caltrain. In addition, the City is adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport and is served by a Ferry Terminal that began operating in June 2012. South San Francisco is adjacent to the cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, and San Bruno, as well as portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. The City is home to a collection of compact neighborhoods, including an active and walkable downtown. The area east of Highway 101 contains research and development, office, and industrial uses, and is where many of the City's biotechnology businesses are located, as well as the Oyster Point Marina,situated on the San Francisco Bay. 3.2 Population and Household Trends POPULATION With a population of nearly 64,000 residents, South San Francisco is the fourth largest city in San Mateo County. As shown in Table 3.2-1, between 2000 and 2010, the City's population grew at a faster rate than San Mateo County, averaging an increase of 0.50 12 Housing Needs Assessment percent per year. Since 2010, growth in the City has slowed substantially, reflecting its increasingly developed character. Between 2010 and 2012, average annual population growth in the City was just 0.09 percent, about half the population growth rate for San Mateo County(0.19 percent). HOUSEHOLDS According to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey,there were 21,436 households in South San Francisco in 2012, a total increase of approximately 1,300 households since 2000 or approximately 100 households per year.z Consistent with population growth trends, since 2000 the City has added new households at a faster rate than the county — approximately 0.40 percent per year compared to -0.10 percent per year. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND TYPE Average household size is a function of the number of people living in households divided by the number of occupied housing units in the area. In South San Francisco, the average household size in 2012 was 3.0 persons per household, indicating significantly larger households compared to the countywide average of 2.8. Consistent with a larger average household size, the City of South San Francisco has a high proportion of family households. As of 2012, 72 percent of South San Francisco households contained related individuals, compared to 68 percent countywide. HOUSEHOLD TENURE Households in South San Francisco have about the same homeownership rate compared to the county. Approximately 59 percent of households living in the City owned their own homes in 2012,compared to 60 percent countywide. Z A household is defined as a person or group of persons living in a housing unit,as opposed to persons living in group quarters,such as dormitories,convalescent homes,or prisons. 13 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.2-1: Population and Household Trends, 2000 to 2012 Avg.Annual% Avg.Annual 2000 2010 2012 Change 2000-2010 Change 2010-2012 South San Francisco Population 60,552 63,632 63,742 0.50% 0.09% Households 20,138 20,938 21,436 0.39% 1.18% Average Household Size 3.1 3.0 3.0 Household Type Families 74% 73% 72% Non-Families 26% 27% 28% Tenure Owner 63% 60% 59% Renter 37% 40% 41 San Mateo County Population 707,163 718,451 721,183 0.16% 0.19% Households 260,578 257,837 257,369 -0.11% -0.09% Average Household Size 2.7 2.8 2.8 Household Type Families 67% 68% 68% Non-Families 33% 32% 32% Tenure Owner 61% 59% 60% Renter 39% 41% 40% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. AGE DISTRIBUTION Table 3.2-2 presents the age distribution and median age of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. South San Francisco has a median age of 38.1 years compared to 39.3 countywide. Similarities are also considerable in the age distribution of these jurisdictions. Persons under the age of 18 years account for approximately 22 percent of the population for both geographies, and persons age 18 to 24 years account for about 8 percent of each. Adults, age 25 to 44 years and age 45 to 64 years, account for a similar share of the population in each geography, ranging from 26 to 30 percent. Seniors, age 65 years and older, account for nearly 14 percent of the population in each geography. 14 Housing Needs Assessment Table 3.2-2: Age Distribution, 2012 South San Francisco San Mateo County Age Cohort Number Percent Number Percent Under 18 14,268 22.4% 159,384 22.1 18 to 24 5,250 8.2% 55,413 7.7% 25 to 44 19,033 29.9% 209,011 29.0% 45 to 64 16,549 26.0% 199,775 27.7% 65 + 8,642 13.6% 97,600 13.5% Total 63,742 100.0% 721,183 100.0% Median Age 38.1 39.3 Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. HOUSEHOLD INCOME As shown in Table 3.2-3, South San Francisco households tend to have less income than households living elsewhere in the County. As of 2012, the median household income in South San Francisco was $73,568, substantially below the countywide median of $87,751. Similarly, per capita incomes for South San Francisco residents were lower. In 2012,the per capita income in South San Francisco was $31,466,compared to $45,458 at the county-level. On a per capita basis, South San Francisco residents earned 31 percent less than the average County resident. Despite lower median and per capita incomes, South San Francisco had a relatively high proportion of households earning in the middle income range. The majority (53 percent) of South San Francisco households were estimated to earn between $50,000 and $150,000 in 2012, compared to 47 percent in the County. However, South San Francisco households were less likely to earn over $150,000 compared with San Mateo County; only 15 percent of City households earned more than $150,000,compared to 26 percent of County households. Table 3.2-3: Household Income Distribution, 2012 South San Francisco San Mateo County Household Income Number Percent Number Percent Less than $15,000 1,393 6.5% 15,185 6% $15,000 to$24,999 1,501 7.0% 14,155 6% $25,000 to$34999 1,629 7.6% 16,214 6% $35,000 to$49,999 2,208 10.3% 24,707 10% $50,000 to$74,999 4,223 19.7% 40,664 16% $75,000 to$99,999 2,808 13.1% 31,914 12% $100,000 to $149,999 4,373 20.4% 48,385 19% $150,000 to $199,999 1,758 8.2% 25,994 10% $200,000 or more 1,543 7.2% 40,407 16% Total 21,436 100.0% 257,369 100% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. 15 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 3.3 Employment Trends South San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area's biotechnology and life science industry, including the headquarters location for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotech firms. Genentech and other biotech and pharmaceutical companies account for an important share of local jobs and offer well-paying careers for persons with advanced scientific, business, and technical training. Proximate to the San Francisco International Airport, the City is also home to a cluster of "blue collar" jobs, including logistics and shipping operations and a manufacturing cluster that includes various food processors. JOBS BY SECTOR Table 3.3-1 presents a distribution of employment in South San Francisco by broad industrial classifications.As shown, Educational, Health, and Social Services accounts for the largest share of jobs (21 percent), followed by Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food Services (13 percent); Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (12 percent); Manufacturing, including pharmaceutical and food manufacturing (10 percent); and Retail Trade (10 percent). Rounding out the top 10 categories are Other Service; Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Construction; and Wholesale Trade. Table 3.3-1:Jobs by Sector 2012 South San Francisco San Mateo County Industry Sector Jobs Percent Jobs Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting and Mining 0 0.0% 1,767 0.5% Construction 1,577 5.1% 21,287 5.6% Manufacturing 2,942 9.5% 27,785 7.3% Wholesale Trade 1,238 4.0% 8,788 2.3% Retail Trade 2,768 8.9% 36,990 9.8% Transportation,Warehousing and Utilities 1,962 6.3% 19,160 5.1 Information 433 1.4% 12,991 3.4% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing 2,309 7.4% 26,929 7.1 Professional, Scientific, Management, 3,581 11.5% 66,453 17.5% Administrative, and Waste Management Services Educational, Health and Social Services 6,425 20.7% 83,940 22.1 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation,Accommodation, and Food Services 3,980 12.8% 37,845 10.0% Other Service (Except Public Administration) 2,633 8.5% 22,543 5.9% Public Administration 1,195 3.8% 12,719 3.4% Total 31,043 100.0% 379,197 100.0% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. 16 Housing Needs Assessment MAJOR EMPLOYERS Table 3.3-2 lists major employers in the City of South San Francisco. These include biotech and medical device companies such as Genentech, Life Technologies Corporation, Amgen San Francisco, and a range of other companies including a security firm, retailer, food manufacturers,a janitorial service company,and a beverage distributor. Table 3.3-2: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2012 Name of Employer Type of Business Number of Employees Genentech Biotechnology 7,777 Life Technologies Corporation Biotechnology 650 Costco Wholesalers (2 stores) Retail 508 Amgen San Francisco LLC Biotechnology 419 Successfactors, Inc. Technology 400 Guardsmark LLC Security 351 American Etc Inc/ Royal Laundry Service 318 The New French Bakery, Inc Food Manufacturing 300 DBI Beverage Beverage Distributor 232 Oroweat/Entenmann's Food Manufacturing 230 Source:South San Francisco Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 2013. EMPLOYED RESIDENTS Table 3.3-3 presents recent trends in employment for the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. South San Francisco is a "jobs rich" city with substantial in-commuting from other jurisdictions. As shown, in 2010 there were approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 44,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.4 jobs per every working resident of the City. By comparison, San Mateo County has a much closer balance between the number of employed residents and total jobs, with approximately 342,000 employed residents and 345,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.0 jobs per every working resident of the county. Since 2005, job growth in South San Francisco has been faster than that of the county, increasing at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent, adding substantially to a need to provide additional housing opportunities to support a fast-growing economy. Table 3.3-3: Employment Trends, 2005 to 2010 South San Francisco San Mateo County Average Annual Average Annual Rate of Change Rate of Change 2005 2010 2005 to 2010 2005 2010 2005 to 2010 Employed Residents 26,240 30,100 2.8% 318,600 342,060 1.4% Total jobs 42,240 43,550 0.6% 337,350 345,190 0.5% Total jobs/Employed Residents 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 Unemployment Rate 5.3% 10.3% 4.3% 8.8% Source:ABAG 2009 and 2013 Projections;California Employment Development Department 2014. 17 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects South San Francisco's population to increase from 63,632 to 87,700 between 2010 and 2040, a 38 percent increase over 30 years. Household growth is expected to be slightly lower, rising from 20,938 households to 27,900, a gain of 33 percent These projections reflect the growing need for residential development in South San Francisco. As illustrated in Table 3.3-4, South San Francisco will continue to contain more jobs than households over this 30-year period, deepening its reputation as a "jobs-rich" community. Compared with San Mateo County and Bay Area figures, South San Francisco's jobs-housing imbalance is disproportional; 2040 estimates for both the county and the region hover around 1.4 jobs per household compared to 1.9 in South San Francisco. Table 3.3-4: Population, Household, and job Projections, 2010 to 2040 Total Change Percent Change 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010-2040 2010-2040 South San Francisco Population 63,632 71,000 78,800 87,700 24,068 37.8% Households 20,938 23,250 25,570 27,900 6,962 33.3% fobs 43,550 51,510 52,020 53,790 10,240 23.5% jobs-Housing Ratio 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.9 San Mateo County Population 718,451 775,100 836,100 904,400 185,949 25.9% Households 257,837 277,200 296,280 315,100 57,263 22.2% jobs 345,190 407,550 421,500 445,070 99,880 28.9% jobs-Housing Ratio 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 Bay Area Population 7,150,739 7,786,800 8,496,800 9,299,100 2,148,361 30.0% Households 2,608,023 2,837,680 3,072,920 3,308,090 700,067 26.8% jobs 3,385,300 3,987,150 4,196,580 4,505,230 1,1 19,930 33.1 jobs-Housing Ratio 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Source:ABAG Projections,2013. 3.4 Housing Characteristics HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS The last comprehensive survey of the condition of the City's housing stock was completed in the 1990s. While much has changed since this time, the general findings of this survey, presented below, are still considered to be generally applicable. At the time of this survey, Irish Town, located north of the downtown commercial area, had by far the greatest percentage of structures in need of rehabilitation. This is the Downtown Target Area,where Community Development Block Grant funds are concentrated for rental and single-family 18 Housing Needs Assessment rehabilitation. In five other neighborhoods, over 10 percent of the structures were in fair to poor condition: Grand Avenue, Paradise Valley, Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace, Town of Baden, and Peck's Lots. Table 3.4-1: Housing Conditions by Neighborhood Structures Housing Condition Neighborhood Surveyed Good Fair Poor Avalon/Brentwood 198 95.5% 4.5% 0.0% Buri-Buri/Serra Highlands 193 93.0% 7.0% 0.0% Grand Avenue Area 103 88.4% 11.6% 4.8% Irish Town 277 73.3% 26.7% 10.1 Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace 119 82.4% 17.6% 0.0% Paradise Valley 166 88.6% 10.8% 0.6% Parkway 119 98.3% 1.7% 0.0% Peck's Lots 77 83.1% 13.0% 3.9% Southwood 78 93.6% 6.4% 0.0% Sunshine Gardens 136 91.2% 8.8% 0.0% Town of Baden 85 84.7% 14.1% 1.2% Westborough 155 95.5% 4.5% 0.0% Winston Manor 156 93.6% 6.4% 0.0% Total 1,862 87.3% 10.7% 2.0% Source:Economic and Community Development Department Windshield Survey,May 1990. To supplement this first-hand survey data, the following section presents data gathered from the 2008-2012 American Community Survey regarding the condition of the City's housing stock. The age of South San Francisco's housing stock is similar to that of San Mateo County. As shown in Table 3.4-2 the largest proportion of homes (27 percent) was built between 1950 and 1959 in South San Francisco.According to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, nearly half (45 percent) of the City's housing stock was built before 1960, indicating a relatively old housing inventory. Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can create health, safety, and welfare problems for occupants. Even with normal maintenance, dwellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate, requiring significant rehabilitation. Despite the presence of older homes in South San Francisco, virtually all housing units contain complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. As shown in Table 3.4-2, less than one percent of homes lack these facilities. 19 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.4-2: Housing Structures, Year Built South San Francisco San Mateo County Year Built Number Percent Number Percent 1939 or earlier 1,659 7.4% 24,412 9.0% 1940 to 1949 2,403 10.8% 30,815 11.4% 1950 to 1959 6,080 27.2% 65,210 24.1 1960 to 1969 3,519 15.8% 46,746 17.3% 1970 to 1979 3,774 16.9% 47,152 17.4% 1980 to 1989 1,554 7.0% 25,762 9.5% 1990 to 1999 1,525 6.8% 16,273 6.0% 2000 to 2009 1,790 8.0% 13,672 5.1 2010 or later 22 0.1% 625 0.2% Total: 22,326 100.0% 270,667 100.0% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. Table 3.4-3: Housing Conditions, 2012 Facility Number Percent Plumbing Facilities Owners Complete plumbing facilities 12,647 99.6% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 50 0.4% Total Owners 12,697 100.0% Renters Complete plumbing facilities 8,635 100.0% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 104 0.0% Total Renters 8,739 100.0% Kitchen Facilities Owners Complete plumbing facilities 12,625 99.4% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 72 0.6% Total Owners 12,697 100.0% Renters Complete plumbing facilities 8,525 97.6% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 214 2.4% Total Renters 8,739 100.0% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE As shown in Table 3.4-4, a majority of housing units in South San Francisco are single-family detached homes; 60 percent of homes were single-family detached dwelling units in 2013. Both South San Francisco and San Mateo County maintained a constant share of single- 20 Housing Needs Assessment family detached units since 2000, when the City and County's shares made up 59 and 58 percent of the overall housing stock, respectively. Large multifamily housing units (defined as units in structures containing five or more dwellings) represent the second largest housing category in South San Francisco and have experienced the most rapid growth between 2000 and 2013. The number of large multifamily housing units grew by 17 percent while single-family detached dwellings grew by 11 percent between 2000 and 2013. At 20 percent in 2013, however, South San Francisco still has a smaller proportion of large multifamily housing units compared to San Mateo County, where over a quarter (26 percent) of all housing was in large multifamily structures. Single-family attached homes comprised the third largest housing category in South San Francisco at 13 percent in 2012, a higher figure than San Mateo County, at 9 percent. The remaining housing categories, small multifamily homes (defined as units in structures containing 2 to 4 dwellings) and mobile homes, represented relatively small proportions of South San Francisco's housing stock in 2013 and have experienced little or no growth since 2000. Table 3.4-4: Housing Units By Type, 2000 to 2013 2000 2013 Percent Change Number Percent Number of Percent of 2000-2013 of Units of Total Units Total South San Francisco Single Family Detached 11,815 59% 13,064 60% 11% Single Family Attached 2,485 12% 2,798 13% 13% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 1,668 8% 1,336 6% -20% Multifamily 5+ Units 3,761 19% 4,404 20% 17% Mobile Home 409 2% 331 2% -19% Total 20,138 100% 21,933 100% 9% San Mateo County Single Family Detached 150,286 58% 155,475 57% 3% Single Family Attached 22,702 9% 25,079 9% 10% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 18,252 7% 17,510 6% -4% Multifamily 5+ Units 65,854 25% 71,247 26% 8% Mobile Home 3,484 10% 3,166 1% -9% Total 260,578 100% 272,477 100% 5% Bay Area Single Family Detached 1,376,861 54% 1,505,153 54% 9% Single Family Attached 224,824 9% 258,633 9% 15% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 266,320 10% 278,450 10% 5% Multifamily 5+ Units 623,388 24% 705,899 25% 13% Mobile Home 61,011 2% 59,673 2% -2% Total 2,552,404 100% 2,807,808 100% 10% Source:California Department of Finance,2014. 21 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Building Permit Trends Building permit trends in South San Francisco support the evident growth in multifamily units experienced between 2000 and 2012. Since 2002, large multifamily units have made up the majority of new development. Since 2002, South San Francisco issued 857 building permits for these larger complexes, while only 279 permits were issued for new single family development,leading to a relatively small increase in the city's single-family housing stock(see Table 3.4-5). Table 3.4-5: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 2002 to 2012 Building Type 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Single Family 71 126 18 6 30 12 3 0 10 0 3 279 2 Units 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 3 &4 Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 or More Units 0 1 360 96 192 99 0 0 0 109 0 857 Total 7 1 130 380 102 222 1 1 1 5 2 10 109 3 1,145 Notes: Includes only reported building permits.U.S. Bureau of the Census provides construction statistics by permit-issuing place and by county on new privately-owned residential housing units authorized by building permits. Data updated monthly. Source:U.S. Census,Building Permit Estimate 2012. OVERCROWDING Overcrowding refers to a household with an average of 1.01 or more persons per room, with those rooms including all rooms in a house except bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and closets. Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered to be severely overcrowded.As shown in Table 3.4-6, South San Francisco households were as likely to be overcrowded as San Mateo County households in 2012. Of all households in South San Francisco, 7 percent of households were overcrowded or severely overcrowded, equal to San Mateo County with 7 percent. Overcrowding was more common in South San Francisco's renter-occupied households,with 10 percent overcrowded,while only 5 percent of owner-occupied households in South San Francisco were overcrowded. 22 Housing Needs Assessment Table 3.4-6: Overcrowded Households, 2012 Owners Renters Total Persons Per Room Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent South San Francisco 2.01 or more 10 0% 35 0% 45 0% 1.51 to 2.00 86 1% 259 3% 345 2% 1.01 to 1.50 496 4% 575 7% 1,071 5% 1.00 or less 12,105 95% 7,870 900% 19,975 93% Total 12,697 100% 8,739 100% 21,436 100% Percent Overcrowded 5% 10% 7% by Tenure San Mateo County 2.01 or more 359 0% 1,435 1% 1,794 1% 1.51 to 2.00 748 0% 4,217 4% 4,965 2% 1.01 to 1.50 3,923 3% 7,978 8% 11,901 5% 1.00 or less 148.626 97% 90.083 87% 238.709 93% Total 153,656 100% 103,713 100% 257,369 100% Percent Overcrowded 3% 13% 7% by Tenure Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. INVENTORY OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE UNITS As presented in Table 3.4-7, the City of South San Francisco is home to 994 deed-restricted affordable housing units, including 650 family units and 344 senior units. South San Francisco contributed $9,989,000 towards the construction of 108 new affordable units at 636 El Camino Real by MidPen Housing. In addition, the City leases the land, valued at $4.5M, for $1.00 per year to MidPen. The project was completed in 2012 and is now fully occupied. 23 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.4-7: Inventory of Deed-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2014 Number of Name of Development Location Affordable Units Family 206 Grand Ave 206 Grand Ave 6 260 Hillside Blvd 260 Hillside Blvd 1 310-314 Miller Ave 310-314 Miller Ave 8 317-321 Commercial Ave 317-321 Commercial Ave 15 339-341 Commercial Ave 339-341 Commercial Ave 4 440 Commercial Ave 440 Commercial Ave 4 636 El Camino Real 636 El Camino Real 108 714 Linden Ave 714, 716, 718 Linden Ave 3 90 Oak Ave 90 Oak Ave 2 Archstone South (Solaire) 101 McLellan Dr 72 Fairway Apartments 77 Westborough Blvd 74 Grand Hotel 731 Airport Blvd 24 Grand Oaks 99 Oak Ave 43 Greenridge Housing 1565 El Camino Real 33 Metropolitan Hotel 220 Linden Ave 65 Oak Farms Oak and Grand Aves 5 Park Station 1488 El Camino Real 15 South City Lights Gellert&Westborough Blvds 41 SSF Housing Authority 350 C Street 80 Sundial Apartments 215 4th Ln I I Willow Gardens Willow Gardens 36 Senior Housing Chestnut Creek Senior Apartments 65 Chestnut Ave 40 Magnolia Plaza 630 Baden Ave 125 Rotary Plaza 433 Alida Way 179 Total Affordable Housing Units 994 Source:City of South San Francisco,2014. UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION DURING NEXT TEN YEARS The California Housing Partnership Corporation identifies one affordable housing development in South San Francisco at "very high" risk for conversion to market rate housing during the next 10 years. The Fairway Apartments, located at 77 Westborough Boulevard, contains 74 nonelderly units and is a development that is owned by a private, for-profit entity and was financed using Section 221(d)(4) funds with Project-Based Section 8; its affordability restrictions were set to expire in December 2014. Since the time that the California Housing Partnership Corporation was contacted, the affordability restrictions on 24 Housing Needs Assessment the Fairway Apartments were extended for another five years; however, this leaves the development still at risk of conversion within the next 10 years. Given the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the City's ability to acquire such at risk units is hampered. Options for retaining these affordable housing resources in the community include preserving the units by working with nonprofit and other public agencies, or replacing them.An analysis of options to preserve affordable housing resources is as follows. Preserving Affordability In Project-Based Section 8 properties, such as the Fairway Apartments, the owner of the building receives rent from each unit equal to the HUD-established Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the area.3 Where the FMR is less than actual market rents, the owner realizes less income from the property than he or she would without affordability restrictions. Hence, in order to incentivize a property owner to continue to contract out his or her buildings as a Project-Based Section 8 property once mortgage restrictions expire, an ongoing subsidy is required to make up for the gap between FMR and actual market rent. As shown in Table 3.4-8, there is a gap of approximately $504 per unit per month between FMR and actual market rent in South San Francisco. Hence, for a 74-unit development, the average monthly gap is $37,300. If the property owner were willing to enter into a rental subsidy agreement with the City or some other entity that would subsidize the rents on behalf of the lower- income renters, this would require an ongoing annual payment of approximately $448,000. Currently there is no funding available for the City to implement a rental subsidy program. In previous years (and in the most recent renewal), HUD worked with the owner of the Fairway Apartments to extend the affordability period.Another option would be for the City to work with a nonprofit housing provider to negotiate the purchase of the building; however, the City acknowledges that this option is unlikely given the lack of available funding sources required for the acquisition. Replacing Affordable Units As an alternative to providing ongoing monthly rent subsidies, the City or another entity could attempt to purchase or develop replacement housing units that could be rented to the displaced lower-income households at similar rents. In order to make this possible, it would be necessary to provide a subsidy for the purchase or construction of the replacement units that would be the equivalent of$448,000 per year in current dollars. The initial investment in existing or new housing units that would be necessary to allow a $448,000 reduction in annual rent can be estimated by calculating the net present value of mortgage payments equal to $37,300 per month, on the theory that if the owner (e.g., a non-profit housing organization) can reduce its required mortgage payments by $37,300 per month, it could then reduce the rents that it needs to charge its tenants by a similar amount. Hence, as shown in Table 3.4-8, based on a 30-year mortgage term at 7.5 percent interest rate, it would take an initial investment of approximately $5.3 million to reduce the monthly debt service by$37,300 per month. 3 FMRs are defined by HUD as the 40th percentile rent drawn from the distribution of rents of all units occupied by recent movers. 25 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 This analysis likely understates the true cost of preserving or replacing the units, as it would be quite difficult to assemble an appropriate combination of subsidies to acquire the property or develop a similar project with the same mix of unit sizes and affordability levels. Table 3.4-8: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis #Units FMR' Market Rentz Per Unit Gap' Total Gap4 74 $1,956 $2,460 $504 $37,296 Annual Preservation Costs $447,552 Total Replacement Costb $5,285,762 Notes: I.2014 Fair Market Rent for 2-bedroom apartment in San Mateo County established by HUD. 2. Prevailing market rent for 2-bedroom apartment in South San Francisco per RealFacts. 3. Difference between FMR and market rent per unit. 4.Total difference between FMR and market rent if all units were rented at market rents. S.Annual rent subsidy needed to preserve current affordability levels in current 2009 dollars, equals total monthly gap multiplied by 12. 6. Net present value of the annual rent subsidy based on a 30-year mortgage at an interest rate of 7.5 percent. Source:US Department of Housing and Urban Development,2014;Rea/Facts,2014, Dyett&Bhatia,2014. Financial Resources Available to the City to Assist in Preservation Clearly, the costs are substantial to preserve or replace housing units that currently rent below market rates, yet the City has access to a range of different funds that could potentially assist in a preservation effort,including the following: • Mortgage Revenue Bonds • State Grant Programs, such as the Affordable Housing Innovation Program and the Transit Oriented Development Housing Program • Federal Grant Programs (Section 202 funds only- Supportive Housing for the Elderly) • Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) • HUD Section 8 "Mark to Market"Program Where affordable units are at risk of conversion to market rate,it is the City's policy to work to preserve them, if possible. However, with the dissolution of the City's Redevelopment Agency, the City is no longer able to acquire such at-risk units. Some properties are less at risk of conversion than others in the City; for example, the owner of the Rotary Plaza property has a motivation to keep the units affordable. Therefore, the City has focused its efforts on working with county and federal agencies to secure housing vouchers for tenants in properties at higher risk of conversion to subsidize keeping them in place or to assist with relocation. 26 Housing Needs Assessment To monitor the status of affordable housing properties and advocate for tenants, South San Francisco Economic Development and Housing staff has met with Congresswoman Jackie Speier; Ophelia Basgal,the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Regional Administrator; and William Lowell, the Executive Director of the San Mateo County Housing Authority. Key potential partners in this effort include HUD as well as a range of affordable housing developers and property managers who have expressed an interest in working with local communities on preservation of affordable housing projects, including such well- known affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., EAH, Inc., BRIDGE Housing Corporation, the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and Eden Housing. Numerous other organizations working to preserve affordable housing units are listed in a database maintained by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. IS Market Conditions This section of the Needs Assessment provides information on market conditions for housing in South San Francisco and San Mateo County. This information is important because it reveals the extent to which the private housing market is providing for the needs of various economic segments of the local population. The information on housing market condition is combined with local demographic and employment information to identify those segments of the population that face difficulties in securing housing in South San Francisco at costs that do not place them under excessive housing cost burden. RENTAL MARKET OVERVIEW A review of rental market trends in South San Francisco was conducted for this Housing Element by reviewing data from RealFacts, a commercial database service that tracks rental apartment occupancy statistics and rents within South San Francisco and other California cities. Data from RealFacts focuses on large, professionally-managed apartment complexes with 50 units or more, which accounts for approximately 11 percent of the total rental market in South San Francisco. There are approximately 7,500 renter-occupied housing units in the City. As shown in Table 3.5-1, RealFacts reports rents for studio units in South San Francisco averaging $1,279 per month; one-bedroom, one-bath units averaging $2,293 per month; two-bedroom, two-bath units averaging $3,076 per month; and three-bedroom townhouses averaging $2,695 per month. Asking rents fluctuate frequently; therefore, the data presented here represent one point in time that may or may not be indicative of long- term trends. Typically, three-bedroom units rent at higher rates than two-bedroom units; however, the fact that two-bedroom units are renting at higher prices than three-bedroom units in South San Francisco at the point in time at which the data were collected may reflect lower inventory of two-bedroom units and/or lower quality housing stock of three- bedroom units. Table 3.5-I: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco Current Market Data, 4Q 2013 Avg. Rent/ Unit Type Number Percent of Mix Avg. Sq. Ft Avg. Rent($) Sq. Ft. Studio 55 6.50% 400 $1,279 $3.20 27 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.5-I: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco I BR/I BA 327 38.50% 798 $2,293 $2.87 1 BR Townhouse 10 1.20% 1,112 $3,102 $2.79 2 BR/I BA 90 10.60% 798 $2,142 $2.68 2 BR/1.5 BA 12 1.40% 920 $1,650 $1.79 2 BR/2 BA 188 22.10% 1,134 $3,076 $2.71 2 BR Townhouse 144 16.90% 950 $1,916 $2.02 3 BR Townhouse 24 2.80% 1,200 $2,695 $2.25 Totals 850 100% 889 $2,332 $2.62 Average Rent History 2011-2012 2011-2013 Unit Type 4Q 2011 4Q 2012 %Change 4Q 2013 %Change Studio $1,175 $1,176 0% $1,279 9% 1 BR/I BA $1,869 $2,328 25% $2,293 23% 2 BR/I BA $1,959 $1,967 0% $2,142 9% 2 BR/2 BA $2,529 $3,025 20% $3,076 22% 2 BR Townhouse $1,896 $1,863 -2% $1,916 1 3 BR Townhouse $2,595 $2,495 -4% $2,695 4% Average Annual Rent $2,013 $2,296 14% $2,332 16% Occupancy Rate Average Year Occupancy Rate 2009 91.70% 2010 94.40% 2011 96.60% 2012 95.80% 2013 97.60% 4Q 2013 97.50% Source:RealFacts, Inc.,2013. Consistent with trends elsewhere in the Peninsula and in San Francisco, RealFacts reports that rental rates rose sharply between 2011 and 2013. Overall rents increased 16 percent between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2013. One-bedroom, one- bathroom units registered a particularly steep increase during this period, with monthly rents jumping from $1,869 to $2,293, a 23 percent increase. RealFacts reported a relatively low vacancy rate of approximately 2.5 percent among large apartment complexes in the City in 2013, a marked decrease compared to 2009 when the vacancy rate was 8.3 percent, indicating that demand continues to outpace supply. As RealFacts focuses on large apartment complexes, Dyett & Bhatia also reviewed online listings for all rental units posted to Craigslist during April of 2014. These data show 28 Housing Needs Assessment average asking rates that are substantially lower than for just the subset of large, professionally-managed complexes. Among all units listed for rent in the City during this period, average asking rents were$1,674 per month for one-bedroom units, $2,226 for two- bedroom units, $3,173 for three-bedroom units,and $3,470 for four-bedroom units. Table 3.5-2: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco Unit Type Number Percent of Mix Avg.Asking Rent Studio 5 10% $1,161 1 Bedroom 6 13% $1,674 2 Bedroom 16 33% $2,226 3 Bedroom 16 33% $3,173 4 Bedroom 5 10% $3,470 Total 48 100% $2,491 Source:Craigslist Apartment Listings,April 2014. OWNERSHIP MARKET OVERVIEW A review of for-sale housing market conditions in South San Francisco was also conducted for this Housing Element by reviewing data from Data Quick, a commercial database service that tracks sales statistics in South San Francisco and other California cities. As shown in Table 3.5-3, the median sale price of a single-family home was $625,000 as of 2013. This was off substantially from a peak of$745,000 in 2006, but nonetheless represents a more than doubling of price since 1990. For condominiums, the median sale price stood at $414,500 in 2013, down from a high of $555,000 in 2006, but still more than double the price in 1990. Examining the for-sale residential market as a whole, including condominiums and single- family homes, Data Quick reported a median home sale price of $580,000 in South San Francisco during 2013,well below the countywide median of$738,250.4 Consistent with the recent drop in prices has been a notable decline in sales. During 2013, only 406 homes sold in South San Francisco, one of the lowest levels in approximately 20 years. Similarly, with only 124 sold during 2013, condominium sales volumes were also near a 20-year low. As described in the following section,while sale prices have dropped from their 2006 peak, they nonetheless have escalated much faster than wages across the past 20 years, meaning that finding affordable housing remains a pressing challenge for many South San Francisco households. Table 3.5-3: Units Sold and Median Price, South San Francisco, 1990-2013 Condos Single Family Homes 4 Source: California Home Sale Activity by City Recorded in the Year 2013,DQnews.com. 29 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Year #Units Sold Median Price #Units Sold Median Price 1990 154 $185,500 465 $262,500 1991 1 1 1 $181,000 438 $250,000 1992 104 $175,000 422 $237,500 1993 63 $165,750 409 $230,000 1994 89 $158,500 444 $232,500 1995 96 $169,000 402 $233,000 1996 101 $155,000 458 $230,000 1997 171 $171,000 660 $260,000 1998 145 $185,500 838 $302,850 1999 189 $225,000 815 $354,750 2000 136 $285,000 734 $445,000 2001 132 $339,000 542 $450,000 2002 179 $349,000 730 $485,000 2003 182 $370,000 805 $535,000 2004 197 $415,000 815 $630,000 2005 194 $535,000 618 $723,500 2006 163 $555,000 513 $745,000 2007 78 $495,000 329 $713,500 2008 140 $390,000 334 $555,000 2009 282 $350,000 418 $515,000 2010 139 $344,000 372 $510,000 2011 108 $300,000 375 $480,000 2012 159 $300,000 471 $490,000 2013 124 $414,500 406 $625,000 Source:Dataquick,DQNews.com,2014. 3.6 Housing Affordability According to the federal government, housing is considered "affordable" if it costs no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income. Often, affordable housing is discussed in the context of affordability to households with different income levels. Households are categorized as very low income, low income, moderate income, or above moderate income based on percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Income limits vary by household size. Table 3.6-1 provides the maximum income limits for households ranging from one to four people in size in San Mateo County in 2014. Very low- and low-income households are eligible for federal, State, and local affordable housing programs. Moderate- income households are eligible for some State and local housing programs. These income categories are also used by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Table 3.6-1: Household Income Limits - San Mateo County, 2014 30 Housing Needs Assessment Number of Persons per Household: Income Category Definition 1 2 3 4 Extremely Low 0%to 30% $23,750 $27,150 $30,550 $33,950 Very Low 31%to 50% $39,600 $45,250 $50,900 $56,550 Low 51%to 80% $63,350 $72,400 $81,450 $90,500 Median 81%to 100% $72,100 $82,400 $92,700 $103,000 Moderate 101%to 120% $86,500 $98,900 $1 1 1,250 $123,600 Source:"Memorandum:Official State Income Limits for 2014."California Department of Housing and Community Development,February 28,2014. INCOMES BY OCCUPATION As a way to illustrate the types of jobs available in South San Francisco and the typical wage paid by each, Table 3.6-2 presents average wages for the top 20 occupations for the Census Metropolitan Division comprised of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties. As shown, the top 20 occupations include a range of well-paid jobs in the fields of law, management, engineering, health, and business as well as lower-paid jobs as security guards,clerks,cashiers,and janitors. 31 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.6-2: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2013 Top 20 Occupations Average Annual Wage Lawyers $176,820 General and Operations Managers $150,364 Computer Software Engineers,Applications $1 14,21 1 Registered Nurses $112,137 Market Research Analysts $89,492 Business Operations Specialists,All Other $87,487 Accountants and Auditors $86,642 Sales Representatives, Services,All Other $82,994 First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Office and Administrative Support Workers $67,160 Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants $66,281 Bookkeeping,Accounting,and Auditing Clerks $49,710 Secretaries, Except Legal, Medical,and Executive $44,579 Customer Service Representatives $43,632 Office Clerks, General $36,475 Security Guards $32,354 janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $28,955 Retail Salespersons $28,427 Cashiers $26,906 Waiters and Waitresses $25,009 Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food $23,880 Source:BLS Occupation Employment Statistics Survey,2013. 32 Housing Needs Assessment Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2014 Moderate-Income Family Profile: Dad works as a carpenter, mom works as a bookkeeping clerk;they have two children. Estimated annual income: $104,000 Low-Income Family Profile: Dad works as an security guard, mom works as a customer service representative;they have one child. Estimated annual income: $71,000 Very-Low-Income Family Profile: Mom works as a retail sales person and is the only source of financial support in her family;she has one child. Estimated annual income: $29,000 Extremely-Low-Income Family Profile: A grandparent living alone on Social Security. Estimated annual income: $13,000 Notes: Above figure is based on a figure presented in The Face of Inclusionary Housing,a report prepared by the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. Wages are the average wage per occupation in San Francisco, San Mateo,and Marin Counties as of August 2008. Social Security income is based on the national average retiree benefit as of August 2008. Sources:NPH,2007,California EDD and BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey,2008;Social Security Administration, 2008;BAE,2008. Based on these wage data, Figure 1 shows representative households, with hypothetical jobs and family compositions. AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING Households earning the 2012 median income for South San Francisco ($73,568) could afford to spend up to $22,070 a year, or $1,839 per month, on housing without being considered "overpaying." For renters, this is a straightforward calculation, but home ownership costs are less transparent.A household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is 2.5 to 3.0 times the annual income of that household, depending on the down payment, the level of other long-term obligations (such as a car loan), and interest rates. In practice,the interaction of these factors allows some households to qualify for homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be limited to purchasing homes no more than two times their annual incomes. Table 3.6-3 below 33 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 calculates the estimated maximum affordable purchase price by household income category. Table 3.6-3: Maximum Funds Available for Housing, by Income Category Annual Maximum Maximum Affordable Household Income Category Income' Affordable Rent' Purchase Price' 30 percent of county median $33,950 $849 $138,822 50 percent of county median $56,550 $1,414 $231,233 80 percent of county median $90,500 $2,263 $347,655 100 percent of county median $103,000 $2,575 $370,055 120 percent of county median $123,600 $3,090 $505,402 Notes: I. HCD's 2014 Limits.Assumes a four-person household. 2.Assumes 30 percent of income available for housing cost. 3.Assumes interest rate of 30-year fixed rate loan,4.5%, interest rate,down payment of 50% of yearly salary, I%property tax,and 5%insurance rate. Source:U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development 2013;21 Elements,2014. As noted earlier,the median purchase price of a home in South San Francisco was $580,000 in 2013. This purchase price is too high for all but the highest of household income categories listed in Table 3.6-1 to afford. Indeed, households must have an income that is more than 120 percent of the county median ($123,600) to afford the median home price. This is consistent with the fact that over 45 percent of renters in South San Francisco spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing (see Table 3.6-4). OVERPAYMENT The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes that a household is "cost-burdened" (i.e., overpaying for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-related costs. A"severe housing cost burden" occurs when a household pays more than 50 percent of its income on housing costs. The prevalence of overpayment varies significantly by income, tenure, household type, and household size. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provides detailed information in this regard for different types of households. In general, overpayment disproportionately affects lower-income households. Table 3.6-4 shows the relationship between low-income households and the varying degrees of cost burden. The data show that renter households are much more likely to be overpaying than owners. The 2006-2010 American Community Survey provides the most recent data on overpayment by tenure for South San Francisco. According to these data, 61 percent of extremely low-income, 44 percent of very low-income, and 57 percent of low-income homeowners were cost-burdened. At the same time, 84 percent of extremely low-income, 72 percent of very low-income, and 42 percent of low-income renter households were cost burdened. 34 Housing Needs Assessment Table 3.6-4: Housing Need by Income Level, 2010 Total Renters Total Owners Total Households Extremely Low 1730 940 2,670 with any housing problems 1,295 75% 475 51% 1,770 66% Cost Burden 30-49% 195 11% 130 14% 325 12% Cost Burden >50% 1,255 73% 445 47% 1,700 64% Very Low 1,425 1,255 2,680 with any housing problems 670 47% 470 37% 1,140 43% Cost Burden 30-49% 430 30% 95 8% 525 20% Cost Burden >50% 600 42% 455 36% 1,055 39% Low 2,100 2,680 4,780 with any housing problems 425 20% 850 32% 1,275 27% Cost Burden 30-49% 820 39% 760 28% 1,580 33% Cost Burden >50% 60 3% 755 28% 815 17% Moderate and Above Moderate 2,905 7,790 10,695 with any housing problems 280 9.6% 940 12.1% 1,220 11.4% Cost Burden 30-49% 310 10.7% 1,620 20.8% 1,930 18.0% Cost Burden >50% 0 0.0% 625 8.0% 625 5.8% Source:2006-2010 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS)Data,May 2013. 3.7 Projected Housing Needs REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government (in this case, ABAG), and local governments must collectively determine each locality's share of regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing Element update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their Housing Elements by January 31, 2015, ABAG allocated housing unit production needs for each county within the Bay Area and, with the exception of San Mateo County, also allocated housing unit production need to the city level. These allocations set housing production goals for the RHNA projection period that runs from January 1, 2014 through October 31, 2022. In the case of San Mateo County, the county formed a subregion in partnership with all twenty cities in its jurisdiction for the purposes of conducting the RHNA, as allowed by State law. The San Mateo subregion designated the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. Their process paralleled, but was separate from, the Bay Area's RHNA process. San Mateo County created its own methodology, issued draft allocations, and handled the revision and appeal processes. They also issued final allocations to members of the subregion.Although the subregion worked independently of the regional RHNA process,the final allocation methodology was ultimately similar to ABAG's methodology. 35 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Shown below in Table 3.7-1, the countywide RHNA process determined a need for 1,864 housing units in South San Francisco between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2022. This need is divided among various income categories with 15 percent of the need identified for extremely low-income households, 15 percent for very low-income households, 15 percent for low-income households, 17 percent for moderate-income households, and the remaining 38 percent for above moderate-income households. Table 3.7-1: Projected Housing Need by Income Income Category Projected Need Percent of Total Extremely Low (less than 30%AMI) 282 15% Very Low (30-49%AMI) 283 15% Low (50-79%AMI) 281 15% Moderate (80-120%AMI) 313 17% Above Moderate(over 120%AMI) 705 38% Total Units 1,864 100% Source:ABAG,2013. 3.8 Special Housing Needs This section of the needs assessment profiles populations with special housing needs, including large families, single parent families, extremely low income households, persons with disabilities, elderly households, farm workers, and homeless persons and families. The end of the section addresses resources available to address special housing needs in South San Francisco. LARGE HOUSEHOLDS In 2012, South San Francisco contained a greater proportion of large households (defined as five or more persons) than San Mateo County as a whole. As shown in Table 3.8-1, 15.4 percent of South San Francisco's households contained five or more persons in 2012,versus San Mateo County's 11.8 percent Large households were equally common among owners and renters in South San Francisco, with 15.4 percent of homeowner households and 15.3 percent of renter households having five or more persons. 36 Housing Needs Assessment Table 3.8-1: Household Size by Tenure, 2012 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent South San Francisco 1-4 persons 10,742 84.6% 7,403 84.7% 18,145 84.6% 5+ Persons 1,955 15.4% 1,336 15.3% 3,291 15.4% Total 12,697 100.0% 8,739 100.0% 21,436 100.0% San Mateo County 1-4 persons 135,794 88.4% 91,295 88.0% 227,089 88.2% 5+ Persons 17,862 11.6% 12,418 12.0% 30,280 11.8% Total 153,656 100.0% 103,713 100.0% 257,369 100.0% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. While the prevalence of large households was relatively similar between renters and owners, as shown in Table 3.8-2, renters were much less likely to live in housing units with four or more bedrooms. Only 4 percent of South San Francisco renter households lived in units with four or more bedrooms, despite the fact that 15 percent of renter households had five or more members. By comparison, 23 percent of owner households lived in units with four or more bedrooms, while 15 percent of owner households had five or more members. Overall, these data point to the need for additional rental housing opportunities for large households in South San Francisco. Table 3.8-2: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2012 Owner Households Renter Households Total Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent South San Francisco Studio 68 1% 443 5% 511 2% 1 bedroom 612 5% 2,499 29% 3,1 1 1 15% 2 bedrooms 1,880 15% 3,590 41% 5,470 26% 3 bedrooms 6,549 52% 1,793 21% 8,342 39% 4 bedrooms 2,863 23% 333 4% 3,196 15% 5 or more bedrooms 725 6% 81 1% 806 4% Total 12,697 100% 8,739 100% 21,436 100% San Mateo County Studio 921 1% 7,735 7% 8,656 3% 1 bedroom 5,747 4% 35,292 34% 41,039 16% 2 bedrooms 28,846 19% 38,549 37% 67,395 26% 3 bedrooms 70,019 46% 16,620 16% 86,639 34% 4 bedrooms 37,332 24% 4,290 4% 41,622 16% 5 or more bedrooms 10,791 7% 1,227 1% 12,018 5% Total 153,656 100% 103,713 100% 257,369 100% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. 37 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS Single female-headed households with children tend to have a higher need for affordable housing than family households in general. Single female-headed households with children often need larger houses than other populations who need affordable housing, such as the elderly. In addition, such households are more likely to need childcare since the mother is often the sole source of income and the sole caregiver for children within the household. Table 3.8-3 shows that in 2012, there were 1,177 single female households with children in South San Francisco. As a proportion of all families, such households represented 5 percent of all households in South San Francisco and 8 percent of family households. San Mateo County contained a similar proportion of female-headed households, totaling 12,004 households in 2012,or 5 percent of all households present in the county. In addition, both South San Francisco and San Mateo County contained a significantly smaller proportion of male households with children; this household type made up 2 percent of both the city and the county. At the city level, there were 265 single female-headed households with children living in poverty in South San Francisco in 2012. Table 3.8-3: Family Characteristics, 2012 South San Francisco San Mateo County Number Percent Number Percent 1-Person Household: 4,757 22% 65,999 26% Male-Headed Household 2,240 10% 28,435 11% Female-Headed Household 2,517 12% 37,564 15% 2 or More Person Household: 16,679 78% 191,370 74% Family Households 15,423 72% 173,782 68% Married-couple family 11,857 55% 135,302 53% With own children under 18 years 5,656 26% 62,702 24% Other Family: 3,566 17% 38,480 15% Male-headed household, no wife present 1,038 5% 12,316 5% With own children under 18 years 334 2% 4,648 2% Female-headed household, no husband present 2,528 12% 26,164 10% With own children under 18 years 1,177 5% 12,004 5% Non-Family Households 1,256 6% 17,588 7% Male-Headed Household 710 3% 8,915 3% Female-Headed Household 546 3% 8,673 3% Total Households 21,436 100% 257,369 100% Total Households Under Poverty Level 735 100% 8,509 100% Female-Headed Households Under Poverty Level 265 36% 3,758 44% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. 38 Housing Needs Assessment EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Extremely low income households are defined as households earning less than 30 percent of area median income (AMI). These households may require specific housing solutions such as deeper income targeting for subsidies, housing with supportive services, single- room occupancy units,or rent subsidies or vouchers. In 2010, 2,675 South San Francisco households earned less than 30 percent of AMI. Extremely low-income (ELI) households represented 21 percent of all renter households and 7 percent of all owner households in the City. A majority of extremely low-income households were severely overpaying for housing; 72 percent of renters and 47 percent of homeowners paid more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing. Table 3.8-4: Housing Needs of Extremely Low-Income Households, South San Francisco, 2010 Renters Owners Total Total Number of ELI Households 1,735 940 2,675 Percent with Any Housing Problems 86% 65% 79% Percent with Cost Burden (30%to 49% of Income) 11% 14% 12% Percent with Cost Burden (>50%of income) 72% 47% 64% Total Number of Households 8,160 12,670 20,830 Percent ELI Households 21% 7% 13% Source:Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS)Special Tabulations from 2 006-20 10 American Community Survey. SENIORS Generally, senior households tend to have higher rates of homeownership than other households, but also tend to earn less and in many instances face a significant housing cost burden.5 Shown in Table 3.8-5, 77 percent of senior-headed households in South San Francisco owned their own home, compared to 54 percent of younger households. s Refers to a household whose householder identified him/herself to the US Census Bureau as being 65 or older. 39 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.8-5: Households by Age and Tenure, 2012 South San Francisco San Mateo County Number Percent Number Percent Householder 15-64 years Owner 8,973 54.0% 109,578 54.3% Renter 7,654 46.0% 92,172 45.7% Total 16,627 100.0% 201,750 100.0% Householder 65 years and over Owner 3,724 77.4% 44,078 79.2% Renter 1,085 22.6% 11,541 20.8% Total 4,809 100.0% 55,619 100.0% Total Households 21,436 100.0% 257,369 100.0% Percent Households 65 plus years 22.4% 21.6% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. Table 3.8-6: Household Income of Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2010 Number Percent Elderly Renter Households 30% MFI or Less 695 45% 30%to 50% MFI 375 24% 50%to 80% MFI 295 19% 80% MFI or Greater 183 12% Total 1,548 100% Elderly Owner Households 30% MFI or Less 690 13% 30%to 50% MFI 935 17% 50%to 80% MFI 1,290 24% 80% MFI or Greater 2,465 46% Total 5,380 100% Total Elderly Households 30% MFI or Less 1,385 20% 30%to 50% MFI 1,310 19% 50%to 80% MFI 1,585 23% 80% MFI or Greater 2,648 38% Total 6,928 100% Source:Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS). Special Tabulations from 2006-2010 American Community Survey. 40 Housing Needs Assessment Among elderly households, most earn well below the county Median Family Income (MFI). Shown in Table 3.8-6, only 12 percent of elderly renter households and 46 percent of elderly owner households earn 80 percent of MFI or more.6 For elderly residents, homeownership provides some level of security against increasing housing costs. Shown in Table 3.8-7, approximately 28 percent of elderly homeowners paid 30 percent or more of their income toward housing costs. This compares to 39 percent of homeowners in South San Francisco overall. While elderly homeowners are less likely than younger homeowners to face a cost burden, elderly renters are much more likely to overpay for housing. Overall, 52 percent of elderly renter households paid 30 percent or more of their income toward housing,compared to 45 percent of renters citywide. Table 3.8-7: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2010 Moderate and All Elderly Extremely Low Very Low Low Above Moderate Households Elderly Renter Households 625 290 80 145 1,140 with any housing problems 74% 53% 13% 0% 55% Cost Burden >30% 15% 17% 0% 0% 13% Cost Burden >50% 59% 26% 0% 0% 39% Elderly Owner Households 675 830 930 1,290 3,725 with any housing problems 56% 24% 38% 12% 29% Cost Burden >30% 19% 8% 19% 9% 13% Cost Burden >50% 33% 16% 18% 3% 15% Total Elderly Households 1,300 1,120 1,010 1,435 4,865 with any housing problems 65% 32% 36% 11% 35% Cost Burden >30% 17% 10% 18% 8% 13% Cost Burden >50% 45% 19% 17% 3% 21 Source:Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS)Special Tabulations from 2006-2010 American Community Survey. PERSONS WITH DISABILITY Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. Based on the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, approximately 10 percent of South San Francisco residents were affected by one or more disability, compared to 8 percent of people countywide. As shown in Table 3.8-8, among the adult population with a disability, there was a much higher likelihood of not having a job than among the general population. This high rate of joblessness remains a contributing factor affecting the ability to find affordable housing.? 6 As distinguished from a senior-headed households(age 65 or older),an"elderly household"as defined by HUD is a household with one or more member who is 62 years of age or older. 41 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.8-8: Persons with Disability by Age, 2012 South San Francisco San Mateo County Population Percent Population Percent with Total with with Total with Disability Population Disability Disability Population Disability Age 5 to 17 371 10,359 3.6% 3,569 112,877 3.2% Age 18 to 34 510 14,699 3.5% 4,523 154,474 2.9% Age 34 to 64 2,139 26,096 8.2% 18,871 307,474 6.1 Age 65 to 74 1,127 4,468 25.2% 8,656 50,337 17.2% Age 75 and Over 1,915 4,037 47.4% 20,095 44,465 45.2% Total Over Age 5 6,062 59,659 10.2% 55,714 669,627 8.3% Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. Table 3.8-9: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2012 South San Francisco San Mateo County Number Percent Number Percent Working Age Population with Disability' Employed 1,121 44% 9,210 40% Not Employed 1,431 56% 13,532 60% Total 2,552 100% 22,742 100% Working Age Population with no Disability Employed 28,753 78% 333,660 79% Not Employed 8,229 22% 90,215 21 Total 36,982 100% 423,875 100% Percent of Working Age Population with Disability 6% 5% Notes: 1.Working age population refers to persons age 20 to 64. 2. Not employed persons include persons not currently part of the active labor force(e.g., full-time students,stay-at-home parents, other people not currently seeking employment). The unemployment rate is calculated based on the active labor force and would be a lower number than presented above. Source:2008-2012 American Community Survey. Table 3.8-10 provides an inventory of the licensed community care facilities in South San Francisco that serve some of the City's special needs groups. Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE), also known as "assisted living" or "board and care" facilities, provide assistance with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more 7 It should be noted that the percentage of people who are not employed is not the same as the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate refers to the percentage of people actively seeking employment who are not currently employed. Where people are not actively seeking employment (e.g., full-time students or persons unable to work due to a disability),they are not considered to be part of the labor force and are not counted in the unemployment rate. 42 Housing Needs Assessment independent than in most nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities, also known as nursing homes, offer a higher level of care, with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day. Adult residential facilities offer 24-hour non-medical care for adults, ages 18 to 59 years old, who are unable to provide for their daily needs due to physical or mental disabilities. Group homes, such as small residential facilities that serve children or adults with chronic disabilities,provide 24-hour care by trained professionals. Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012 Name Location Capacity Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Aegis Assisted Living of San Francisco 2280 Gellert Blvd 100 Alhambra Home 498 Alhambra Road 6 Alta Mesa Care Home 306 Alta Mesa Drive 6 Araville Residential Care Home 744 Palm Avenue 6 Araville Residential Care Home II 106 Sycamore Ave 6 Bautista Board and Care 1 708 Circle Court 6 Bel Amor II 608 Theresa Drive 6 Bel Amor III 169 San Felipe Avenue 6 Bel Amor IV 648 Joaquin Drive 6 Chad Corner Assisted Living 2901 Shannon Drive 6 Chester's Home 2315 Tipperary Avenue 6 Damenik's Home 851 Baden Avenue 15 Delia's Retirement Home 52 Arlington Drive 6 Double Happiness Care Home 859 Camarita Circle 6 Elizabeth's Care Home 2530 Olympic Drive 6 Elizabeth's Care Home VII 2530 Wentworth Drive 6 Ellen's Board and Care 1242 Mission Road 5 Family Affair Care Home 264 Southcliff Avenue 6 Fook Hong Care Home 117 Arroyo Drive 6 Friendly Neighbors Residential Care 2675 Shannon Drive 6 Garrison Care Home 7 Hermosa Lane 6 Gentry Home 2725 Shannon Drive 6 Harrison Care Home 706 Palm Avenue 6 Heirloom Gardens 2305 Tipperary Avenue 6 House of Love Care Home 675 Shannon Drive 6 f BA Residential Care Home 2585 Ardee Lane 6 Lilies Care Home 2535 Shannon Drive 6 Lilies Care Home 2505 Tipperary Ave 6 Manalo's Board and Care III 853 Newman Drive 6 Manalo's Board and Care IV 840 Camaritas Circle 6 Manalo's Board and Care 807 Byron Drive 6 Manalo's Board and Care V 840 Alta Loma Drive 6 Mccaffrey's Care Home 2381 Olympic Drive 6 Nobis Care Home 505 Palm Avenue 6 43 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012 Name Location Capacity Noralyn's Care Home 2780 Tipperary Avenue 6 Oikos Care Home 2311 Tipperary Avenue 6 Olympic Residential Care Home 2470 Olympic Drive 6 Savali's Residential Care Home 419 Hazelwood Drive 6 St. Catherine Home 2530 Ardee Lane 6 Sta Ines Care Home 779 Parkway Street 6 Sunvill Board and Care Home 409 Holly Avenue 6 Sunvill Board and Care Home II 771 Camaritas Avenue 6 Victoria 1252 Crestwood Drive 5 Westborough Royale 89 Westborough Blvd 99 Winston Manor Home 20 Elkwood Drive 6 Adult Residential Facilities Albright Home 2501 Albright Way 6 Care Plus Residential Care Facility 34 Capay Circle 6 Chester's Home 2315 Tipperary Avenue 6 Gentry Home 2725 Shannon Drive 6 Healthy Lifestyles - Sherwood Way 108 Sherwood Way 6 Lexy's Adult Residential Facility 108 Greenwood Avenue 4 Rainbow Bright Adult Residential Facility 29 Duval Drive 6 Group Homes Mac's Children and Family Services, Inc. 403 West Orange Avenue 6 Tipperary Home 2465 Tipperary Avenue 6 Source:California Department of Social Services,2008;California Healthcare Foundation,2008,BAE,2008. Developmentally Disabled Persons According to Section 4512 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code a"developmental disability" is a disability that originates before an individual reaches adulthood (18 years old), continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. This includes intellectual disabilities (characterized by significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning), cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to other intellectual disabilities or that require treatment(i.e., care and management) similar to that required by individuals with intellectual disabilities; however, it does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person's living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. 44 Housing Needs Assessment The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) supports approximately 216,000 children and adults with developmental disabilities and 29,000 infants at risk of developmental delay or disability throughout the state. Services are provided through state- operated developmental centers and community facilities, as well as through contracts with 21 non-profit agencies called regional centers. The regional center is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local business to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. Table 3.8-11 below summarizes the number of persons with development disabilities and their place of residence. The majority of the people with developmental disabilities in this area reside with their parents through age 29. People with autism comprise more than 30 percent of all those with developmental disabilities for the ages 4 through 14 years and approximately 17 percent of all those with developmental disabilities for ages 15 through 29 years. Due to improvements in health care prevention, treatment, and maintenance, people with developmental disabilities are expected to live much longer than in the recent past. Table 3.8-11: Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Type of Residence and Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Residence Age 0-3 4-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75-89 90-104 Total Home of Parent 56 78 93 34 18 6 2 - 287 or Guardian Own Home - - 1 6 9 5 - - 21 Licensed Group - 2 20 13 34 21 4 - 95 Home Licensed Health - - 7 7 17 25 4 - 60 Care Facility Foster-type I - - 2 2 - - - 5 Care Homeless - - I - - - - - I Subtotal of (No diagnosis 25 21 1 6 1 - - 54 Autism Only yet) Total of all Diagnoses 57 80 121 62 80 57 10 1 468 Source:Golden Gate Regional Center,2014. There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving the needs of this group. Incorporating'barrier- free' design in all, new multi-family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income. 45 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS OR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING According to the 2013 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, there were 2,281 homeless people reported in San Mateo County on the night of January 24, 2013. This point- in-time study counted 1,299 homeless people living either on the street or in vehicles, a population referred to as "unsheltered."An additional 982 homeless people were staying in shelters, transitional housing,jails, hospitals, or treatment facilities or were using a voucher to stay in a motel, a population referred to as "sheltered." Using an annualization formula, the County's survey estimated 7,151 homeless people in San Mateo County on an annual basis. The Homeless Census and Survey did not provide an estimate of homeless people in San Mateo County on a seasonal basis. Within this dataset, 260 homeless individuals were counted in South San Francisco, including 172 unsheltered persons and 88 sheltered persons. With a total population of approximately 63,742 residents as of 2012, South San Francisco contained approximately 9 percent of the San Mateo County population. By comparison, it was home to 13 percent of the county's unsheltered persons and 9 percent of the sheltered population. Government Code Section 65583(a) requires that each city must include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters. According to an inventory of shelter capacity in the county,there are 168 emergency beds.s Accordingly, the Safe Harbor Shelter in South San Francisco, which provided 90 beds, accounts for 53 percent of emergency shelter capacity countywide, far exceeding the City's share of countywide general and homeless populations. Hence, the City goes well beyond its obligation to provide for a share of the countywide emergency shelter facilities. It also supports not-for-profit organizations that provide emergency shelter, counseling, and housing referral services, such as the organizations Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) and the Shelter Network. B Shelter and Safety Net Service Report.County of San Mateo Human Services Agency.January 2009. 46 Housing Needs Assessment Table 3.8-12: Homeless Population, San Mateo County,January 2013 South San Francisco San Mateo County Number Percent Number Percent Homeless Population Sheltered 88 33.8% 982 43.1 Unsheltered 172 66.2% 1,299 56.9% Total Homeless Population 260 100.0% 2,281 100.0% Homeless Households Without Dependent Children 1,646 90.1 With Dependent Children 180 9.9% Total Homeless Households 1,826 100.0% Source:San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey,2013. Farm Workers Farm workers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal agricultural labor. Most jurisdictions in San Mateo County have no farms or farm workers; however, there are 334 farms and 11722 farm workers in the county, primarily located in coastal communities. Of these 1,722 farm workers, 88 are migrant workers and 329 work less than 150 days annually (and are therefore considered to be "seasonal labor"). Farm workers who are migrant or seasonal workers have special housing needs because of their relatively low income and the unstable nature of their job (i.e. having to move throughout the year from one harvest to the next). These workers generally face higher rates of overcrowding and other substandard housing conditions. Continued efforts to provide affordable housing, especially affordable housing suitable for families, will help meet the needs of these farm workers. Table 3.8-13: Farm workers in San Mateo County, 2012 2007 2012 Total Number of Farms 329 334 Acres of Farm Land 57,089 48,160 Hired Farm Labor - 1,722 Migrant labor - 88 Working> 150 days annually - 718 Working<150 days annually - 329 Source:USDA Census of Agriculture, 2012. AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS The City and the County provide funding and subsidies, with support from State, federal, local, and private resources, for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of housing units to support those with special housing needs in South San Francisco. Many of these programs are described in greater detail in Section 5.2 of this Housing Element. 47 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments for a wide range of housing and community development activities through the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The City of South San Francisco expects to receive CDBG funds during the 2014 to 2022 period, which can be used for site acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, emergency and transitional shelters, and fair housing/housing counseling activities. In particular, CDBG funds have been used in South San Francisco to provide free accessibility modifications to houses through the Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities' Housing Accessibility Modification Program. The Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program is a federal program that has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households in South San Francisco. The HOME Investment Partnership Act, which is under the National Affordable Housing Act, provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the Consortium's annual grant allocation. The Section 8 Program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income persons in need of affordable housing, and the program is administered locally by the San Mateo County Housing Authority. South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART), which raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County. In addition, the City provides financial support for the not-for-profit organization Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which provides emergency shelter for battered women, and two agencies that provide housing referral and counseling services,the Shelter Network and the Human Investment Project. 48 4 Housing Constraints Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must analyze "potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement,site improvements,fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures." Where constraints are identified,the City is required to take action to mitigate or remove them. In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. These include infrastructure availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion regarding affordable housing development. 4. 1 Government Constraints Government regulations affect housing costs, standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. With respect to the housing market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land use policies (as defined in a community's general plan), zoning regulations and their accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, urban limit lines, and development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may be regulatory constraints. GENERAL PLAN The South San Francisco General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1999 and has been amended since to incorporate the 2001 BART Transit Village Plan, the 2007-2014 Housing Element Update, the 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, and the 2011 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which allowed residential land use through mixed-use development. In early 2015, the General Plan was amended to incorporate the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses and densities at various locations in the City. Listed below are the primary residential land use designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential development. Under existing designations, the City permits the construction of a range of housing types, including opportunities for higher density housing up to 100 dwelling units per acre. Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015 49 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density Residential Low Density 8 du/acre Residential Medium Density 18 du/acre Residential High Density 30 du/acre Downtown Residential Low Density 15 du/acre Downtown Residential Medium Density 25 du/acre Downtown Residential High Density 40 du/acre Downtown Commercial No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors Transit Village Residential Medium Density 30 du/acre Transit Village Residential High Density 50 du/acre Transit Village Commercial 30 du/acre Transit Village Retail 50 du/acre El Camino Real Mixed Use 60 du/acre (up to 80 du/acre with density bonus and incentives) Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre (up to 120 du/acre with Incentive Program) Grand Avenue Core 60 du/acre (up to 100 du/acre with Incentive Program) Downtown Residential Core 80 du/acre (up to 125 du/acre with Incentive Program) Linden Neighborhood Center 60 du/acre (up to 80 du/acre with Incentive Program) Linden Commercial Center 40 du/acre Source:South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below. In order to balance community interests and assure continued support for medium- and high-density housing in South San Francisco, the City established Policy 2-G-1, which calls for the preservation of "the scale and character of established neighborhoods" and the protection of"residents from changes in non-residential areas." Consistent with this policy, the General Plan Land Use map designates medium-and high-density residential areas along major transit corridors and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts with existing neighborhoods. The City's political leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent multi-family housing development with minimal opposition from neighborhood or other interest groups. Policy 2-G-6 calls for the maximization of "opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations." Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of "mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster 50 Housing Constraints identity and vitality." The City has worked to realize these policies in recent years with several key developments along El Camino Real in the Transit Village area. The City continues to encourage development of high density housing near transit with the recent adoption (February 2015) of the DSASP, partially funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).The major goals of the plan are to: • Revitalize downtown South San Francisco - encourage the retention of existing and local business while also promoting new improvements to bring a focus back to the historic downtown; • Promotes new residential development downtown-primarily on underutilized or vacant parcels, while retaining the existing land use and density standards for residential neighborhoods outside of the Downtown Core; and • Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown with the East Employment area. The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the siting or design of housing. Those policies that do exist include Policy 2-I-2, which establishes height limits within the downtown and along major commercial corridors. These height limits range from 50 to 80 feet and are consistent with residential development of 30 dwelling units per acre and higher and are not considered an impediment to housing development. However, with the adoption of the DSASP in February 2015, the height limits in downtown have increased to promote higher densities. Policy 2-I-19 limits the allowable density of housing development on steep slopes by up to 50 percent compared to existing land use designations to prevent excessive grading. While this policy does work to limit the amount of housing development, it applies to a relatively small area of the city (only parcels with a slope greater than 20 percent) and provides some certainty as the minimum amount of housing development that will be allowed on steep sites, consistent with the General Plan. Finally, Policy 2-1-18 specifically allows for senior housing development in the City to be at a density of up to 50 dwelling units per acre regardless of underlying land use designations and allows for reduced parking standards to be applied to this type of development. With the adoption of the DSASP, qualifying affordable senior housing will be allowed densities limits in excess of 50 dwelling units per acre to upwards of 125 dwelling units per acre. Based on a review of the General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including developers,the General Plan is not an obstacle to housing development and is supportive of the development of a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium-and-high density residential development The General Plan does not constitute an obstacle to housing development for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional housing, and those needing factory-built housing. ZONING ORDINANCE The City updated the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to ensure that current standards and guidelines support the implementation of the General Plan, including the 2010 Housing Element Update. Shown below is a list of existing districts that allow housing development, along with existing development standards. 51 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 The City's main residential districts are the Single Family Districts in RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, and RL-8; Medium Density Residential Districts in RM-10, RM-15, and RM-17.5; and Multiple Family Residential Districts in RH-30 and RH-35. Residential development is also allowed the Transit Village (TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH) Districts, El Camino Real Mixed Use District(ECRMX), and Downtown Districts (DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, and DRH), as well as in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMX) District. The district that corresponds with the adopted El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan - El Camino Real/Chestnut District - includes three districts that allow mixed-use residential development (ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/MXH). There are five districts that correspond to the DSASP area and permit residential development (DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, and LNC). The Parks and Recreation (PR) and Open Space (0-S) districts cover a very small portion of the city, and are intended for the preservation of open-space and/or the rural character of certain unincorporated areas; residential development is not allowed in these districts. The Zoning Ordinance does not constrain or unreasonably limit the types of housing that can be developed in South San Francisco. It supports populations with special housing needs by permitting many supportive and transitional residential uses across many zones. These uses include multiple-unit developments, group residences, residential care facilities, mobile homes, elder and long-term care facilities, family day care, and shelters. These uses are supported in Medium Density Residential Districts, Multiple Family Residential Districts, Transit Village Districts, Downtown Districts, DSASP Districts, the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Districts,and the El Camino Real Mixed Use District. Table 4.1-2 shows the various residential uses permitted in the city and lists whether they are permitted (P) or permitted subject to a conditional use permit (C) or minor use permit (MUP). This table is followed by a narrative discussion of each residential use and its permitting requirements. The Zoning Ordinance does not impede housing development and enables development of a wide range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density residential development. The Zoning Ordinance is not an obstacle to housing development for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional housing,and those needing factory-built housing. 52 Housing Constraints CL CL CL CL or , , , , , CL CL , CL CL CL \ / or , , , C , CL CL U , w \ C , CL CL U , wk \ ± , \ k \ , C , U U ± U ƒ X ± ± ƒ LL , , , CL CL CL CL U , CL CL CL CL U , ± ± / u u ± ± @ or U a_ CL , + a $ \ CL CL CL CL CL CL CL , q t \ , . I Q � � � � � � � � & X _ ± ± \ 77 om CL 2 2 ^ / CL CL CL CL CL U ƒ � » _ §E wl \ / � ± U U 4-j 00 , , , U U / \ � L6 § 7 , 9 , , \ , , g w u . .E ' a ? J t4i t cu § f y E\ 2 � \ E> \ § § a 2u izQ / \ iz / fiz C) / \ dJ \ eEQ) 2 § n o g o 5] � � 81-3 / —j UC) & G South San Francisco Housing Bement Update March 2015 \ , CL \ , CL or CL CL ' G u \ ' CL \ / or ' CL ' ' U CL U w \ / f , CL , , U CL U wk \ \ k \ CL CL X CL LL or CL CL U , CL U U / 2 CL CL , , C , U ± / u u ± U , 0 ƒ or U , U \ + a $ \ CL CL , , U U q t \ Cu CL CL , , U U I Q t a D / / CL , U 2 � & d o - oa � CL ' Q 2 77 om C O C $ @@ CL a o CL U U � y 2 » ƒ 7 � � - 0 CL C ' U U � U f / — _ § 2 \ �7 0 2 2 3 E $ 2 \ / ƒ IL CL } t4i / $ ® % 2 . n m _ / o / m o § . q Q e - I 54 2 U g \ \ \ \ \ \ " ƒ t ° § E § � $ ± \ � � 5O2 gJz � ƒ } / Housing Constraints Single-Unit Dwelling.A dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one household, and located on a separate lot from any other unit (except second living units, where permitted). This classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Zoning Ordinance permits various types of single-unit dwellings in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-101 RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, DRL, and DRM zones. Detached. A single-unit dwelling, on a single lot, within which all rooms are internally accessible and that is not attached to any other dwelling unit. Attached A single-unit dwelling on a single lot that is attached through common vertical walls to one or more dwellings on abutting lots. An attached single-unit dwelling is sometimes called a"townhouse." Semi Attached. A single-unit dwelling with only the garage wall abutting, or in common with,the garage of the dwelling unit on the adjacent lot. Multiple-Unit Residential. Two or more dwelling units on a single lot. Multi-unit development types include townhouses, single-unit groups, garden apartments, senior citizen residential developments, multi-story apartment buildings, and transitional residential development. The Zoning Ordinance permits multiple-unit developments in the RM-101 RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, LNC,TV-C,TC- R,TV-RM,TV-RH, CMX, ECRMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH,and ECR/C-MXM zones. Duplex A single building on a separate lot that contains two dwelling units or two single-unit dwellings on a single lot. This use is distinguished from a Second Dwelling Unit,which is an Accessory residential unit as defined by State law and this ordinance. Multi-Unit Three or more dwelling units on a site or lot. Types of multiple family dwellings include townhouses, garden apartments, senior housing developments, and multi-story apartment buildings. Senior Citizen Residential. A multi-unit development in which individual units are occupied exclusively by one or more persons 62 years of age or older. Caretaker Unit A dwelling unit occupied by employees or caretakers of the primary use on the site. Caretaker units are conditionally permitted in the employment district MI. Domestic Violence Shelter.A facility where victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse are provided temporary housing, food, and other specialized services in compliance with California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18290 et seq. The Zoning Ordinance permits domestic violence shelters in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, DRH, and DRC zones. Elderly and Long-term Care. Establishment that provides 24-hour medical, convalescent or chronic care to individuals who, by reason of advanced age, chronic illness or infirmity, are unable to care for themselves. The facility is licensed as a skilled nursing facility, and 55 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 includes but is not limited to, rest homes and convalescent hospitals, but not Residential Care, Hospitals, or Clinics. These facilities are permitted in the ECRMX zone and permitted conditionally in the RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, TV-RM, TV- RH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH,and ECR/C-MXM zones. Family Day Care. A day-care facility licensed by the State of California that is located in a single-unit residence or other dwelling unit where an occupant of the residence provides care and supervision for children under the age of 18 for periods of less than 24 hours a day. These facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH,and ECR/C-MXM zones. Small.A facility that provides care for 8 or fewer children, including children under the age of 10 who reside at the home. Large A facility that provides care for 7 to 14 children, including children under the age of 10 who reside at the home. Group Residential.Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit, offered for rent for permanent or semi-transient residents on a weekly or longer basis. This classification includes rooming and boarding houses, dormitories and other types of organizational housing, private residential clubs, and residential hotels intended for long-term occupancy (30 days or more) but excludes Hotels and Motels, and Residential Care Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance permits these facilities in the TV-C and TC-R zones, and conditionally permits them in the DRH, DRC, and TV-RH zones. Organizational Housing. A residential facility operated by a membership organization for its members and not open to the general public that typically provides individual sleeping quarters together with common dining and living areas. This use type includes fraternity and sorority houses, convents, student dormitories and similar residential accommodations. Mobile Home Parks. A development designed and occupied by mobile homes including development with facilities and amenities used in common by occupants who rent, lease, or own spaces for mobile homes through a subdivision, cooperative, condominium or other form of resident ownership. Mobile home parks are only conditionally permitted in the RL- 5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30,and RH-35 zones. Residential Care Facilities. Facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-for- profit institutions, including hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug additions (supportive housing). This category excludes transitional housing and community social service facilities. The Zoning Ordinance permits general residential care facilities in the TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH zones and conditionally 56 Housing Constraints permits them in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DMX, DRL, DRM, DRH, ECRMX, CMX, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, DTC, and DRC zones. Limited residential care facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones; they are conditionally permitted in the DMX, DTC, DRC, TV-C, TC-RH, ECRMX, and CMX zones. Senior residential care facilities are permitted in the CMX and ECRMX zones and conditionally permitted in the RM-101 RM-15, 4M-17.5, DC, DRL, DRM, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, LCC and LNC zones. Residential Care, General,A facility that requires a State license or is licensed by the State to provide 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for more than 6 persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-for-profit institutions, including hospices. This category excludes transitional residential, foster family homes and any facilities supervised by or under contract with the State Department of Corrections. Residential Care,Limited A facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and provide 24-hour non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee's family or persons employed as facility staff. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-for-profit institutions, including hospices. Residential care facilities for 6 or fewer persons are considered a single-unit residential use. Residential Care,Senior,A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person; where residents are 60 years of age or older and where varying levels of care and supervision are provided as agreed to at time of admission or as determined necessary at subsequent times of reappraisal. Any younger residents must have needs compatible with other residents, as provided in Health & Safety Code § 1569.316 or a successor statute. This classification includes continuing care retirement communities and lifecare communities licensed for residential care by the State of California. Second Unit A dwelling unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons that is located on a lot with another primary, single-unit dwelling. A second unit may be within the same structure as the primary unit, in an attached structure, or in a separate structure on the same lot. Second units are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL- 8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, and CMX zones. Table 4.1-3 below shows the residential development standards for each district, including minimum and maximum density of units per acre. Based on a review of applicable development standards, including building heights, lot coverage standards, maximum FARs 57 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 and setbacks, it is feasible for developers to achieve maximum allowable residential densities within each district, while complying with other applicable development standards. 58 Housing Constraints Ln \ k\ / \ k \ § 2t + w + & k u Gd \ � U M 2 e $ E _ < k $ E £ k / / / / / / 0 E £ q q q q q q / \ � k k k k k / \ o k E 2 q q q q q q 2 § LL cu U) \ { \ 2 2 2 2 2 2 s k % � Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln � aa ƒ V � ® E 2 q Ln Ln Ln Ln f � 2 » 2 La- U) E E E E E E 29zQ29zQ29zQ29zQ29zQ29zQ / Z r : # r : # r : # r : # � : # � : # 2 k \ / / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ $ a2 / .� a2a .� a2a .� a2a .� a2a .� a2a .� [ ƒ0 ? q q q q q V \ \ � � � 3 § [ : % q q q m m N $ \ / � / m � � o Ln 59 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 E c tip C Q _ ON CD Ln c c c c c — 0— —CD 0— c C c Cu 3 in p L o Ln o Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 O H Ll I� M M O — N M Ln M Ln M Q 4 O � N O H Ll v C C C V Ln Ln O C C C C C Vi c O O O — — — N O O O O O �,, •c ¢ c c c c c c c c J Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LA LA LA Ln O O O O •c c c c c J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O QZ7- O O O O O O O O O O O O O N C O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O Ln Ln Ln N O S J u G w+ v o Ln Ln O O O O Ln .o .o .o .o Ln Cu N — — — — N N — — � E o LL C td i` a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — s •c � 0 0 U) .a Ln o O O O Ln Ln O O O Ln Ln O Ln Ln o o Ln o L c o �-- td 'O •E c Lee Ln C O O O O > O O O O O O s .�O OG[ O+L'' NO(d ;•v ao aL' N;•v a p aL' O N s;•v �aN'' N aO L' O O O O ' n N3 s L•v 3 N p 0 0 0 u , 0 X N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 LLn n .B — .N (d .N (d G� m CU O Ln Ln O O O O O O O Ln Ln O Q O Otw 0 Ln �O O Ln M as as O O r� r� cy, V O i` C = p O (d bA L1.0 al o _ = J _ tw Ln O O O O M Ln O Ln Ln Ln Ln O 0 c M Ln Ln �O Ln N M Ln Ln Ln M Ln N i.+ Ln M Ln N stM N N O Ca Cu ' � 2 Ln X v O Ln M M X J 2 U •� — o o 0 0 0 0 w 60 Housing Constraints Et7 R0R \ 2 h 1 /\ 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ku �/\ G \ "t 05 E : t L @ 4 = a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : a b — o g E # g o_ # ) $ E _ < ^ � ® ƒ ; § Qa (5 § ` R k rn 7 2 \ u R 2 q q ? ? $ E £ k / / / ^ / anus / 0 � � & E [ t q q q g q q q q q & \ k 0 ° g & 2 [ 2 Z7- R R R 3 3 3 3 3 3 S 8 o E ® 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 a t q q q ? 2 E 2 0 0 0 0 0 o q o - � 2 b I LL ƒ \ U) E! 2 2 2 2 a a) a a 2 f \ ® 6 6 .!2 o \ o o : $ > > ® 2 ® V) Ej \ o u ® 6 6 6 6 6 ) ) & aa $ | E2 2 Ln Ln o ^ q E k k o o o 2 » ( Z, ( E 2 k f Z, � \ \ % $ \ ° ° \ 2 E \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ƒ a � u 2 [ CU o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln o Ln 0 f r� Ln � � � o o � w cy, r4 ƒ \ V _ § o \ § = E t g Ln Ln Ln o o % \ o = 5 � q q q m N $ g / \ \ \ @ § \ § m : > > > = o � § v k U ƒ \ f \ I Q U / k U L L LU � o g o -j -j O z = 2 61 Housing Constraints PARKING Developers and other key stakeholders identified the City's multi-family parking standard as an obstacle to housing development. The Zoning Ordinance includes the following parking requirements in Table 4.1-4 for residential uses in all zones except Downtown districts,which are shown in Table 4.1-5. Table 4.:1 4: Residential Parking;Requirements Residential Use Parking Requirement Single Unit, Detached or Attached Less than 2,500 square feet 2 spaces per dwelling unit General Requirements for all Single-unit and less than 5 bedrooms Residential Parking: 2,500 to 2,999 square feet or 3 spaces per dwelling unit At least one space must be within a garage. 5 bedrooms A carport shall not be substituted for a 3,000 square feet or more or 4 spaces per dwelling unit required garage except for existing dwellings more than 5 bedrooms on lots adjacent to a lane. Second Unit I space for each Multi-unit Residential Studio and less than 500 sq ft I space per unit General Requirements for all Multi-unit One-bedroom or 500 to 800 1.5 spaces per unit Residential Parking: sq ft One covered space shall be designated for each unit. Two-bedroom or 801 to 1.8 spaces per unit 1,100 sq ft One additional guest parking space must be provided for every 4 units for projects Three or more bedrooms 2 plus an additional 0.5 space greater than 10 units. and 1,101 sq ft or larger for each additional sleeping room over 3 Small Family Day Care None in addition to what is required for the residential use. Large Family Day Care I per employee plus an area for loading and unloading children, on or off-site. (Required spaces and the residential driveway for the primary residential use may be counted toward meeting these requirements). Elderly and Long Term Care I for every 7 residents plus I for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more than 15 residents shall also provide I space for each caregiver, employee, and doctor on-site at any one time. Group Residential 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus I for every 5 beds and I for each non- resident employee. Mobile Home Park 2 on-site spaces for each dwelling unit.At least one required space must be in a carport or garage. Residential Care, Limited None in addition to what is required for the residential use. Residential Care, General 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus I for every 5 beds and I for each non- resident employee. Residential Care, Senior I for every 7 residents plus I for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more than 15 residents shall also provide I space for each caregiver, employee, and doctor on-site at any one time. 62 Housing Constraints Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements Residential Use Parking Requirement Single Unit, Detached or Attached Less than 900 sq ft and less I space per dwelling unit, 2 General Requirements for all Single- than 3 bedrooms spaces maximum per unit unit Residential Parking: 900 to 2,500 sq ft or 3 or 4 2 spaces per dwelling unit, For new construction, required bedrooms minimum and maximum per parking up to 2 spaces must be unit within a garage. For existing development,all existing garage 2,501 sq ft or more or more 3 spaces per dwelling unit, spaces, up to a maximum of two than 4 bedrooms minimum and maximum per spaces, must be maintained. unit A carport shall not be substituted for a required garage except for existing dwellings on lots adjacent to a lane. Second Unit I space for each. Multi-unit Residential Studio and less than 500 sq ft I space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi- unit Residential Parking: One-bedroom or 500 to 800 1 space minimum, 1.5 One covered space shall be sq ft spaces maximum per unit designated for each unit. Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100 1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8 sq ft spaces maximum per unit Three or more bedrooms and 1.5 spacies minimum, 2 1,101 sq ft or larger spaces maximum per unit According to the 2010 Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement may be reduced through a Conditional Use Permit, if it meets the criteria for approval, including reduced parking demand as evaluated by a parking demand study. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a reduced parking requirement for any land use except residential single-unit and duplex development; if any portion of the lot is located within a quarter mile of a BART or CalTrain station, the number of required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the normally required number of spaces with Conditional Use Permit approval. This reduction does not apply in the TV or Downtown districts. Additionally, under certain conditions and with a Conditional Use Permit, the provision of a shared parking facility can result in a reduction of up to 50 percent of the number of parking spaces normally required. FEES AND EXACTIONS The City charges residential developers fees for planning and construction services performed by the City. Developers of new residential projects also pay various impact fees to finance improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve new housing in the city. In order to determine fees charged by the City of South San Francisco and other jurisdiction in San Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all jurisdictions in the County, asking that each provide fee information for the following three different developments: 63 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 • Development 1 - Single Family Infill: A new home on an empty lot in an existing neighborhood, with no significant grading or other complicating factors. The two- story home is 2,400 square feet with a 500 square foot garage, and it has four bedrooms and three bathrooms. • Development 2 -Single Family Home Development:A new development consisting of 50 units, each on their own lot, on an 8-acre parcel. There are three models of homes in the development: Model A (20 units total) is 1,600 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model B (15 units total) is 2,000 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model C (15 units) is 2,400 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage.All units have HVAC systems. The project would result in 98,000 total square feet of development, with public streets and no sprinklers. It is estimated the development would generate 50 peak hour trips. The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of medium complexity. It would require significant grading work (10,000 CY), with Type 1 erosion/sediment control. The construction of public streets would cost about $1,300,000 in public improvements (no public landscaping or traffic signal work). • Development 3 - Multi-family Development: A new development consisting of 96 units in 16 buildings on 8 acres. There are three models of units in the development: Model A (28 units) is 1,250 square feet and 2 stories, with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model B (34 units) is 1,500 square feet and 2 stories, and it has 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model C (34 units) is 1,750 square feet and 2 stories, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage. All units have HVAC systems. It would result in a total of 145,000 square feet, without sprinklers, and generate 72 peak hour trips. The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of high complexity. It would require significant grading work (5,000 CY) and Type 1 erosion/sediment control. On the existing public street frontage, $400,000 of frontage improvements would be required, and $600,000 in private improvements would be required for construction of new private streets. No public landscaping or traffic signal work would be involved. Fees for the City for each of these hypothetical developments are listed below in Table 4.1-6. As shown, planning, construction, and impact fees would be nearly $17,000 per unit for a single family unit as described above; approximately $390,000 for the development project with 50 single family homes; and approximately$369,000 for the multi-family development project with 96 units. 64 Housing Constraints Table 4.14: FlAnning,'Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2414 Fees Development 1 - Development 2 50 Development 3-96 Multi- Single Family Home Single Family Homes Family Units Entitlement Fees Planned $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 + actual cost + Development $2,000.00 deposit Tentative $0.00 $1,250.00 + $3,200.00 Subdivision Map $800=$2,050 General Plan $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Amendment Fish and Game $0.00 $2,101.50 $2,101.50 Design Review $300.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 Legal Notice $300.00 $300.00 $300.00 Cat Ex $20.00 $0.00 $20.00 San Mateo $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 County CEQA Handling Fee Entitlement Fee $670.00 $9,801.50 $10,671.50 Subtotal Construction Fees CBSC (California $17.00 $637.00 $942.00 Building Standards Commission) Energy PC $0.00 $9,279.60 $0.00 Residential In COM-Building $0.00 $0.00 $97,247.00 Fee General Plan $605.78 $23,872.80 $35,322.00 Maintenance Fee Microfilm $149.58 $2,734.68 $4,862.35 Commercial or Residential PC Commercial In $1,944.48 $35,550.78 $63,210.55 Permit Program $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Maintenance Fee RES-Building $2,991.50 $54,693.50 $0.00 Permit Fee Sewer Capacity $3,381.72 $158,004.00 $158,004.00 Charge Non-Res per Fx U Sewer Capacity $264.21 $13,210.50 $25,364.16 Charge Residential per Fx U SMIP Residential $0.00 $1,591.52 $2,354.80 65 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 4.14: FlAnning,'Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014 Fees Development 1 — Development 2 50 Development 3—96 Multi- Single Family Home Single Family Homes Family Units State-Mandated $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Training Valuation based $351.56 $2,640.63 $4,226.56 Electrical Valuation based $250.00 $2,598.75 $437.50 Mechanical Valuation Based $250.00 $2,598.75 $2,187.50 Plumping Waste $19.44 $0.00 $0.00 Management I Fee— Residential Construction Fee $10,260.27 $307,447.51 $394,193.42 Subtotal Impact Fees Schools $6,312.00 $257,740.00 $381,350.00 Public Safety Fee $1,285.00 $40,500.00 $54,048.00 (Police and Fire)' Childcare $0.00 $98,950.00 $178,368.00 Impact Fee Subtotal $7,597.00 $397,190.00 $613,766.00 Total $17,857.27 $704,637.51 $1,007,959.42 Notes: I. In addition to the above fees,the City requires parkland dedication in accordance with Quimby Act and requires the provision of affordable housing units on site through its inclusionary housing ordinance. Developers have the option to pay in-lieu fees to avoid these exactions. 2. Per City Resolution 97-2012 Public Safety Fee,calculation assumes Development I is Low Density Residential ($1,285 per unit), Development 2 is Medium Density Residential ($810 per unit),and Development 3 is High Density Residential($563 per unit). 3. Does not include fees that may result because of Inclusionary Housing policy.The City is currently considering adjusting the in-lieu fee calculation to encourage more use of the in-lieu fee;this may result in a reduced in-lieu fee. Source:City of South San Francisco,2015;Dyett and Bhatia,2015. Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, South San Francisco's fees were found to be comparatively low, and they do not to pose a significant constraint to housing development in the city.9 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING Revised in 2010, Chapter 20.380 of the Zoning Ordinance details the City's inclusionary housing regulations. The City's objective is to ensure that all residential development provides a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the 9 21 Elements Working Group,2014. 66 Housing Constraints population, including low- and moderate-income households. The inclusionary housing regulations require that all approved residential development projects with four or more units have a minimum of 20 percent of the units restricted to and affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Additionally, the City requires that at least 20 percent of all new dwelling units are restricted to and affordable to low- or moderate-income households. Development projects must provide affordable units on-site, although under certain conditions, alternatives are provided to this requirement as a means of providing affordable units in the City. Housing developments can pay an in-lieu fee as an alternative to the requirement of constructing inclusionary units. These requirements apply to all residential market-rate dwelling units that are newly constructed for sale as well as the conversion of apartments to condominiums that will be for sale. Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate homes, studies have shown evidence to the contrary. One school of thought is that the cost of an inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through higher market rate sale prices. Another significant body of research and analysis suggests that in fact the cost of inclusionary housing and any other development fee "will always be split between all players in the development process."lo Some academics have pointed out that over the long term, it is probable that landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other homeowners or the developer (Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985). The most definitive empirical study on inclusionary housing was completed in 2008 by the Furman Center of New York University working for the Center for Housing Policy of the National Housing Conference. Entitled"The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco,Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas,"this study measured the impact of inclusionary housing ordinances on median homes sale prices and residential development activity in these three regions. While findings for the DC and Boston regions were mixed, the study found definitive evidence that inclusionary ordinances do not lead to higher home prices or a decrease in building activity in the Bay Area. This is attributed in large part to the more flexible nature of the ordinances in the Bay Area region and to the number of options that developers have to meet inclusionary requirements. In addition to this study, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study found that housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary housing ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento." io W A.Watkins."Impact of Land Development Charges."Land Economics 75(3).1999. ii David Rosen. "Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets"NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review 1(3).2004 67 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 In keeping with the Furman Center study findings cited above, the City of South San Francisco recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain production. In order to ensure maximum flexibility so as not to constrain production, the City's Zoning Ordinance allows alternatives to constructing new affordable units on-site as a means of providing affordable units in the City. If the City Council finds that new construction of affordable housing units would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship for a developer, an alternative may be approved (for example, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units or the construction of special needs housing projects or programs).Additionally, under certain circumstances, developers may satisfy the affordable housing requirement with off-site combined inclusionary housing projects or in-lieu fees. The City also offers a series of developer incentives, per State Density Bonus Law, that help offset the added cost of the inclusionary units. Finally, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to seek modification of the requirements due to undue hardship. These policies are in line with recommendations in On Common Ground.-Joint Principles on Inclusionary Housing Policies, published by the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) and the Home Builders Association of Northern California (HBA) in 2005. The report points to the need for flexible inclusionary housing requirements, such as those established by South San Francisco, to allow for financially feasible residential development. PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of development applications adding to financing costs, in particular. The City has worked to establish transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development applications. Explained below are the typical processing and permit procedures for a single family housing development in a single family district and for a multi-family housing development in a multi-family district. Single Family Residential Procedure For single family homes proposed in a residential district (RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-151 RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35) steps in the permit and approvals process are as listed below: 1. Pre-application meeting with staff(required) 2. Application submittal 3. Review of application by City staff 4. Design Review Board review/recommendation 5. Decision by Chief Planner 6. Appeal to Planning Commission (if applicable) 7. Building permit issuance 68 Housing Constraints As listed above, approvals for single family development in a single family district do not generally require action by the Planning Commission or City Council. The process does, however, require review by the Design Review Board (DRB), which makes a recommendation to the Chief Planner to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application. Design review is required of all new construction in South San Francisco, including single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial development. For residential development of three or fewer units, design review is limited to height, bulk, lot coverage, and general compatibility with the neighborhood. If the DRB recommends approval of a project and the Chief Planner approves the project, it may proceed without requiring any action by the Planning Commission or City Council. Design review applications submitted before the submittal deadline at the end of a given month are generally heard during the Design review meeting scheduled for the following month. Depending on the outcome of the Design Review Board meeting and the specific timing when an application is submitted (whether toward the beginning or end of a month), the typical timeframe for approval of a single family residential unit and issuance of building permits varies between eight and 18 weeks. Multi-Family Residential Procedure For a typical multi-family housing development of 20 or more units proposed in a multi- family district (RM-30, RM-35, TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, DRC, and ECRMX) steps in the permit and approvals process are as listed below: 1. Pre-application meeting with staff 2. Application submittal 3. Review of application by City staff 4. Design Review Board review/recommendation 5. Planning Commission Hearing 6. City Council Hearing (if applicable) 7. Building permit issuance As listed above, approval of multi-family housing requires action by the Design Review Board to recommend the project to the Planning Commission for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Design review may address any of the following topics: exterior design, materials, textures, colors, means of illumination, landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access, security, safety, and other usual on-site development elements. Design review is typically completed within four weeks for simple projects and can take up to twelve weeks if plans require revision.The submittal requirements are clearly delineated in an application check list, with some latitude given to the Planning Division to waive 69 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 certain requirements for small projects or to add additional requirements, such as a shadow study where taller development will be located adjacent to single-story residential uses. Following the Design review process, the Planning Commission reviews the project. For smaller projects not involving an affordable housing agreement or a development agreement,the Planning Commission is the final decision making body for the development. However, more typically in South San Francisco, larger scale multi-family housing developments require an affordable housing agreement and/or utilize a development agreement, requiring action by the City Council. In total the typical approval time for a multi-family development application from the time the application is submitted to the Planning Division until issuance of building permits is between 18 and 36 weeks, depending on the complexity of the project and the outcome of the design review process and Planning Commission meeting. Other Permit Processing Times and Procedures Listed below are the typical processing times for various types of planning actions. Where possible, when multiple planning approvals are required for a single project (e.g., a Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit),both approvals are considered together as part of the same hearing,such that times listed below are not necessarily additive. In general, South San Francisco's processing and permit procedures are reasonable and comparable to those in other San Mateo County communities. The permit process only increases in complexity and duration when the circumstances of individual projects warrant extra consideration on the part of local staff and officials. This is especially true of the environmental review component of the process. However, the City has little flexibility to change this, since the California Environmental Quality Act specifies procedures that local jurisdictions must observe in reviewing the impacts of development projects. 70 Housing Constraints Table 4.1-7: Typical Application Processing Time, 2014 Typical Processing Time in weeks Typical Processing Time in weeks (straight-forward proposal) (complicated proposal) Permit/Procedure Ministerial Review 1 2 Conditional Use Permit 6 12 Zoning Amendment 4 12 General Plan Amendment 34 72 Site Plan Review 2 3 Architectural/Design Review 4 12 Tract Maps 24 48 Parcel Maps 24 48 Initial Environmental Study 4 8 Environmental Impact Report 34 72 Specific Plan Amendment 4 12 Specific Plan 8 24 Precise Plan Amendment 6 12 Precise Plan 10 48 Master Plan 96 96 Developments Single Family Unit 8 18 Second Unit 6 10 Subdivision 48 48 Multi-family less than 20 units 12 20 Multi-family more than 20 units 18 36 PUD 8 36 Source:City of South San Francisco,2014. 71 Housing Constraints # .@ + 2 \ # § 7 § .q + .\ \ / ƒ § § $ o \ % o \ ) U CL 2 \ E. \ k n ' r- % � kCL Q \ 2 6 FL C) C:03 t \ _ » 2 \ § � \ ® \ & k ca 'k { \ 2 f o _ \ \ % E o \ ) U CL 2 \ � E 0 .\ Ui Ui ::E CL Q \ 2 D d § / § § § § E a ca a \ & E \ ; 2 \ ) § r \ / q ƒ CL IT U � t / \ 0 » \ CL cu § ) / c 2 \ W / § 2 { § I J V 010 N k \ E / t . & \ u CL ® \ Q ca E \ k y 0 2 / I f 2 » + i % o / ( q 2 CL \ \ E _ \ \ / 0 \ U k 3 § E ! # ./ U 2 0 + 9 k % \ G f 0 ® CL < / m E O ¢ \ 0 b N c- c- c- c- c- c ) ) % o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 c w / / / / / / z = w 2 72 Housing Constraints CODES AND ENFORCEMENT AND ON/OFF SITE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS New construction in South San Francisco must comply with the California Building Codes (2013). Thus, there are no extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect the ability to construct housing in the city. The City requires that developers complete certain minimum site improvements in conjunction with new housing development. Required on-site improvements include grading and installation of water, sewer, storm drainage, gas, electricity, and cable utilities. Required off-site improvements include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, full street sections, and street lighting. Based on conversations with local developers,these site improvement standards are typical of many communities, and do not adversely affect housing production in the city. EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS As described above, current regulations, standards, and procedures in the City reflect several efforts to accommodate all housing types and promote housing production, including the following: • Diverse housing and development types and uses allowed in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; • Provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the amount of parking required; • Comparatively low fees and exactions for San Mateo County; • Inclusionary housing regulations to provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population; • Transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development applications; and • No extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect housing production in South San Francisco. 4.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities Consistent with State Law, the following section analyzes governmental constraints to housing for persons with disabilities and describes ongoing and needed future actions to remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for such housing. STANDARDS AND PROCESSES The City's standards and processes are analyzed below, within several categories identified by HCD as potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities. 73 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Reasonable Accommodations. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or reductions to parking requirements. ZONING AND LAND USE The 2010 Zoning Ordinance included updates to Chapter 20.510 Waivers and Modifications, to facilitate compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It provides reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through modification of the application of the City's Zoning Ordinances. Chapter 20.510 allows the Chief Planner to grant relief from the Zoning Ordinance's dimensional requirements when necessary to provide access to housing. It also allows the Planning Commission to grant exceptions and waivers when necessary to accommodate religious uses protected by the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Below is a discussion of existing zoning and land use policies in the City affecting the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Provision for Group Homes. Consistent with State law, the City allows for Limited Residential Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning districts,as well as DRL, DRM, DRH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, districts,without a special use permit and not subject to any special restrictions.' These facilities are also conditionally permitted in the DMX, TV-C, TC-RH, CMX, DTC, DRC, and ECRMX zones. The City also permits General Residential Care Facilities serving six or more persons in the TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH districts. General Residential Care Facilities are conditionally permitted in all multi-family districts, the ECRMX district,the DTC and DRC districts, and all Downtown districts except the DC district. These are not subject to any minimum distance requirements in relationship to other special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use requirements. Broad Definition of Family. Consistent with State Law, the City's Zoning Ordinance provides for a broad definition of family as"one or more persons living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members of a `family' need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house." (Section 20.630) This definition of family does not limit the number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related. 'A Limited Residential Care Facility is a facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and provides 24- hour non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection,or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living,excluding the licensee or members of the licensee's family or persons employed as facility staff.See SSFMC 20.080 and 20.630.002. 74 Housing Constraints Reasonable Accommodation. The City's Zoning Ordinance facilitates the development of housing and residential parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities by allowing waivers and modifications to required dimensional requirements, such as encroachments into front, side, and rear yards for wheelchair access structures. Section 20.330.111 establishes procedures for private residential handicap parking, while Chapter 20.510 establishes the rules and procedures for requests for reasonable accommodation to ensure access to housing. BUILDING CODE AND PERMITTING Uniform Building Code. In 2014,the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2013 California Administrative Code and the 2013 California Building Code published by the International Conference of Building Officials. In addition, the City adopted and implemented the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, which provides requirements for the conservation and rehabilitation of housing. The City's Building Code does not include any amendments to the California Administrative Code, California Building Code, or Uniform Housing Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.z Site and Building Accessibility. The City complies with all State and federal standards and laws pertaining to the accessibility of sites and buildings for disabled persons. Permitting.The City does not require special permitting that could impede the development of group homes for six people or fewer. As discussed above, Residential Care Facilities are permitted uses in all residential zoning districts. Furthermore, there are no siting requirements or minimum distances between facilities that apply to Residential Care Facilities or Group Care Facilities. EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS As described above, current regulation standards and procedures in the City reflect several efforts to accommodate housing for persons with disabilities,including the following: • Provision for small group homes in all residential zones by right; • Use of a broad definition of family; • Provisions to allow encroachment into required setbacks for wheelchair access structures and waivers and modifications to other dimensional requirements when necessary to provide reasonable accommodation; and • Provision of alternative parking requirements for special needs housing; and • Implementation of the Uniform Building Code. Z As a practical matter the City has been following the 2013 California Building Code in evaluating projects, which was formally adopted in December 2013. 75 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 4.3 Non-Governmental Constraints In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors that may constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions such as land and construction costs as well as public opinion toward new development. CONSTRUCTION & LAND COSTS Land costs in San Mateo County are high, due in part to the desirability of housing in the county and because available land is in short supply. These costs vary both between and within jurisdictions based on factors like the desirability of the location and the permitted density. The following land costs are approximate, and derived from conversations with local developers.' For a typical multi-family construction project in San Mateo County, land costs add approximately $90,000 per unit. Land for a single family home often costs $400,000 or more per lot. Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such as architectural and engineering services, development fees and insurance. For multi-family homes in San Mateo County, hard costs account of 60-65 percent of the building cost and soft costs average around 15-20 percent (the remaining 15-20 percent is land costs). For single family homes, hard costs often are roughly 40 percent of the total cost, soft costs are 20 percent, and land is 40 percent. According to housing developers in San Mateo County, construction costs for multi-unit buildings vary based on the form of parking (structured vs. surface) in addition to other environmental factors such as topography, pre-existing structures, etc. For a larger, multi- unit building, costs can vary from $185,000/unit to as high as $316,000/unit. The cost per square foot ranges from$172-$200. For the least expensive production single family homes, the cost of preparing the vacant land is around $100,000/lot, and the cost of construction is approximately $145/sf. For more expensive, custom homes, however, the construction costs can be higher than $435/sf. In general, soft costs add another approximate third to the subtotal. MORTGAGE FINANCING Until mid-2008, home mortgage financing was readily available at attractive rates throughout San Mateo County and California. Rates vary, but ranged around 6.25 percent to seven percent from 2006-2008 for a 30 year fixed rate loan (HSH Associates Financial Publishers). However, rates have been as high as ten or 12 percent in the last decade. As part of the aftermath of the subprime crisis in 2008, interest rates are very low. In San Mateo County, rates range from 4.0-4.5 percent for a fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage. One 'Source:21 Elements Working Group,2014. 76 Housing Constraints remaining challenge is that many mortgages in San Mateo County are for more than $417,000,meaning they qualify as jumbo loans and often have higher interest rates. The data in the table below is from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and represents loan applications in 2012 for one- to four-unit properties, as well as manufactured homes, for the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and metropolitan division (MD) that includes South San Francisco (MSA/MD: 41884 - San Francisco - San Mateo - Redwood City, CA). More than 65 percent of the loan applications were filed by households earning above a moderate income (greater than 120 percent of AMI). Moderate income households (80-120 percent of AMI) represented 18 percent of loan applicants, low income households (50-80 percent of AMI) represent 12 percent, and very low income households (less than 50 percent of AMI) only 4 percent.Almost 75 percent of all loans were approved and accepted by the applicants, and 10 percent were denied. Above moderate-income households had the highest rates of approval of any group. Loan approval rates have improved since the subprime crisis. Table 4.3-1: Disposition of Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, 2012 Percentage Number of Percentage o f Loan Loan Percentage o f Loans Applications Percentage Income Level Applications of All Loans Originated Denied Other' Less than 50%AMI (Very Low Income) 700 4% 57% 22% 21 50-79%AMI (Low Income) 1,968 12% 67% 14% 20% 80-120%AMI (Moderate Income) 3,017 18% 73% 11% 17% 120%+ 11,381 67% 76% 8% 16% All 17,066 100% 74% 10% 17% Notes: I. Includes loans applications approved but not accepted, loan applications withdrawn,and incomplete files. Source:HMDA Data,2012 for San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City MSA. CONSTRUCTION FINANCING Construction loans for new housing are difficult to secure in the current market. In past years, lenders would provide up to 80 percent of the cost of new construction (loan to value ratio). In recent years, due to market conditions and government regulations,banks require larger investments by the builder. Due to federal and State budget cuts,affordable housing developers have had a much harder time securing funding. Since 2009, the federal government has cut programs such as Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and HOPE VI funding by 27-50 percent (ABAG). Traditionally,these programs have been a large source of affordable housing funds. In addition to federal cuts,the State dissolved Redevelopment Agencies in 2012, leaving San Mateo County with a loss of$25.5 million in funds for affordable housing.4 However, some 4 Source:21 Elements Working Group,2014. 77 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 funding opportunities remain from the federal and state governments, such as the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, which still provides an important source of funding for developers. PUBLIC OPINION In some communities, public opinion is a significant constraint to the production of higher density and affordable housing. To date, housing developers, City staff, and elected officials do not report significant public opposition to recent multi-family housing developments.As key to this success, elected officials stress the need to continue to work with neighbors to address concerns and the importance of the City's policies to protect single family neighborhoods from significant change, while finding opportunities for multi-family housing development along key transit corridors and in the downtown area. In addition, city officials and developers can work to assuage these concerns by requiring design review, emphasizing management of new developments, and engaging in public education to address myths about high density, low-income, and supportive housing(HUD).' 4.4 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints South San Francisco is a largely developed community with sufficient infrastructure in place to accommodate anticipated levels of development on most sites. A more detailed analysis of specific sites is included in the review of Housing Opportunity sites. The City Engineer reports that there are no significant issues related to the capacity of water, stormwater, or sewer systems that would preclude future housing development as anticipated by the General Plan. As a largely urbanized community, most housing sites in South San Francisco are infill in nature and present few environmental issues. In recent years, developers of multi-family housing have submitted Negative Declarations rather than EIRs for their projects, e.g., Park Station Lofts development. An Environmental Impact Report was recently published to analyze the proposed development under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which contemplates a 25 percent build out over a 20-year span. Looking forward, certain sites in the downtown area are thought to have some level of environmental contamination. Overall, such sites represent a small portion of the land available for development in the City. These sites are discussed in more detail in the Housing Opportunity sites section of this document. 4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In addition, these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced dependence on vehicles,and can significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gases. 'Ibid. 78 Housing Constraints South San Francisco has been a leader in the promotion of green building techniques in new residential construction and residential rehabilitation. The City renovated a formerly vacant residential unit to transform it into a model demonstration project for green building materials and techniques. This home is known as the Green X-Ray House and is used as an educational tool for local homeowners and members of the local builders community to create healthier, more energy-efficient homes. At a minimum, new housing construction in South San Francisco must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 2013 with amended standards going into effect in 2014. Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process.All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made. The City funds various minor housing rehabilitations programs using CDBG funds.As part of these rehabilitation projects the City incorporates green retrofit improvements including insulated windows, roof insulation, tankless water heaters, and other weatherization techniques. Currently the City provides funding to CID (Center of Independence for Individuals with Disabilities), Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and El Concilio of San Mateo County. The City adopted a Green Building Ordinance, in line with the State standards, in 2014. This ordinance applies to residential development as well as non-residential development and requires new homes or substantial remodels to be constructed using sustainable building practices to reduce environmental impacts. In addition to the design and construction of individual buildings, the development industry is becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy conservation at the site planning level and even at the community planning level. New developments are increasingly being planned so that building orientations will take advantage of passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use planning is increasingly considering benefits of compact urban form (i.e., higher densities) as a means to reduce auto dependency for transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use land use patterns to make neighborhoods more self-contained so that residents can walk or bicycle to places of work, shopping, or other services. Compact urban development patterns are also necessary to improve the effectiveness of buses and other forms of public transit. If effective public transit is available and convenient, energy will be conserved through reduced auto use. In the future, the City will consider incorporating these and/or other sustainable development principles into new developments that are planned within South San Francisco. In addition, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2014,which supports these ideas as well. The CAP includes a Program of Reduction Strategies that promote energy conservation. It also includes implementation tools that will be used by the City to track greenhouse gas reductions.A Development Review Checklist will be used on a project- by-project basis to track project-level contributions to the CAP target including energy conservation. 79 5 Housing Resources 5. 1 Available Sites for Housing The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that the City of South San Francisco has a sufficient amount of land to accommodate its fair share of the region's housing needs during this planning period. The State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an "inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment" (Section 65583(a)(3)) It further requires that the Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the planning period. Demonstrating an adequate supply of vacant or underutilized land is only part of the task of the adequate sites analysis. The City must also show that this supply is capable of supporting housing demand from all economic segments of the community and for various housing types, including multi-family rental, manufactured housing, group housing, and transitional housing. High land costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing on sites that are designated for low densities. The State has generally held that the most appropriate way to demonstrate adequate capacity for low and very low income units is to provide land zoned for multiple-family housing with an allowed density of 30 dwelling units per acre or more. Hence this analysis focuses on the identification of sites that could accommodate this level of density, in order to accommodate the need for lower-income housing units. For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in South San Francisco have been grouped into two geographic areas. Each of these areas is described below,with accompanying maps and tables to identify sites and quantify development potential. The following analysis of sites in South San Francisco indicates the potential to develop 2,169 units of new housing with the adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) (in February 2015). Nearly all opportunity sites would support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater, providing favorable prospects for affordable units. As discussed before, the City has a determined need of 1,864 units during the planning period. Compared against the RHNA, the City's housing opportunity sites offer a development capacity that exceeds the needs determination by more than 300 units. Table S.I-1: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development Capacity Under Existing Zoning Area Acreage Unit Capacity Percent of Total 80 Housing Resources Transit Village 16.9 1,731 80% Downtown 6.1 438 20% Total Capacity 23.0 2,169 100% RHNA Target 1,864 Excess Capacity 305 116% The available sites inventory conducted for the Housing Element focuses on sites with near- term development potential, where the site is currently vacant, highly underutilized, or where developers have come forward with plans to redevelop existing uses. There may be additional sites in South San Francisco with housing potential, including individual vacant lots and developed sites with marginally viable existing uses. Approximately 80 percent of the City's near-term residential development potential is in the Transit Village area,which is already zoned for medium (30 dwelling units per acre) to high (120 dwelling units per acre) density residential development. Almost 20 percent of near-term residential development potential is in the Downtown area.The City was engaged in preparation of the DSASP over the past two years, and it was adopted in February 2015. The DSASP focuses on properties within 0.5 mile of the City's Caltrain station. The overarching aim of the Plan is to create a successful and vibrant downtown, including new high-density, mixed-use development in areas that are best poised to take advantage of improved access to the City's Caltrain station and SamTrans bus routes; affirming the historic Grand Avenue Corridor as the focus of the community; and providing improved connections to the East of Highway 101 employment district. The DSASP includes pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly upgrades, landscaped green spaces, widened sidewalks, new streets, and mass transit connections designed to improve the business and residential quality of life in the City. The DSASP is a twenty year policy document that is intended to govern development in the Downtown area. Under the new Plan, residential development potential in the Downtown area has increased to 60 dwelling units per acre, with up to 100 dwelling unit per acre allowed depending on the zoning district. FARs have increased to range from 3.0 to 6.0 depending on the zoning district. TRANSIT VILLAGE SITES The Transit Village is located in the heart of South San Francisco, and it is well connected with to transit services, regional crossroads, and I-280. This area has been a focus of some of the City's recent planning efforts, in support of the General Plan's vision of the area as a distinct, vibrant district and a regional destination. With the adoption of the BART Transit Village Plan in 2001, the City of South San Francisco established zoning standards and design guidelines to promote a vibrant mixed-use district consistent with the area's role as an important transit hub.A key element of the plan was to up zone various parcels to allow for more intensive residential development, and since the plan's adoption, much housing has been built in the area.Additional regulations were adopted in 2010 for a specific area in the Transit Village; the South E1 Camino Real General Plan Amendment, Zoning, and Design Guidelines targeted higher intensities and mixed-use development in the Transit Village area along El Camino Real. The City adopted the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in 2011,which focused on another area within the Transit Village. This plan provided specific principles, policies, 81 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 design standards and guidelines, and recommendations for implementation to guide the development of the area into a vibrant, mixed use district. It included locations for land uses, a classification system, density/intensity standards, and total development potential for each land use type. This plan included detailed block-by-block development projections for a focus area in the Transit Village to determine probable environmental impacts and infrastructure needs, but they were not adopted as part of the plan. To the extent that any future development project is consistent with the plan's land use designations and development intensities and standards, any necessary environmental review will be limited to site-specific impacts, rather than cumulative and area-wide impacts (which were fully evaluated in the program EIR prepared on the plan). Many of the sites in and around the Transit Village area are vacant or underutilized parcels that present an excellent opportunity for housing development. The sites are composed of combinations of vacant and underutilized parcels, and the table that follows takes their current status into account in determining realistic capacity. The fact that many of these sites are owned by a single entity makes them especially good candidates for housing development during the planning period. The largest property owners in the area are the City, Kaiser Permanente, and BART. Listed in Table 5.1-2 and shown in Figure 2, these five sites in the Transit Village contain 16.9 acres of land with combined capacity for 1,731 units of housing. 82 Housing Resources $ \ 3 3 $ $ ? J fn q Q@ ® ® ~ q 3 / k 0- \ 4 e o % 0 0 0 00 � N # # o � # \ § / u m 00 00 00 e w w � Ln w m Q �O < t 7 ƒ \ \ Q a \ E » e o % o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ / / k m 00 00 00 8 00 00 00 00 00 00 M 00 0 C: \ ¥ƒ k | U a Q 2 $ I I I I I I I I I I Ca X X X I X X X X X X X e © v v v v v v v v v v % U ) U U U U U U U U U U � U 4 LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU � L j \ 2 U U U U U \ \ } LL \ \ G E E E E o U 7 U ? U U U U \ § � W _ � R m / k LE m \ \ ) ƒ k . . 0 Q 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 ) & V) [ \ u u u u u f \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ E E E E E } ; ; ; ; ; o ; o ; o o 1 o 0 > > > > S > > > U > U > U U 4 U § — @ 10 m — ® < m @ h y 0% \ a — — — — m w � k � § a 3 R % % q R S q q % 2 L? r — e e 9 9 9 9 6 £ & \ \ \ \ � \ - Z 3 6 6 6 ' ' a § $ G \ G G G \ \ \ \ k 2 U - 0 \ 00 U % LU :1 — ; ; ; ; ; ; ; @ m 2 ) \_ / — — � / / / / / / / \ \ \ ° } 2 � � � � e 83 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 N U ` C \ 1 „ alb l a a a 75 Jf)lvis � a _ m m x a u N / 4 ;L a // / i/ I �� LL 84 Housing Resources Capacity Analysis This section contains analysis of the realistic development capacity of the five housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village area. This analysis considers factors including vacant and underutilized site status, recent regulatory changes and development trends, lot size, physical constraints,and infrastructure. The recently updated Zoning Ordinance (2010) includes four districts specific to the Transit Village area: Transit Village Commercial (TV-C), Transit Village Retail (TV-R), Transit Village Residential High Density (TV-RH), and Transit Village Residential Medium Density (TV-RM). One key housing opportunity site is in the TV-RM district. The High Density Residential (RH-30) district covers one key housing site in the Transit Village area as well. In addition,the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut District in the updated Zoning Ordinance provides regulations, standards, and development review procedures to implement the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. There are several sub districts in this zone: the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use Medium Density District (ECR/C-MXM), the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High Density District (ECR/C-MXH), and the E1 Camino Real Residential High Density District (ECR/C-RH). The ECR/C-MXH and ECR/C-RH districts include three key housing sites in the Transit Village area. The five key housing sites in the Transit Village total 16.9 acres and would accommodate 1,731 housing units. Transit Village Residential Medium Density Zone The TV-RM district permits multi-unit residential uses, with a maximum density of 30 units per acre. The minimum site area per unit is 1,500 square feet and the maximum lot coverage is 75 percent. Setbacks of 5 feet on the side and 10 feet on the street side are required, as is a rear yard. There are also controls over the pedestrian orientation and vehicle accommodations. Site 1 is the housing site located in the TV-RM zone. It is composed of two parcels: one is 0.1 acres in size and has a vacant single family home, and one is 1.5 acres in size and is vacant. The low density residential district RL-8 is adjacent to Site 1. At the TV-RM density of 30 units per acre, Site 1 can comfortably accommodate 47 units. El Camino Real/Chestnut District The ECR/C-MXH designates sites for mixed-use development at high intensities, and it permits single-unit attached and multi-unit residential development, except at the ground floor level along key rights-of-way. The maximum FAR is 2.0, but can increase to 3.0 with the incentive program. The maximum residential density is 80 units per acre, and the maximum can increase to 110 units per acre with the incentive program. There is no minimum residential density in the ECR/C-MXH zone. The ECR/C-RH zone provides for high density residential development in the form of high rises and townhomes near the BART station. It permits single-unit attached and multi-unit residential development, and it has no minimum or maximum FAR. The minimum 85 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 residential density is 80 units per acre, and the maximum density is 120 units per acre, and up to 180 units per acre with the incentive program. The building envelopes for both the ECR/C-MXH and ECR/C-RH zones are controlled by minimum and maximum street wall heights, front building setbacks, and build-to lines. Minimum setbacks apply to building walls with windows and facing side or rear yards, to provide light and air for residential units. The maximum lot coverage is 90 percent for both zones, and maximum tower dimension is 125 feet, with a minimum separation of 30 feet between towers. Site 2 is 5.7 acres and is composed of three parcels,which are each zoned ECR/C-MXH. Two of the parcels are vacant, while another is occupied by a lumber yard. Eighty dwelling units are allowed per acre in this zone,and Site 2 would accommodate 456 residential units. Site 3 was included in the Focus Area of the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. Detailed development projections were calculated for the Focus Area block-by-block,based on the application of land use, density, and intensity regulations. This Housing Element relies on those block-by-block projections for the build out assumptions. Site 3 is composed of seven parcels; six are zoned ECR/C-MXH, while one is zoned ECR/C-RH. Together, these parcels total 7.6 acres and would comfortably accommodate 1,113 housing units. Site 5 contains one parcel that is 1.7 acres and zoned ECR/C-MXH, and it would accommodate 108 units. Together, Sites 2, 3,and 5 in the ECR/C District would accommodate 1,677 units. RH-30 Zone The RH-30 is a residential zoning district that provides for high residential density at 30 units per acre, with no minimum or maximum FAR. Single unit dwellings and multi-unit dwellings are permitted in the RH-30 zone. The maximum building height is 50 feet, with a maximum of 4 building stories. Setbacks are required on all sides of the building. The maximum lot coverage is 65 percent is allowed. The only site in the Transit Village in the RH-30 zone, Site 4 is a small parcel of 0.3 acres and is currently occupied by utilities. It is adjacent to multi-family residential uses,and it is expected to accommodate 7 housing units. Ownership Publicly-Owned. Sites 3 and 5 were owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency before it was dismantled in 2012. In the Long Range Property Management Plan,the dissolution plan of the City's Redevelopment Agency, a number of the properties have been transferred to the City's Successor Agency, including Sites 3 and 5. These sites are among the best near- term opportunities for housing development in South San Francisco, as they are primarily vacant and have been identified for future housing and mixed-use development through the General Plan, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. The City has expressed an intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize residential mixed-use development on the sites. In total these sites measure 9.5 acres with a capacity for 1,215 dwelling units. 86 Housing Resources Privately-Owned. Site 2 is owned by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. This site is composed of three parcels and is currently occupied by a vacant motel, a lumberyard, and a vacant lot. Site 1 is privately owned. Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis There are no known environmental issues that would limit development of the identified sites in the Transit Village area. Recent residential developments in the area have submitted negative declarations. The sites are outside of the airport noise contours, and no sites in the area are listed with the State as having known or potential contamination.' Periodic flooding occurs in certain areas along Colma Creek in South San Francisco, which runs through the Transit Village; however, improvement projects in this area have greatly reduced the concern of flooding, such that it is not an issue that would limit development in this area. The City Engineer has confirmed that infrastructure in the area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer, water, and wastewater treatment facilities. As is common practice in the City, developers may be required to pay for intersection or other infrastructure improvements to offset project-specific impacts. DOWNTOWN SITES Downtown South San Francisco is situated just west of Highway 101 and has retained a historic character with fine-grained, mixed-use development. The City's General Plan seeks to reinforce the Downtown's identity and role as the physical and symbolic center of South San Francisco. General Plan strategies include increased residential development in the Downtown and better connections to surrounding areas. The comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update has provided zoning districts and development regulations to support this vision. Much of the Downtown neighborhood is located within a half-mile of the City's Caltrain commuter rail station, which is located on the east side of Highway 101. As discussed above, the City adopted the DSASP, which identifies further development opportunities and allows higher densities. The City's historic Downtown area encompasses a range of underutilized publicly- and privately-owned parcels that are suitable for either mixed-use or residential development. Even before adoption of the DSASP,through the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update in 2010 and related efforts, the City has paved the way for housing on key parcels in the Downtown area in keeping with the long-term goal of creating a vibrant and sustainable urban center. The DSASP will continue to support those goals and will enhance this vision further. For this Housing Element, the City has identified 12 key sites in the Downtown with near-term redevelopment potential. The sites are composed of combinations of vacant and underutilized parcels, and the table that follows takes their current status into account in determining realistic capacity. Listed below in Table 5.1-3 and shown in Figure 3, all of these sites are owned by the City of South San Francisco Successor Agency. In total, these sites represent 6.1 acres with a combined development capacity for 438 units under the DSASP. 'Source: Department of Toxic Control Substances,March 2009. 87 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 4 M- N N a` 0` a` '0 '0 '0 00 N C O � Q y4 00 00 O � � � � � O O Z •C v 00 00 00 � Q H b4 C W C � O y O 3 C � Cu 2E! O O O O O O O O O O C C v �O O 00 00 00 00 00 O O Q Q — — � O G (U � SS G N 3 C � L L C N N N N N C C 4 4 O O O O O s C s U U U U U U v U C c — ro ro ro ro ro Z Z O O �' o o o o �' O O b O C O C C C C G c c c c c c c a) C L L 3 � 3 � 3 � 3 � 3 3 i N J J D U 0 0 0 0 0 D U D U H Cu L = CC L CC L CC LL U- L L L LL N LL N LL N C C C C C Cu 3 ¢ LL O LL O LL O O O LL LL LL O O O V) U V) U V) U 2 CL :1 CL U U 3 � c O Cu a a a a a a a J J J J J J 7 0 •� C C C C C C C C C N C � � V Lj > a_ > a_ a_ a_ a_ CL 0 CL U) In •= iV M M M M M M M M M M N O a a O ao O O O O O O O O O O C P� O M �O Ln M M �O M M O M Ln O — — M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N M Q O O O O O O O O O O � O N O O O O F- O 10 r� 00 01 in � in ^ 00 in � in O O O O in — 88 Housing Resources 4 00 �O I- �O �O M �O �O M M- O — L — N el- O � Q y 4 O O O O O Z •C v oo 00 00 00 00 � Q H bA C W G � O y O 3 G � CU 2E! O O O O O O O O O O O G C v O O 00 00 00 00 00 00 O O O Q — � O G (U � SS G N 3 G � N N N N N N 7 7 7 7 7 7 C C C C C C 3 3 > > > > > > 3 3 3 0 o Q Q Q Q Q Q o 0 0 b4 c c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N D U D U C9 U C9 U C9 U C9 U C9 U C9 U D U Q U D U CU CU ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro N N N N N N N N N N NN Q CU E E E E E E E E E E E = O E E E E E E E E E E E 3 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U U U U U U U U U U U 3 bq c O CU a a a ro a� a ro 7 J J J i J L J i bq m N bq l.L N b0 •= G b 0 E G Lj W O Um > a_ > cn CL Um Q O O O O O O O O O O O O a a O ao O O O O O O O O O O O = M O — ON 00 �O M- O — 00 •� O O O M- M- Ln Ln 00 O M M — — — — — — M M 2 Z M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N M Q O O O O O O O O O O O N � N_ M M N N N N N M M H � � H 89 South San Francisco Housing Bement Update March 2015 \ % Q % / CO & � k 4 q q q q q Zb � § 3 \ £ \ � = n Cu E 4 e R R R R R \ / \ k 5 \ ¥/ Q k Q t a \ � \ \ \ \ \ d f k e k e k e k e k e \ $ °Q U Q U Q U Q U Q v \ \ 5 t 5 5 k CO CO « \ E E E E E E k \ \ \ \ \ C o \ � / k \ £ \E \E \ -j j / t \E CN - $ $ E £ \ U y & / 5 s < _ \ ® ° U S a O ° 0 �CN bjD 2 \ % q R k R o m m m m m ` \ ƒ Q Q Q Q Q ) 2 + ® G G G G G / ] \ LA k 0 I a s ±A ± ± ± A \ 5 �- Iz = w \ 90 Housing Resources Figure 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area Caltrain Stations Caltrain Major Highway L / Housing Opportunity Sites Parcels 0 FN�V, Sit P�NF f /�f e91� Nu///'� _. / � +r ��j�te Si � 1� N � Site 14 GRAND AVE 2�� f��� _� �N� te i e 3 r _ � a 0.05 o.i C 91 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Capacity Analysis This section contains an analysis of the realistic development capacity of housing opportunity sites in the Downtown area. This analysis considers factors including vacant and underutilized status, recent development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure. Under the adopted DSASP, there are four new districts that cover the Downtown opportunity sites identified in Figure 9: Linden Neighborhood Center, Downtown Transit Core, Downtown Residential Core, and the Grand Avenue Core. Two of the sites would be in the Linden Neighborhood Center,seven of the sites would be in the Downtown Transit Core, two of the sites would be in the Downtown Residential Core, and one of the sites would be in the Grand Avenue Core. In total, the opportunity sites total approximately 6.1 acres and would accommodate 438 housing units. Downtown Transit Core The Downtown Transit Core (DTC) district allows for multi-unit residential construction, with a minimum density of 80 units per acre and a maximum density of 100 units. The minimum FAR is 2.0 and the maximum FAR is 6.0. Within the DTC district, the main development standards controlling the building envelope are maximum lot coverage of 100 percent and a maximum building height of 85 feet. There is no setback requirement except for lots that abut a residential district,which requires a 10 foot setback. Sites 8, 11, and 13-17 are individual parcels or groups of assembled parcels that range from 0.2 acres to 1.1 acres in size in the DTC district. Surface parking lots or vacant buildings occupy many of the sites, and no site is adjacent to a residential zoning district. Site 14 and Site 16 are adjacent to the Public/Quasi Public District on Airport Boulevard. Based on the following development standards for Site 17, which is representative of the sites in the DTC district, all of the sites in the DTC district could comfortably accommodate approximately 80 dwelling units per acre: • Lot size: 0.2 acres or 7,596 square feet • Minimum Setback Requirement: 0 feet(No abutting of Residential districts) • FAR: 6.0 • Maximum Building Size: 45,576 square feet(Lot size multiplied by FAR) • Gross Residential Square Footage: 31,903 square feet (Assumes 70 percent of building is residential) • Net Residential Square Footage: 22,332 square feet (Assumes 70 percent of gross residential square footage, with 30 percent of gross residential space devoted to common spaces) • Average Unit Size: 1,400 square feet(Typical for a two-bedroom unit) • Expected Number of Units: 16 units (Net residential square footage divided by average unit size) • Maximum Density: 80 units per acre (Lot size divided by number of units) 92 Housing Resources When this density is applied to all of the sites in the DTC district, 302 housing units could be accommodated in the zone. Downtown Residential Core The Downtown Residential Core district (DRC) allows for multi-family residential construction. The maximum FAR is 3.0, exclusive of structured parking. A minimum of 40 residential units per acre is required, with a maximum density of 80 units per acre (up to 100 or 125 under the incentive program). The main development standards controlling the building envelope are maximum lot coverage of 90 percent and maximum building height of 65 feet. Setbacks are required in the rear yard (20-foot setback) and when the lot abuts a residential district(10-foot setback on the interior side). Sites 9 and 10 are existing parking lots in the DRC district near City Hall in Downtown. These sites are adjacent to residential and hotel uses. Site 9 is about 0.3 acres,while Site 10 is composed of several smaller lots totaling 0.6 acres. Under the current density standards for the DRC district, it is estimated that Site 9 would accommodate 19 units, while Site 10 would accommodate 38 units. Linden Neighborhood Center The Linden Neighborhood Center district (LNC) allows for multi-family residential construction (except on the ground floor),with a minimum density of 40 units per acre and a maximum density of 60 units per acre. The maximum FAR is 3.0 for development, exclusive of structured parking. Within the LNC district, the main development standards controlling the building envelope are maximum lot coverage of 90 percent and a maximum building height of 50 feet.There are no setback requirements. Both in the LNC Zone, Site 6 is a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface parking lot. These sites are corner lots at the intersection of Pine and Linden avenues, each situated on opposite sides of Pine Avenue. These lots are adjacent to existing single and multi-family homes. Each site is about 13,000 square feet, and under the current density standards for the LNC Zone, it is estimated that each site would accommodate 14 units. Grand Avenue Corridor The Grand Avenue Corridor district (GAC) allows for multi-family residential construction (except on the ground floor). The required minimum density is 14 units per acre, with a maximum density of 60 units per acre. The maximum FAR is 3.0 for development, exclusive of structured parking, and the minimum required FAR is 1.5. The main development standards controlling the building envelope in the GAC district are maximum lot coverage of 100 percent and a maximum building height ranging from 45 to 65 feet. There are no setback requirements. Site 12 is in the GAC district and is composed of multiple sites, which are currently vacant, parking lots, or occupied by a commercial building. a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface parking lot. These lots are on Grand Avenue, which is intended to be the "main street" of Downtown. These lots are adjacent to commercial uses, and they total about 0.8 acres. Under the current density standards for the GAC district, it is estimated that Site 12 would accommodate 51 units. 93 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Ownership Publicly-Owned. Many of these sites were owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency before it was dismantled in 2012. In the Long Range Property Management Plan, Sites 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 have been transferred to the City's Successor Agency for ownership. These sites are among the best near-term opportunities for housing development in South San Francisco. Sites 8, 9, 10, and 13 in the Downtown are owned by the City of South San Francisco. Under the DSASP, the goals support creating a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse downtown, and these sites can provide opportunities for dense housing construction to contribute to the vitality of downtown. These sites fall into three categories: vacant, occupied by surface parking lots, or occupied by vacant buildings. Regardless of their present state, these sites have been identified for future housing and mixed-use development through the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as in the DSASP. The City has expressed an intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize residential and mixed-use development on the sites. In total, these sites measure 6.1 acres with a capacity for 438 dwelling units under the DSASP. Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis The Downtown area is outside of the airport noise contours and any flooding hazard zones. However, certain sites within the Downtown area have been suspected of environmental contamination, which may require clean up, in order to facilitate housing development. These include Site 14, which has undergone Phase I Environmental Site Assessments; Site 16, which has undergone Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments; and Sites 6 and 7, which have not undergone environmental site assessments. As with the Transit Village area, the City Engineer indicated that infrastructure in the Downtown area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer,water,and wastewater treatment facilities. In the past, one obstacle to development of public parking lots has been the need to first develop a replacement garage. The City opened such a project, the Miller Avenue Garage, in 2010, thus creating the potential for the redevelopment of City-owned parking lots in this planning period. ANALYSIS OF ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES As described, housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village and Downtown areas are able to accommodate a range of housing types. • Lower Income Multi-family Residential. Nearly all sites identified can realistically accommodate densities of 30 dwelling units per acre or greater, which is a level of density that the State acknowledges is consistent with providing lower-income multi-family housing. Thirty dwelling units per acre is the "default density" assigned by HCD to jurisdictions with more than 25,000 people in San Mateo County. Housing sites that are zoned for a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre are assumed to be able to accommodate lower-income housing. • Residential Care Facilities,including Supportive Housing.This housing type would be permitted with conditional use permits and minor use permits on the housing 94 Housing Resources opportunity site identified in the Transit Village area in the RH-30 zone and in the Downtown area sites in the DC and DMX zones. • Elderly and Long-term Care Facilities. These facilities would be permitted with a conditional use permit on the housing opportunity site in the Transit Village area located in RH-30 zone. • Transitional Housing. As part of the Zoning Ordinance update, the City explicitly addressed transitional and supportive housing to assure it is allowed subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Thus, transitional housing would be a permitted use on all of the housing opportunity sites. • Group Residential.Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Group Residential uses would be permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the RH-30 zone in the Transit Village and the DMX zone in the Downtown area. Group Residential is a broad category encompassing housing that is occupied by persons not defined as a family on a weekly or longer basis. ANALYSIS OF ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE EMERGENCY SHELTER FACILITIES In accordance with the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City already has satisfied requirements regarding emergency shelters by providing an existing emergency shelter facility within its jurisdiction that can accommodate more than the City's individual need for emergency shelter space (see Gov't Code, § 65583(a)(4)(C)). South San Francisco's existing emergency shelter provides 90 beds, accounting for more than half of emergency shelter capacity countywide. In addition, as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update,the City identified the Mixed Industrial (MI) district as a zone in the City where an emergency shelter would be permitted as an allowed use, subject only to the same development standards applicable to other uses in the zone. Emergency shelter facilities are also permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the Business Commercial district. The MI combines the City's previous industrial zoning districts to provide an area that is appropriate for a range of uses, including manufacturing and related uses, small-scale retail and service uses, live-work uses, and social service uses. The western portion of the MI district, west of 101, is adjacent to the City's Downtown area, which allows residential, commercial, and retail uses. The eastern portion of the MI district is adjacent to Business Commercial, Business Technology Park, Freeway Commercial, and Public/Quasi Public districts. The City's existing shelter is located immediately adjacent to the MI district on a parcel zoned as Public/Quasi Public, where the zoning does not allow new emergency shelters,but allows existing emergency shelters to remain. Adjacent to the Downtown, the MI district is situated near a full range of retail services and is located near existing social service providers, including the San Mateo County Human Services Office, Salvation Army, the St. Vincent De Paul Society, and the North Peninsula Neighborhood Services office. Moreover, the district is served by several public transit routes, providing good accessibility to local and regional destinations. The MI district is large and provides numerous sites that are underutilized and could potentially accommodate an emergency shelter. Conversations with commercial brokers in South San Francisco indicate that there are several industrial properties for sale in the 95 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 district, many of which are marketed as "redevelopment opportunities." This finding was confirmed through a search of the LoopNet.com website, a commercial listing service for properties for sale, which showed multiple properties for sale with substantial additional built out potential or potential to replace warehouse buildings with different uses. A more detailed capacity analysis of sites in the MI district reveals that there are numerous vacant and underutilized sites that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency shelter. The Needs Assessment in Chapter 3 determined that the unsheltered homeless population in South San Francisco is 172 people. The existing emergency shelter in South San Francisco has 90 beds and is in a single-story building that is estimated to be about 8,600 square feet in size. Thus, two additional shelters of the same size as the existing shelter would be needed to provide beds for the city's unsheltered homeless population. Under current development standards in the MI district, an additional emergency shelter that is the same size as the city's existing shelter would fit comfortably on a parcel that is about a half-acre in size. Table 5.1-4 shows the current vacant and underutilized parcels in the MI district that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency shelter and accommodate the city's need for two additional shelters. 96 Housing Resources Table 5-1.4: Vacant or Underutilized Sites in MI District with Potential Capacity for Emergency Shelter APN Address Existing Use on Parcel Size in Acres 014091060 146 S Maple Avenue Open Storage 1.0 014091070 146 S Maple Avenue Light Manufacturing 1.34 014091 1 10 434 Victory Avenue Vacant 0.27 014091 100 124 S Maple Avenue Warehouse 1.5 014102080 70 S Linden Avenue Open Storage/Vacant 0.98 014212030 123 S Linden Avenue Mini Warehouse 0.42 014091 120 170 S Maple Avenue Warehouse/Vacant 0.52 015164070 326 Shaw Road Food Processing 1.15 014092180 141 S Maple Avenue Warehouse 1.53 Source:City of South San Francisco,2015;Dyett&Bhatia,2015. 5.2 Financial Resources The City of South San Francisco has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources available for affordable housing activities, including programs from federal, State, local and private resources. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS Through the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) program, the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments for a wide range of housing and community development activities for low-income persons. Based on previous allocations, South San Francisco expects to receive approximately $2.8 million in CDBG funds during the 2014 to 2022 period. In accordance with the policies established by the City Council, South San Francisco is committed to increasing and maintaining affordable housing in the City. CDBG funds can be used for site acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, emergency and transitional shelters, and fair housing/housing counseling activities.Additionally, funds can be used for activities that support the new construction of affordable housing such as site clearance and the financing of related infrastructure and public facility improvements. HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ACT FUNDS The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National Affordable Housing Act provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the Consortium's annual grant allocation. Funds are distributed on a competitive basis through a request for proposals process administered by San Mateo County. HOME funds may be used by the City for direct expenditure or may be issued as low-interest loans to a private or not-for-profit developer to jointly undertake the production of housing units that will be affordable to 97 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 low-income residents. Under the program, 30-year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded with the property to ensure future affordability. HEART South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART), which raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County. Formed in 2003 as a public/private partnership among the cities,the County, and the business, nonprofit, education, and labor communities, to date, HEART has received over $12 million in funding gifts and pledges to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County. LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act,the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a ten-year period, provided that the housing meets the following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20 percent of the units must be affordable to households at 50 percent of area median income (AMI), or 40 percent of the units must be affordable to those at 60 percent of AMI. The total credit over the ten-year period has a present value equal to 70 percent of the qualified construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value. SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30 percent of their gross income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment standard but the tenant must pay the extra cost. This program is administered by the San Mateo County Housing Authority. S.3 Summary Consistent with the City's long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing production. These include primarily sites for housing development, and a variety of funding sources,as summarized below: • South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need in the planning period. The City has no carryover obligation because it was able to identify adequate sites to meet its RHNA for the 2007-2014 Housing Element. There is sufficient land to support the production of 2,169 new housing units. • Nearly all of the City's development capacity consists of higher density housing sites (densities exceeding 30 units per acre), and all are located within developed areas 98 Housing Resources already served with needed infrastructure, including sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation facilities. • The City's housing capacity is found primarily in two areas: the Transit Village and the Downtown area. • South San Francisco has a variety of financial resources to support affordable housing production. 99 6 Housing Plan Based on the needs, constraints and resources identified above, the following section of the Housing Element sets forth South San Francisco's housing plan for the 2015 to 2023 planning period. The City has established this plan in consideration of its own local needs and priorities, as well as its obligations under State Housing Element law. The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related implementing policies. Accompanying each implementing policy are one or more programs that the City will implement over the 2015 to 2023 planning period. These programs are summarized in an eight-year Action Plan, which presents the programs together with implementing agencies, funding sources and time frames for implementation. Finally, the Housing Plan sets forth quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation and conservation for the Housing Element planning period. The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element. Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature. Implementing Policies: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy. Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated time frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the calendar year in which the activity is scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary considerations. Quantified Objective: The number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated, and the number of households the City expects will be assisted through Housing Element programs based on general market conditions during the timeframe of the Housing Element. Quantified objectives for the housing plan overall are summarized in a table at the end of this chapter, rather than being attributed to individual policies or programs. 100 Housing Plan 6. 1 Promote New Housing Development GOAL 1: PROMOTE THE PROVISION OF HOUSING BY BOTH THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY Implementing Policies Policy 1-1: The City shall implement zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply ofland to meet its 2014 to 2022 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 565 very low income units, 281 low income units, 313 moderate income units, and 705 above moderate income units Program 1-1A-Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory The City shall periodically update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels identified in this Housing Element. The City shall also conduct a periodic review of the composition of the housing stock, the types of dwelling units under construction or expected to be constructed during the following year, and the anticipated mix, based on development proposals approved or under review by the City, of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the period covered by the Housing Element. This analysis will be compared to the City's remaining 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any changes in land use policy are warranted. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame:Annually Funding Source:Staff time Policy 1-2: The Cityshall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Program 1-2A - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with State law, requiring new for sale residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty(20) percent low-and moderate-income housing. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:Staff time Program 1-213 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Review: The City shall periodically review the success of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SSFMC 20.380,to determine if the objectives of the ordinance are being met. Consideration shall be made to revising provisions of the ordinance to ensure that a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population,including households of low-and moderate incomes,are provided. 101 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development- Housing and Economic Development Division and Planning Division Time Frame:2015-2 02 3 Funding Source:Staff time Policy 1-3:As feasible, the City will investigate new sources offundingfor the City's affordable housingprograms Program 1-3A- Investigate Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee: Through participation in the 21 Elements group,the City will investigate the feasibility of commercial and housing linkage fees to support affordable housing. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division; City Council Time Frame: 2015 Funding Source:City funds Policy 1-4: The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers to promote the development ofho using for extremely low-, very low-,and lower-income households. Program 1-4A - Site Acquisition: The City shall work with for-profit and nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or developed with underutilized, blighted, and/or nonconforming uses for the development of affordable housing. As needed, the City will meet with developers to discuss and identify development opportunities and potential funding sources. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division and Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Time Frame:Annually and Ongoing Funding Source:Various Program 1-4B - Support and Pursue Funding Applications for Affordable Housing: Consistent with existing practice, the City shall continue to support funding applications for federal and state funds to promote the development of affordable housing. Responsibility.• Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Annually and Ongoing 102 Housing Plan Funding Sources: Various. Directory of funding provided in the HCD Financial Assistance Program Directory. Program 1-4C - Consider Waivers or Deferrals of Planning, Building and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Development: Consistent with SSFMC section 20.310.004, the City shall continue to consider the waiver of application and development fees for affordable housing development in order to support the financial viability of affordable housing development. Waiver of such fees will be on a case-by-case basis at the City Council's discretion and will balance the goal of affordable housing production with the need to collect fee revenues to support other City goals. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division; City Manager; City Council Time Frame:2 015-2 02 3 Funding Sources:NA Program 1-41) - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, SSFMC 19.36: The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires a minimum of 5 units in order to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division Time Frame:2015-2 02 3 Funding Source:Staff time Policy 1-5: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses in the areas designated as Planned Development Areas (PDAs), properties located in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations and along El Camino Real, consistent with the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Program 1-5A - Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area: Through implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, support increased residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in the downtown area to realize the objectives of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and General Plan policies. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Time Frame: Specific Plan adopted in February 2015; ongoing as development projects are proposed in the planning area 103 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Funding Source: Staff time; possible support from One Bay Area Grant funding for projects in PDAs consistent with adopted specific plans Program 1-513 - Support Grand Boulevard Initiative Polices: Continue to support the guiding principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative,which encourages the provision of medium- and high-density housing along El Camino Real in Peninsula communities, in order to create an environment that is supportive of transit, walkable, and mixed-use. The City shall reference this policy direction when considering future land use and zoning changes along El Camino Real, and assess the opportunity for housing development along this key corridor as development proposals arise. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:NA Policy 1-6: The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single- family designated and zoned parcels. Program 1-6A - Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units and educate the community about this program: Actively promote community education on second units, as permitted in SSFMC 20.350.035, by posting information regarding second units on the City's website and providing brochures at the public counter in the Centralized Permit Center. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division; Planning Commission Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:Staff time to promote program; second units developed by private property owners Policy 1-7: The City shall maximize opportunities forresidential development, through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. Program 1-7A - Continue to identify pportunities for residential development through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites: Through completion and implementation of the Downtown Specific Area Plan and ongoing implementation of the E1 Camino Real / Chestnut Area Specific Plan, the BART Transit Village Plan, the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zoning Districts the City will maintain an inventory of residential development opportunities on infill and underutilized sites with proper zoning to support both affordable and market rate housing development. 104 Housing Plan Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds (planning) and private funds (development) 6.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development GOAL 2: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO REMOVE GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, AND PERMIT STREAMLINING. Implementing Policies Policy 2-1: The City shall continue to operate the centralized 'Permit Center"in order to provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate housing development consistent with local needs. Program 2-1A - Expedite Permit Review: To support affordable and market rate housing construction, the City shall work with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; promote housing design and projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; provide timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval; and interface with community groups and local residents to ensure public support of major new housing developments. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division, Building Division, and Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds Policy 2-2.• The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewer, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements are already committed or planned. All dwelling units will have adequate public orprivate access to public rights-of-way. Program 2-2A- Ensure coordination among departments: Early in the development application process, the Planning Division shall work with the applicant and consult with other departments and divisions to ensure that necessary infrastructure is planned or is in place to support the proposed project. 105 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division, Building Division, and Economic Development and Housing Division; Public Works Department Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds Policy2-3.• The City shall continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an active interest in seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems. The City supports efforts such as the San Mateo County Sub RHNA effort, which seeks to bring the 21 jurisdictions ofSan Mateo County together to address common housing andplanning needs. Program 2-3A - Support regional funding programs: The City shall continue to participate with other government agencies to support regional funding programs, such as participating with San Mateo County in its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:California Debt Limit Allocation Committee Policy 2-4: The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes with existing neighborhood character and surroundings. Program 2-4A - Continue to implement adopted design guidelines: Implementation of design guidelines applies to rehabilitation and renovation of existing structures as well as to new construction. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division; Design Review Board Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds Policy 2-S.• The City shall ensure that developers and city residents are made aware of key housing programs and development opportunities. Program 2-5A - Disseminate Information on Affordable Housing Programs: To widen the availability of information to interested residents, the City will continue to update its website and other promotional/informational materials to include information on affordable housing, housing programs,and inclusionary units. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division 106 Housing Plan Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds 107 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 6.3 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods GOAL 3: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL STRIVE TO MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING RESOURCES, INCLUDING BOTH AFFORDABLE AND MARKET-RATE UNITS. Implementing Policies Policy3-1:Encourage reinvestmentin older residential neighborhoods and rehabilitation of housing, especially housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income households. As appropriate, the City shall use local, State, and Federal funding assistance to the fullest extent these subsidies exist to facilitate housing rehabilitation. Program 3-1A - Minor Home Repair: The City will provide funds to non-profit organizations providing free minor home repairs to assist extremely low- to low- income homeowners to bring houses into a good state of repair and maintain them as viable units in the local housing stock. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: CDBG Program 3-1B - Funding Prioritization: The City shall continue to give housing rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Funds shall be targeted towards older housing stock and to families earning less than 80 percent of AMI. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: CDBG Program 3-1C - Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation: The City shall provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing by supporting the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: CDBG 108 Housing Plan Program 3-11) - Financial Assistance for SROs: The City shall provide financial assistance, when feasible, for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: 2015-2023 Funding Source: CDBG, as available Policy 3-2.- The City shall maintain and improve neighborhoods through the use of systematic code enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs and other available incentives. The City shall focus on properties in older neighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town),Irish Town,and Peck's Lots. Program 3-2A - Enforce Housing, Building and Safety Codes: The City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes as well as eliminate incompatible uses or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures. Responsibility. City Attorney; Fire Department; Department of Economic and Community Development- Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Policy 3-3• The City shall continue to support the revitalization of older neighborhoods by keeping streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in good repair. The City shall continue to work cooperatively with other agencies and utilities concerning the maintenance of theirproperties and equipmentin South San Francisco. Program 3-3A - Capital Improvement Program for Older Neighborhoods: The City shall maintain its capital improvement program to upgrade infrastructure in older neighborhoods such as Village Way,Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town,and Peck's Lots. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development; Public Works Department Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Policy3-4: The City shall support the preservation ofpublicaffordable housing stock 109 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Program 3-4A - Support SSF Public Housing Authority (PHA)The City shall support the South San Francisco PHA in its continued operation and rental of 80 units of public housing. Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents Program 3-4B - Examine Displacement of Affordable Housing and Lower-Income Households: The City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop and evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents. The City will use this analysis, in addition to other analysis, to develop potential measures and programs and the City will implement those programs, as it considers and deems appropriate, to address the risk of displacement of existing lower income residents. Displacement might be direct, caused by the redevelopment of sites with existing residential properties, or indirect, caused by increased market rents as an area becomes more desirable. The City shall monitor any such implemented programs annually for effectiveness and make adjustments as necessary. Responsibility: 21 Elements, Department of Economic and Community Development- Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:At least annually Funding Source: City funds Po,&73-S.• The Cityshall strive to limit the conversion ofapartment units to condominiums. Program 3-5A - Condominium Conversion Limitations: The City shall continue to enforce limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are allowed only if they meet the following general criteria: a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists; b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City's available housing stock; c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting condominium projects; d. The project meets all building, fire,zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the time of conversion; e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan; and f. The conversion creates at least five (5) condominium units. 110 Housing Plan Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division Time Frame., Ongoing Funding Source: NA, Staff time Policy3-6: The Cityshall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing units atrisk of converting to marketrate housing. Program 3-6A - Monitor At-Risk Units: The City shall monitor its supply of subsidized affordable housing to know of possible conversions to market rate, including taking the following actions: a. Publicize existing State and federal notice requirements to nonprofit developers and property owners of at-risk housing. b. Respond to any federal and/or State notices including Notice of Intent to Pre- Pay, owner Plans of Action,or Opt-Out Notices filed on local projects. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:2015-2 02 3 Funding Source: NA, Staff time Program 3-613 - Assist Tenants: The City shall assist tenants displaced by the conversion of at risk units by providing information about tenants' rights, providing referrals to relevant social service providers, endeavoring to establish a funding source to assist nonprofit organizations that support tenants, and facilitating other support as appropriate. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:2015-2023 Funding Source: NA, Staff time III South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 6.4 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life GOAL 4: THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE, SAFETY AND HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS IS A HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. Implementing Policies Policy4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential de velopmen tin areas containingmajor environmental hazards(such as floods,and seismic and safetyproblems) unless adequate mitigation measures are taken. Program 4-1A- Review Projects for Major Environmental Hazards during the Environmental Review Process: The City shall review residential projects for major environmental hazards during the environmental review process.The City shall not approve the projects unless the hazards are adequately mitigated. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds Po,&74-2.• The City shall require the design ofnew housing and neighborhoods to comply with adopted building security standards thatdecrease burglaryand otherproperty-related crimes Program 4-2A-Administer Minimum Building Security Standards: The City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security Standards,of the Municipal Code by continuing to route all new development applications and additions to both the Police and Fire Departments to ensure compliance with the code and to ensure that security measures are considered during the design process. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division; Police Department; Fire Department Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds Policy4 3: The City shallnot allow new residential ornoise sensitive developmentin the 70 dB+ CNEL areas impacted by the San Francisco International Airport(SFO) operations and shall require aviation easements for new residential development in the area between 65 and 69 dB CNEL SFO noise contours. Program 4-3A - Ensure that applications for new residential land uses proposed within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study: The City shall require that the acoustical study be prepared by a professional acoustic 112 Housing Plan engineer and specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of the new units, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB,based on measured aircraft noise events at the land use location. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:NA 113 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 6.S Support Development of Special Housing Needs GOAL 5: SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SAFE, DECENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR GROUPS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS. Implementing Policies Senior Housing Policy 5-1; The City shall encourage developers and non profits to provide housing for the elderly citizens of South San Francisco. The City should encourage the development of senior housing in higher density areas close to shopping and transportation. Program 5-1A - Density Bonus for Senior Housing: The City shall include density bonus incentives specifically targeted for senior housing projects and permit reduced parking standards. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division and Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:NA Program 5-1B - Reduced Parking Requirement for Board and Care Facilities: Encourage development of residential board and care facilities for seniors by continuing to allow reduced parking requirements for these types of facilities. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:NA, Staff time Housing for the Disabled Policy 5-2.• Consistent with State law, the City shall require the inclusion of handicapped accessible units in all housing projects. In all new apartment projects with five or more units, State law requires that five percent of the units constructed be fully accessible to the physically disabled. Program 5-2A - Ensure Consistency with State Accessibility Laws: The City shall review development plans to ensure consistency with state handicap and accessibility laws and require modifications for accessibility as needed. Responsibility:Fire Department- Fire Prevention Division; Department of Economic and Community Development- Building Division 114 Housing Plan Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:NA Program 5-2B - Promote Disabled Housing Resources and Programs: The City shall ensure that its website and handout materials regarding housing resources, requirements, and services for the disabled are updated regularly and made available to the public. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division and Building Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds, Staff time Policy 5-3: The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the needs of disabled citizens. Program 5-3A - Accessibility Modification Programs: The City shall continue to support programs that provide modifications that make housing units accessible to the disabled. Responsibility Department Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:C D B G Policy 5-4: The City shall provide reasonable accommodation, as per SSFMC 20.510, for individuals with disabilities to ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of this is to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodations in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules,policies,practices and/orprocedures of the City. Program 5-4A - Reasonable accommodations: The City shall create a public information brochure on reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and provide that information on the City's website. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development Timeframe:Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Program 5-4B - Resources for the developmentally disabled: The City shall support the Golden Gate Regional Center in its mission to serve those with developmental 115 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 disabilities, disseminate information about the Center and its services, and make referrals as appropriate. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Timeframe:Ongoing Funding Source: Staff time Housing for Large Families Policy 5-5• The City shall encourage provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large families Program 5-5A - Support a variety of housing unit designs, including larger housing units that can accommodate large families: The City shall seek to broaden the diversity of its housing stock that is affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households to include more units that are suitable to large families. Currently, much of South San Francisco's affordable housing consists of single-room occupancy units and one- and two-bedroom units. The City shall work with housing developers during the entitlement process and encourage them to provide a unit mix with at least 10 percent of units having three or more bedrooms. Housing and Emergency Shelter for the Homeless Po cy5-6.• The City shall assist the homeless and those atrisk of being homeless by being an active participant in the County of San Mateo Continuum of Care, the county-wide planning body that coordinates the federal funding for emergency shelters, temporary housing, transitional programs,andgeneral housing assistance and services for the homeless. Program 5-6A - Support Continuum of Care Plannin . The City shall continue to be an active participant in the Continuum of Care planning process and support its efforts to address the needs of South San Francisco residents in need of emergency shelter or temporary housing. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City Funds/Staff Time Program 5-6B - Support non-profits that offer housing solutions and services for homeless: The City shall continue to support non-profit organizations that offer solutions to solving homelessness and/or provide housing related services for the homeless or at-risk homeless. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division 116 Housing Plan Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source: CDBG, as available Program 5-6C - Support Ongoing Operation of 90-Bed Emergency Shelter in South San Francisco: The City shall continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year round homeless shelter within the city limits. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:CDBG, as available Program 5-61) - Social Services for Housing and Homeless Prevention. The City shall continue to provide referrals to organizations helping families with social services for housing and homeless prevention. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City Fund/Staff Time Home Sharing Policy.-7.• The City shall support Home Sharing as part of collection ofpolicies,programs and practices for addressing the housing needs of those at the lowest income levels including seniors, those living with disabilities, those at risk of homelessness and female head ofhouseholds. Program 5-7A - Support and Promote Home Sharing_ The City shall support the efforts and services of the HIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternative housing solution for extremely low and very low income individuals and families; female-headed households; those at risk of homelessness; and others in need. The Economic Development and Housing Division will provide information about the HIP program, provide referrals, and support residents of South San Francisco who are interested in participating. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time 117 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Housing for Veterans Po cy5-5• The City shall supportprograms to assist Veterans with housingneeds. Program 5-8A - Provide referrals to Veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: The City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Resources for referrals include the Veteran's Administration (VA) National Call Center of Homeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint effort between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into permanent housing through a voucher program that allows homeless Veterans to rent privately owned housing. Responsibility: Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City Funds/Staff time Housing for Employees Policy 5-9: The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees. Program 5-9A - Amend the Zoning Code to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees. The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow employee housing in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5, to permit and encourage the development and use of sufficient numbers and types of employee housing facilities as are commensurate with local needs. Responsibility:Economic and Community Development; Planning Commission; City Council Time Frame:Within 18 months of adoption of the Housing Element Update Funding Source:City Funds/Staff time 118 Housing Plan 6.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing GOAL 6: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VALUES DIVERSITY AND STRIVES TO ENSURE THAT ALL HOUSEHOLDS HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE CITY'S HOUSING RESOURCES. Implementing Policies Policy 6-1: The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing. Program 6-1A - Support Equal Housing Opportunity Laws: The City shall require that all recipients of locally-administered housing assistance funds and other means of support from the City acknowledge their understanding of fair housing law and affirm their commitment to the law.The City shall provide materials to help with the understanding of and compliance with fair housing law. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:NA, Staff time Program 6-113 - Regional Cooperation: The City shall participate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to periodically update the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County, a report that helps jurisdictions identify impediments to fair housing and develop solutions. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:C D B G Policy 6-2.• The City shall provide fairhou sing information and referrals regarding fair housing complaints, tenant-landlord conflicts,habitability,and othergeneral housing assistance. Program 6-2A - Legal Counsel and Advocacy Assistance: The City shall support non- profits providing legal counseling and advocacy assistance concerning fair housing laws, rights, and remedies to those who believe they have been discriminated against. Persons requesting information or assistance related to housing discrimination are referred to one or more fair housing groups for legal services. Consistent with existing practice, brochures providing information on fair housing and tenants' rights are available at City Hall, public libraries and on the City's 119 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 website. The brochures are also available at nonprofit organizations serving low- income residents. The brochures are available in English and Spanish. As funding allows, the City shall provide funding assistance to organizations that provide fair housing, tenant/landlord, and habitability counseling and other general housing assistance. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:CDBG or HOME Administrative funds,as available 120 Housing Plan 6.7 Energy Conservation GOAL 7: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL PROMOTE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY, INCLUDING REDUCTION OF ENERGY USE THROUGH BETTER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IN INDIVIDUAL HOMES, AND ALSO THROUGH ENERGY EFFICIENT URBAN DESIGN. Implementing Policies Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation featuresin all new and existing residential structures. Program 7-1A-Assist with energy/weatherization and water conserving modifications/features in existing residential rehabilitation projects: The City will continue to provide funds to non-profit organizations that provide energy efficiency upgrades and/or weatherization improvements for very low- and low-income households. Responsibility Department of Economic and Community Development- Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:C D B G Policy?-2.• When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to respond to climatic conditions,such as solar orientation, wind,and shadow patterns. Program 7-2A - Continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for residential buildings: The City shall promote the use of passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential buildings to ensure that State residential energy conservation building standards are met. The City's Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in February 2014, also includes measures to promote energy efficiency,which will be actively implemented. Responsibility of Department of Economic and Community Development- Building Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds Policy?-3:The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving design and construction techniques in all types of projects (including new construction and remodeled and rehabilitated structures). Program 7-3A - Title 24: The City shall continue to enforce State requirements, including Title 24 requirements, for energy conservation in residential development 121 South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 and encourage residential developers to consider employing additional energy conservation measures with respect to the following: 1. Street and driveway design 2. Lot pattern and configuration 3. Siting of buildings 4. Landscaping 5. Solar access Responsibility:Fire Department- Fire Prevention; Department of Economic and Community Development- Building Division Time Frame:Ongoing Funding Source:City funds Program 7-313 - Promote Green Building Features: The City will utilize the following tools to promote green building and energy conserving features in new and existing residential construction. • In 2009,the City completed the Green X-Ray House,transforming an existing single-family home into an energy efficient model home. The City will use the Green X-Ray House as a public outreach tool to disseminate information regarding energy-saving opportunities, offering regular tours to homeowners and homebuilders as well as for promotional events.This home features an array of products including solar panels, radiant floor heating and recycled glass tiles. • Staff has adopted the Green Building Ordinance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: 2014 and ongoing Funding Source: NA, Staff time 122 Housing Plan 6.8 Quantified Objectives The following table summarizes quantified objectives for the construction, rehabilitation, and conservation of housing in the City of South San Francisco for this Housing Element. Table 6.8-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives, 2015-2023 RHNA 2014- New Conservation/ Income Category 2022 Construction Rehabilitation Preservation Total' Extremely Low 282 250 30 20 300 (Less than 30% of AMI)Z Very Low (30-50% 283 250 30 20 300 of AMI) Low (50-80% of 281 230 30 40 300 AMI) Moderate (80- 313 390 10 0 400 120%of AMI) Above Moderate 705 800 0 0 800 (Greater than 120%of AMI) Total 1,864 1,920 100 80 2,100 Notes: 1.Totals in each category are estimated based on site inventory, income category of existing units to be conserved, past performance in rehabilitation,and current and projected funding availability in the absence of redevelopment funding. 2.The"extremely low income"category is not formally included in the RHNA.However,cities are charged with addressing the housing needs of this population in the Housing Element.The extremely low income totals are based on an estimated average of 50 percent of all very low income households, per HCD direction. 123 Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 124 Appendix A:Accomplishments Table This page in ten tionally left blank 125 . p O O c v b b w - "L a0 a0 b b .ip' i >�i O O O U o w w b C4 3 E E 75 75 ` E E O 72 = E L C ° E L L Ld Ld Ld " w Ld W w W C O O O ++ o O p O cE a a a L' -c v v ao r a E E Oa .p O O E Ea U v d °u w Q b d Q Q w r O '-' O d N d v o T .3 bq lw c o 2 bv:_ YQ E b b v 3 °1 PQ wc O a i o y " O w " C T�n b a0= P o=p W U o O b Q a U w 3 w s " vc� ob b e s .3 E y p Y c w v u o '- E E o c b L c o a o w o b y � c ° " > ia= ° 3O o „ r� " Y°s vQ `O° w o uo E s w w o N E w O ca c a w y O a0" v wi. o r a' a L w ° d d ai o f w v° p v °o L 3 c c 'o 'o '0 3 2 a C a 75+ O C a 1tl U Y o C b b b U p E O is O w b ° O W W Y w y cwy N N N c w u t' o U w u O o w i �L w uo c d « E E E Y E w w a ao w w w w O u 0 o E c 'o a w - - - _ o° a- —S L U °L o'` o «b W 'o -2 o w = M Y > N E u 3 b w w b y L W C r w O v u u u LL w 0 F= D ud° E Hr °u D 3Hv.E-5 c 0" ` " L9 p "L C u w E T i O a0 ° L w 0 .n b b _ .t' U _ ° b a0 b`G a0- h w O W E w O L a L O c " YO ° b O E w ° " C 5��L w�I +'w 'a> w �� b c p Q w E w L cY Y w O Yw b 'b_ v O b c c X N cv o bwL w Z " " E c b a b� O O w N A u w ti O L O -E b Y w w d C w a w C i w p ° m - b L p C T w a u i C « w L ,Q b y L - '-tl "w E p w E 1tl w i w « Y Y N Q y 0 w L .n 5 .3 w 4 CO� w CO d�N C u i U C L wW O y o C w0 O C U Y w W p C ttl O T w> d L L >ttl W W W L o U O C a0 c _ " E w a b O w L " b O O " p a+ T w b w ti w `w 3 '� o w O > w s _ o o w °° ,n w= b c « w- "w a0 C O O 'a E O N b w y U w u w X �n w._ O E b aL+ b L u b s c i 2 `w E ao _« b b u O i +' a+ C a+ O C d.n b a 0 b y aL+ w aL+ a+ y i b `V E --o b b L aL+ p 3 3= b E b P v u J w u 'J O O N x h C w w a" .n O O raw 2 i 00 O O7 .- O > O U- O ._ E= O E .YON > 0 0- '"�o p >> L w L w d w y a w Y i w y w 0 .n T .Z O w c u w w !_' b .n V b to C b v w aL+b y O w E Q 3 w °._ > >L O L O > u N p L- L L O p O c L u v b i ^O a"+ b L O O O w 0 I� w u a+ N u h u w - y- O m C -0 0 0 d a rvi O s E v b " T y h aw+ > 'L o L 0 w e Yn E O w a w = E " o uwy�b w L uwup� uwup�o 1tl E c p O v Y C _ O T+ ° > Y c aLw+ Q L O = Q O L Q O T 3 O v „T, E i X b p z C L ti c w 0 O w w 0 w a+ ` w L w w 'e a w b 0'a+Lu O_ L s x w= b b w 3 w - _ Y T Y " a" � o` b ? p E a u4 b p H " O aLw+ wY w« m a ao E P E E b E o o �' w > w e u ao" w o y o t ¢ p 0 0 C Q I� E a+ a b b4�n a C w a b O N aw"+H^b 1tl w w T N T y >> o " ao 2 O w o.E s w y °' w -a o Y N Y- Y o ? v ? o c `o c > u Cd i %b d b w ._ v `p w v :- w a w E p'- ti w y C7 T= _ w E i C E T T b u W 41 O b4 W a c b W a C W b C p p w " N u ti h NT w E 5 « o y a• O v a' 2 0 a'N ._ 5 2 w i O 2 L,� '+ w _ b E o o " w > o w i c w v v p i �', a o i b a. w a v s v E _a u O aL+ p c O >.L w `,C w a w T w w O p T p w Q a Q b ._ ._ U m H b H O H b.� U v m w O w v a' W a 7 b O b 7 C > w p O y C b9 J U O wl t h w w W a "S Z b b b = c ,0 w w N00 = " w2 O u =O UO 7 ° b C d W O - u E w Q E ' y a p b E w T O = " bZ= Y = c EL Ov a b'p U u " = 3 b J 2.3 w w._ U m '� w Z O O c 0 O w Em w _ a Z � s ws 'Y'O wND 3 w E IQ w LL w «v w O O 3 i .0_a w b4 b i b4 a+ a s C b w p W Q N U > Z O o w a° E w ,o E - �',w w v �v a"'0 y c E o "� E v b a E E o 3 w a'o LL o-'o `o >w >w ` ° `o ° o `o >w Lt „� w ° L –� o7Q �2 – Q2 U00 a'�iQ UQ UN o!O Q W z a ° E _ to L 3 C ° " o a a v v ao 75!O E a N v _ w ^ E = H b i ° L N .Q = W W O p N h bq - - w U w "� C L L .E a+ 0 Q C b°0 a+ Y W ° L 0 b4 W h U p C E E E E C b4 C h W C O w a+ a+ O w= '0 d o y b4 a E L O -a j c « =° N o E CE 0 `o E d c i o w iw- aLw+ s i i T O O i w W C Q X u w i c c w C tC a+N- U c� a b of O v s h d p =O a L~ U p T U p T p H L 0 u w aw+_a 0 C O lo y m v p c o w U u v = L' w c U v Y w °o o p �a' E o 0 3 a F El-E v L 0 o o U o O w u 0 U ° Ha Up O p a o o O w 0_ p . 5 O O O a` -„E - _U 4 O E L L O ° H C Z w w o X w L E U U N b o w.2 u y a E o tL w y. v w LL �«�"- w v w w?w E ° w v 1tl i w «w w U a a w w w',p ° b ° a 1tl c ao w s c v o v 0 a+ b4 u T a n p pG ys y p v w O 3 0 w C_ w a"+ U. w p h w y w p w O ° p p w a C L L °U O " d O a+ b J b4 O b a w W 0 C b y bq a+ b4 b a+ a 3 aw+ C O y Y d a p0 O 't-+ C O b 3 C IE 3 E p p p i O w d b « u `0 a E « ` a b p H=o v w« b O a u o w 3 v v b w c a y «>'� E E p a w a o w w v m v >p �•b L i o E u w o w 0 c y U w a w 2 O O U 1tl 3 w c ° T Q b Q a aw=a 0 w c°.o a p w L "�m 3 v v >2°c o w «3 q i o« b °° U 5 w o a c E$ v ° w L 3 ;W;= d p b '° p " o C " w « E �n '^ ° u r N= w 3 w r is . b '.0 a U O w y rvi �' d ++L ap-+ E o L L a�' i Q u = 5 w 0 c c p ao E - v2 o 0 0 «_ �° ao N « n w N O N- LE L 1�N C d N U > O m C w a oa O N N U b C �n b 30 N p0 0 aL+ L x_ y b O w- O w p _.i'T__ h L- O O H E°vaiU m u° h vwi Hd Hm' �a `o O h U°O «° H °U2Z ° aNw'ZD O o w ° " w 3 ° ao ow I 0 aL+ b o L b +L+ w o 0 C . 91 p " T? U a O L a ° ; w X: w E b ° V °y o E I ow 1 C O N V w p a p C C w L > C p w d o w O 20 T w c p a ` w w ° v 0' w L-5 a+ - - a b w o O w I 0 O L ° , W w, O > E > = O = C w _ M w b a0 IV p ° _ O a"+ O c_ p _ w y O p O h E „ i p :� O c0 aLw+ 10 U a .n b .Y Oa o.�' aL+ w w o ° o ao y w b c ao c w 1tl :e w r = A o o w s a w vLa G w O v O _� c - o M O +'Q r o O i ` o= w " u v i = «b a c U L o v p w w w a w b O d aw+H T a E MY N o w w w C w U Ew ap « 4 v'�, ow a5 « aY cE « o w s p b 'o °qE �L w EL w °Qu > ao > w w s '�' 3 « u w .2 o-p 0, O.3 s ao w o w o d a+ p c O a C U O T y O -b p Y w a+ C E L O y w o v 3> 5 L E a w v b w u a �o E� O w v E O a`o y w w s ao b c ° o o w 3 0 b v O d Y o° eo w ° o E T b b" U O E v `o w w O ap+ M a.0 T p L �n Y c 'a+ E w a 0 0 E s 3 ._w v o L i E « w w .4 w v= u O x c w . w oo WE E b �3 L =tl v v ou L A Y w b v c o w v N U i i ao w « c b p L « C c c b y a 3 i s a .� s w w w w w « w b p o i w o `o w" w ;L_`o s d o o `w w o v > w o w �° > w U O °- o y o u c o C7 a H Y U c +' a a 3 av " a._ o = E i w o O a� y o `w a 0 u c v av w w Yv d a w 'O 'c a' �', 3 c o f Nv. av Q a w L b N b Q« ? a b ,., 2 i b ,� w w U U s m O 3 N b Y = C - w o w E o =a = w w w « w q'f - OJJ w w= c > b Y i L 0 u d w w °°W O D 3 0 c = a` v Z cau w w a b O c 0 _ o b a' c w E C7 D= - u' _ 3 ° v w w o c� w 'c w oa 0 w va ,O = a ' ` w y U w p y a aW 0 u ° v v w o i ` a w c° E O y w d C >d w U ° ?0 U d a Uu� Q W ltl c n w w m o a N M v F = a N N N N 3 3 ° Q p N O Q M M ` b `w w ^ E w s s s = b s o w 3 3 b E Y L h E L u4 L O O y u O W C i EO a a+ a+ w p CL d a+ c L L a y 0 0 .p'b 'b w 0 .p 'b O w O w s a+ O u b AL O N N� p i p o y T b 0 u E s o O ac L E v o Ic O N Q S E d 0 - h w b o w cU 3 u p o i e. am y o w, r� wo bw c b C U y N L a+ p0 U p ate ^Q O v aG w °J d O u o "2 O a c vp o w a y O O O O O O L E s s b C'c w ` E o is o v_'� w E? w v b w w v m LL u —s w 3 0 m Y O b Y s '> c p y >p 2 w = O 0 ti L N h 'L' yq is w w.o=coo w b s -5.u°o y M r� '�', =y Z E o o p o o w T v_ ZU« a'w woo ws ` � aor n 'p'�� «_ wL' `w � «$ N � Ewe _ b d Y W o I t ab,, b% � 3 ° b '^r h� � U VU U N o w l u o b y v 2 E � o « b 3 b c w o " '_' p 3 y t0 w C m U C LL > N u i p o d N YO a+ O w 0 b E O,a b_+ b c b u v= a0 ~ T U_ b N 0 " O d ° b v $a w y'3 E a Z 3 3 0 o w� c > app �, o s w w b w w w i v u aL+ o L' C w U m y ° a L = 2 o a c C d o u o b > O Y'r E c is Z O Y o v 0 w s a w e b b L p L y w L .c o E w > cb « bUH w s p L 3—_�s w ws °� ti w w N a vw�O «`i w C w w �-' N d y " J w u N p 0 E c y E v $ > w E o w , U�' w s w � �v c c 0 iE.p y «a b _o E ;� uw U L° w a's'o L' b w u >� w b a c w p w v v c O °°; O L H w w w > r v o 2 a b L-w 'a „ o,20 c y w U G a d o u i 2 2 C7 a' a. u X u o a w o w L U c E > c p w Y za b w « --S E ao ao p ° o p c awLO� Low ?a s w�Z b U E y w y=_ c s b a72 c c_NU z ym c'� 3 w w w e °2 w .A .o �',Z s s i wm Q -L i ° o b E w 5 s s 3 E w a ao 0 2 fw v w Lo c Y s c c Z ww 'p o w o ? _o o 3 E �hOOY b4LL � ddW wcvvv � MOV_ � aLwQ NwOV .-�' «—O� b Lbw „vvv Oosc C7YN > w > «C7 c� c'� r o? r U " T ° U `� w b4 0 a w w '- m = = o m— u L b4 p L'> M N c d N L N s ° >w L O '� s w p c DU h h hUUD LLdH OZ O w r0 b v r y0 c H a0> _ bba HOH.� 00000U� d da aN HN ON b4 ao w ° w W b E o o p H h p O L > i .� g C w a — b N L aG b 30— T L w vim^ o b O— O w > w h Q b c O s H ° 3 S o w b o ”Lo v w ° o b E I o" w bq w b O b a bq L O= p b c C ° �_ O b O i �j s w L b b -y F pp " .p w ° O O a+ N w o W h b4 b b C w s O y w E i o w -9 C w b s o ° y m ` w E O c 0 O p b d w >v w « - :o w M oo E v v v o o w Lw w w O b O m w d o E s a+ b v a0 Y P w w o b C L O c E b b .n b > O w O C7 '� h o y 3? o o c b 3 o ws - �= i 'w E o L 0 1 9 >o ; O w o ppp.pp .¢ o b4 C ywi ab+b o m U p 'a o LL E awLOc 3 « E y ao b �� b y w w « u. L o b L° a o v '�Z v « o b w uo a ,V/ o d 0 S oL N .�s w = w i i CO L a i w U w L U N b y Z a O o = b ao = b w v OA w 0 7 o Q v o _ w c b 2 y 2 w O v E ?° c wo E aoo0 m E `w o = 7 a w ° W a w ° O a+ 0 p m 0 b O O O = C E p p o a. H L O ° w O p O Z d Z w u U c w E a d w Z Da U wa'Z ii a' aL b EZ wv1tli W Z UaZ Q W o E � M H V d O Q lE Q Q CO < d o voi F F l a N U' M v E M N t E — i a 3 3 b ao U w b w a`o E L a = p 0 O w o y o L O w - > a L L L u u d E Q ` O w i 3 i b ti o 2.w >'o E E E o i E W O E EL N u_ b b�Oq E o wu o.f N 'Y O 'Y O w O >« b u c 'Y c O Q a C`w > 'Y a OC d uu C L Z d M 0 i O O aw+ Q w b w U h b > b Y L w L0^b U o t �d E o U u o 72 L O o c b w o L w «_O w L+L I tl LL >N O N p O d _ C o w w = o o E u °L cu d i o v E b o om w y O 0 L Q o 0 0 = : d I L u 0 > O b-2 +' p O D D E o c o 'T' w +' 2 v 0u b L c 3 w C b4 E c u e p 2 b o O r L o o o w C' N �_ cc > W O c b w c W E U = Ci O M O b CW>L w O b b O w c ao a u = = O o o O v o °o L +W b w O o E E w o ai > O c D 0 Z L w > o E 0 o a O w E o E W L ° b C W L O a t aw t�0 b N N b N Oy o 0 = 'a 0 O w \cN9 L h w- b cc w p w 30 w E O > d= E w d ao" y_ E cc ao N E b Y N «L w 2- w w b o�n w j O p'N i L s M > O'}, w 0 _ o °' U = = b > ab+ O L L c W s i w -C Oa a+ X h c w . L c y P � - c v� a+ w b w L L h b w a v w w w y _ P w � a L w _ b w ao Q w o E b L E = o E a.v o o w y E C E h �, o w c>- n L +' O �,s O v O s _ _ 0 b O w p O 0 b w 0= 0 =O a0 w w " w V b'_ w _ c p yq" w.0 w U w o s v h E O a+ W T a 0 � O E b4 c aUw+ u ,w, 2 i — E v v w w c t0 L t0 m d w O LL M -w i s _ d d H c v +' p 1tl w 3 w s O p w s y v o i o 3 Y y w w w w W o '° c b w a o U v H N E U - v'"i c �n ao a00 w w b b O E N u O a O O b L O a+ C_ b4 w cc C Ic b b4 L _T c„ O b E - _ a b 0 v > Y E w O _ w c. w w > E h v L O 'a+ c 75 o O , w w L O i Q O w o E E v ao .� L°'0 o o f b w w C7 d o p o i v L o b 0 b� _'� b u w do o `a vLa b `w O 75 o 15 b TQbQ L0 «� XaT+ b C O « " Oa bL Di ESc U C w O aw+U b b U b a W C C C h o y L L « w r u w E L _ o w d o - o = w 7z o bq O o w b 11 tw' '� O a b4 b4 �-' a .�LO 2 C E 1tl 0 `u d 0 v w '�, w a w P wy v O o b a0 O'h > O 0 b w Y C b u s w s i Q b T b I w 'p b4 V w c o b ao.3 L E o w'� °0 w > .p o b b_o. o E '0 a E '° y a+ O L U > C a+ E N — a+ a O a y C E _a i w L b O w O.L a C L Q N a LT a+ 0 N O O d w w b O a+ >C > p b w b O O c s w w E u .z r o,� w p w c 3 w v c o o ,w, o AL v to o w b voi w w i o°w > E = v 3 `-' c v L v o w > ow w i h b L O E O o,o� �i O w h = p O O b L w pp a - 'y b y, T b b b h W b-2 w O 'p"'i v °1 E i "� '�' y o °u o w w °q-O N o N > b «v N a= « w o o L s w h a c s u L w T L O w w L'h T'- OL 0 y d N O�w w w .4 L O w o O i b T+' w U« E o .o c E > o =L a c y p a p w i b O s " p b 0 o y_T -2 > b c O c w a p w w v O a0 lL�L O b uu 74 0 °. = c v_ °°w U b � O w « w w E w y w o w E w .e w o =Z .d u c .d p v J �v L o �.X o ° o w a o o L o o Q� oQ o~ wH o o 'w b "0 .2 o a w oL w a$L H o a a U b u v« d F vInO a` b a`v a E a+ c � 0 c E w Y E W ,eq b L o O .p O p Y O 7 w o boa I w a w Y w w 7 > b o w E o o d b " L 0 2 .i' w b O w w 0 C 'y w w C w b4 O. �O b w= 2 L i0E x v "Q D w '�, E «b a =L w a a N �O J Q o w N, 0 "_ 0 9 w a+ 7 a ao o w L o v v o v ag « b p E o 0 3 = ab+ W W b4 W p W O b O L W L C o C ? =p � Y O y O y > O > b ~ Y L c >>O L C w > LO =h LO = d v Z waw' a`2 >Q2 E2 wU FU o a`Q �dQ E a` oin Q W ea E lC c n m W P O O O V F = d O v T i = T y O y ry u 0 C E h w '3 w —cw9 w 07 ' Q C O a 0= b4 w L _ U C b a W U w w O 0 g I i O O d w b F a L ow!.3 w d O p m >° _ U E E E j L O O O O 75 U o ti U v U 3 U U d K v L b Y w n 1ao v —"0 O O wy ia L O c T 72 o u h s p:L—a L cci v d b = C L J L w c 0 i ° e o 0 h L o y 5 p 0 i 75 s w U U O E w Q Z w 72 L a 0 O 75 -,4 3 w °o a os � `oo C ._ 3 w o w o> o y ' = v v w a= c b w i s b b b y aw' _ — s L Z b v b b a+ yq a+ a+ O L p d b > w b O" Y h Q b w i d L b E C w L o Y N U« b o u L b a u d u b i. 2 ° U 6o 75 L L U w . a� E U s o `o w w o «°w o w U w 3 .`O_ s 3 w m' w LLL b W p L y W Y h W �_ w j b d o Y b 3 b Q o 0 0 T O p c `o 3 - o y o = «u c `�' 3 > 0 � ._ T L° 0 E —O o — w E w L y, '> i w w _ E s v o 0 `o o `w b > = a o °1 a 0 i.v v w v o.�w m w a u�v E w w ._ E w N!2 w s c o Z s L o v v b rv�i Cate+ i «° a— o b h w 0 0=w w w w?a b p w 0 v�_ O O w C w Y T C C v w ab+ aL+ L C d Y W C w y ° c > - i Y w'c U r w o y a b w y�.w L'� i LL--0 H w E c « i b o E a E u L E o C7 g '° g i v F '° E T s E p w `_w y d= w w H E L o b e ° 3 w.e v ao a ` « b c T p +' a'b 3 b a L ._ u_ a « b« w .- T O u i O w c O �= =wL sa «° 'iw L =� w L ow w L o 'off o�Y `w -E LL h ° L y b 0 L Z O `w w e y w L w b p o v w v ° ° w a' « Dv 3 Ha U HU�Q b H v Hv�U oa'Z�nZ w �n Hv D E wU �n c w > o w w b y-w M L b °c m 10 —0" � N O E `o x'S c s E o a i b s w 0 w i =b U O E Y w ` `o o 3 a - o Z o «° b c- E w i._ O w w w a+ b w v U ao c v Q oN v y b is v w ` c E ° v° " " Y c E °o L a v ° OU w b a h N c b O w N N u aT+ Y L w w c F L >: j y p O Y Z j E O p w w w U «s w Y w L b N p b s E w o E > v E s 0 O O 0 1 3 w - u w .2 w b U w O O ° E L Y o a Y = d of d 4 w E _ C ro_cp v L+w_-_. uw. O oO 3P o E w y _ 0 s C w b L w w E w s w oZ s a v �i a _c T N w= - E b .Y w w Y c a c ao o o 0'� b E ao c w E b b N b v O b a+ a�n ll] b C b w j N- ro w E = w U 75° w O C d d b b w " d w O bq w - b P a+ ° 3 b 0 72 bs '+ « U w w L _ p c w O d° u C T >b a O b v N O O o v w w —ao e o o L b L v C L w. .- w 0Z E C = w. w = w E 3 p w u - p a: o E u c w ' w 'S U a a ` O ao b w E i d b U w u N� y c O 0 w 0 w E b « u V1 E w w w W v t 2 i s y = w ,� c " b« ,0 E „ w« w v Q = v w w w « a— 'E w m' o y E w E O d w D w ao Y E a E o ° °- Z `o - w 1 LL w w QU L v w Z v �i P b b i Q>a.�o• c L 0 w a 0 O o' Fv ° o O = U ° p O «u" w U u o a o o E 0_ v P a w O am h O b ac o w aO`O a a U No.Q W o E ° V1 a o a a a M m Q ltl N m v O — r v M `p F 2 i v v v U .n — v E w — L p L — .Q \c°.o w Y Y Y E E y u p c c 0 ° O b d C O L h y y W w w N O O O b b�O j p i U_ U_ _ UO W c = O O O O is is O i s c0 CL d a a a a c > O o ap+ E ap+ ap+ ap+ O ap+ ap+L ap+75m" ap+ ap+L yps yps L i d K aw' i d d3 N � c o 0 Q 72 O s O O O 2 c w> o � H r d w x C J o y L O L > 4-w a+p�w O 02 u O p O72 L O U H L O O C w Q w o o LL b w-d o u a 3 o a 3 c`o w o G v v u E v'"i 1tl M w ao c i v b- v " - i s c U = c w LL c E w w o c O o c�Y o ° .o E � E `2 w� E �2 aoa « cF O o a �, wL-2 ` O w 4 OL b �U a wQ ao� v°i v U b ao pwU v w.H 75 u o w O b L b C T o Q N -72 me O h 0 N c UQs v O C E �� iaV �w L C "o 75 L a w 0 o L C_ C' b4 E-- i _ a+ aw+ C ° ° cw T L N V O c O? N w O o o c w o y .>o ° w w E o E U .� O y -7 b L om aw+ E„ U i b w d p N wm p O O L > w O y b`O s O Y T .mow > > > > F E 0 T L i O O O O M LO w L u u C 'y �, L b a+ h " b " w 0 L' i p p p p N O p �a N 2 y UU h > > C U = w b L U ap+ t0 w N L w O y'- a w w 2 > aCp+ a+ a+ a+ w a c y 14 o E « E v ` b E d P'> v v v v L S'.v LL v E m 3 p L 4 o `- E v o b c b s w i = a w w w w w a p p ` O v N y w « E c E c n.o E > > > > oQN bLL L O b4 W W W wYJ Y 0= O w U p w c `� ao L E w c "°p >`w L v w p go I p Y o 3 v� o n O v o o ff o «.Y 0 0 0 0 `o -- >w� Y c p O= v O O N _T aL+ E is U b T p O _ _ _ _ C w o.Z >O 7 C N a L?b C h E a+? ,L_' h O a+ .� ._ > O d i aw+._ E y m >p 0 '_ w E �i w O w E -ai C N N aT+ > O aT+ '. a L"p `= U 0 c w H > �',w_ a i= u o w ° "U v a a° a° a° U o - U c ao LL T o E L L b E L p w v w s- d> w s u w �U s u w w w w r is "A y w E o j. o w w c a w w w w w s o s H3 H ._ pv« HQu« 2H ` HF 3a' H�Q s n a0 w r o L 3 >N b v h O Y 0 � w w E W� C L b E a"+ L o O w w O L w w 2 b y O w .- w s O O h p +' y h b O w c 3 w +' `w� c O L v_ b E_ w t E o w YiaN L� w v y w " �O - O Q T d C O O E- 3 u Z E = w N w `w b L c o u.o o y E Q T `v o w °q v E o a L o w c - w w E b r '- " w L yo w o 'a " p w U'o i y b° o a a w a0� y v ow E o w o y o b .- U O w b E A o h 3 w � w " = w -- N V o O L b b L° O U d T N E ttl i 0 ao d v _ E O o b 9 1 y -L V' - 1tl a c w C O O E a L L b .> c Y O 4 o a+N O u E w O E E a+ N = O W C C O y b b x L E b4 L �y O > O O p._ C= N UL4 E O w' �'� O o w U 4 w O >72 p O aoo b -Qo y a Y a w 0 .p= d� N C E E W w y w w L i w Y W N L b C ° i N U`� O p ✓' E o.Z E c bL L b 'L' wr a+ o sw O t c a0w w YO p W C b 3 O oO T d T O L b d W i `C�= �• L O w y sI O w'Y tC aL+ " u y OL b O Y " w !d p i w= T O i U p v U 'tm wwo a w H w w p i e E i ° y b o- O w O y Y r E o @°,LE° r ao c b o b ao' y C d d d E O O N O w w a °.� O p p ap+ w Y p E ou aw ` O o E�° o E b i w w " y w w E °-' o � v O O a b .n a L p O O o w o,a"+ O y c o u y 0 d V s w u w p w p h E E p w p 0 O L C w v- y,L C L b w C w o w �n w w w= c p O b T> p 0 c 'LO o `� 72 L « E 'c-- 'c `� C y 'c E� Y u� v V C u^ w o o w'b a+ a+ w w a+ a y a+ w 0 > O T b O E E O w N O X o > w Q i U ° Q v v a` w` v U `o U s ° U° U« U = ° > O a « r w c c o ` - E o = w o v o o L WL l�y� b O b C« « i i u O c v LL w QQ °U'3 Q E x b U w y L w a b4 u U p H Q w b4 O w w O 0 u ° w=0 d 0 w w" ° a w c p w E E x I w V u o O c4 w O b T w w O w p w 72 O w Q O +y' p x cd x w O o p - N� O n W >x E p U'-J o o Q v x o oN `g `w °v uwo b y ml ml O = 2 w« W T w E bLL w o U ao �° w L° H w o v ao b W w >` •y Z ,�Z U v o w « i `w o-` O `o_w H'p o b p c F i c L c i o w h w o ° i° c w a v E v a v v " w E �', > � w a E E p p E o O ` @° a v w Z F«D w$ aQ w� 4o Ana 2 �i0 .n'0 �ixU Q w wQ2U QW LL ea E lo � C O c Q [a D` O O O O O O — N F = a ul of — — — ul ul u �O �O b v b v M ° Q b L — 3 o b L L v LU L r 3 3 v b 0 Y0 o w w w w w E T b L L d O d d w O w E O E c C E C L N C w a oC d d U U d V v 00 b p0 O `w 0" cm b O d b y ywi b T _ O 2Y'3 w co_" b w W L p W W bq w w « p w w T O w.-yo'o E n O E w w w «oc'-' O w p o y L b b W E a+ b b �''N L a+ u E o N v p Y d b w �y U b " O y i O -u Q T w O O w O u U E E `w b « E .� c Y c o w L b w c E u � i « m b4 d C N 75 w L w y 0 d C C v y C E w X E L ° = 5 b L L L L C7� w L 0d^E o O? 01 °U b b b b b o w Q'° 0 L°v a b G b ao c w U D b i > v w � w E E E E E c b L E w- "y c.c ao>0 E,Y v v v v = w o a 0 Q Q Q Q T w v Qu o G w v °u 1tl 0 c v b� E o o uo o ° a a a a �-' y= w c U U E b o v U y E'- w w w w b E w 0 w L p L w w L L 0 L d u H O d O w w aw+ O O w p y x v v o X o '° E c B E E L L b w u L o b O 0 ac o Q L«1tl E L d L m O E` uo o c E v O d y >O �i E O n w-0 w o 4 E b . L o p u o E — b ai w r b Ld N o o w d w i s wE O 0 0 > = 0 b w a+ W Ld d 3 L.LJ b O O U � o 0 p C 0 v a 0 b O O ° 0 C T b4 c b L C C U E ° b d C L Q a+4 w Lw ° 0 w w «N v o b E O O 0 C u O 0 " u C Oc 0 w C c A 5 p 0 0 w� ✓ O O wO O >w � C- L a = L L o o Y 0 E ° O v d w w v aw eL+4 sL c Y> > w O O > 4 O w 0 O E L d , O L E p L O O v i U C a 0 C C O U y° s b ° Ya+ u O E v O b � 0 O O LL O w O> O N O w w O O C w N w b a0 uw L C ? . L O v L N E O d E aw+ ewq aG CL 75 0 75 p w b E o ° o v w L > o w$ — v O w O O w b° 1 O 0 b U b b ao L' b O d � i u "LL v w 0 a0 jw 'y p O w w i U O N >N b i T W b w =0 Lu a T 0 0= N b� iy W w p W O j O LL t y — O W U c s w > t �d m C_ y b a0 O b T o = v 2 o f o u_ c b d w « c w = = ww y v_c Y w L z d C O b O w 0 0 O O W o O w °q3 y a0 is w E U S"0 tl « w av U w �w''y u u o s >o o o 0 E° o z H$u v w u aE ULL n W ct w i b aw iiK we�� ti 0 L lC O N N N O Q m N M ? v°i F F 2 i .o .o .o .o v e Q e 0 a v e v w 0 S 0 v a Q x v v a a Q e -1�o v: �� m e 0 e a e 4 EXHIBIT B 2014 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT M c O 'y m L = O L i (D O c 40- E O +�+ L M (Q CL Q L .0 L O a � L O O L cv W a Y N i a C1 L O (� V CY) q'T M W O 0 0 Q F 0 V N — 0 C7 GO') Q O a m Q LO Q 0 C U N a O o U a = (1) •� ii = C (D a c W ry > a m W cn J ` 0 W >■_ z � o v >% z � � (D 0 U) > .� a Q °a) c 0 M c U- o y E 0 CL CL z O cai) 00 Q o > 'y N m 0 m O 0 U (n o (7 L 7 7 -w L E O >% E `� O G1 (D O 5 CL O 0 w 3 a c�i c�a vii c>a H y N o L Q � N 0 RD N In O C 7 _ t V! 5 O cc ?r N in o C v u Q N W Z o E C N R E it �, O 7 LiS d Il O 7R = U 4 ,I Q z = R c R 0 L N ) N O 'a O r O L ) V y Li N E E 0 U � V! N N CO (ff a Stf CL O C O Q D O W N U) 0 2 4 ° ' o Rf co LO N z Qo LO Q M'M 2 E +.� a) a� E (D "t3 V O O E c( c Z ry Q ° w U 1 E ! Q (D 4 '� u N N w �- 4 � w rte+ T- r c N M C a� E Q J 'IT �> 15 o ° as ° Q E — � w Z = o � 0 �U/� N r -J °1 � E O Z E Q 4- O Q U a O N w _ Q7 0 a tC < m J o d LL a o z m Q �' 2 � c 'o wo > a 0 2 0 O N 'a O > _ r_ J (n O C7 E N cu E O _0 N i �_ O W Z O C K LP c E W U) CL vQ c w O O a) N O E n H O L Q Z c � cv U) y Q 0 M Q N 00 LO N 7 LO LL LL LU C V •� N (yj O O m D a 00 3 N 0 _ o � U) U a� � Q 0 LO g U O N M U E 0 Q :3 O N 0 0 O Q E : � r L E O o a o ° U) 0 o La- U) 3 Q Q �W _ � M JCL o Q Q LL N t 00 (� �1� = O V N ° O ccfl N o� Q fn c � E Cl) LL C :3 � J Y.+ N Vm I- Q c Q r- O OD ~ cl) 3 Z Z Q t� o _ � � _ v W U 0 o o LO W W r 0° J C�+ W O ,= c o �, J CL ; � Q o 0 0 0 Q Q a) E c O N o - \ _� O O Z cr) T Z Lo ' � Q E C V c ) N 4 0 O O O O a Q a) E .s LL Z `o N (n m 2 N N (n Q H 7 Q 0 E O o a E >> (n O Q Q o 0 c cn 0 � O o n -� U (6 O p N O .a a N N D N O t N c m L L of d Q 0 - - - - 0 +r Z u 0 L Q � N w O O z 0 N O W � N O E _ 0 N O O � V — O a O Q °' > O N o C� N 0 °a L M N E c Z � ~ E = ri ? o 0 � W cn U) O W) WWv °jai cq ° 0 }' N N Q O Z = CD � a, Z c ?� N a Z � < O O U- cv y 2 C) Q :o = N � N N ++ O O O = = > r E rte+ E N fn O D L O a 0 4-0 0 Q O o 0 0 0 +r O Z Z `-- Z u ch O L Q N z Df LO oo LO cl) O N N M E C O a5 � E — a) T D Ul CO co � O N 5 a) a3 ' O a3 O O O O O O a) � } H O O O O O O O } 00 a o CL = `° } O O O O N O N W O � 0 v w � L O GO') 0 } O O O O O N N 0 LO m Q +-� N a� y (1) �. W ry a� Q U ,� U a� M E .y } 0 J � O = E o > aO } O O O O O O O a) o o � � Z U cr) CN Z a U oo° O O Co N C Z , u) 0� >,-FD LL -a a'� 0 Z T E Z .2 J M N M M M • 3 � Ul Cl) O W 0 O t U = N Q o E r D Q 3: -6 O C o o) O a (n C) C O N N N N Z O a5 cL U U U U 2 >+ `as a 5 aa) o aa) aa)i aa) o aa) U E O } O J Q'Z Q'o Q'Z Q' O C -6 N a) d Q E Z a) Z 0 o Z o .N v U J m � m N a� t > m E c N Q W O J < H W L Q a) 7 Z 0 0 c a � n o .o o N n 1=01 Q Y -0 c c c .--� O O � .0 CO N O C U = C N co A C O o 3 m e U CO n C c E o 2 c = Z o o c c O o 0 O S c cy) o 00 N 0) a s a CO oo n Q o co LC! O N U N O U O1 .0 .7 O CL j N CB M U `O O- d o UO N > ++ N O ..-� N cn C O CO C 7 Y V N L Q N C O 11 O U O N C CO ° •� E ° O C o o CL c c n '� 13 N N ) CO .2 v a cn m ° 2 o 0 0 � m 2 ° LL CL V O L (6 c (/J �.-� 0 �.-� N c a C _ ._ CO O U 0N L - O OO U O L 7 jC C p v> .O C O O O d C C '� 5 Q O CO M Z V N n C U O0 ° 3 � o = o -oo w ) • CY) cn 3 o H co W O (7 O O W a O O S C --� p U C Lo ° 0 w m Q °° w in t0 cu �+ 3 o w n 3 n o c o QUO N 2 2 0 a c U N � C- cN C o C > n Cl) N n (D O t o aXi 0 0 W Q� W 0) 0 H H m Z z H � z ° 2 0 n 0 ^ N > N ° LL N ,V n O _ N cn o N O W m c N O o rn 4 N cm m d E cu E < O o LL �1�1 N Q a E 6 � ~ W c� C r ( E Q C co Y O1 U O 70 N O > C o '� o m CO � Y W O Q U � °- a o a o 0 o s 3 .o CO Q) c U O n � o n o C U cn •o > a � � o m o `o c o o c c a c U J V 0 0) U > 0 c o a o 0 0 o �► L = O cB v o m ° c o o .W `° aci > CL c m a : Q o 0 o 0 n a 3 J y a 0 o n Q E v cN a� 7002 o � Y c Q U E 0 o a o 0 0 > o E ° cn O � N C N W N C E C C O O O O 3 L N n ._ 7 N 7 O U 2) N O N D > > o S c E E � ' Z O N C N U = N (0 0 0 m o Q U a C Z Q cn �. o cn LL z > _ Q E c � C/) cu a o 0 C) o z E O -2 > 2 N E H D cu cm N 7 Q (U/7 0 0) O = O O v7 Q CI) O OL d w a (6 i cn (n O O 0 O O a O .Q N m U L U z a a a co 0)> a 0) D .� CL V 'a c0 O 0 > t/! Q 0 2 0 0 O O >, d CL C U C O t O n CO U C o N o T n o m n .n v m m > c) o m C N 2311 N m (B c d .� ° O U -C " N O L 0 0 U > `� N W c 0 N N N a m Z- 0 n an d c U U O Q m O 0 N C 7 tl) O C N = -0 U CL -0 ° `~ L c c N '0 0 0 ° N C C O 7 c .0 > O c n U a 0 n O � -r (n -O O N O � O U) O O A O c '3 7 m .2 U c _ n Q m n -0 Q) ° o 2 a) U° o o m m o 0 ° � LL CL 0 co n m a>i d o v ° m c o � �° '� O n H) cn -r � ° 3 U > U U o c> > °N U) c O a m LIL, X_0 -Q Q 0 ° -0 3 C) .vQ O O O C N -O cn a 0 C a) m m ° X C U C C o 'O A .">' N >O U vU7 0 O 'O d m > m > ° ° 3 E m °° m e -c° n ° m O ' �° m U g 2 Q ... 7 =O .0 0 tl) LL c cn 0 On c -°0 o C °' E c " d o ".' a C 70 .cn 0 N 0 2 C N U 0 N -O ° m ° O O U 7 0 0 "�' a c U C 0 O m U v7 -0 m 'O °' - 0 C � n N C N > n c 0 o o o m Q) o 70 o — o 3 o m d c Y a ami m a ° c (D (D o aci O Q U n �° d = a m m o Q o o d ° ° a c 3 a s ° '� °° m o m d m -0 mo d ° o c U ° c m c 3 a n E ° 0 n m CO C 3 3 ">'' L 0 O co N C Q N d m 0 C 'C 'O 0 O' 0 0) 0 m N m v) U -0 0 >, Q' m 0 m U 0 CO ° m � o U c c m (D U 's c m -0 O d U 2 a U ° E n '0 J m a C > 0 C 0 0 � a C N Q O ° L n 0) 0 aj `T ° m c_ O m c o H 3 o c c m (D ° c a o ° S > a 0 � LL a) N X -: `n a n .2 o 0 -0 m Q n 0 d C 2 m > 0 W 0 0 o c 0) s O E '� o m m o m v o U c �° n ° CO m (D c cn 0 0 c O ° U m o °' n .3 m m c m o U w S m ° ° '> cn ° cn = o o U m N oN m o m 0 'c cn t ° n c U) m o m m c - o c c � E m ° Q o m o m m n N m 7 L O 0 0 L Q' U z ° CO n `m m a� N ° c ? p Y D c (n U > c O c Z5 0 c C- O U m a E c n a w e m ° a > o ° a°i m m 3 m c c v ° n n m O C :� U 0 n (n 0 L C C 0 0 N L 0 L 0 O L 0 U N n p 0 t CL .� 7 Q 0 D U) O U 0 m LL -0 tl) m tl) U ° ,�.. � 0 d U m 0 m LL cn 0 o c o CY) CY) CY)o c c c 0 0 0 0 U U 0) U 0) 0) 0) O O O O cn O 0 0 C) Y AU LO O A -0 -O z C U c m 0 m Uj O m .- o O � CO c � CO � (6 Q d 0 > N cci m m E aci s o m ° mo °C `O � d n ° a 0- U 0 C m n 0 CO -0 -0 'U - v) 0 n .0 ° `� C 0 m ° ° m 0 0 � = N -° � 0 O O 0 c CL 0 O 0 X a 0 c '� > N C 'C .c = '(D O U) � 0 c (0 N > � o ° ° m 3 m m ° ° 3 0 C 0 a (D T c a 0 o a c a '3 T S O c cn o m ° c 70 m Z c n — o c ° ° a m ° ° ° c CO m o -- 'c m o m 'E � ° o m o m o ,3 � � c 'c O N ->' C 'O t0 7 _ o N .0 U CO fl- tl) =O CY) 46 cn o � 'c a x vm m = o m o n E m ° o N° ° °- 3 E ° c o 3 a z 0 � O CL n CO � c W o n > 2 � N �' N 0 0 C 0 0 'O C 0 N N O m C 7 O C C 0 A 0- 0 � ..2 ..-� 0 V 0 > N C) O m 0 0 ' (U6 0 0 v7 = O m C O O C\l .X a N 0 U an d C cn 0 _0 cn 0 Z5 m D o LL m U ° U 3 O w U U w m -0 7 c o � d a ° m ° � a m v) 7 U O n .0 C C O 0 0 CO C > 0 CL U N > X cn 0 w 7 n a O 0 C o 7 m m ° c n D 0 O c 0 7 O O U "" C o 'X E m (A c U > m° O m E m m o 0) cn t c a c c m m O 0 0 —° o > n c U E ° 0 — O n C O d (n W 7 >+ d d a C U = C C O Q N L6 O °0 cn A d A U U 0 U = _ > v7 0 d N O v 'c m a a CL U ° O C d C m � O m LL ° c v E � ° U o c a m m ° c CL E ° am ' o S o °an � E i � D ° O 5 o CL E CL C cn 2 o ° n o m U ° m a m ° U c aci m 3 c a n .0 m n m '� c E E m mp Q -`� 3 '- E n s ° ° cn m c m cn o E o 0 ° -C2 0 Eo � � ° (D c - 0 30 `m .0 O � E 3 N '� � °- a 0 cn O Qq U 'Q, .0 C N O U 0 o U 3 E m O - ( -0 U U m n Y o C E m s n m m m U E c Q b) d 0 3 ° o N 2 w e U m m a c o m Z- ° c m Q 0 0 0 `o r m `°�° o f mo m m d w :c E > a m s ° n ° ° s a>> d C c E `o m E 3 ° � m '> > a a n d m m E N O o cn v m n O n ° c F Y I '3 � m H s E _ '� m ° D Q W J O N d U) U n N C m o > U C U p U p Q N L N w � O C C A O m C '� O V7 n N m .cn (D (� m O (B L L .3 'O N C O O -O m ° N O .U. m 0 n O p � d cn U -0 L cC C>n O cn o m E ° o m > CL = 3 n c c m 0 o a� o j 0 m ° m E 0 o o m m o � 0 m> t V co a o m _ o c o O -p c o 2 -p d m � n U 'm o U°0 c c> m U ° U) c m - m n 2 a o c' 0 _CO_ Q m w m m c °n FD � m o (D o (D m m o S o ° - > v m � .o 0 O CO C N Q O a t m m ° > N n -0 U E 2 0 E m 7 o 0 0 a 3 c ° ° C CO Q) m 3 o cp �N C 7 U O C N cn O p N 0 7 O a F C cp O C 7 O -p -O n o 'O v , cn U O N N -0 M 0 N N L C a 2 O U 0 m O '�-0 O O L U co ° O m s ° ° q o o p O a a p .c n ° m 0 c m M O m N N > n o -S E m w E -2 0 C U)c c ° t a a o �n n U s ( n .n ) m ° c o U U U CY) ° CY) CY) CY) cn c O c c c c O N O O O O CY) O CY) CY) CY) CY) O O O O O O N cn c U tq C -O � U C -O C - C O o C A L O .c cn O C >+ C C m N c � c cn '> a mo 3 `m mp m vt° = m c o v ° 3 ° o ° E `o a n c 3 c .O p m p E 0 m e C o c CL o g o � `° m m '> (D a5 o — m � � X E CL CL 3 m Q U c m m n c s Q m = m .c m a ° o (D 0 o � 0 mp E o m m C a m o ° � � a mp (D ° c o a m S m c ro s s a U U a Q � .� � m m d 3 O CL c x 'cn O c m � o ° m m m � ° a) m � m m m w o a m m C w a '> `o E 0 p c m O E Q cn C 2 o U a = m m o m a � c � o ° c CL `m m s c d ° m c -o `O m o °� -a=) cn > n o ° m s m 'Fn CL o m mo s o 0 .S E ° O n m m n E n aci 0 0 o m E o m '3 .3 m 0 c c ° m m a m m s o ° m U O j C m = m p N � p 2 c P (n C � i L C N O N O 7 � n 7 m N .� N m C c E CO n c Cj o E N c s a m U O � � _ ° m > C c m U o � _ o E D o a n w o w o c c E m � d U U m s m t Y ° c 3 w a, o .m a cn U ° c m o c 0 o c o ° ? (D 2) p_ m Q o c ° n U p_ n m m O OU D U n O CL E cn U c E m m > O 7 ° `° a' a E C s L N .cn n m O O U p (n i ( U C a c O N C O °� > j ( C O E o m mp Q c 0 .� N O d N m n C _cy) o p m m > m m e 0 7 mo U CL N E.0 a m N N U) A °- 7 n O1 C i = U U) c N ° w M o L6 Y N A N -2 O C M M N U U 3 A Q U U CL O U ° O CL O d d CL �_ LL N cn U CO U 7 m ��-' M .0 =O >, N U v7 C U N C tl7 �C O C c c o 3 0 °) n o c n o a c a cn > Q) o a n s a > o 0 U m c 3 0 m ( '( c m vo � o � o o c a c c c O i� `n a Z c O o m cn °— Q a N � (B `° m OCR .3 m _ U CO 0 N U 0 N ... v7 Q O N O Q N (B i .- cn i C a �_ N U O cmq N O N c cn 7) U0 N C O Z- O O C N d v7 m U O c0 > O d a C O aC) v7 O -O a -O 'O a .5 Q (0 6 O -p m p O N � o m O N c i cn n E co N m O' (n U a U J E L > C E U L > N M >+ n O U O U C .0 E cn o m e D E a o a o � �_ m c c 2 O m � o t — U M m U) a — o c O cn O O O cn > O '7 C �_ U C U) 'vl t M p d 7 3 O M Q Q c m v7 O `� E V C -O 00 CL L C CO C O> d L c N >, C N O 'O N U 'p L C O an d c d m 3 o m c d o o f o c d o o s `m O H E c o m E a .o c E c a m z E o �° CO`° D a ° `m > a o '� c o m (A o o c o O n p ._ a d - o z - c -o d t Q o c 2 c c a (n '2 n c 'c Fn c o cn o U o � w co Q c p U c a o O In cn > 'x cn '� m E ° a o aoi c m E o ° o M m - c .0 E- c o = o >' N Q m 'O c' > >, > U >, N Q m Q n a 7 O C c Q -0 N v7 N O CO M — d C '0 (n U x0 N d c U O O O N a 0 O O c -O 7 N m a O p 7 C a C O � U C o i L O m tl7 U Q ,— o .F -0-O d O O O C U N 'O O A m -O O o U C N Ln —cn cn cy) cn c a E 6 m m0 o N ( N m 0 cn � E o ocn Q O U O N _ =O � N m N c O C N `c O cn cn M a U n c N -O Q V U O U C c C m c0 -O -O O c C C m m L O (6 N ?� (6 N m (n C 2 ' U o� o o w w O = o o m m a O a o E ° -0 z n N ` ' p C ' t LL O - p o Q N N LL � O O s o w O U U U -0 N P N U d L L m C E Q CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) C C C C C .O .O .O .O .O CY) 01 01 01 01 C C C C C O O O O O an m o c a CY) LL cn O CO N N a c N n E c o o o c O m �3 L o c O E c o cn -:2 o s 0 = C .N 'o� O (D =o o > n -r- 0 U n O a E cm o a o C) m n � > q m o o m o CL_ - CO v o N L o � U p N N O N c d c 0 c co m L m C o -0 0 �t t C C N N O C N m n c Y � t -0 n N -T O co a Y om' =O C OU d N (c6 U O c ° C 3 O CO C o a co o _ o c a _ U w aci c aci m .c a s > .° o — C7 3 a c cn c w a =) n m U 3 o c 0 cn Q cn c cn c a o o cn o _ a s a E E E c c ` O (D o o c m M m o 0 O -0 >, Q c � o a �) cn n a� U C � a 'U cn -r- U a m 00 C cn (0 N O 7 O 3 p N U O N N > O N N 7 'O O E�- m .�N 'O c Y U LL c '0 C U d �a FO E O m n O O � � ° E U -c to cn � cn 'O m p L X a 0 Q ' cn N N O Cm n 0 N Q C a O C N U N C -o C L N � CL E z m E O cn 2 c CL 7 o n o 0 o m M O O U O- � w -0 C M N = U _ U 70 A m 11') C Ch M N _ U L n cr A d Q-' -0 O 7) >, N U U d O V Y O d O >, d CL � c O O U> °m E av J a m 3 >C C U 2 ca co m O O 3 p cm i n -°O U C C O°a°i� cl- m 0 0 m ( CL (D c a o Lo g w m ° C o > c m ° a m U U C N CO m 'O N d -O E o o o > O a m � c ° o ° C O o 3 CL U N C CO Q m N U m N C O O O cn O Cl) M m U O O°°.. )J ° =p U - O U) -(OD 0 -p N CO O C O �>2 O O 6 U U O O U O C O N flO) U O - O ° E c ' V (q r m O O m (D o ° o '' _ C 0 O m O U C N ° 0 U ° L co LL m C O o ° o o o C O cn ° ° v U o m ° o > m m -o o U) 0 N 0 m -0 N a 0 a U) a ° U c o m o c >° a m o U m o $ o o o O o o o n In - ° c U 3 0 m a a) v a� n N E > c a 0 ° c o = a ° n n d m CO C) m m N o cn �o E o 0 ° ° o o c n c ° > n m n c n ° c m Q m m a c o m > _ ° '� Q '� C m o cn m ° o v° 3 = o '°- J U m o c o .o 0 3 m m a U E E ° > m d m c a m � E d o c E m o 3 3 m ° o o ii m cn CO> ( E c E E E o Q o o g ,� ` c°'o m co N O C .0. v7 O O O 7 � E -O 'O f- co C N N n -O p N 3 V C N O v7 °- aci m m m m `o s o C7 (D CL v n U -m0 o m m m a � a '0 a� a� E v (n c a m c ° x c v > m m cn � E ° °o m0 m > �° o ° .O 0 3 0 a w a) -m0 0 c .� ° c m .� m m 'c 'o rn E � 0 Y o c n mo a3i i� 'c c a '� a °� E J c `o F-I N n co 7 O U cn Y N O O C L.L n C N O) c 'O -O C c w N L n n L (n — O N N m v_) i U L.. O (n Ot n — C C 7 v7 > O — O Z t t n H cn m N -0 m E a .E o U cn n ° U) U ° Q m m m D D U Q c U H 3 Q o CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) p c c c c c c N O O O O O O O) O) O) O) O) O) O O O O O O O N cn cn O .O-� O) U C F= c 0 .0 — o T 3 2 CI- m m o n n m o °- o . 0 o o o c m o � c Lo m m m -0 0 E ° m c m c m ° co o -° O C O > � c S m>cn oO C ' tq N s C t m o f > o m c 0 m O C m m o c o cn cn ° m m > Z m ° 65 a m> o c o ° o ° n — C6 m U O C O ICT ( N O 'C O > O N(D O a U tq E c O 7 U m U J v > -m0 > 0 .o U m o 3 U mo mo Z o o m o ° a o m e m m o m n m ° 3 U m d ° c co s c c c n c Z rn E ° cn C cn N N o aci E 3 .3 m m �_ Ow s E ° > c (n c o ° 42 a) m E m > c ° ° n m o n CO m m ° - °CY)m m > Q n o c CO � O `m = m m ° a m n c m ° m m m m c Q E cn cn _ o ° o E a ° ° ° m N >+ C .7 O Y a 7 O C N > .� C m CO L E OU 7 N CO Ot CL N EO U E L U i 72 W pU CO p C 46 cn cn A U U N U E E ° U V a �N J (D C p O N _O O O >d N O U Q)O) Cl) Q .. C N U M V 'O C_ U) U M V A m U U 3 U a _ O U _C d U U O d d O 0 CL m d O d d U Q) U -O) j LL U 0 CO m U C C o m U) C O E U 11j E m o N c O c o ° ° Q 0 `o_ 0 3 0 0 O c 0 C C O' X m o - 'C O Y o _ m cn m C\J N (n N N N N ?� 0) O U o ..0 U +. 0 D C O 0 U O U CY)U m 0 O n 2 `0 3 U S, C U U m C -O o U N c o 0 o d ° 0 � m o 'c a o o c ° o 2 c U) CO d o c > v 0 c o m $ T m U a o m ° Q m O o o a o .° m CL c n -0 _ o c cn o n m c v d° a -°o 'c .� o o cn '� U a c C a c -oo v0 � c o 5 o 0 �° m m o U ° 0 m -0o Q o m 0 O o m 0 0 E m o n o c a C7 n o 0 0 0 0 `o = c a o Q n '> -0 m cn CM CD 0 -E CL m .3 c U 0 o D Y m c n > m c c o CL U 7 O 3 m m N d (B 't' U 0 U N .( U 7 C U N c N 0 ° U n m � Q O m o N -0 - C 01 .U-� C O -O U m -O U n U C O � N O U N � O 'Q O = O O 0 v7 N m U m m _ c 0 O CY) C,4 (D m C .n W c m (n c d � " N Cl) c o U N co 0 c o M 3 o vo o c o '� o c 3 o v m E m o a co c X 0 3 Q a C m = m o � Q C 3 c 0 cN c o m m m o 0 0 .� o > (D 2 .O p m S 0 a O a - a m CO U c cn C 'c m n 3 0 3 0 -o cmi 3 m `° U 0 ° U o CL W �_ O m m a o °c c — cn 0 0 0 70 = c ° O M U °- U o a U o ff.. n 0 C. O CO - CO N O O 7 ° U (6 0 0_ O =o C o > s o 0 CO m o c - o aci a O n o c o o 0 E a c �_ c t U a 0 0 E m m > _ 0 0 0 .� 0 S m 0 0 o U m m � c c o 0 U o 0 o c 0 0 '� 0 c U c 0 '0 U E x 2 , 0 0 m m N c W 2 -° N � O a 0) 0 (D O _Sr_ =O o cn n 0 C o p C U c C d C "�O" t0 d (n .0 C� � .0 N 2 d C N d '� U 'O 'O t O O j .7 L U o 'U O O A m C N N ON 'O U v7 C O > N O CO OO m d .3 O O .m a 7 W 0 � -FO m s vo 0 Q n .o N -00 0 m S O m c c' = a>i >, o o cn n '� m U v cWn a' v 'c _ d o o o � Cl) -° C :� U S N O N C m U) .vC-7 ,� N O U `� N O c tl7 7 N N 7 -O N .� > (B U = UO 0 0 7 'C -O :- O Q U °c = ° H U Q H C) -00 cn .� rn n ° LL -0 H 0 ° D E n U H = E H ° m d CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) 0) c c c c 06 c c c ° ° ° ° Eo ° ° ° a) a) a) a) a) a) a) c c c c U O c c c O O O O 0 N O O O >, >, O c `0 0 'O o Zl o o c ° c 0 m a o a �_ O °- °� O o v ° _° U N _° o ° `� m O .0 S -, U C N 0 ° 0 O i L O U 0 0 o a m C) n _ -0 o 0 o E o O O a n o Q CO CO CL E °- .S 0 .o Z- � �.. (6 N > N O m n o -0 U U t0 O O U (2) C O (0 cn 70 1:11 U S O C� o d O C� a N6 O o U o a2 7 O c .3 0 0 .0 o s c c c m cn � Z a v '� 0 m n O E E o ° 0 m a o c m 0 U a a m ... O _O Q � O E E U U m U 0 0 O O 00 O N d c O C c C O � 0 O O ° CL U U U U U CO ..°m CO 0 U > v tl S U cy) U m o m U > CO O 0) N o m C O U U L C m O N C N n L O d .>' N O T O ".' .0 .S >, 0 0 -O C N N N 0 w J H a a Q m n 2 m m 0> o 'c o U o m 0 o _ CL C U U '0 0 a o C 0 C 7 N O OC ..- L .2 O ` n = j �O U n - O m m -O N tl7 N 'O '> 06 U o C .N d m O- 0) c '7 O .0 C OU � U N U c m m O ° U X O O CL CO 'O (C6 (a U L LO a o (mq L _ N A a U U 0 N o m C L U O N 21 p U 7 0 L L O U O �? N CL U > 'n ° � (n '� n 0 o m E L o w o 0 o m c' 0 E m _°- -0C (0 m > n c n c�i CO F m 0 0 0 0 `o a 0 _r_ a m 7 N v7 O m C 7 C O a 0 _ 'C O O C >, N O" m N +. i U C O U C _21 (n 2 L E O O _ �.. O .� (U6 U O U U d U C i CL 7 N C Q m U n O >CL U O ~ L m U L6 7 m m U) U m LO O p M o O U t O O LO LO d E E Q U N .�.. o 0 n .0 d d O O d m d m M —_ N C N O U O i p U U j C O U O CL ff.. O -2 'Q U > O N O m m ' U n � O U O N C a � 7 O N -° 7 U +J C N N > C N U 'C OO O W O N a O m 3 U a a m 2 > v) v) U n °- LL m O '55 U U C O > c c a i U) - N cn a L Ot O N m m m ° -O U C O C C n LL N O N C N N (n n C v7 m O O N U �"' N C C N E O N O U m =6 N (n U U -O '> A C O 7 � cn _ n c>i Q � E m > > U � o c a m c ° c p o � U o n ° U) � o n n m o m C 7 c Q m N U o O p C 0 0 m C U o o a c t () -o `o -o ° U a o 0 (n n ° 'o ° tl7 N N U m N tl) C 7 N C Cn N N w o > m 2 o a o E m CO m ° a m S ° s Q) M N N U O- �.- n 7 N c i V C ° N 3 Q .0 O N co m a o o U n c o m U ° a o = 2 0 3 (6 N 0- N > C Co C ` 0 m N M L a H a o c c o 0 C m N N 'O O L (� -° CY O a m O N N '� C F �' m N (6 a L N (B U > C L}L C v7 CO m O -5 >, E N C U W' > 3 ?� O m C m C (n O M m ,U., U — m 0C U N m n m C Lo amm U e O 7 O 7 c m O O O U > Q �o C N U m d N Y— -U N co N N N N C C 0 O n O N � O O U) -r- s U -O O a o U O° C O a > N CY O O C m O U U - (n co O o a c ° U o o a ° > a U " o > 3 `�' ° ° a3i n CO U ° N W U CO � > n d 'O (v .0 O L N ,� 0 co v7 ° 0 0 .(? Q c' aci m > vo 0 Q m > c' o _ c m O - C' C � U C N U W C U U Co -0 N CO I m o -r o o 0 0 0 � O aci � m � o n z x o U U ° _r_ x U) U) U o U m U �' m M o O U °d O N co C C � � � � � O O O O O c = ° t0 .0 U C U i 7 O _° N .0 +U-� m m o o 0 �° a — o x c m o — > a c U _ c m U o `o c o CO C � m d m 3 ai .� N N N .C� N .c c n m U O CO g m o CL ° E Q) X ° s U ° ° Q > c n a > E > > 0 - 0 � o c � ° o v ° ~ co c (D o c 0 o O ° m e `m 'c m 0 m m ° o Ln ° ° s U ° CO o o CO 3 n c m n c c c aS o m ° o o (D ° o h o .� m O — �v7 v7 (n O N N i N a) m ,7 CL .t 3 m N C co C U � O m 0 U N Y O1 t0 N C > CO N O m L d � .'n m 3 � � (n Q) a n o p o L 2-o a a O o te n ' o � COO c a c� ° m (3) m ° s o c m c m ° m ° � ° a� c o � O°(n o CY) na ° o 3 a o m ° c o '� o U S m — m ° n ° U U m a n 0 m U U n o -r CO 3 U U 0 c c o .� o .� o c a3i (D U (D _ ° � H c � c a) > ° m t c _ t o c m oo ° c ° 3 m ~ m Q H � o H m o ° U ° C7 (n c CY) O m C C a o (D o m c o m C O O C N N U U ( 7 CL m C N o In O C O 7 0 E o 'E c c n o >' 2 _ o E C Z 2 0 0 CL a ° m c c m co o cn m a o a c n m n '° — '� o ° � ° U ° — ° m ° E m o m ° 0 o m 0 o � - f cp o CO e n E c ° m 6 3 N c 7 tl m 7 7 _ Y tl) 'C U U L O C m o W (n U 'i _ O C o C N a m U U ~ a' o d ° �j H O a7 W N a m U_ O Lo N > O 'O >,co o A U O m U CL 0 d d d d o/ ƒ \co ƒ= 3 \ / \ (D\ ® §E / E a G c G $ ) o ) \ _ /\/ G§ { 2 2 c ] / » / ( \ / y \ £ / / 3 § y ] { G ] / ] 7 A / g / 2 § ® E 7 ® ® @� c ° « - / 2 f 0 ® G = 0 \ \ § / +/ 2 E =% G cn ]q / / j f\ ) \0\ \ ] ® ,n\ c \/ \\\ 0 \) \ \ m { /_ #G m c \a % § { j </ ®§ /J G 0(D $ j � cco( k & c < k 2 / §ƒ k .(D .2 J 2 _= § ( / § o g e e / & 7 0 E = G & _ & \ / _ £ / / / 3 3 3 e ) % / 2 f § CY)- G \ 2 y » / \ 3 \ w § \ § 2 n § / \ m e f _ % = m j c \ § \ \ ( \ { » § / § ) \ ) _ ) # - n k @ e # ° / k ) k E / f E6 5 / \ § % S ® 2 % 2@ 2 m 2 E f 2 S , a 2 = c � e E e \ \ / / ) \ \ \ } $ \ M ® E : 2 @ _ _ w / - 2 f » \ ` m § / E \ \ ƒ f 2 2 § E ƒ 2 § 0 : 2 g » % \ % ] \ / » / 0 § / { w \ \ ( / ) \ » \ / '- E = c @ E \ 2 @ e ) \ & { @ 8 � e \ & : % g § ! cn G 2 , G Q) f m f # ® f \ \ \ \ \ { \ E \_ %> E \\ § /q ! j\ p _ k k » /°\ a c ° /3: \ j @ m E ` \7 \ c y -0 _ { \ / f / 2 4 \ k § _ ° E / C E / m c : 2 G / e W � 3 / f 0 / 0 \ / w ) & - o a E 2 & D 92 ) ƒ» } / (® CL ) \ E E e 0 � P Q E k � @ � _ E � Q 2 ƒ ± kq W -0 _ L) 2 f / ( ) k � ¥ _ . m \N (1) 3 \ A q W C . � � E J � a) � .� U Q Q 4 k 0 / Z C \L) / / A g Q U ƒ 2\ D E 3 ƒ k f A Cl) « _ ± 0 2 o Cl) z § Cl) D @ Q Q £ m o 2 m% P E @ \ c a § Q « 2 @ o 0 3 % . � CL k \ ° 0