HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-27 e-packet@6:00Tuesday, April 27, 2021
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
TELECONFERENCE MEETING
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
April 27, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-29-20 AND N-63-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION
OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS
THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY
BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Councilmembers Coleman, Flores and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City
staff will participate via Teleconference.
PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES
SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY
TELECONFERENCE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY:
Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Join Zoom meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/86116384371
(Enter your email and name)
Join by One Tap Mobile :
US: +16699006833,,86116384371# or +13462487799,,86116384371#
Join by Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 861 1638 4371
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2021
April 27, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa
Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected].
Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and
preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the
Office of the City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
HOW TO SUBMIT WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE MEETING
Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the
eComment tab by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
Use the eComment tab located on the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to
the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff.
Comments received by the deadline will be read into the record by the City Clerk or designee. Comments
received after the deadline will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud during the
meeting. Approximately 300 words total can be read in three minutes.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2021
April 27, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE MEETING
Members of the public who wish to provide comment during the meeting may do so by using the “Raise Hand”
feature:
• To raise your hand on a PC or Mac desktop/laptop, click the button labeled "Raise Hand” at the bottom of
the window on the right side of the screen. Lower your hand by clicking the same button, now labeled “Lower
Hand.”
• To raise your hand on a mobile device, tap “Raise Hand” at the bottom left corner of the screen. The hand
icon will turn blue, and the text below it will switch to say "Lower Hand" while your hand is raised. To lower
your hand, click on “Lower Hand.”
• To raise your hand when participating by telephone, press *9.
• To toggle mute/unmute, press *6.
Once your hand is raised, please wait to be acknowledged by the City Clerk, or designee, who will call on
speakers. When called upon, speakers will be unmuted. After the allotted time, speakers will be placed on
mute.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Presentation on Housing Production and Challenges, and Goals for Future Policies.
(Nell Selander, Economic and Community Development Deputy Director)
1.
Adjournment.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2021
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-242 Agenda Date:4/27/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Presentation on Housing Production and Challenges,and Goals for Future Policies.(Nell Selander,Economic
and Community Development Deputy Director)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation and provide comments and feedback for
a future study session.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation (Attachment 12)and provide comments and
feedback for a future study session.A number of related prior reports,memorandums,and action items have
been included as attachments for background (Attachments 1-11).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time for the study session.
Attachments:
1.Commercial Linkage Fee Staff Report
2.Inclusionary Housing Revision 2018 Staff Report
3.Housing Element Annual Progress Report capturing production 2007 to 2014 and Staff Report adopting
the 2015-2023 Housing Element
4.Housing Element Annual Progress Report capturing production 2015 to Present
5.ECD Memo to Council RHNA Updates
6.Missing Middle Housing Staff Report
7.Housing Program Goals, Policies, Programs and Fund Balance Staff Report
8.ADU ZTA to comply with 2020 State Law
9.Eviction Moratorium under COVID-19 Staff Report
10.Renter Protection Measures Study Session Staff Report
11.Red Tag Ordinance Staff Report
12.Staff Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/23/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Report regarding ordinances repealing and replacing South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.380
“Inclusionary Housing Regulations”and Chapter 20.390 “Bonus Residential Density”to update the City’s
inclusionary affordable housing program to include residential rental developments,revise requirements for
residential for-sale developments,and conform to new State density bonus law;a resolution adopting a new
affordable housing in-lieu fee;and information regarding a possible impact fee offset for inclusionary projects.
(Nell Selander, Economic & Community Development Deputy Director)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:
1)introduce an ordinance repealing and replacing South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.380
“Inclusionary Housing Regulations,” and waive further reading;
2)introduce an ordinance repealing and replacing South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.390
“Bonus Residential Density,” and waive further reading; and
3) adopt a resolution adopting a new affordable housing in-lieu fee; and
4)provide staff with feedback regarding Council’s interest in providing an impact fee offset for
inclusionary projects.
BACKGROUND
In 2017,the California State Legislature passed a group of fifteen bills to address the current affordable housing
crisis.One of those bills,Assembly Bill 1505 (AB 1505)(2017),restores the ability of local jurisdictions to
require below market rate (BMR)units in rental developments.Previously,in 2009,the California Court of
Appeals had ruled in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P.v.City of Los Angeles that jurisdictions were unable to
require BMR units in private,market rate rental developments.AB 1505 provided a legislative remedy to
reverse the Palmer decision,and the bill took effect on January 1,2018.Requiring BMR units in a private,
market rate development is known as inclusionary housing.
BMR housing refers to residential units offered at below market rents or sales prices to households earning
specific incomes.Typically,BMR housing targets households making less than 120 percent of the area median
income (AMI).In San Mateo County,the median income is $118,400 for a household of four,or $82,900 for a
household of one.See Attachment 1 for a table of income limits by household size and rents for San Mateo
County.South San Francisco currently has approximately 995 deed-restricted affordable housing units.Of
these,920 units (92.47 percent)are rentals and 75 units (7.54 percent)are for-sale units.Most were constructed,
or deed-restricted,prior to the dissolution of the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.Another 102
affordable housing units are currently in the pipeline.
Cities and counties have an assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)obligation under State law,
which is determined by the region and states the number of housing units that each region must provide during
an eight-year planning period.Each region’s planning agency distributes the total number of housing units
needed across each jurisdiction within the region and specifies the income levels these units must fulfill.In
South San Francisco’s case,the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission serve as the planning agency and allocates the region’s RHNA obligations.
File #:18-848,Version:1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/24/2020Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-848,Version:1
For the current planning period,the City has a RHNA obligation of 1,864 units.This allocation is further
divided into the following income categories:
·846 units for lower income housing,
·313 units for moderate-income housing, and
·705 units for above-moderate income households.
These units at each income level must be entitled between 2015 and 2023 to count towards this planning
period’s RHNA share.The City is currently meeting its requirement to provide above-moderate income
housing, but not its share of moderate, low, or very low income housing.
One tool cities have to develop BMR housing is inclusionary housing requirements.As discussed above,until
January 1,2018,cities could not require inclusionary housing in rental developments,only in for-sale
developments.As such,the City’s existing inclusionary housing ordinance only applies to for-sale
development.Last updated in 2010,the ordinance requires developers to designate 20 percent of the total unit
count in for-sale,market rate projects as BMR units.The BMR must be deed-restricted for 55 years and
designated for households earning 50 percent to 110 percent of the AMI.
For new,for-sale,market rate developments with fewer than ten total units,the developer may choose to pay an
in lieu fee,rather than build the required inclusionary affordable housing units.This in lieu fee is equal to the
cost of developing a unit in the market rate project,multiplied by the proportional affordable housing unit
requirement.For example,if the total development cost to construct each unit in an eight-unit project is
$550,000 and the affordable housing requirement is 1.6 units (8 units x 20 percent),then the in lieu fee would
be $880,000 (1.6 units x $550,000).
If a developer proposes to meet the standard requirements of the inclusionary housing ordinance,the City
Manager may approve the resulting Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA)between the City and the developer.
The City Council must approve the AHA if a developer requests incentives,waivers,or some other deviation
from the standard inclusionary requirement.Although the inclusionary housing ordinance authorizes City
Council to grant fee waivers and grants to developers providing affordable housing in their developments,fee
waivers or subsidy programs have generally not been authorized.
First City Council Study Session
On February 14,2018,the City Council held a study session on AB 1505.Staff presented background
information on the City’s existing Inclusionary Housing Regulations Ordinance found in Chapter 20.380 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC),the need for affordable housing in South San Francisco,and
recommended that Council consider phasing in an inclusionary housing requirement in rental developments and
re-evaluate the existing inclusionary requirements for for-sale projects.Ultimately,Council referred the matter
to the Housing Standing Committee (Committee) for a more detailed policy discussion.
Housing Standing Committee Recommendation
On May 7 and June 18,2018,staff presented additional analysis to the Committee,as well information
regarding other options for meeting the City’s affordable housing goals,including commercial linkage fees.At
its June 18,2018 meeting,the Committee recommended moving forward with a 10 percent inclusionary
requirement for residential rental developments that,after a year,would increase to a 15 percent requirement.
Based on market conditions analyzed by the City’s consultants Baird +Driskell Community Planning and
Century Urban,the Committee also discussed a temporary impact fee offset of $5,000 per unit in developments
that include inclusionary BMR units during the phasing-in period of the new inclusionary requirements.Staff
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/24/2020Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-848,Version:1
that include inclusionary BMR units during the phasing-in period of the new inclusionary requirements.Staff
has not prepared legislation enacting this impact fee offset and seeks Council direction on whether or not to do
so. A more detailed discussion of this fee offset is provided below.
Planning Commission Recommendation
Because implementation of the Committee’s recommendations requires amendments to the Zoning Ordinance,
SSFMC Title 20,the Planning Commission’s recommendation is required prior to Council consideration of the
ordinances.As such,a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 16,2018
to consider the ordinance.The Planning Commission voted unanimously,adopting Resolution 2826-2018 and
recommending approval of ordinances repealing and replacing SSFMC Chapters 20.380,Inclusionary Housing
Regulations,and 20.390,Bonus Residential Density.In addition to formally recommending approval of the
ordinances to City Council,the Planning Commission encouraged staff to work with Council on a possible
"grandfathering"scheme,whereby developers who have already submitted applications for development can
have a finite amount of time to be deemed complete without being subject to the new inclusionary regulations.
Members of the Planning Commission were concerned that projects caught in the pipeline,which have invested
substantial time and resources in bringing an application,could find their projects no longer financially
feasible. Attachment two reflects the minutes from the August 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.
Feasibility Analysis for Inclusionary Requirements
Detailed analyses of the financial feasibility of requiring inclusionary units in new,market-rate,residential
rental and for-sale projects is included in the staff reports as Attachments three and four from the May 7 and
June 18,2018 Committee meetings.Both reports contain pro forma analyses of the various inclusionary
requirement scenarios staff explored, as well as additional information requested by the Committee.
Benchmarking Other Cities’ Inclusionary Housing Programs
Staff has informally reached out to neighboring cities to learn about potential updates to their inclusionary
housing ordinances,funding mechanisms,and policies as they relate to the 2017 State Legislative Housing
Package.Attachment five outlines the current inclusionary housing policies for Daly City,Foster City,
Redwood City, San Bruno and San Mateo.
DISCUSSION
As discussed above,the Committee and Planning Commission recommended moving forward with a 10
percent inclusionary requirement for residential rental developments that,after a year,would increase to a 15
percent requirement.This could be coupled with a $5,000 temporary impact fee offset per unit in developments
that include inclusionary BMR units as discussed in greater detail below.Staff has prepared ordinances
repealing and replacing SSFMC Chapter 20.380 “Inclusionary Housing Regulations”and Chapter 20.390
“Bonus Residential Density” and a resolution adopting a new in-lieu fee for the City Council’s consideration.
SSFMC Chapter 20.380 “Inclusionary Housing Regulations”
Staff is proposing to repeal and replace SSFMC Chapter 20.380 with the text provided in the associated
ordinance.For the City Council’s reference,the proposed revisions to Chapter 20.380 are shown in tracked
changes in Attachment six.These revisions affect administrative sections of Chapter 20.380,which dictate how
the inclusionary housing regulations are implemented.Specifically,instead of referring to income limits
established by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development,Chapter 20.380 is revised to refer to
State law.This is important so that any units created by the program are compatible with the State Density
Bonus,which is discussed in greater detail with regard to Chapter 20.390.Another administrative change
clarifies the application process.Currently,Chapter 20.380 requests developers submit an AHA for review and
approval by the City.However,the City has a form AHA,which is provided to developers.Therefore,this
section conflicts with the City’s past practice.Chapter 20.380 was amended to specify that developers should
submit an Inclusionary Housing Plan,which staff will review and incorporate into the form AHA for theCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/24/2020Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-848,Version:1
submit an Inclusionary Housing Plan,which staff will review and incorporate into the form AHA for the
developer to execute.
The more substantive proposed changes to Chapter 20.380 relate to the percentage of inclusionary units
required and what income levels are targeted.In the sections that follow,the specific recommended
inclusionary regulations for rental and for-sale projects are discussed.
Rental Projects
The proposed revisions to Chapter 20.380 would codify the following policies for inclusionary housing in new,
market-rate, rental developments:
·In the first year following the effective date of the Amendments,the inclusionary housing requirement
for new,market-rate,rental developments would be 10 percent.These units would be made affordable
to households earning 80 percent or less of AMI.
·In the second year following the effective date of the Amendments,and from then on,the inclusionary
housing requirement for new,market-rate,rental developments would be 15 percent.The first 10
percent of the units would be made affordable to households earning 80 percent or less of AMI (low
income).The remaining five percent would be made affordable to households earning 50 percent of less
of AMI (very low income).
Currently,due to the Palmer Decision,the City does not have any inclusionary requirement for new,market-
rate,rental developments.It should be noted that,to be consistent with the State Density Bonus,rental units
designated for low income households (eligibility up to 80 percent of AMI)would be priced affordably for
households earning 60 percent of AMI.Similarly,units targeting very low income households would be priced
affordably for households earning 50 percent of AMI.
Projects Impacted by New Regulations
The new inclusionary housing regulations are drafted to exempt any projects deemed complete prior to the
effective date of the ordinance,which the drafted Ordinance sets as November 1,2018.Any planning
application deemed complete prior November 1st would be exempt from the new regulations.Deemed complete
means the applicant has submitted all items listed on the Planning Application Checklist for a development
project and the Planning Division has determined each item contains all requested and relevant information.
Concerns have been expressed by local developers,included as Attachments seven and eight,that a new
inclusionary requirement on rental projects could hamper developments that either recently applied for
Planning approvals or intend to apply in the coming months.Analysis conducted by the City’s consultants
showed that only a five percent inclusionary requirement on new,market-rate rental developments was
financially feasible and that a higher requirement would result in the reduction of land values,potentially
compromising the sale of land for housing developments.The Planning Commission echoed this concern,
culminating in Commissioners asking staff to work with Council to consider grandfathering additional projects.
Staff prepared alternative language for the Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 20.380 to provide a
further exemption for projects in the development pipeline that may be made infeasible by a 10 percent
inclusionary requirement.Staff recommends that if Council would like to grandfather more projects,the
effective date of the Ordinance should be set at January 1,2019 rather than November 1,2018.Attachment nine
includes amendment language implementing this alternative effective date.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/24/2020Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-848,Version:1
Staff anticipates the project application for 40 Airport Boulevard will be deemed complete prior to November 1,
2018,whereas the project applications for 410 Noor Avenue and 200 Airport Boulevard are likely to be deemed
complete after November 1st,but before the alternate effective date of January 1,2019.Two additional projects,
7 South Linden Avenue and PS Office Park,may be deemed complete prior to January 1,2019 if thoughtful and
thorough applications are submitted promptly.Staff is unaware of when the developers of these sites intend to
submit applications;therefore,staff is unable at this time to provide a firm estimate of when they may be
deemed complete.
It should be noted that all of the development pipeline projects staff is aware of (including those discussed
above)intend to seek or are seeking additional density under SSFMC Section 20.280.005(A),the City’s
Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program,which allows for additional residential density in exchange for
the provision of community benefits.This Program requires a discretionary approval,through which Council
could require BMR units not otherwise required by inclusionary housing regulations.Even if a project is
exempt from the new inclusionary housing regulations,Council will still have a mechanism for requiring BMR
units,provided the developer seeks a discretionary approval under the Increased Density and FAR Incentive
Programs.
Specific AB 1505 Requirements
As briefly discussed above,AB 1505 (2017)allows cities to require a portion of new market-rate,rental
developments to include affordable housing,provided an alternate means of compliance exists,such as in-lieu
fees or off-site construction.If a local ordinance requires more than 15 percent inclusionary units affordable to
households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income,the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD)may review the ordinance if the municipality failed to either (a)meet at least
75 percent of its share of the above-moderate RHNA obligation or (b)failed to submit the required general
plan/housing element annual report for two consecutive years or longer.So far,the City has issued building
permits for 404 above-moderate income units or just 58 percent of its above-moderate RHNA obligation.
If HCD reviews the inclusionary ordinance based on condition (a)or (b),HCD may require and the
municipality must provide,an economic feasibility study with evidence that the ordinance does not “unduly
constrain”the production of housing to support the inclusionary requirement.HCD will determine,within 90
days after the economic feasibility study has been submitted,whether the study meets the statutory standards
and demonstrates that the inclusionary requirement is economically feasible.If the study fails to so
demonstrate,the municipality would be required to limit its inclusionary requirement to 15 percent until it can
submit another economic feasibility study that meets statutory requirements.
For-Sale Projects
The proposed revisions to Chapter 20.380 codify the following policies for inclusionary housing in new,market
-rate, for-sale developments:
·From the effective date of the Ordinance,the inclusionary housing requirement for new,market-rate,for
-sale developments would be set at 15 percent.
·Half of the inclusionary BMR units would be made affordable to households earning 120 percent or less
of the area median income (moderate income).The remaining half would be made affordable to low
income households.
As discussed above,the inclusionary requirement for new,market-rate,for-sale developments is currently 20
percent.Analysis conducted by the City’s consultants -which is summarized in the staff reports from the May 7
th and June 18th Committee meetings -demonstrates that a high inclusionary requirement on for-sale
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/24/2020Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-848,Version:1
th and June 18th Committee meetings -demonstrates that a high inclusionary requirement on for-sale
developments is not feasible and may be contributing to the lack of for-sale development in South San
Francisco,as compared to rental development.Thus,if the City introduces a 10 percent requirement (scaling up
to 15 percent)on rental development,combined with a reduction in the for-sale requirement from 20 to 15
percent,staff projects that there would be no decline in the overall number of new BMR units produced,and in
fact there could be a slight positive impact on the production of for-sale BMR units.
The current incomes targeted for new,market-rate,for-sale developments range from 50 to 110 percent of the
area median income.By breaking up the total inclusionary requirement into many small income categories,
developers would be prevented from taking advantage of the State Density Bonus -a strong incentive to build
more housing and that makes inclusionary units more financially feasible.By consolidating the BMR units into
two income categories -low income and moderate income -in the proposed Amendments,the same range of
incomes can be targeted.The low income units are priced to be affordable to households earning 70 percent of
AMI and the moderate income units are priced to be affordable to households earning 110 percent of AMI.This
pricing is consistent with the State Density Bonus.
Alternatives to On-Site Inclusionary Housing Units
AB 1505 requires at least one alternative to providing on-site inclusionary housing units.Currently,a number
of alternatives are outlined in Chapter 20.380,all of which require a discretionary approval by the City Council.
The intent of AB 1505 is for at least one alternative to be allowed by-right,or without discretionary approval.
Staff recommends maintaining all of the existing alternatives at the discretion of Council,with the exception of
payment of an in-lieu fee.In this case,discretionary alternatives would include off-site construction,dedication
of land,contribution to an affordable housing project,construction of accessory dwelling units,and other
alternatives as approved by Council.
SSFMC Chapter 20.390 “Bonus Residential Density”
Staff proposes to repeal and replace SSFMC Chapter 20.390 with the text provided in the associated ordinance.
For the City Council’s reference,the proposed revisions to Chapter 20.390 are shown in tracked changes in
Attachment 10.These revisions make this section of the Municipal Code consistent with the newest State
Density Bonus law.Additionally,instead of restating State Density Bonus Law,which tends to be amended
every couple of years,Chapter 20.390 now refers directly to State code sections.Because State law supersedes
local laws,this does not change what the City is required to make available to developers seeking State Density
Bonus units,but rather ensures the City’s Municipal Code remains consistent with State law as it changes over
time.In addition,the proposed amendments would consolidate the Inclusionary Housing Plan and State Density
Bonus application and review process.Having one consolidated process will better serve the interests of both
the City and developers.
The State Density Bonus allows developers to obtain additional residential density (up to 35 percent)in
exchange for providing a certain amount of BMR housing.In addition to additional,bonus density,
developments that trigger the State Density Bonus because of the provision of BMR units are able to take
advantage of waivers of development standards,concessions and incentives,and certain parking reductions.
The State Density Bonus makes the provision of inclusionary BMR housing more financially feasible,thus
encouraging residential development to include BMR units.
Resolution Adopting an In-Lieu Fee
A resolution adopting a new affordable housing in-lieu fee has been drafted for City Council consideration.
Staff recommends setting the in-lieu fee at the amount a developer would pay the City in order to build a
market rate unit in lieu of an affordable housing unit the developer would otherwise be required to build,while
maintaining the same percentage of development profit.If the developer is able to receive more rent (by havingCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/24/2020Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-848,Version:1
maintaining the same percentage of development profit.If the developer is able to receive more rent (by having
a market rate instead of an affordable unit),the project is more profitable and hence a cost increase resulting
from paying the in lieu fee keeps the profit percentage the same.This would result in an in-lieu fee of $308,000
per required BMR unit.For a 10 percent inclusionary requirement,that would equate to $30,800 per unit in the
development.The purpose behind setting the in-lieu fee at this rate is to mitigate any incentive to fee out rather
than build the BMR units on-site.
Impact Fee Offsets
Currently,a developer’s permit and impact fee burden for multi-family,residential development is roughly
$30,000 per unit.By reducing this burden to $25,000 per unit,the City’s consultants determined that an
additional five percent of BMR units could be required without substantially changing the developer’s profit
and,therefore,a higher inclusionary BMR requirement would be more feasible.This approach was examined at
the recommendation of the Committee,after the City’s consultant’s analysis showed that only a five percent
inclusionary requirement on new,market-rate rental developments was financially feasible.The proposed
impact fee offset is $5,000 per unit in rental developments that include inclusionary affordable housing units.
The intent is for this impact fee offset to be temporary in nature while the new inclusionary requirements on
rental developments are phased in.
Temporarily reducing impact fees will result in a reduction in revenue to specific departments and Capital
Improvement Program projects if any rental development projects seek Planning entitlements.If Council would
like to pursue this impact fee offset to help make inclusionary affordable housing development more feasible
during the first year of the new regulations,staff recommends reducing each impact fee in proportion to its
share of the total impact fee burden.For example,the Parks Fee is 71%of the total impact fee burden;reducing
this fee by 71%of $5,000 results in a decrease of $3,542 per unit.Conversely,the Sewer Capacity Fee is
roughly 17%of the total impact fee burden,so it would be reduced by 17%of $5,000 or $849 per unit.There
are five impact fees that would share in this impact fee offset:Parks Fees,Childcare Impact Fee,Bike and
Pedestrian Impact Fee,Public Safety Impact Fee,and the Sewer Capacity Fee.There is a sixth fee charged to
developers - the School District Fee - but the City does not have the authority to reduce this fee.
It is difficult to forecast the impact this fee offset could have on City revenue,as we cannot foresee what
residential development applications may come forward in the next year.Current development trends indicate
that 400 residential rental units could come forward for Planning entitlements during the first year of the new
inclusionary affordable housing regulations.Given this scenario,the City would collect $2 million less revenue.
The following table is a breakdown of how this hypothetical $2 million loss in revenue would play out across
the various impact fees collected.
Percent of Total Fees Total Lost Revenue
Parks 71%$1,416,879
Childcare 9%$174,540
Bike & Pedestrian 1%$16,030
Public Safety 3%$53,088
Sewer Capacity 17%$339,463
100%$2,000,000
On the other hand,without the fee offset,there is a risk that the new inclusionary affordable housing
requirements would be set so high that it may stall projects currently in the development pipeline -such that no
fees are collected.If developers decided not to move forward with 400 units of housing in the next year,that
would result in approximately $8.5 million less revenue collected across these five impact fees.The intent of
the impact fee offset is to make inclusionary affordable housing construction more feasible and thus preserveCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/24/2020Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-848,Version:1
the impact fee offset is to make inclusionary affordable housing construction more feasible and thus preserve
the housing development pipeline.However,it should be noted that the revenue forgone if this fee offset is
approved will not be made up elsewhere.
In July 2018,staff from potentially impacted departments (Parks and Recreation,Public Works,Water Quality,
Police,and Fire)met to discuss the implications of this temporary impact fee offset.The Parks and Recreation
Department would see the biggest impact.Currently,the Parks and Recreation Department is planning to
proceed with Parks 11 implementation.Six parks have been targeted as highest priority.Original estimates
placed improvements of those parks at little more than $6 million.As design work has begun and estimates
refined,those projects are anticipated to cost approximately $27 million.Currently,the balance of the Parks and
Recreation Fee is roughly $1.6 million.Ultimately,what a reduction in impact fee revenue means for the Parks
and Recreation Department is that priority projects will take longer to accomplish or may go unfunded.
However,as noted above,if the inclusionary affordable housing requirements are set so high that it stalls the
development pipeline, then no fees are collected.
Public Works,Water Quality,Police,and Fire did not foresee negative impacts to specific programs or projects
from the temporary fee offset.However,there will be general impacts to programs and projects these
departments are tasked with completing.For example,the Public Safety Impact Fee is used to offset the cost of
purchasing equipment and making station improvements.The Bike and Pedestrian Fee is new and will be used
as the local match when the City applies for grants for bike and pedestrian improvements.The Public Works,
Engineering Division is also in the process of updating the Sewer Master Plan,which will identify mandatory
sewer upgrades and other system needs.Should Council direct staff to bring forward a Resolution
implementing the temporary fee offset, these programs could be impacted.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt ordinances repealing and replacing
South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.380 “Inclusionary Housing Regulations”and Chapter 20.390
“Bonus Residential Density,”adopt a resolution adopting a new affordable housing in-lieu fee,and provide
staff with feedback regarding Council’s interest in providing an impact fee offset for inclusionary projects.
Attachments:
1.San Mateo County Income Limits
2.Draft Minutes of the August 16, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting
3.May 7, 2018 Housing Standing Committee Meeting Staff Report
4.June 18, 2018 Housing Standing Committee Meeting Staff Report
5.Benchmarking Inclusionary Housing Regulations
6.SSFMC Chapter 20.380, Inclusionary Housing Regulations with Tracked Changes
7.Letter from Bella Vista Development
8.Letter from Fairfield Residential
9.Alternative Language Implementing January 1, 2019 Effective Date
10.SSFMC Chapter 20.390, Bonus Residential Density with Tracked Changes
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/24/2020Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Report regarding adoption of an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.70,Property Owner Obligations with Respect to
Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units,to the South San Francisco Municipal Code.(Kris
Romasanta, Community Development Coordinator)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:1)adopt an Ordinance adding
Chapter 8.70,Property Owner Obligations with Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or
Substandard Units,to the South San Francisco Municipal Code,and waive further reading;and 2)adopt
a Resolution authorizing funds for relocation assistance for displaced tenants.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On January 9,2019,the City Council held a study session to discuss renter protections.Staff provided an
overview of the types of residential displacement and offered information on existing local,state,and regional
policies that protect renters.
One of the policies City Council directed staff to explore is relocation assistance.In 2018,San Mateo County
adopted an ordinance requiring property owners to provide relocation assistance to tenants displaced due to
severe code violations caused by the property owner resulting in unsafe and hazardous conditions.Under the
County’s ordinance,the tenant also has the option to return to the unit after the code violation has been resolved
under the same terms during their previous tenancy.
In June 2019,the City of San Mateo adopted a similar ordinance,requiring property owners to pay displaced
tenants relocation assistance.While the City of San Mateo modeled its ordinance after the County,the City of
San Mateo made slight changes,such as offering more options for temporarily displaced tenants and
designating the City Council as the hearing body for all appeals related to Building and Housing.
Examining both ordinances,staff used the framework of the County’s ordinance and included provisions from
the City of San Mateo’s ordinance to prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration.
Relocation Assistance
Relocation assistance is triggered when a code violation is issued and the tenant household is required to vacate
the unit whether temporarily or permanently.If a property owner needs to correct violations in a room or unit,
the property owner must provide temporary housing options for relocation.Staff recommends that this
relocation assistance be provided regardless of the tenant household’s income,as it is incumbent upon landlords
to maintain housing in safe and habitable condition.If the landlord is unable to pay the relocation assistance at
the time it is required,staff recommends the City remit relocation assistance to the tenant and place a lien
against the property.
Since these types of events could prompt landlord and tenant conflict,a provision barring retaliation on any
member of the tenant household is included in the ordinance.This includes menacing conduct or threats to
disclose information relating to immigration or citizen status of a tenant,occupant,or other person known to
File #:19-588,Version:1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-588,Version:1
disclose information relating to immigration or citizen status of a tenant,occupant,or other person known to
the landlord.
Although code violations that require vacating tenants are rare,the City has recently issued violations with
tenants involved.Accordingly,staff recommends moving forward with an ordinance understanding that the low
inventory in housing and the hot housing market have given rise to non-conforming units that pose a risk to
unsafe and hazardous conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT
If a property owner cannot pay the relocation assistance in the timeframe required of the proposed ordinance,
the City would use its Housing Trust Fund to advance relocation payments to displaced households and recover
the relocation costs, and any related administrative costs, by placing a lien on the property.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The ordinance addresses Strategic Plan Priority Area 2 Quality of Life,Initiative 2.3 -Promote a balanced mix
of housing options in South San Francisco.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt an ordinance adding Chapter 8.70,Property Owner Obligations with
Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units,to the South San Francisco Municipal Code
and adopt a Resolution to authorize funds for relocation assistance for displaced tenants.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Ordinance adding Chapter 8.70 “Property Owner Obligations With Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe
or Substandard Units” to the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, some residential rental units in South San Francisco have severe code violations which threaten
the life and safety of occupants, and
WHEREAS, the hazardous living conditions often require that the tenant vacate the structure to allow for
extensive repairs or demolition of the structure; and
WHEREAS, when these code violations are caused by negligence or postponed maintenance by the property
owner, or when the property owner allows the improper use of a structure, the health and safety of tenants are at
risk; and
WHEREAS, property owners who fail to properly maintain residential rental properties, and/or create
substandard residential rental units should bear responsibility for the hardships their actions (or inaction) create
for the tenant; and
WHEREAS, relocation benefits and assistance are necessary to ensure that displaced tenants secure safe,
sanitary and decent replacement housing; and
WHEREAS, relocation costs are a necessary component of code enforcement that should be borne by the
property owner, and the City should be reimbursed by the responsible owner for relocation-related costs that it
incurs in the code enforcement process; and
WHEREAS, requiring property owners to pay relocation costs will encourage them to promptly correct code
violations and protect the public health, safety and general welfare of South San Francisco residents; and
WHEREAS, the relocation payment obligations imposed on property owners by this
ordinance reflect the actual costs of relocation likely to be incurred by displaced tenant household - in
particular, moving costs and the cost of first and last months’ rent, as well as other costs associated with
involuntary dislocation; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to require that property owners whose tenants are
displaced, either temporarily or permanently, due to City code enforcement activities, receive from property
owners’ payments to alleviate hardships associated with such displacements, thereby protecting and enhancing
the health and safety of South San Francisco residents; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the purpose of this ordinance, it would be appropriate to include an anti-retaliation
provision in the Ordinance to help advance these goals by ensuring tenants who exercise right granted under the
Ordinance will be protected from retaliation by property owners for doing so.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
File #:19-589,Version:1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 1 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.Incorporation of Recitals
The City Council of South San Francisco finds that all Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2.Amendments
The City Council of South San Francisco hereby adds Chapter 8.70 to the South San Francisco Municipal code to read as
follows:
Chapter 8.70
Property Owner Obligations With Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units
8.70.010 Title
8.70.020 Definitions
8.70.030 Tenant Eligibility for Relocation Payments
8.70.040 City Notices to Property Owners and Tenants
8.70.050 Property Owners’ Notice to Tenants
8.70.060 Relocation Payments by Property Owners
8.70.070 Relocation Payments by City Chargeable to Property Owners
8.70.080 Tenant Households’ Return Rights
8.70.090 Amount of Relocation Payments
8.70.100 Infraction
8.70.110 Appeals Process
8.70.120 Retaliation Barred
8.70.130 Private Right of Action
8.70.140 Severability
8.70.010 Title
This Chapter shall be known as Property Owner Obligations with Respect to Tenants
Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units.
8.70.020 Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter 8.70, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth herein:
A.“Code enforcement activities” are activities initiated by the City of South San Francisco to
determine the condition and/or legal conformity or nonconformity of a dwelling and to require the
property owner to make necessary repairs to the dwelling, to vacate the dwelling, or to take other
action as necessary to bring the dwelling into compliance with applicable state or local zoning,
building, and/or housing standards, and/or other technical codes adopted and enforced by the City
for existing residential properties.
B.“Declaration of substandard condition” means a declaration, notice, or order executed by an
Enforcement Officer under the authority of the applicable provision of law declaring that a dwelling
is substandard to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 2 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
public or the occupants thereof, or as otherwise amended by California Health & Safety Code
section 17920.3.
C.“Dwelling” means any structure that a person uses as a place of permanent or customary abode
within South San Francisco city limits, including, but not limited to, a single-family dwelling, a unit
in multifamily or multipurpose dwelling, a unit of a condominium or cooperative housing project, a
mobile home, a garage or shed, or any other unit or property that is considered to be real property
under State law. A dwelling is any structure that is actually used for residential purposes regardless
of whether the structure is decent, safe or sanitary and regardless of whether the actual residential
use is legally permitted or conforming under any applicable laws or regulations.
D.“Department” means the Economic and Community Development Department.
E.“Director” means the head of the Department, or his or her designee.
F.“Enforcement Officer” means City employee or agent of the City whose position requires
enforcement of any provision of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, any City
ordinance or any state law or regulation related to zoning, building or housing standards, and/or
other technical codes adopted by the City for existing residential properties including, but not
limited to, code enforcement officers, building officials and environmental health specialists.
G.“Noncomplying dwelling or room” means a dwelling or room within South San Francisco city
limits which has been found or determined by an Enforcement Officer to be substandard or
otherwise not in conformity with applicable state or local zoning, building and/or housing standards
and/or other technical codes adopted and enforced by the City for existing residential properties; and
"noncomplying condition" or "noncompliance" means any physical condition or use with respect to
the dwelling or room that contributes to such finding or determination.
H."Notice to abate life-threatening condition" means a notice and/or order to abate a substandard
or noncomplying condition issued by the City pursuant to its code enforcement activities, however
such notice or order is denominated, that indicates on its face that a life-threatening condition is
present.
I."Notice to vacate" means a notice and/or order, however denominated, issued by the City or a
court to a property owner and/or a tenant household pursuant to the City's code enforcement
activities requiring that a dwelling or room be vacated, either immediately pursuant to State law, or
at some future specified time, as a result of a determination that such dwelling or room fails to
comply with applicable building, housing, zoning, or other code standards. For purposes of this
Chapter, a "notice to vacate" includes a complaint or action filed by the City with a court and served
on the property owner pursuant to the City's code enforcement activities whereby the City asks for
vacation of the property as requested relief.
J."Permanent displacement" means the vacating of a dwelling or room by a tenant household due
to code enforcement activities when that dwelling or room (or an equivalent dwelling or room in the
building or complex), in the judgment of the Enforcement Officer, cannot foreseeably be brought
into code compliance or will not otherwise be available for re-occupancy by the tenant household
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 3 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
within ninety (90) days from the date of vacating; or when the tenant household and the property
owner have agreed that the displacement shall be permanent.
K."Property owner" means a person, persons, corporation, partnership, limited liability company,
or any other entity holding fee title to the subject real property. In the case of multiple ownership of
the subject real property, "property owner" means each entity holding any portion of the fee interest
in the property and the property owner's obligations in this Chapter shall be joint and several as to
each property owner.
L.“Room” means an unsubdivided portion of the interior of a dwelling in the City which is used
for the purpose of sleeping, and is occupied by a tenant household for at least thirty (30) consecutive
days. This includes, but is not limited to, a single room occupancy (SRO) living space. This
definition applies to any space that is actually used for residential purposes regardless of whether the
structure is decent, safe or sanitary and regardless of whether the actual residential use is legally
permitted or conforming under any applicable laws or regulations.
M."Temporary displacement" means the vacating of a dwelling or room by a tenant household due
to code enforcement activities when that dwelling or room (or an equivalent dwelling or room in the
same building or complex) will foreseeably be brought into code compliance and be available for re-
occupancy by the tenant household within ninety (90) days from the date of vacating; or when the
tenant household and property owner have otherwise agreed that the displacement shall be
considered temporary.
N."Tenant household" means one or more individuals who rent or lease a dwelling or room as their
primary residence and who share living expenses.
8.70.030 Tenant Eligibility for Relocation Payments
A.A tenant household shall be eligible for relocation payments from a property owner under this Chapter if
the tenant household is displaced from its dwelling or room due to the City's code enforcement activities. For
purposes of this Chapter, a tenant household shall be deemed to be displaced from its dwelling or room due to
code enforcement activities in either of the following circumstances:
1.The tenant household receives a notice from the property owner requiring
the household to vacate or quit the dwelling or room at any time after the City or a court
has issued a notice to vacate, a notice to abate life-threatening condition or a declaration
of substandard condition covering that dwelling or room; or
2.The tenant household vacates its dwelling or room (whether or not the
property owner requires vacation) after (a) the City or a court has issued a notice to
vacate, notice to abate life-threatening condition, or declaration of substandard condition
covering that dwelling or room, and (b) the abatement period has expired without
correction of the noncomplying condition (if a time period to abate the noncomplying
condition is specified in such notice or declaration and the City or court does not order
earlier vacation).
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 4 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
B.Notwithstanding subsection (A) above, a tenant household shall not be deemed displaced due to code
enforcement activities in any of the following cases:
1.The property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that
vacation of the dwelling or room was due primarily to a cause other than either (a) the
noncomplying condition, (b) the City's or court's determination that the dwelling or room
was a noncomplying dwelling or room, or (c) the need to make repairs to rectify any
noncomplying condition;
2.The property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that the
noncomplying condition was created by the tenant household or the tenant household's
guests or invitees, and was not created by the property owner or the property owner's agent,
or that the condition giving rise to the code enforcement activities existed at the time that the
tenant household occupied the dwelling or room and that the tenant household occupied the
dwelling or room for the purpose of receiving relocation benefits;
3.The property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that the tenant
household unreasonably prevented the property owner or the property owner's agent from
undertaking maintenance or repairs that would have prevented or rectified the noncomplying
condition;
4.All noncomplying conditions are corrected, as determined by the City, prior to the time
the tenant household has taken definitive steps to move from the dwelling or room;
5.The notice to vacate, notice to abate life-threatening condition, or declaration of
substandard condition is rescinded or withdrawn by the City or the court or is overturned on
appeal prior to the time the tenant household has taken definitive steps to move from the
dwelling or room;
6.The property owner offers, in writing, to move the tenant household immediately into a
replacement dwelling or room in the same building or complex, and all of the following are
true: (a) the replacement dwelling or room comparable in size, condition and amenities to the
formerly occupied dwelling or room; (b) the replacement dwelling or room complies with all
applicable zoning, building and housing codes; (c) the replacement rent is no greater than the
rent charged for the formerly occupied dwelling or room; and (d) the offer was made prior to
the time the tenant household has taken definitive steps to move; or
7.The tenant household is required to vacate the dwelling or room due solely to damage
resulting from an earthquake, fire, flood, natural disaster, civil disturbance, or accident
outside the control of the property owner, if (a) the vacation is required within six months of
such event, and (b) the property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that
such damage was not caused by the acts or the negligence of the property owner or by a
preexisting condition in the building in violation of applicable building, housing, fire, or
other health and safety codes.
C.Any provision of a lease or rental agreement for a dwelling or room in which the tenant household
agrees to modify or waive any of its rights under this Chapter, including its rights to relocation payments, shall
be void as contrary to public policy.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 5 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
8.70.040 City Notices to Property Owners and Tenants
A.An Enforcement Officer or other authorized official, along with issuance of any notice to vacate, notice
to abate life-threatening condition, or declaration of substandard condition to a property owner covering
a dwelling or room shall inform the property owner that any tenant household that vacates said dwelling
or room may be eligible for relocation payments from the property owner, that failure to make required
relocation payments to eligible tenant households before vacation may result in the City making
payments on behalf of the property owner, and that failure to reimburse the City for all relocation
payments made and other costs incurred may result in a lien being placed on the property. When issuing
any such notice or declaration, the City shall also provide information to each affected tenant household
in the building regarding the relocation benefits and assistance, if any, to which the tenant household
may be entitled.
B.Failure by the City to supply or attempt to supply any of the information or notices provided for in this
Chapter shall not affect the validity of any code enforcement notice, order, or action, nor shall any such
failure impact any property owner's obligation to abate any noncomplying conditions or provide
relocation assistance as required under this Chapter.
8.70.050 Property Owners’ Notice to Tenants
Any notice from a property owner to an eligible tenant household to vacate or quit a dwelling or room
following the issuance by City of a notice to vacate, notice to abate a life threatening condition, or declaration
of substandard condition must set forth the reasons for the need to vacate, the tenant household's entitlement to
relocation payments from the property owner, the tenant household's right to re-occupancy following
completion of repairs (if the property is one to be repaired), and the estimated date for re-occupancy. The
property owner shall send a copy of all notices to the Enforcement Officer.
8.70.60 Relocation Payments by Property Owners
A.The property owner shall be responsible for providing relocation payments, in the amounts specified in
Section 8.70.090, to an eligible tenant household in the form and manner prescribed in this Chapter. The
property owner shall furnish proof of any relocation payments made to tenant households to the
Director.
B.Except as set forth in Section 8.70.60(E), in the case of permanent displacement the property owner
shall make the relocation payment directly to an eligible tenant household no later than ten (10) days
before the expected vacation date of the dwelling or room specified in either a City or court notice or
order or the property owner's notice to vacate pursuant to Sections 8.70.040 and 8.70.050, whichever
date is earliest in the event of multiple notices. If less than ten (10) days' advance notice of vacation is
given, or no vacation date is specified in such notice or order, then the payment by the property owner
to the tenant household shall be made within twenty-four (24) hours after the notice to vacate is posted
and mailed.
C.If an eligible tenant household vacates a dwelling or room on its own initiative pursuant to Section
8.70.030(A)(2) in response to a notice to abate life-threatening condition or declaration of substandard
condition issued by the City (rather than in response to a notice to vacate by the City, a court or a
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 6 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
property owner), and if that tenant household has not given advance notice to the property owner of its
intention to vacate, then the payment by the property owner to the tenant household shall be made no
later than ten (10) days after written demand for such payment is made by the tenant household to the
property owner; provided, however, that in such case, such a demand must be made in writing by the
tenant household within thirty (30) days following the actual vacation of the dwelling or room.
D.In the case of temporary displacement, the property owner shall make the payment directly to an
eligible tenant household within five (5) days after the tenant household has submitted reasonably
probative documentation (such as bills, invoices, rental agreements, estimates, etc.) to the property
owner of the actual moving and temporary housing expenses the tenant household will incur or has
incurred as a result of the temporary displacement during the expected displacement period.
E.If the property owner and the tenant household agree in writing that a displacement initially treated as a
temporary displacement is to be a permanent displacement, the property owner shall provide the tenant
household relocation payments for temporary displacement required under Section 8.70.090(B) within
the period required under Section 8.70.060(D), as well as relocation payments for permanent
displacement required under Section 8.70.090(A) within ten (10) days after the displacement is
determined, in writing, to be a permanent displacement.
F.The obligation of the property owner to deliver relocation payments to a tenant household shall be
suspended pending the outcome of an appeal pursuant to Section 8.70.110 of this Chapter, if the
property owner has made a timely request for appeal.
G.Notwithstanding other provisions of this Chapter, a tenant household shall not be required to vacate the
dwelling or room until the required relocation payment has been made and any appeal requested by the
property owner has been concluded, unless (1) the Enforcement Officer has determined for health and
safety reasons that vacation must occur sooner; or (2) the property owner has complied with the
provisions of California Government Code section 7060, et seq., to withdraw such dwelling or room
from rental or lease. However, a property owner remains liable for payment of relocation payments to
eligible tenant households under this Chapter notwithstanding the applicability of the exceptions above
in clauses (1) and (2).
H.The property owner shall also be responsible for reimbursing the City for any relocation payments made
and costs incurred by the City pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, including pursuant to section
8.70.070.
8.70.070 Relocation Payments by City Chargeable to Property Owners
A.The City, in its sole discretion and subject to funding availability, may make any of the payments
required of a property owner under this Chapter, including advancing eligible tenant household(s)
reimbursable "moving expenses" and "temporary housing accommodations costs" as each of these terms
are defined below in Section 8.70.090(B). Such payments shall continue to be an obligation of the
property owner and shall be reimbursed by the property owner to the City. The City may consider
making such payments in its own discretion or if a tenant household makes a written request to the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 7 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
Department following a property owner's failure to pay the required payments within the period
mandated under Section 8.70.060, but in no event later than sixty (60) days following the tenant
household's vacation of the dwelling or room. Prior to any City payment to a tenant household, the
Director shall make a determination regarding the eligibility of the tenant household for relocation
payments. The Department will make reasonable efforts to contact a representative of the property
owner prior to making the determination or authorizing the City's payment. However, failure to give
prior notice to the property owner shall not relieve the property owner of any obligations under this
Chapter.
B.When the City makes any relocation payments that are the responsibility of the property owner under
this Chapter, the City shall bill the property owner for the amount of payment, plus any administrative
and other direct and/or indirect costs that it would not have incurred but for the failure of the owner to
make the required payment. The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, shall have the
discretion to reduce the amount of any required reimbursement from a property owner to the City in
cases where the factual and legal circumstances warrant such a reduction. The property owner shall
reimburse the City within five (5) days of receipt of billing from the City. If the property owner does not
make full and timely payment to the City, the City is entitled to recover an additional amount equal to
the sum of one-half the amount paid by the City on the property owner's behalf, but not to exceed ten
thousand dollars ($10,000.00), as a penalty for failure to make timely payment. The City may also
record a lien on the subject property with the County of San Mateo Recorder and shall provide notice of
such lien to the property owner and to the County of San Mateo Assessor. The form of such lien and the
manner of enforcement and collection shall be as authorized by state or local law. Alternatively, the City
may include the unreimbursed amount in any other lien placed on the property by the City to secure
payment of enforcement costs. Notwithstanding the above, the intent of this Chapter is to place primary
responsibility for making relocation payments to displaced tenant households on those property owners
who are responsible for code violations, and nothing in this section is intended to relieve or release any
such property owner from this responsibility.
8.70.080 Tenant Households’ Return Rights
A.An eligible tenant household who has experienced temporary or permanent displacement from its
dwelling or room due to code enforcement activities shall have the right to return to that dwelling or
room, or, if this is not possible, to move into an equivalent dwelling or room in the same building or
complex if there is an equivalent dwelling or room owned by the same owner, if and when the dwelling
or room is ready for occupancy and under the same terms and conditions that applied to the tenancy
prior to the period of displacement. If a tenant household intends to exercise this right, it must inform
the property owner in writing of its current address at all times during the period of displacement.
B.The property owner shall notify the eligible relocated tenant household at least thirty (30) days in
advance by certified mail of the availability of the dwelling or room. If a shorter notice is given and the
tenant household indicates that it wishes to return, the dwelling or room must be held vacant at no cost
to the household for a period no less than thirty-five (35) days after the mailing of the notice of
availability. The notice shall provide that within seven (7) days of receipt of notice of availability of the
dwelling or room, a tenant household wishing to return must notify the property owner in writing of this
election.
C.If a tenant household wishing to return to the dwelling or room is required to pay a security deposit, the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 8 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
tenant household must be permitted sufficient time to obtain a refund of any deposit paid to obtain
replacement housing during the period of relocation.
D.This return right is in addition to an eligible tenant household's entitlement to monetary relocation
payments from the property owner under the terms of this Chapter 8.70, and the exercise of this option
by a tenant shall not affect the household's eligibility for such payments.
8.70.090 Amount of Relocation Payments
A.Permanent Displacement. An eligible tenant household that will experience permanent displacement as
defined above shall receive a monetary relocation payment from the property owner equal to three times
the current monthly United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market
Rent for a unit of comparable size and type to the dwelling or room from which the displacement
occurs, less the actual rent the tenant household would have paid for the dwelling or room at the time of
displacement, plus a payment not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for actual moving costs
and related expenses incurred by the tenant household and substantiated by reasonably probative
documentation. The property owner shall treat any non-complying dwelling or room that does not have
one or more separate bedrooms as an "efficiency unit" for purposes of determining the applicable HUD
Fair Market Rent and calculating the required monetary relocation payment on that basis. In addition,
the tenant household is entitled to a refund and/or accounting for any security deposit held by the
property owner pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1950.5. For purposes of this Chapter, "HUD
Fair Market Rent" means the amount specified in the schedule of Fair Market Rents for existing housing
published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under Section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, applicable to the City of South San Francisco and current as of
the date the City or court issues the notice to vacate, notice to abate life-threatening condition, or
declaration of substandard condition.
B.Temporary Displacement.
1.An eligible tenant household that will experience temporary displacement as defined above shall
receive monetary relocation payment or payments from the property owner to cover the tenant
household's actual and reasonable moving expenses in addition to temporary housing
accommodations costs incurred as a result of the temporary displacement. "Moving expenses" shall
include the cost of removing, transporting, and/or storing the tenant household's personal property
during the displacement period. "Temporary housing accommodations costs" shall include the cost
of rental payments and hotel or motel payments during the displacement period. Except as provided
in Section 8.70.060(E), in no event shall the property owner be liable for making payment in excess
of the amount the tenant household would receive in the case of permanent displacement under
Section 8.70.090(A),
2.In lieu of the relocation payments required under subsection (B)(1), the property owner may
offer to provide a tenant household temporary housing accommodations. Tenant household shall
have the sole option to accept or decline this offer.
3.Temporary housing accommodations shall be (a) comparable in size, condition, or amenities to
the formerly occupied dwelling or room and (b) comply with all applicable zoning, building and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 9 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
housing codes and (c) shall be located within South San Francisco city limits or any jurisdiction that
borders South San Francisco, unless the tenant agrees in writing to accept temporary housing
accommodations in a different location.
4.If the temporary housing accommodations are not comparable in size, condition, or
amenities, or located within South San Francisco city limits or a jurisdiction that borders South San
Francisco, the property owner shall pay a living stipend in the amount of 50% of the current U.S.
General Services Administration meals & incidentals per diem rate for San Mateo/Foster
City/Belmont, per tenant household member, per day, not to exceed one thousand dollars
($1,000.00) per tenant household.
C.Immediate vacation.
When the condition of a dwelling or room is a danger to the public health and safety such that the City
requires vacation with fewer than thirty (30) days advance notice either
from the City or from the property owner to the tenant household of the need to vacate, an eligible
tenant household displaced from such a dwelling or room shall be entitled to an additional payment
from the property owner in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), in addition to the amounts
set forth above. Such additional payment is intended to compensate the tenant household for the
additional costs associated with short-notice moves and the added inconvenience of such moves.
8.70.100 Infraction
Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be
guilty of an infraction and shall be punishable by the following:
1.A fine not exceeding one hundred ($100.00) dollars for a first violation;
2.A fine not exceeding two hundred ($200.00) dollars for a second violation;
3.A fine not exceeding three hundred ($300.00) dollars for each additional violation within one year;
4.Each person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which
said violation is committed.
8.70.110 Appeals Process
A.Written Appeal.
1. A property owner or tenant household may contest a decision, order, or determination regarding
relocation payments or a notice of penalty or fine assessed this Chapter by submitting an appeal in
writing together with the appeal fee listed in the City's fee schedule. The appeal shall set forth the
factual basis for disputing the decision, order, or determination.
2.Appeals must be addressed to the Director, and must be received within ten (10) days of the date
appearing on the decision, order, or determination regarding relocation benefits or the notice of
penalty or fine. A copy of the appeal must be provided by the appellant to any tenant household(s) or
property owner(s) directly affected by the appeal on or by the same date that the appeal is received
by the Director.
B.Hearing Procedure.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 10 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
1.Upon receipt of a written appeal and appeal fee, the Director shall schedule a hearing before the
City Council. Any tenant household(s) or property owner(s) directly affected by the appeal shall
have the right to attend and participate in the hearing.
2.The appeal hearing shall be set for a date within thirty (30) days from the date that the
appeal is filed, unless the Director determines that good cause exists for an extension of time. The
appellant and any tenant household(s) or property owner(s) directly affected by the appeal shall
receive notice of the time and place at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing unless the Director
determined, in writing, that the matter is urgent, in which case the appellant and any tenant
household(s) or property owner(s) directly affected by the appeal shall receive at least five (5) days
prior notice of the hearing.
3.Documentary evidence and names of potential witnesses shall be provided by the
Enforcement Officer and the appellant to the City Council and any tenant household(s) or property
owner(s) directly affected by the appeal at least five (5) days prior to the appeal hearing or as soon
as practicable prior to the hearing. At the hearing, the tenant household(s) or property owner(s)
directly affected by the appeal shall be given the opportunity to testify and to present evidence
concerning the decision, order, or determination regarding relocation benefits or the notice of
penalty or fine. The failure of appellant to appear at the appeal hearing shall constitute a forfeiture of
the fine or penalty (if applicable).
4.The decision, order, or determination regarding relocation benefits or the notice of penalty or
fine and any additional report submitted by the Enforcement Officer shall constitute prima facie
evidence of the respective facts contained in those documents.
C.Decision on Appeal.
1.After considering all of the testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, the City
Council shall issue a written decision to uphold or cancel all or part of the decision, order, or
determination regarding relocation benefits or the notice of penalty or fine and shall state the
reasons for that decision. The decision of the City Council shall include findings regarding the
evidence in the record and submitted at the hearing, as well as the existence of any proper grounds
for the order to pay relocation benefits or the notice of penalty or fine. A copy of the City Council's
written decision shall be provided to the property owner as well as any tenant household(s) directly
affected by the appeal.
2.If the City Council determines that the decision, order, or determination regarding relocation
benefits or the notice of penalty or fine should be upheld, then the property owner shall pay the
appropriate sum(s) to the tenant household and/or the City within ten (10) days after the property
owner's receipt of the City Council's written decision.
3.To the extent allowed by law, the decision, order, or determination regarding relocation benefits
or notice of penalty or fine shall have the same force and effect as a resolution of the City Council
for the purpose of filing a lien, special assessment, or for pursuing any other method of collection.
8.70.120 Retaliation Barred
A.No property owner shall take any action in retaliation against any member of a tenant household for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 11 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
exercising rights granted under this Chapter:
1.Engage in conduct that violates subdivision (a) of Section 484 of the California Penal Code.
2.Engage in conduct that violates Section 518 of the California Penal Code.
3.Use, or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a
course of conduct that interferes with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of
Section 1927 of the California Civil Code that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable
person. Nothing in this paragraph requires a tenant to be actually or constructively evicted in order
to obtain relief.
4.Commit a significant and intentional violation of Section 1954 of the California Civil Code.
5.Threaten to disclose information regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of
a tenant, occupant, or other person known to the landlord to be associated with a tenant or occupant.
This paragraph does not require a tenant to be actually or constructively evicted in order to obtain
relief.
B.An oral or written warning notice, given in good faith, regarding conduct by a tenant, occupant, or guest
that violates, may violate, or violated the applicable rental agreement, rules, regulations, lease, or laws,
is not a violation of this section. An oral or written explanation of the rental agreement, rules,
regulations, lease, or laws given in the normal course of business is not a violation of this section.
C.This section does not enlarge or diminish a landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy pursuant to existing
state or local law; nor does this section enlarge or diminish any ability of local government to regulate
or enforce a prohibition against a landlord’s harassment of a tenant.
8.70.130 Private Right of Action
A.A tenant household that believes that a property owner has violated the provisions of this Chapter shall
have the right to file an action for injunctive relief and/or actual damages against such party. Likewise,
any property owner that believes that the provisions of this Chapter have been violated shall have the
right to file an action for injunctive relief and/or actual damages. Treble damages shall be awarded for a
property owner's willful failure to comply with the payment obligations established under this Chapter.
In any action brought under this Chapter, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to any
prevailing party.
B.Nothing herein shall be deemed to interfere with the right of a property owner to file an action against a
tenant or non-tenant third party for the damage done to said owner's property. Nothing herein is
intended to limit the damages recoverable by any party through a private action.
8.70.140 Severability
If any provision of this Chapter is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid
by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Chapter shall not
be invalidated.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 12 of 13
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-589,Version:1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 13 of 13
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Resolution approving budget amendment number 20.011 appropriating $35,000 from the City’s Affordable
Housing Trust Fund (Fund 205)to advance relocation payments,recover relocation costs,and any related
administrative expenses pursuant to Chapter 8.70 Property Owner Obligations with Respect to Tenants
Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units and authorizing the City Manager to execute documents related to
relocation assistance payments.
WHEREAS,the City desires to appropriate thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000)from the City’s Affordable
Housing Trust (Fund 205)to advance relocation payments to displaced tenant households,recover the
relocation costs,and any related administrative costs pursuant to Chapter 8.70 Property Owner Obligations with
Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units; and
WHEREAS,some residential rental units in South San Francisco have severe code violations which threaten
the life and safety of occupants, and while these situation are rare, they must be addressed; and
WHEREAS, the hazardous living conditions often require that the tenant vacate the structure to allow for
extensive repairs of demolition of the structure; and
WHEREAS, when these code violations are caused by negligence or postponed maintenance by the property
owner, or when the property owner allows the improper use of a structure, the health and safety of tenants are at
risk
WHEREAS, property owners who fail to properly maintain residential rental properties, and/or create
substandard residential rental units should bear responsibility for the hardships their actions (or inaction) create
for the tenant; and
WHEREAS, relocation benefits and assistance are necessary to ensure that displaced tenants secure safe,
sanitary and decent replacement housing; and
WHEREAS, relocation costs are a necessary component of code enforcement that should be borne by the
property owner, and the City should be reimbursed by the responsible owner for relocation-related costs that it
incurs in the code enforcement process; and
WHEREAS,the transaction will serve the goals of the City’s housing element by maintaining and improving
quality of life and assuring equal access to housing; and
WHEREAS,the staff report accompanying this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference,the City
Council has been provided with additional information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this
Resolution are based.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of South San Francisco that it hereby:
1.Approve budget amendment number 20.011 authorizing the appropriation of $35,000 from the City’s
File #:19-653,Version:1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-653,Version:1
1.Approve budget amendment number 20.011 authorizing the appropriation of $35,000 from the City’s
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund 205)to advance relocation payments to displaced tenant
households,recover relocation costs,and any related administrative pursuant to Chapter 8.70 Property
Owner Obligations with Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units.
2.Authorizes the City Manager (or his designee)to advance relocation payments to displaced tenant
households,recover relocation costs,execute documents related to relocation assistance payments and
any related administrative costs, and to take any other action consistent with the intent of this resolution.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/20/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Housing Production and
Challenges, and Goals for
Future Policies
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
APRIL 27, 2021
Today’s Study Session
1.Discuss existing affordable housing policy framework, housing
production, current City initiatives, and goals for Council to consider.
2.Hear from Council –where should staff focus its efforts to achieve
Council’s goals around affordable housing.
3.We’ve built in several slide breaks to discuss reactions or comments.
Today’s Study Session
1.Our City’s demographics
2.The high cost of housing
3.Who is affordable housing for?
4.Housing production over the past decade
5.So where’s all the affordable housing?
6.Existing policies & programs
7.Staff recommended goals
South San Francisco
Demographics
WHO WE’RE BUILDING HOUSING FOR
Reactions or Comments?
The high cost of housing
JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
Jobs/Housing (Im)balance
•10:1 jobs to housing ratio in San Mateo County
o 100,000 jobs added in San Mateo County since 2010
o 10,000 housing units added during the same period
6 low wage jobs for every 1 affordable unit built
•Impacts of jobs/housing imbalance:
o Higher housing costs
o Housing burden
o Longer commutes
o Unsafe living conditions
Ownership Rental
Number / Percent of All Units 13,048 / 60.1%8,282 / 39.8%
Median Income $107,895
Median Price $1,200,000 $3,100
Affordable Price (median income)$480,000
(w/ 10% down)$2,400
Housing Cost Burdened (>30%)34%
(w/ mortgage)45%
Housing affordability in South City
Who is affordable housing for?
Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30% Extremely Low
50% Very Low 63,950 73,100 82,250 91,350 98,700 106,000 113,300 120,600
80% Low 102,450 117,100 131,750 146,350 158,100 169,800 181,500 193,200
100% Median 128,062 146,375 164,687 182,937 197,625 212,250 226,875 241,500
120% Moderate 153,674 175,650 197,624 219,524 237,150 254,700 272,250 289,800
San Mateo County Income Limits
Who qualifies for affordable housing?
Reactions or Comments?
Housing production
2010 TO PRESENT
Previous RHNA
focused housing
near transit
Opportunity sites
identified in the
Housing Element
Development
followed in these
areas
Transit Village Area
Downtown
Development
since 2010
Consistent with
the Opportunity
Sites
Small infill +
Major Projects
Housing units produced
Since 2010, SSF has 2,798
Units complete, in
construction or pipeline:
•2,256 Market Rate Units
•542 Affordable Units
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Total % Built in 2010s
Existing Rental 967 27%
Existing For Sale 124 24%
In the Pipeline 411
Total Units 1,501
BARRIERS TO BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Where’s all the
affordable housing?
Legislative & Judicial Barriers
•A perfect storm of statutory, judicial, and economic forces stymied
affordable development in our last economic cycle:
o 2009 Court of Appeals decision prohibited cities from requiring
inclusionary affordable units in rental developments
o Governor dissolved Redevelopment Agencies statewide in 2012,
removing a steady stream of funding for affordable housing
o Rapid rise in land values and construction costs
Financing Affordable Housing
Rotary Miller Project
●LIHTC Equity -Enterprise
Community Partners
●Tax Exempt Permanent
Financing -Citibank
●SMC Housing Authority
(Project-Based Section 8)
●General Partner Sponsor Loan
●FHLB AHP (federal)
●Deferred Developer Fee
86% of affordable housing developments need funding from 2 or more
state funding agencies.
ROEM Grand & Linden
●LIHTC Equity -R4 Capital
●Tax Exempt Construction Loan -
Citibank
●SMC Housing Authority
(Project-Based Section 8)
●SMC Measure K
●City Loan
●Deferred Developer Fee
City affordable housing fund balances
•The following are the approximate, unencumbered, cash balances of
the City’s various housing funds:
o Governed by State guidelines in SB 341:
Fund 241 (Housing Successor Fund), $2 million
o Governed by City, serving household making less than 120% AMI:
Fund 205 (Housing Trust Fund), $700,000
Fund 823 (Commercial Linkage Fees), $1.8 million
Anticipated Housing Fees
•Anticipate $68M in Commercial Linkage Fees through FY 28-29
o Lane Partners’ planned development (near San Bruno BART) will
generate roughly $35M in fees
o Genentech Master Plan requires payment of $31M in fees over 15 years
o Permanent Local Housing Allocation from the State ($215,000 per year
for 5 years)
Reactions or Comments?
Existing policies & programs
FROM THE STATE, COUNTY, & CITY
Three categories
1.Production of new affordable housing
2.Preservation of existing or naturally-occurring affordable units
3.Protection of at-risk and/or lower-income tenants
Production policies & programs
●City interventions:
○Inclusionary ordinance
■15% of base units
○Commercial linkage fee
■$15.77/SF for office/R&D
■$5.26/SF for hotel
■$2.63/SF for retail
○Public land for affordable
housing
■ROEM, PUC, Firehouse,
109 Longford, & more
○ADU Ordinance
○Lot Split Ordinance
●County interventions:
○Measure K funding
●State interventions:
○State Density Bonus
○Surplus Land Act amendments
○SB 35 streamlining
○SB 330 fee freezes & expediting
○Objective standards in PSA & HAA
○ADUs ministerially approved
○SB 2 and SB 3 for funding
○SB 1487 Housing Finance Authority
Preservation policies & programs
●City interventions:
○Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program
○Debris Voucher Program
○Emergency Voucher Program
○Minor home repair programs
■Health & safety repairs
■Accessibility improvements
○HIP Housing Homesharing program
●State interventions:○No net loss ○LIHTC for Acq/Rehab ○AB 1521 expiring covenants ○Propositions 60/90 to transfer property tax base for 55+
●Federal interventions: ○Section 8 ○Public housing decent and safe rental housing ○Community Development Block Grant program
●City interventions:
○Rental assistance
○Red -tag Ordinance
○Urgency Ordinance prior to
AB 1482 going into effect
○Legal assistance
■Project Sentinel
■Legal Aid of SMC
●State interventions:
○AB 1482 statewide rent cap
and just cause eviction
■Limited to 5% plus CPI
○AB 1110 extended noticing
for rent increases
○SB 18 requires a 90-day
notice prior to eviction or
foreclosure
○SB 91 COVID-19 rent relief
and eviction moratorium
Protection policies & programs
Housing production, both market-rate and subsidized affordable units, is a key element of
neighborhood stabilization. Our previous research has found that constructing any type of
housing reduces displacement pressure, although subsidized housing is (unsurprisingly) more
effective than market rate. Still, new housing can have a catalytic effect on nearby properties,
spurring rent increases and evictions. Not only should there be a no net loss (one-for-one
replacement) policy for any rental housing demolished for new construction, but also as new
housing is constructed, jurisdictions should have measures for affordable housing preservation
and tenant protection in place already.
Investment & Divestment as Neighbors, A Study of Baseline Housing Conditions in the Bay Area Peninsula,
UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, January 2020
What does the research say?
Reactions or Comments?
FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Staff recommended goals
Address housing needs with a
community-focused lens
•Preserve naturally occurring affordable housing and units with
expiring affordability covenants
•Grow home ownership opportunities
•Strive for mixed-income neighborhoods that accommodate multi-
generational living in a diverse range of housing stock
Accelerate housing production
•Make approvals quicker, easier, and less expensive
•Secure land and/or dedicate land resources for affordable housing
City Council
Discussion/Direction
Housing Production and
Challenges, and Goals for
Future Policies
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
APRIL 27, 2021
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda: 4/27/2021 SP CC
Item #1
Today’s Study Session
1.Discuss existing affordable housing policy framework, housing
production, current City initiatives, and goals for Council to consider.
2.Hear from Council –where should staff focus its efforts to achieve
Council’s goals around affordable housing.
3.We’ve built in several slide breaks to discuss reactions or comments.
Today’s Study Session
1.Our City’s demographics
2.The high cost of housing
3.Who is affordable housing for?
4.Housing production over the past decade
5.So where’s all the affordable housing?
6.Existing policies & programs
7.Staff recommended goals
South San Francisco
Demographics
WHO WE’RE BUILDING HOUSING FOR
Reactions or Comments?
The high cost of housing
JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
Jobs/Housing (Im)balance
•10:1 jobs to housing ratio in San Mateo County
o 100,000 jobs added in San Mateo County since 2010
o 10,000 housing units added during the same period
6 low wage jobs for every 1 affordable unit built
•Impacts of jobs/housing imbalance:
o Higher housing costs
o Housing burden
o Longer commutes
o Unsafe living conditions
Ownership Rental
Number / Percent of All Units 13,048 / 60.1%8,282 / 39.8%
Median Income $107,895
Median Price $1,200,000 $3,100
Affordable Price (median income)$480,000
(w/ 10% down)$2,400
Housing Cost Burdened (>30%)34%
(w/ mortgage)45%
Housing affordability in South City
Who is affordable housing for?
Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30% Extremely Low 38,400 43,850 49,350 54,800 59,200 63,600 68,000 72,350
50% Very Low 63,950 73,100 82,250 91,350 98,700 106,000 113,300 120,600
80% Low 102,450 117,100 131,750 146,350 158,100 169,800 181,500 193,200
100% Median 104700 119,700 134,650 149,600 161,550 173,550 185,500 197,450
120% Moderate 125,650 143,600 161,550 179,500 193,850 208,200 222,600 236,950
San Mateo County Income Limits *UPDATED*
Who qualifies for affordable housing?
Reactions or Comments?
Housing production
2010 TO PRESENT
Previous RHNA
focused housing
near transit
Opportunity sites
identified in the
Housing Element
Development
followed in these
areas
Transit Village Area
Downtown
Development
since 2010
Consistent with
the Opportunity
Sites
Small infill +
Major Projects
Housing units produced
Since 2010, SSF has 2,798
Units complete, in
construction or pipeline:
•2,256 Market Rate Units
•542 Affordable Units
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Total % Built in 2010s
Existing Rental 967 27%
Existing For Sale 124 24%
In the Pipeline 411
Total Units 1,501
BARRIERS TO BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Where’s all the
affordable housing?
Legislative & Judicial Barriers
•A perfect storm of statutory, judicial, and economic forces stymied
affordable development in our last economic cycle:
o 2009 Court of Appeals decision prohibited cities from requiring
inclusionary affordable units in rental developments
o Governor dissolved Redevelopment Agencies statewide in 2012,
removing a steady stream of funding for affordable housing
o Rapid rise in land values and construction costs
Rotary Miller Project
●LIHTC Equity -Enterprise
Community Partners
●Tax Exempt Permanent
Financing -Citibank
●SMC Housing Authority
(Project-Based Section 8)
●General Partner Sponsor Loan
●FHLB AHP (federal)
●Deferred Developer Fee
Financing Affordable Housing
86% of affordable housing developments need funding from 2 or more
state funding agencies.
ROEM Grand & Linden
●LIHTC Equity -R4 Capital
●Tax Exempt Construction Loan -
Citibank
●SMC Housing Authority
(Project-Based Section 8)
●SMC Measure K
●City Loan
●Deferred Developer Fee
City affordable housing fund balances
•The following are the approximate, unencumbered, cash balances of
the City’s various housing funds:
o Governed by State guidelines in SB 341:
Fund 241 (Housing Successor Fund), $2 million
o Governed by City, serving household making less than 120% AMI:
Fund 205 (Housing Trust Fund), $700,000
Fund 823 (Commercial Linkage Fees), $1.8 million
Anticipated Housing Fees
•Anticipate $68M in Commercial Linkage Fees through FY 28-29
o Lane Partners’ planned development (near San Bruno BART) will
generate roughly $35M in fees
o Genentech Master Plan requires payment of $31M in fees over 15 years
o Permanent Local Housing Allocation from the State ($215,000 per year
for 5 years)
Reactions or Comments?
Existing policies & programs
FROM THE STATE, COUNTY, & CITY
Three categories
1.Production of new affordable housing
2.Preservation of existing or naturally-occurring affordable units
3.Protection of at-risk and/or lower-income tenants
Production policies & programs
●City interventions:
○Inclusionary ordinance
■15% of base units
○Commercial linkage fee
■$15.77/SF for office/R&D
■$5.26/SF for hotel
■$2.63/SF for retail
○Public land for affordable
housing
■ROEM, PUC, Firehouse,
109 Longford, & more
○ADU Ordinance
○Lot Split Ordinance
●County interventions:
○Measure K funding
●State interventions:
○State Density Bonus
○Surplus Land Act amendments
○SB 35 streamlining
○SB 330 fee freezes & expediting
○Objective standards in PSA & HAA
○ADUs ministerially approved
○SB 2 and SB 3 for funding
○SB 1487 Housing Finance Authority
Preservation policies & programs
●City interventions:
○Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program
○Debris Voucher Program
○Emergency Voucher Program
○Minor home repair programs
■Health & safety repairs
■Accessibility improvements
○HIP Housing Homesharing program
●State interventions:○No net loss ○LIHTC for Acq/Rehab ○AB 1521 expiring covenants ○Propositions 60/90 to transfer property tax base for 55+
●Federal interventions: ○Section 8 ○Public housing decent and safe rental housing ○Community Development Block Grant program
●City interventions:
○Rental assistance
○Red -tag Ordinance
○Urgency Ordinance prior to
AB 1482 going into effect
○Legal assistance
■Project Sentinel
■Legal Aid of SMC
●State interventions:
○AB 1482 statewide rent cap
and just cause eviction
■Limited to 5% plus CPI
○AB 1110 extended noticing
for rent increases
○SB 18 requires a 90-day
notice prior to eviction or
foreclosure
○SB 91 COVID-19 rent relief
and eviction moratorium
Protection policies & programs
Housing production, both market-rate and subsidized affordable units, is a key element of
neighborhood stabilization. Our previous research has found that constructing any type of
housing reduces displacement pressure, although subsidized housing is (unsurprisingly) more
effective than market rate. Still, new housing can have a catalytic effect on nearby properties,
spurring rent increases and evictions. Not only should there be a no net loss (one-for-one
replacement) policy for any rental housing demolished for new construction, but also as new
housing is constructed, jurisdictions should have measures for affordable housing preservation
and tenant protection in place already.
Investment & Divestment as Neighbors, A Study of Baseline Housing Conditions in the Bay Area Peninsula,
UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, January 2020
What does the research say?
Reactions or Comments?
FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Staff recommended goals
Address housing needs with a
community-focused lens
•Preserve naturally occurring affordable housing and units with
expiring affordability covenants
•Grow home ownership opportunities
•Strive for mixed-income neighborhoods that accommodate multi-
generational living in a diverse range of housing stock
Accelerate housing production
•Make approvals quicker, easier, and less expensive
•Secure land and/or dedicate land resources for affordable housing
City Council
Discussion/Direction
Back Pocket Slides
Inclusionary Ordinance
Process for Adoption
January 2018 Law changes allowing for inclusionary requirement for rentals
February 2018 City Council study session,referred to Housing Subcommittee
May 2018 Housing Subcommittee study session on housing policies
June 2018 Housing Subcommittee recommends:
-Rentals, 10% in year 1, 15% in year 2
-For Sale, 15% immediately
August 2018 Planning Commission recommends Ordinance to City Council
September 2018 City Council introduces and adopts the Ordinance
November 2018 Ordinance goes into effect
Considerations at the Time
•AB 1505 allowed State to review Ordinance
o if inclusionary requirement was set over 15% and
o <75% of above-moderate income units had been permitted or the
City had not submitted Housing Element ARP for 2+ years
•In 2018, SSF had met 58% of its above-moderate income RHNA and
City Ordinance would have been subject to State review
•Economic analysis showed rental development and podium-
condominium development was not, or only marginally, feasible
Considerations Today
•Economic analysis in June 2020 showed rental development still is
not, or only marginally, feasible
•SSF has now met 118% of its above-moderate income RHNA, so new
inclusionary requirement is unlikely to be subject to State review
•State Density Bonus has increased in generosity
o Easier for developers to utilize, benefits can be greater
o Bonus market rate units effectively make the City’s 15% requirement
on base units, about 10% on total units
Community Land Trusts
How do CLTs work?
•A nonprofit CLT is formed (board is residents & public reps)
•CLT acquires land, usually using gov’t or philanthropic grants
•A household purchases a house on land owned by the CLT
o Price is more affordable because they are buying the house, not land
•The household leases the land from the CLT in a long-term
renewable lease
•The household agrees to sell the home at a restricted price, but they
realize appreciation from improvements they make
Renter Assistance
City Funding
•$250,000 appropriated in FY19-20, fully spent
•$250,000 appropriated in FY20-21, nearly exhausted
•$215,000 expected to be received from the State and appropriated
in the coming months
Jobs/Housing Balance
in South San Francisco
Housing/Jobs (Im)balance
•Total Jobs in SSF now: 57,000
•Jobs/Housing ratio now: 2.6:1
•Total Jobs in SFF in 2040: 104,000
•Jobs/Housing ratio in 2040: 2.6:1
57,000
22,000
RHNA
Annual Progress Report 2020
•Issued 50 building permits for new units –primarily ADUs & SFH
•Received 8 applications for new housing, totaling 591 units
•As of December 31, 2020, permits issued for 1,027 units (55% of goal)
Housing Production to Date
•Permits issued for 837 above mod units (RHNA allocation is 705)
•Permits issued for 85 very low and low income units (RHNA allocation is
a combined 846)
Pipeline building permits for 800+ units, including 158 low income units
Preview of RHNA Cycle 6
•RHNA allocation considerations include:
o Jobs to Housing Ratio
o Desirable schools
o Proximity to transit
•SSF likely to receive 4,000+ units (more than double our current RHNA
allocation)
Demographics Cont.
SSF Demographics Deanna & Kris
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportGeneral InformationFirst NameTonyStreet Address315 Maple AvenuePhone6508778535Last NameRozziCitySouth San [email protected] PlannerZip Code94110Comments: Include any additional information or explanation for the information provided in the following tables.SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20201
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE A - Housing Development Applications SubmittedUnit InformationProject IdentifierProposed Units Affordability by Household IncomesCurrent APNStreetAddressVery Low-Income DeedRestrictedVery Low-Income NonDeedRestrictedLow-IncomeDeedRestrictedLow-IncomeNon DeedRestrictedModerate-Income DeedRestrictedModerate-Income NonDeedRestrictedAboveModerate-IncomeTotalProposedUnits byProjectTotalApprovedUnits byProjectTotalDisapprovedUnits byProject015113180100 ProduceAve & 124Airport Blvd000040044048000012305070455-463GRAND300000242700012181020879 Baden Ave0000011200012282120547 MILLERAVE/548 4THLANE0000001100014033170407 W OrangeAve0000001100010171210EL CAMINOREAL &HICKEY BLVD0000040400141849991477Huntington2001900022326200012261220563MAGNOLIA000001120001512601040 Airport Blvd000044024829200012335100201 Baden Ave0012012002400012321170428-432 BadenAve2030003136360013232090360 Alta VistaDr0010113112600012315220219 Miller Ave002020252900012135070701 Olive Ave0000002220SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20202
012181380840CommercialAve0000001110Totals25037099191,0091,189390Project InformationProject IdentifierUnit TypesPrior APNCurrent APNStreet AddressProject NameLocalJurisdictionTracking IDUnitCategoryTenureDate ApplicationSubmittedWas ApplicationSubmittedPursuant to SB35 Streamlining?Notes015113180015113180100 Produce Ave& 124 Airport BlvdPS Office ParkP18-00745+Renter10/25/2018NoProject review underway012305070012305070455-463 GRANDP19-00665+Renter06/03/2020NoProject review underway012181020012181020879 Baden AveP20-0072SFAOwner11/25/2020NoProject review underway012282120012282120547 MILLERAVE/548 4THLANEP20-0008SFDOwner11/02/2020NoProject review underway014033170014033170407 W Orange AveP20-00071SFDOwner12/07/2020NoProject review underway010171210010171210EL CAMINO REAL& HICKEY BLVDHickey Live/WorkUnitsP20-00212 to 4Renter03/05/2020NoProject review underway14184999141849991477 HuntingtonP20-00795+Renter11/19/2020NoProject review underway012261220012261220563 MAGNOLIAP20-0076SFAOwner11/16/2020NoProject review underway01512601001512601040 Airport BlvdBlake GriggsP20-00825+Renter12/09/2020NoProject review underway012335100012335100201 Baden AveHabitat forHumanity FireStation RDAP19-00065+Owner01/14/2019NoProject review underway12321170012321170428-432 BadenAveBaden StationP19-00215+Renter03/15/2019NoProject review underway13232090013232090360 Alta Vista DrAlta Vista PUDP19-0028SFAOwner03/22/2019NoProject review underway - 13 SFDw attached ADUs012315220012315220219 Miller AvePenna MillerCondoP19-00415+Owner05/15/2019NoProject review underway012135070012135070701 Olive AveDuplexP19-00542 to 4Renter06/25/2019NoProject review underway012181380012181380840 CommercialAveSFDP19-0068SFDRenter08/21/2019NoProject review underwaySOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20203
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE A2 - Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New ConstructionEntitlementsProject IdentifierAffordability by Household Income - EntitlementsCurrent APNStreetAddressLocalJurisdictionTracking IDVery Low-Income DeedRestrictedVery Low-Income NonDeedRestrictedLow-IncomeDeedRestrictedLow-IncomeNon DeedRestrictedModerate-Income DeedRestrictedModerate-Income NonDeedRestrictedAboveModerate-IncomeEntitlementDateApproved# of UnitsIssuedEntitlements012232140645 Baden AveP18-0034000020607/10/20198012338050200 AirportBlvdP18-00710000908507/24/201994012323200423CommercialAveP18-0058000000412/19/20194093312050;0933120601051 MissionRoadP18-008155010300064211/13/201980012181140835 Baden AveP19-0022000000104/16/20191010204080752 Alta LomaDrP19-0023000001007/19/20191012202140753 Third LaneP19-0026000000105/21/20191012323480458 RailroadAveP19-0027000000207/16/20192013024150303 Fairway DrP19-0078000000112/17/201910911510403301 ShannonPlaceB19-04910010201903/13/20192201016111073 Duval DrB17-19580000000001030224048 San FelipeAveB18-15830000000001209422019 RandolphAveB18-176000000000012334130200 Linden AveB18-030400000000014011260988 El CaminoRealB18-1836000000000103930508 CHICO CTB18-068300000000SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20204
010283080336 DELMONTE AVEB17-161100000000012017070823 HEMLOCKAVEB18-153600000000012024220625 LARCHAVEB19-027300000000010222150724 NEWMANDRB17-20210000000001036112043 CAPAY CIRB17-146000000000014123180105 SMAGNOLIAAVEB18-084200000000012273200510 BADENAVEB17-073300000000014113300128MULBERRYAVEB18-059500000000013231240425 ALTAVISTA DRB17-162200000000012318040398 CYPRESSAVENUE DB16-157200000000012318080400 CYPRESSAVENUE AB16-156400000000012172140511 LINDENAVEB17-1525000000000111715001256 MISSIONRDB15-0856000000000111715001256 MISSIONRD00000000012311260310 Miller AveB16-197300000000012143050235 ARMOURAVEB16-061400000000012292030512 ELM CTB18-063300000000014144110130 CHERRYAVEB19-115500000000SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20205
0915611002569OLMSTEADCTB19-040100000000012233070656 BADENAVEB18-039400000000012335560293 VILLAGEWAYB18-111200000000010173200830CAMARITASAVEB18-095600000000012123020529 ROCCAAVEB19-203400000000012231410660RAILROADAVEB19-14900000000001030627019 CLARA AVEB18-005200000000012042070119 DRAKEAVEB18-083500000000011202320269WESTVIEWDRB18-160600000000010103340236 DUNDEEDRB19-022300000000014022230763 CIRCLECTB18-156200000000014033380213 A STB19-102300000000012262040518MAGNOLIAAVEB18-14430000000001035537056 ESCANYODRB19-223500000000012214190730 MILLERAVEB19-023300000000010307170304CAMARITASAVEB19-161300000000SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20206
0910342203148 DUBLINCTB19-104200000000012183200828 BADENAVEB20-012700000000012181480872COMMERCIALAVEB20-032000000000012213010773 PALM AVEB19-02680000000001213442026 SCHOOLSTB19-105100000000012033010117 FRANKLINAVEB19-105000000000012336230280 VILLAGEWAYB19-044200000000012232400630COMMERCIALAVEB19-077500000000012024020733 LARCHAVEB19-10710000000009164125020 CHATEAUCTB19-145700000000010224010255 LAMONTEAVEB19-1584000000000915612402566OLMSTEADCTB19-174500000000010343100128 ALTAMESA DRB19-197500000000012212180722 GRANDAVEB19-19830000000001036212052 CAPAY CIRB19-223600000000014113260120 TOYONAVEB20-033000000000012272150529 BADENAVEB20-033800000000SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20207
012244070656 MILLERAVEB20-033900000000012145130225 ASPENAVEB20-035700000000012201250123 ORANGEAVEB20-038200000000010266040359 SERRADRB20-042100000000012135040711 OLIVEAVEB20-046200000000010275140129LACROSSEAVEB20-049300000000013172040347ROCKWOODDRB20-06750000000001236009019 VIEWMONTTERB20-073600000000013052030428 ALMANORAVEB20-077900000000012080460150 PECKS LNB20-083100000000013092120419 ZAMORADRB20-08490000000001304316090 FAIRWAYDRB20-095100000000012201080759 Baden AveB20-110800000000012043130111CLAREMONTAVEB20-125100000000012184110856 GRANDAVEB19-0941000000104/25/2019101202316089 IRVING STB20-0597000000000NANA00000000012333060338 FIRSTLANE A & BB17-0970000000203/21/20172SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20208
012321170428-432 BadenAveP19-00212030003108/06/202036012135070701 Olive AveP19-0054000000205/19/20202012181380840CommercialAveP19-0068000000106/16/20201012338140150 AirportBlvdB17-078800000015701/19/2017157012272240502COMMERCIALAVEB16-2100000000110/18/20161012181380849 SecondLaneB20-0928000000106/16/20201012231410660 RailroadAveP20-0011000000110/20/20201012245060629 TamarackLaneP20-0012000001108/18/20202014183270410 Noor AveP18-00130017017030412/09/2020338Totals57012403021,2631,476SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 20209
Building PermitsProject IdentifierAffordability by Household Income - Building PermitsCurrent APNStreetAddressLocalJurisdictionTracking IDVery Low-Income DeedRestrictedVery Low-Income NonDeedRestrictedLow-IncomeDeedRestrictedLow-IncomeNon DeedRestrictedModerate-Income DeedRestrictedModerate-Income NonDeedRestrictedAboveModerate-IncomeBuildingPermits DateIssued# of UnitsIssuedBuildingPermits012232140645 Baden AveP18-003400000000012338050200 AirportBlvdP18-007100000000012323200423CommercialAveP18-005800000000093312050;0933120601051 MissionRoadP18-00810000000012181140835 Baden AveP19-002200000000010204080752 Alta LomaDrP19-002300000000012202140753 Third LaneP19-002600000000012323480458 RailroadAveP19-002700000000013024150303 Fairway DrP19-0078000000106/25/202010911510403301 ShannonPlaceB19-04910010201911/12/20192201016111073 Duval DrB17-1958000001004/17/2019101030224048 San FelipeAveB18-1583000001008/12/2019101209422019 RandolphAveB18-1760000001004/19/20191012334130200 Linden AveB18-030400001907801/29/201997014011260988 El CaminoRealB18-183600000017210/30/20191720103930508 CHICO CTB18-068300000000010283080336 DELMONTE AVEB17-161100000000SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202010
012017070823 HEMLOCKAVEB18-153600000000012024220625 LARCHAVEB19-0273000001007/26/20191010222150724 NEWMANDRB17-20210000000001036112043 CAPAY CIRB17-146000000000014123180105 SMAGNOLIAAVEB18-084200000000012273200510 BADENAVEB17-073300000000014113300128MULBERRYAVEB18-059500000000013231240425 ALTAVISTA DRB17-162200000000012318040398 CYPRESSAVENUE DB16-157200000000012318080400 CYPRESSAVENUE AB16-156400000000012172140511 LINDENAVEB17-1525000000000111715001256 MISSIONRDB15-0856000000000111715001256 MISSIONRD00000000012311260310 Miller AveB16-197300000000012143050235 ARMOURAVEB16-061400000000012292030512 ELM CTB18-063300000000014144110130 CHERRYAVEB19-1155000001001/01/202010915611002569OLMSTEADCTB19-0401000001001/01/20201SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202011
012233070656 BADENAVEB18-039400000000012335560293 VILLAGEWAYB18-1112000001001/01/20201010173200830CAMARITASAVEB18-0956000001001/01/20201012123020529 ROCCAAVEB19-2034000001001/08/20201012231410660RAILROADAVEB19-1490000001001/01/2020101030627019 CLARA AVEB18-0052000001001/01/20201012042070119 DRAKEAVEB18-083500000000011202320269WESTVIEWDRB18-1606000001001/01/20201010103340236 DUNDEEDRB19-0223000001001/01/20201014022230763 CIRCLECTB18-1562000001001/01/20201014033380213 A STB19-1023000001001/22/20201012262040518MAGNOLIAAVEB18-1443000001001/01/2020101035537056 ESCANYODRB19-2235000001006/05/20201012214190730 MILLERAVEB19-0233000001001/01/20201010307170304CAMARITASAVEB19-1613000001003/06/202010910342203148 DUBLINCTB19-1042000001004/01/20201012183200828 BADENAVEB20-0127000001009/15/20201SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202012
012181480872COMMERCIALAVEB20-0320000001005/19/20201012213010773 PALM AVEB19-0268000001001/01/2020101213442026 SCHOOLSTB19-1051000001001/01/20201012033010117 FRANKLINAVEB19-1050000001001/01/20201012336230280 VILLAGEWAYB19-0442000001001/03/20201012232400630COMMERCIALAVEB19-0775000001009/11/20201012024020733 LARCHAVEB19-1071000001001/21/2020109164125020 CHATEAUCTB19-1457000001005/27/20201010224010255 LAMONTEAVEB19-1584000001002/12/202010915612402566OLMSTEADCTB19-1745000001007/15/20201010343100128 ALTAMESA DRB19-1975000001002/03/20201012212180722 GRANDAVEB19-1983000001006/02/2020101036212052 CAPAY CIRB19-2236000001005/01/20201014113260120 TOYONAVEB20-0330000001006/24/20201012272150529 BADENAVEB20-0338000001007/16/20201012244070656 MILLERAVEB20-0339000001011/18/20201012145130225 ASPENAVEB20-0357000001008/13/20201SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202013
012201250123 ORANGEAVEB20-0382000001012/28/20201010266040359 SERRADRB20-0421000001010/22/20201012135040711 OLIVEAVEB20-0462000001009/08/20201010275140129LACROSSEAVEB20-0493000001005/06/20201013172040347ROCKWOODDRB20-0675000001011/12/2020101236009019 VIEWMONTTERB20-0736000001009/10/20201013052030428 ALMANORAVEB20-0779000001009/09/20201012080460150 PECKS LNB20-0831000001011/02/20201013092120419 ZAMORADRB20-0849000001010/09/2020101304316090 FAIRWAYDRB20-0951000001010/16/20201012201080759 Baden AveB20-1108000001010/30/20201012043130111CLAREMONTAVEB20-1251000001012/18/20201012184110856 GRANDAVEB19-0941000000102/20/2020101202316089 IRVING STB20-0597000001008/07/202010NANA00000000012333060338 FIRSTLANE A & BB17-097000000000012321170428-432 BadenAveP19-002100000000012135070701 Olive AveP19-005400000000SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202014
012181380840CommercialAveP19-006800000000012338140150 AirportBlvdB17-078800000015708/17/2018157012272240502COMMERCIALAVEB16-210000000000012181380849 SecondLaneB20-0928000000111/20/20201012231410660 RailroadAveP20-001100000000012245060629 TamarackLaneP20-001200000000014183270410 Noor AveP18-001300000000Totals00102151429502SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202015
Certificate of OccupancyProject IdentifierAffordability by Household Income - Certificate of OccupancyCurrent APNStreetAddressLocalJurisdictionTracking IDVery Low-Income DeedRestrictedVery Low-Income NonDeedRestrictedLow-IncomeDeedRestrictedLow-IncomeNon DeedRestrictedModerate-Income DeedRestrictedModerate-Income NonDeedRestrictedAboveModerate-IncomeCertificates ofOccupancy orother forms ofreadinessDate Issued# of UnitsIssuedCertificates ofOccupancy orother forms ofreadiness012232140645 Baden AveP18-003400000000012338050200 AirportBlvdP18-007100000000012323200423CommercialAveP18-005800000000093312050;0933120601051 MissionRoadP18-00810000000012181140835 Baden AveP19-002200000000010204080752 Alta LomaDrP19-002300000000012202140753 Third LaneP19-002600000000012323480458 RailroadAveP19-002700000000013024150303 Fairway DrP19-0078000000000911510403301 ShannonPlaceB19-04910010201901/01/20212201016111073 Duval DrB17-1958000001006/11/2020101030224048 San FelipeAveB18-1583000001007/09/2020101209422019 RandolphAveB18-1760000001011/19/20201012334130200 Linden AveB18-030400000000014011260988 El CaminoRealB18-1836000000000103930508 CHICO CTB18-0683000001012/06/20191SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202016
010283080336 DELMONTE AVEB17-1611000001010/29/20191012017070823 HEMLOCKAVEB18-1536000001010/18/20191012024220625 LARCHAVEB19-0273000001010/15/20191010222150724 NEWMANDRB17-2021000001005/29/2019101036112043 CAPAY CIRB17-1460000001003/13/20191014123180105 SMAGNOLIAAVEB18-0842000001003/04/20191012273200510 BADENAVEB17-0733000001002/21/20191014113300128MULBERRYAVEB18-0595000001001/16/20191013231240425 ALTAVISTA DRB17-1622000001011/19/20191012318040398 CYPRESSAVENUE DB16-157200000010010/29/2019100012318080400 CYPRESSAVENUE AB16-156400000016010/29/2019160012172140511 LINDENAVEB17-1525000000206/27/201920111715001256 MISSIONRDB15-08560000003104/05/2019310111715001256 MISSIONRD000000401/29/20194012311260310 Miller AveB16-19738100000001/31/201981012143050235 ARMOURAVEB16-0614000000301/23/20193012292030512 ELM CTB18-0633000001001/15/20201014144110130 CHERRYAVEB19-1155000001003/02/20201SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202017
0915611002569OLMSTEADCTB19-0401000001003/04/20201012233070656 BADENAVEB18-0394000001003/11/20201012335560293 VILLAGEWAYB18-1112000001005/06/20201010173200830CAMARITASAVEB18-0956000001005/18/20201012123020529 ROCCAAVEB19-2034000001005/19/20201012231410660RAILROADAVEB19-1490000001005/26/2020101030627019 CLARA AVEB18-0052000001005/28/20201012042070119 DRAKEAVEB18-0835000001006/02/20201011202320269WESTVIEWDRB18-1606000001006/22/20201010103340236 DUNDEEDRB19-0223000001006/23/20201014022230763 CIRCLECTB18-1562000001006/30/20201014033380213 A STB19-1023000001009/14/20201012262040518MAGNOLIAAVEB18-1443000001009/16/2020101035537056 ESCANYODRB19-2235000001009/24/20201012214190730 MILLERAVEB19-0233000001010/23/20201010307170304CAMARITASAVEB19-1613000001011/03/20201SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202018
0910342203148 DUBLINCTB19-1042000001012/07/20201012183200828 BADENAVEB20-0127000001012/07/20201012181480872COMMERCIALAVEB20-0320000001012/10/20201012213010773 PALM AVEB19-0268000001012/21/2020101213442026 SCHOOLSTB19-1051000001012/23/20201012033010117 FRANKLINAVEB19-1050000001012/29/20201012336230280 VILLAGEWAYB19-044200000000012232400630COMMERCIALAVEB19-077500000000012024020733 LARCHAVEB19-10710000000009164125020 CHATEAUCTB19-145700000000010224010255 LAMONTEAVEB19-1584000000000915612402566OLMSTEADCTB19-174500000000010343100128 ALTAMESA DRB19-197500000000012212180722 GRANDAVEB19-19830000000001036212052 CAPAY CIRB19-223600000000014113260120 TOYONAVEB20-033000000000012272150529 BADENAVEB20-033800000000SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202019
012244070656 MILLERAVEB20-033900000000012145130225 ASPENAVEB20-035700000000012201250123 ORANGEAVEB20-038200000000010266040359 SERRADRB20-042100000000012135040711 OLIVEAVEB20-046200000000010275140129LACROSSEAVEB20-049300000000013172040347ROCKWOODDRB20-06750000000001236009019 VIEWMONTTERB20-073600000000013052030428 ALMANORAVEB20-077900000000012080460150 PECKS LNB20-083100000000013092120419 ZAMORADRB20-08490000000001304316090 FAIRWAYDRB20-095100000000012201080759 Baden AveB20-110800000000012043130111CLAREMONTAVEB20-125100000000012184110856 GRANDAVEB19-09410000000001202316089 IRVING STB20-0597000000000NANA00000000012333060338 FIRSTLANE A & BB17-0970000000206/30/20202SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202020
012321170428-432 BadenAveP19-002100000000012135070701 Olive AveP19-005400000000012181380840CommercialAveP19-006800000000012338140150 AirportBlvdB17-078800000000012272240502COMMERCIALAVEB16-2100000000112/21/20201012181380849 SecondLaneB20-092800000000012231410660 RailroadAveP20-001100000000012245060629 TamarackLaneP20-001200000000014183270410 Noor AveP18-001300000000Totals81010237322443SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202021
Project InformationProject IdentifierUnit TypesHousing withFinancialAssistance and/orDeed RestrictionsDemolished/Destroyed UnitsUnits?PriorAPNCurrentAPNStreetAddressProjectNameLocalJurisdictionTrackingIDUnitCategoryTenureExtremely LowIncomeUnitsWasProjectApproved usingSB 35Streamlining?InfillUnits?AssistancePrograms foreachDevelopmentDeedRestriction TypeHousingwithoutFinancialAssistance orDeedRestrictionsTerm ofAffordability orDeedRestrictionNumberofDemolished/Destroyed UnitsDemolished orDestroyed Units?Demolished/ orDestroyed UnitsOwner orRenterNotes012232140012232140645BadenAveP18-00345+Owner0NYINC550012338050012338050200AirportBlvdFairfieldDevelopmentP18-00715+Renter0NYOtherAffordable HsingAgmt550012323200012323200423Commercial AveP18-00582 to 4Owner0NY0Noinclusionary req'd093312050;093312060093312050;0933120601051MissionRoadL37 KasaP18-00815+Renter55NYLIHTCINCAffordable HsingAgmt55001218114012181140835BadenAveP19-0022SFDRenter0NY0010204080010204080752 AltaLoma DrP19-0023ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012202140012202140753 ThirdLaneP19-0026SFDOwner0NY0ISSUEDDEC2019 BUTNOTINCLUDED THENSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202022
012323480012323480458RailroadAveP19-0027SFARenter0NY0013024150013024150303FairwayDrP19-0078SFDOwner0NY1REBUILDOF FIREDAMAGEDHOUSE0911510400911510403301ShannonPlaceOakmontMeadows- 22 unitSubdivisionB19-0491SFDOwner0NYINC55001016111001016111073 DuvalDrB17-1958ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents001030224001030224048 SanFelipeAveB18-1583ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents001209422001209422019RandolphAveB18-1760ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012334130012334130200LindenAve200LindenB18-03045+Owner0NYINC550014011260014011260988 ElCaminoReal988 ECRB18-18365+Renter0NY00103930500103930508 CHICOCTB18-0683ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0010283080010283080336 DELMONTEAVEB17-1611ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202023
012017070012017070823HEMLOCK AVEB18-1536ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012024220012024220625LARCHAVEB19-0273ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0010222150010222150724NEWMAN DRB17-2021ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents001036112001036112043CAPAYCIRB17-1460ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0014123180014123180105 SMAGNOLIA AVEB18-0842ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012273200012273200510BADENAVEB17-0733ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0014113300014113300128MULBERRY AVEB18-0595ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0013231240013231240425 ALTAVISTADRB17-1622ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012318040012318040398CYPRESSAVENUEDCadencePhase IB16-15725+Renter0NY0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202024
012318080012318080400CYPRESSAVENUEACadencePhase IB16-15645+Renter0NY0012172140012172140511LINDENAVEB17-15252 to 4Renter0NY00111715000111715001256MISSIONRDSouthCityPlaceB15-08565+Owner0NY00111715000111715001256MISSIONRDSouthCityPlaceSFDOwner0NY0012311260012311260310 MillerAveRotarySeniorHousingB16-19735+Renter0NYLIHTCDBAffordable HsingAgmt556012143050012143050235ARMOURAVEB16-06142 to 4Renter0NY0012292030012292030512 ELMCTB18-0633ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0014144110014144110130CHERRYAVEB19-1155ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED0915611000915611002569OLMSTEAD CTB19-0401ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED012233070012233070656BADENAVEB18-0394ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202025
012335560012335560293VILLAGEWAYB18-1112ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED010173200010173200830CAMARITAS AVEB18-0956ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED012123020012123020529ROCCAAVEB19-2034ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012231410012231410660RAILROAD AVEB19-1490ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED01030627001030627019CLARAAVEB18-0052ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED012042070012042070119DRAKEAVEB18-0835ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0011202320011202320269WESTVIEW DRB18-1606ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED010103340010103340236DUNDEEDRB19-0223ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDEDSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202026
014022230014022230763CIRCLECTB18-1562ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED014033380014033380213 A STB19-1023ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012262040012262040518MAGNOLIA AVEB18-1443ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED01035537001035537056ESCANYO DRB19-2235ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012214190012214190730MILLERAVEB19-0233ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED010307170010307170304CAMARITAS AVEB19-1613ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents00910342200910342203148DUBLINCTB19-1042ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012183200012183200828BADENAVEB20-0127ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012181480012181480872COMMERCIALAVEB20-0320ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202027
012213010012213010773PALMAVEB19-0268ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED01213442001213442026SCHOOLSTB19-1051ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED012033010012033010117FRANKLIN AVEB19-1050ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0ISSUED2019 BUTNEVERINCLUDED012336230012336230280VILLAGEWAYB19-0442ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012232400012232400630COMMERCIALAVEB19-0775ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012024020012024020733LARCHAVEB19-1071ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents009164125009164125020CHATEAU CTB19-1457ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0010224010010224010255LAMONTE AVEB19-1584ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents00915612400915612402566OLMSTEAD CTB19-1745ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202028
010343100010343100128 ALTAMESADRB19-1975ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012212180012212180722GRANDAVEB19-1983ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents001036212001036212052CAPAYCIRB19-2236ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0014113260014113260120TOYONAVEB20-0330ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012272150012272150529BADENAVEB20-0338ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012244070012244070656MILLERAVEB20-0339ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012145130012145130225ASPENAVEB20-0357ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012201250012201250123ORANGEAVEB20-0382ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0010266040010266040359SERRADRB20-0421ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202029
012135040012135040711OLIVEAVEB20-0462ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0010275140010275140129LACROSSE AVEB20-0493ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0013172040013172040347ROCKWOOD DRB20-0675ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents001236009001236009019VIEWMONT TERB20-0736ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0013052030013052030428ALMANOR AVEB20-0779ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012080460012080460150PECKSLNB20-0831ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0013092120013092120419ZAMORADRB20-0849ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents001304316001304316090FAIRWAY DRB20-0951ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012201080012201080759BadenAveB20-1108ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202030
012043130012043130111CLAREMONT AVEB20-1251ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0012184110012184110856GRANDAVEB19-0941SFDOwner0NY001202316001202316089IRVINGSTB20-0597ADURenter0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents00NANASFAOwner0NY0012333060012333060338FIRSTLANE A &BB17-0970SFARenter0NY012321170012321170428-432BadenAveBadenStationP19-00215+Renter0NYDB0012135070012135070701 OliveAveDuplexP19-00542 to 4Renter0NY0012181380012181380840Commercial AveSFDP19-0068SFDOwner0NY0012338140012338140150AirportBlvdB17-07885+Renter0NY0012272240012272240502COMMERCIALAVESFDB16-2100SFDOwner0NY0012181380012181380849SecondLaneB20-0928SFDOwner0NY0012231410012231410660RailroadAveP20-0011SFDOwner0NY0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202031
012245060012245060629TamarackLaneP20-0012SFAOwner0NYADU atModerateIncomeRents0014183270014183270410 NoorAveP18-00135+Renter0NYINC0SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202032
Very Low*565Deedrestricted008000000080485Non-Restricted000000000Low281Deedrestricted3100100005276Non-Restricted000000000Moderate313Deedrestricted4502210000105208Non-Restricted6853447000AboveModerate705289228316226930008370Total Units41106368167295500001,027Total RHNA1,864Total Remaining Need for RHNA Period969*Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE B - Regional Housing Needs Allocation ProgressPermitted Units Issued by AffordabilityIncomeLevelRHNAAllocationRestrictionsYear 1 -2015Year 2 -2016Year 3 -2017Year 4 -2018Year 5 -2019Year 6 -2020Year 7 -2021Year 8 -2022Year 9 -2023Total Unitsto Date (allyears)TotalRemainingRHNA byIncomeLevelSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202033
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE C - Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing NeedNo Data AvailableSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202034
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE D - Program Implementation StatusProgram DescriptionHousing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583Name of Housing ElementProgramObjectiveTimeframe in H.E.Status of Program Implementation1-1A - Vacant and UnderutilizedLand InventoryThe City shall periodically update its inventory ofvacant and underutilized parcels identified in thisHousing Element. The City shall also conduct aperiodic review of the composition of the housingstock, the types of dwelling units under construction orexpected to be constructed during the following year,and the anticipated mix, based on developmentproposals approved or under review by the City, of thehousing to be developed during the remainder of theperiod covered by the Housing Element. This analysiswill be compared to the City's remaining 2014-2022Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) todetermine if any changes in land use policy arewarranted.AnnualThe City adopted the Downtown Station Area SpecificPlan (DSASP) in February, 2015 and the DSASPimplements new zoning regulations that increaseheight and density to permit the City to constructappropriate units to meet the ABAG Regional HousingNeeds Allocation (RHNA) for 2014-2022.Additionally, the City revised and updated the ElCamino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan to reflect anew Community Civic Campus project. This projectrequired the City to update the list of housingopportunity sites in the Adopted Housing Element.This revision has been submitted for review andapproval by the Department of Housing andCommunity Development. ONGOING1-2A Inclusionary HousingOrdinanceThe City shall continue to implement the InclusionaryHousing Ordinance, in accordance with State law,requiring new for sale residential development overfour units to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percentlow- and moderate-income housing.2023The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance regulations(SSFMC Chapter 20.380)are and continue to be,implemented by the City in accordance with State law.The Planning Commission and City Council voted toamend SSFMC Chapter 20.380 (Inclusionary HousingRegulations)in 2018 to require a 15% contribution toaffordable housing for residential rental projects,reduce the requirement from 20% to 15% forresidential for sale projects, and adopted aninclusionary impact fee for commercial, office, andhotel development to bolster the City's affordablehousing fund. COMPLETESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202035
1-2B - Inclusionary HousingOrdinance ReviewThe City shall periodically review the success of theInclusionary Housing Ordinance, SSFMC 20.380, todetermine if the objectives of the ordinance are beingmet. Consideration shall be made to revisingprovisions of the ordinance to ensure that a range ofhousing opportunities for all identifiable economicsegments of the population, including households oflow-and2023The Planning Commission and City Council voted toamend SSFMC Chapter 20.380 (Inclusionary HousingRegulations)in 2018 to require a 15% contribution toaffordable housing for residential rental projects,reduce the requirement from 20% to 15% forresidential for sale projects, and adopted aninclusionary impact fee for commercial, office, andhotel development to bolster the City's affordablehousing fund. COMPLETE1-3A - Investigate Commercialand Housing Linkage FeeThrough participation in the 21 Elements group, theCity will investigate the feasibility ofcommercial and housing linkage fees to supportaffordable housing.2015The Planning Commission and City Council voted toadopt an inclusionary impact fee for commercial,office, and hotel development to bolster the City'saffordable housing fund. COMPLETE1-4A - Site AcquisitionThe City shall work with for-profit and nonprofithousing developers to acquire sites that are eithervacant or developed with underutilized,blighted, and/ornonconforming uses for the development of affordablehousing. As needed, the City will meet with developersto discuss and identify development opportunities andpotential funding sources.2023With adoption of the Successor Agency's Long RangeProperty Management Plan by the State Departmentof Finance in late 2015, the City is positioned to helpcoordinate the disposition of underutilized propertiesfor development.To date, City staff has met with several developmentrepresentatives and made six (6) properties in theDowntown area available through a Request forQualifications. One (1) site is complete withconstruction for 100% affordable senior housing units.Two (2) sites will be developed with rental housing andup to 100% affordable units due to the inclusion of Cityfunding and affordable housing competitive grantapplications. One (1) site is entitled and issued abuilding permit for development of for-sale high densityhousing with 20% inclusionary housing required. Aformer firehouse has an entitlement application for amixed use development that will include 100%affordable for-sale housing and the City. The Citycompleted a Development Agreement and Purchaseand Sale Agreement for a 4+ acre property that will bedeveloped with 800 rental housing units and include a20% affordable housing component. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202036
1-4B - Support and PursueFunding Applications forAffordable HousingConsistent with existing practice, the City shallcontinue to support funding applications for federaland state funds to promote the development ofaffordable housing.2023The City has applied each year for state fundingthrough the Cap & Trade grant programs for monies toconstruct complete streets in support of pendingaffordable housing projects within the DowntownStation Area Specific Plan. To date, no grant monieshave been awarded to the City.Additionally, a 100% affordable rental project for very-low income seniors has been issued constructionpermits in 2017 and was completed in early 2019.This project successfully received affordable housingfinancing with the City's support of the projectapplication. Two other projects involving City funding(ROEM) have applied for grant and TIF monies to helpfund their affordable projects and the City supportedthose applications. ONGOING1-4C - Consider Waivers orDeferrals of Planning, Buildingand Impact Fees for AffordableHousing DevelopmentConsistent with SSFMC section 20.310.004, the Cityshall continue to consider the waiver of application anddevelopment fees for affordable housing developmentin order to support the financial viability of affordablehousing development. Waiver of such fees will be on acase-by-case basis at the City Council¿s discretionand will balance the goal of affordable housingproduction with the need to collect fee revenues tosupport other City goals.2023The City continues to consider permitting or impact feewaivers for an affordable housing project requiringfinancial assistance. ONGOING1-4D - Review New DevelopmentRequirements for Condominiums,SSFMC 19.36The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires aminimum of 5 units in order to construct newcondominiums, to look at the possibility of reducingunit requirements2023This item is being reviewed as part of the General Plan2040 update and companion zoning and should becomplete by 2023. ONGOING1-5A - Increased ResidentialDensities in the Downtown AreaThrough implementation of the Downtown Station AreaSpecific Plan, support increased residential densitiesand modified development standards for parcels in thedowntown area to realize the objectives of theDowntown Station Area Specific Plan and GeneralPlan policies.2023Adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Planhas accomplished this program. Expanded increasesin densities within the Downtown Station Area SpecificPlan, or within surrounding residential zoning districtsnear the Downtown has also been analyzed. In 2018,the Planning Commission and City Council adopted anew maximum density for the Downtown Transit Corezoning district, which is located within the DowntownStation Area Specific Plan of 180 units per acre withapproval of a community benefits plan. COMPLETESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202037
1-5B - Support Grand BoulevardInitiative PoliciesContinue to support the guiding principles of the GrandBoulevard Initiative, which encourages the provision ofmedium- and high-density housing along El CaminoReal in Peninsula communities, in order to create anenvironment that is supportive of transit, walkable, andmixed-use. The City shall reference this policydirection when considering future land use and zoningchanges along El Camino Real, and assess theopportunity for housing development along this keycorridor as development proposals arise.2023The City continues to support the Grand BoulevardInitiative, in its twelfth year, by providing senior levelplanning staff at all meetings. The adopted El CaminoReal/Chestnut Area Plan, as well as the zoning updateadopted in 2010, implement the guiding principles ofthe Grand Boulevard Initiative.The City has completed master planning for a newcommunity civic center within the El CaminoReal/Chestnut Area Plan that will foster new privatehousing development in the surrounding plan area.Additionally, the City has entitled 800 units adjacent toSSF BART, ECR and the Centennial Trail as a multi-modal mixed used development that will conform tothe Grand Boulevard Initiative policies. Finally, theEngineering Divison is managing a Grand BoulevardImprovement Project for a portion of El Camino Realbetween Chestnut Avenue and Hickey Boulevard thatwill implement the vision of the initiative. COMPLETE1-6A - Continue to support thedevelopment of secondarydwelling units and educate thecommunity about this programActively promote community education onsecond units, as permitted in SSFMC 20.350.035, byposting information regarding second units on the Citywebsite and providing brochures at the public counterin the Centralized PermitCenter.2023Brochures are provided at the Permit Center Counter;in addition staff explores second unit options duringcounter discussions and during building permit planchecks.Additionally, changes at the State level to encouragethe production of second units led the City to modifythe current zoning regulations to be more permissive.No parking, reduced setbacks, larger second units,and units with multiple bedrooms are now permittedwith approval of a Building Division permit only.ONGOING1-7A - Continue to identifyopportunities for residentialdevelopment through infill andredevelopment of underutilizedsitesThrough completion and implementation of theDowntown Specific Area Plan and ongoingimplementation of the El Camino Real/Chestnut AreaSpecific Plan, the BART Transit Village Plan, the ElCamino Real Mixed Use Zoning Districts the City willmaintain an inventory of residential developmentopportunities on infill and underutilized sites withproper zoning to support both affordable and marketrate housing development.2023The Department of Economic and CommunityDevelopment - Economic Development and HousingDivision maintains a list of potential development sites.Additionally, the Division is currently conducting aRequest for Qualifications for several underutilizedsites within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202038
1-7B - Evaluate Downtownresidential lot standardsEvaluate the feasibility of reduced lot developmentstandards for Downtown residential zoning districts toencourage the development of new housing andownership opportunities.2023Staff has hired a consultant and conducted an indepthanalysis of reduced lot standards within the downtownarea to promote subdivision and additional ownershipopportunities. A zoning text amendment was adoptedin 2019 to reduce required lot dimensions and facilitatenew housing and ownership opportunities.COMPLETE2-1A - Expedite Permit ReviewTo support affordable and market rate housingconstruction, the City shall work with property owners,project sponsors, and developers to expedite thepermit review process; promote housing design andprojects that meet the goals, objectives and policies ofthis Housing Element; provide timely assistance andadvice on permits, fees, environmental reviewrequirements, and affordable housing agreements toavoid costly delays in project approval; and interfacewith community groups and local residents to ensurepublic support of major new housing developments.2023The City continues to provide prompt customerservice, and use project planner liaisons for largedevelopments, to facilitate expedited entitlementreview and processing. The year 2018 wasparticularly successful for staff - several new large-scale housing developments were approved undertime sensitive conditions.The One Stop Permit center provides accessibleservices by Planning, Building and Public Works inone building. The One Stop Permit Center hours arefrom 7am-5pm. Permit processing is efficient andtimely, with accessible staff. The City's PlanningCommission meets twice a month and the DesignReview Board meets once a month to ensure thetimely processing of applications. ONGOING2-2A - Ensure coordination amongdepartmentsEarly in the development application process, thePlanning Division shall work with the applicant andconsult with other departments and divisions to ensurethat necessary infrastructure is planned or is in placeto support the proposed project.2023The Community Development Department relies on aTechnical Advisory Group and pre-submittal meetingswith potential applicants to ensure a smoothapplication process. Representatives from PublicWorks, Fire Safety, Police, Water Quality and Buildingensure that adequate infrastructure is planned oravailable to support the proposed project. Additionally,applicants of large development projects are invited toattend the Technical Advisory Group meetings topresent their pre-development projects and discussany questions or concerns with City staff. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202039
2-3A - Support regional fundingprogramsThe City shall continue to participate with othergovernment agencies to support regional fundingprograms, such as participating with San MateoCounty in its Housing Revenue Bond and MortgageCredit Certificate programs.2023The City continues to participate in the 21 ElementsTAC meetings. The City also collaborates with HEART(Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) of SanMateo County as well as the Housing LeadershipCouncil of San Mateo County. The Housing RehabBond and Mortgage Credit Certificate Programs werenot utilized for any City financed construction projectsin 2020. ONGOING2-4A - Continue to implementadopted design guidelinesImplementation of design guidelines applies torehabilitation and renovation of existing structures aswell as to new construction.2023The Residential Design Guide was adopted by thePlanning Commission by Resolution No. 2471. Inaddition, the adopted El Camino Real/ChestnutAvenue Plan and Downtown Station Area SpecificPlan includes Design Standards and Guidelines. Allnew projects are evaluated for consistency withapplicable design guidelines.City staff will adopt a form based code for newResidential Design Guidelines consistent withobjective standards as part of the General Plan 2040process currently underway. ONGOING2-5A - Disseminate Information onAffordable Housing ProgramsTo widen the availability of information to interestedresidents, the City will continue to update its websiteand other promotional/informational materials toinclude information on affordable housing, housingprograms, and inclusionary units.2023The Housing Division maintains online resources forgeneral affordable housing programs and for specificinclusionary units related to new development.Outreach related to the COVID-19 pandemic wassignificantly ramped up in 2020, as well. ONGOING3-1A - Minor Home RepairThe City will provide funds to non-profitorganizations providing free minor home repairs toassist extremely low- to low-income homeowners tobring houses into a good state of repair and maintainthem as viable units in the local housing stock.2023Minor Home Repair Programs Center forIndependence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID):The City used $10,0000 in CDBG funds to support CIDHousing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Programwhich provides accessibility modifications.Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP): The City used$70,500 in CDBG funds to support two RTP programs,National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home.El Concilio: The City used $27,500 in CDBG funds tosupport El Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home RepairProgram. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202040
3-1B - Funding PrioritizationThe City shall continue to give housingrehabilitation efforts high priority in the use ofCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.Funds shall be targeted towards older housing stockand to families earning less than 80 percent of AMI.2023Minor Home Repair Programs Center forIndependence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID):The City used $10,0000 in CDBG funds to support CIDHousing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Programwhich provides accessibility modifications.Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP): The City used$70,500 in CDBG funds to support two RTP programs,National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home.El Concilio: The City used$27,500 in CDBG funds tosupport El Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home RepairProgram. ONGOING3-1C - Low Interest Loans forHousing RehabilitationThe City shall provide low-interest loans forrehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housingby supporting the City's Housing RehabilitationProgram with continued CDBG funding.2023Minor Home Repair Programs Center forIndependence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID):The City used $10,0000 in CDBG funds to support CIDHousing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Programwhich provides accessibility modifications.Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP): The City used$70,500 in CDBG funds to support two RTP programs,National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home.El Concilio: The City used $27,500 in CDBG funds tosupport El Concilio's Peninsula Minor Home RepairProgram.The City issued one loan for the rehabilitation of asingle family home for a very-low-income family usingCDBG funds. ONGOING3-1D - Financial Assistance forSROsThe City shall provide financial assistance, whenfeasible, for physical improvements to existingboarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies in theDowntown area.2023The City did not provide any financial assistance toSingle Room Occupancies in the Downtown area in2020. ONGOING3-2A - Enforce Housing, Buildingand Safety CodesThe City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniformhousing, building, and safety codes as well aseliminate incompatible uses or blighting influencesfrom residential neighborhoods through targeted codeenforcement and other available regulatory measures.2023The City operates a Code Enforcement Divisionthrough the Public Works Department. For 2020 therewere up to 2 enforcement officers on staff that enforcehousing, building and safety codes. Additionally,Building Division staff enforces these codes when theyare out on inspections. Incompatible uses areaddressed in zoning code section 20.320. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202041
3-3A - Capital ImprovementProgram for Older NeighborhoodsThe City shall maintain its capital improvementprogram to upgrade infrastructure in olderneighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens,Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town,and Peck's Lots.2023The Engineering Division continues to manage andadminister the Capital Improvement Program budgetto upgrade essential infrastructure throughout the City.ONGOING3-4A - Support SSF PublicHousing Authority (PHA)The City shall support the South San Francisco PHA inits continued operation and rental of 80 units of publichousing.2023The SSF PHA continues to receive HUD fundingsupport and operates independently of the City,however the City is coordinating to pursue federalfunding sources to improve the public housing.ONGOING3-4B - Examine Displacement ofAffordable Housing and Lower-Income HouseholdsThe City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in SanMateo County, under the umbrella of work to beundertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop andevaluate potential strategies to address displacementof lower income residents. The City will use thisanalysis, in addition to other analysis, to developpotential measures and programs and the City willimplement those programs, as it considers and deemsappropriate, to address the risk of displacement ofexisting lower income2015The City continues to participate in the 21 ElementsTechnical Advisory Group, which analyzeddisplacement concerns for San Mateo County in 2018as part of their work plan.The draft report was submitted to the City in February,2018 and has been reviewed for recommendationsand implementation measures. Staff conducted onestudy session with City Council in 2018, a second in2019 to discuss tenant protections for SSF residents,and adopted interim measures to protect tenantsduring the window between adoption of StateLegistlation for Rental Protection and the effectivedate. COMPLETESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202042
3-5A - Condominium ConversionLimitationsThe City shall continue to enforce limits on theconversion of apartment units to condominiums. Asspecified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code,condominium conversions are allowed only if theymeet the following general criteria:a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least fivepercent exists;b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on theCity¿s available housing stock;c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining andmanaging the resultingcondominium projects;d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, andother applicable codes in force at thetime of conversion;e. The conversion is consistent with all applicablepolicies of the General Plan; andf. The conversion creates at least five (5) condominiumunits.2023No requests or preliminary requests for considerationof a Condominium Conversion of apartment unitswere submitted to the City in 2020. ONGOING3-6A - Monitor At-Risk UnitsThe City shall monitor its supply of subsidizedaffordable housing to know of possible conversions tomarket rate, including taking the following actions:a. Publicize existing State and federal noticerequirements to nonprofit developers andproperty owners of at-risk housing.b. Respond to any federal and/or State noticesincluding Notice of Intent to Pre-Pay, owner Plans ofAction, or Opt-Out Notices filed on local projects.2023No subsidized units monitored by the City of SSF wereat-risk of conversion to market rate in 2020.ONGOING3-6B - Assist TenantsThe City shall assist tenants displaced by theconversation of at risk units by providing informationabout tenants' rights, providing referrals to relevantsocial service providers, endeavoring to establish afunding source to assist nonprofit organizations thatsupport tenants, and facilitating other support asappropriate.2023In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic created many risksfor tenants. The City maintains online resources andbrochures in the Economic and CommunityDevelopment Department that detail information abouttenants' rights, social service providers, and othersupport institutions. Additionally, programs werecreated to offset rent challenges of tenants and rentloss of property owners with success. ONGOING4-1A - Review Projects for MajorEnvironmental Hazards during theEnvironmental Review ProcessThe City shall review residential projects for majorenvironmental hazards during the environmentalreview process. The City shall not approve the projectsunless the hazards are adequately mitigated.2023All projects reviewed and approved by the PlanningCommission and/or City Council have been reviewedfor consistency with the California EnvironmentalQuality Act. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202043
4-2A - Administer MinimumBuilding Security StandardsThe City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48,Minimum Building Security Standards, of the MunicipalCode by continuing to route all new developmentapplications and additions2023The Economic and Community DevelopmentDepartment's project review, entitlement, and buildingpermit processes ensure that Chapter 15.48 isadministered and applied to all new developmentapplications and additions. ONGOING4-3A - Ensure that applications fornew residential land usesproposed within the 65 to 69CNEL aircraft noise contourinclude an acoustical studyThe City shall require that the acoustical study beprepared by a professional acoustic engineer andspecify the appropriate noise mitigation features to beincluded in the design and construction of the newunits, to achieve an interior noise level of not morethan 45 dB, based on measured aircraft noise eventsat the land use location.2023All new applications for residential development arereviewed consistent with the SFO Airport Land UseCompatibility Plan (ALUCP) and adopted MunicipalCode regulations. New residential projects within the70+ dB CNEL areas are not currently permitted withoutan override process by the local agency and newresidential projects within the 65 to 69 dB CNEL noisecontours require acoustic studies. ONGOING5-1A - Density Bonus for SeniorHousingThe City shall include density bonus incentivesspecifically targeted for senior housing projects andpermit reduced parking standards.2023A project for 80 units available to low-income seniorswas issued a building permit in 2017 and completed inJanuary 2019 (and will be recognized as . Densitybonus incentives were included in the project duringentitlement stage. ONGOING5-1B - Reduced ParkingRequirement for Board and CareFacilitiesEncourage development of residential board and carefacilities for seniors by continuing to allow reducedparking requirements for these types of facilities.2023The City's Municipal Code SSFMC 20.330.004reduces parking requirements for residential carefacilities as part of the 2010 Zoning Ordinance Update.The requirement is:1 space for every 7 residents plus 1 space for eachlive-in caregiver. Facilities serving more than 15residents shall also provide 1 space for eachcaregiver, employee, and doctor on-site at any onetime. ONGOING5-2A - Ensure Consistency withState Accessibility LawsEncourage development of residential board and carefacilities for seniors by continuing to allow reducedparking requirements for these types of facilities.2023During the review of all new development projects andapplications for modifications to existing buildings, theBuilding Division staff plan checks projects to ensurethat all State Accessibly Laws are met in accordancewith California Building Code Section 1134B.ONGOING5-2B - Promote Disabled HousingResources and ProgramsThe City shall ensure that its website and handoutmaterials regarding housing resources, requirements,and services for the disabled are updated regularlyand made available to the public.2023The City maintains online resources and materialsregarding housing and services for the disabled andhas staff in the Economic and CommunityDevelopment Department who are trained to assistwith housing issues. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202044
5-3A - Accessibility ModificationProgramsThe City shall continue to supportprograms that provide modifications that make housingunits accessible to the disabled.2023The City provides annual grant funding to the Centerof Independent of Individual with Disabilities (CID) whohas a Housing Accessibly Modification (HAM) Programthat provides financial assistance to people that needto made modifications to their home to allow fordisabled access.Additionally, the zoning ordinance includes SSFMCsection 20.510, Waivers and Modifications, thatprovides provisions for reasonable accommodations toensure equal access to housing by allowing the ChiefPlanner authority to grant relief from zoningrequirements. ONGOING5-4A - ReasonableAccommodationsThe City shall create a public informationbrochure on reasonable accommodation for disabledpersons and provide that information on the City'swebsite.2023The City provides information consistent with theprogram.Additionally, the zoning ordinance includes SSFMCsection 20.510, Waivers and Modifications, thatprovides provisions for reasonable accommodations toensure equal access to housing by allowing the ChiefPlanner authority to grant relief from zoningrequirements. ONGOING5-4B - Resources for thedevelopmentally disabledThe City shall support the Golden Gate RegionalCenter in its mission to serve those withdevelopmental disabilities, disseminate informationabout the Center and its services, and make referralsas appropriate.2023The City's Zoning regulations permit Adult Day Careuses in many areas of the City by-right. These usesare typically funded in some part by the Golden GateRegional Center to serve developmentally disabledinfants, children, youth and adults. ONGOING5-5A - Support a variety ofhousing unit designs, includinglarger housing units that canaccommodate large familiesThe City shall seek to broaden the diversity of itshousing stock that is affordable to extremely low, verylow, and low income households to include more unitsthat are suitable to large families. Currently, much ofSouth San Francisco¿s affordable housing consists ofsingle-room occupancy units and one- and two-bedroom units. The City shall work with housingdevelopers during the entitlement2023At pre-application meetings staff discusses providing arange of housing sizes with developers during theplanning stages of residential development projectsprior to the submittal of a formal application. In theDowntown Station Area Specific Plan, family sizedhousing is recognized as a community benefit eligiblefor a density bonus. ONGOING5-6A - Support Continuum of CarePlanningThe City shall continue to be an active participant inthe Continuum of Care planning process and supportits efforts to address the needs of South SanFrancisco residents in need of emergency shelter ortemporary housing.2023The City continues to provide referrals to families andindividuals for social services including casemanagement and referrals for housing and homelessprevention, as appropriate. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202045
5-6B - Support non-profits thatoffer housing solutions andservices for homelessThe City shall continue to support non-profitorganizations that offer solutions to solvinghomelessness and/or provide housing related servicesfor the homeless or at-risk homeless.2023There is a County run homeless shelter located inSouth San Francisco on North Access Road. Theformer Redevelopment Agency regularly providedfunding to the County for the operation of the shelter.As part of the 2015-2023 Housing Element update, theCity conducted a capacity analysis for new emergencyshelter construction within approved zoning districts.ONGOING5-6C - Support Ongoing Operationof 90-Bed Emergency Shelter inSouth San FranciscoThe City shall continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year round homeless shelter within the city limits.2023Funding for homeless services and housing wasprovided to Samaritan House and CORA(Communities Overcoming Relationship Abuse).ONGOING5-6D - Social Services for Housingand Homeless PreventionThe City shall continue to provide referrals toorganizations helping families with social services forhousing and homeless prevention.2023The City's Housing Division maintains online andhandout resources for residents with housingchallenges. Consistent with COVID-19 pandemicoutreach, this effort has been ramped up in 2020 toprevent homelessness. ONGOING5-7A - Support and PromoteHome SharingThe City shall support the efforts and services of theHIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternativehousing solution for extremely low and very lowincome individuals and families; female-headedhouseholds; those at risk of homelessness; and othersin need. The Economic2023The City's Housing Division maintains online andhandout resources for residents with housingchallenges. ONGOING5-8A - Provide referrals toVeterans who are homeless or atrisk of homelessnessThe City shall provide referrals to Veterans and theirimmediate families that are homeless or at risk ofhomelessness. Resources for referrals include theVeteran¿s Administration (VA) National Call Center ofHomeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET and to theHUD-VASH program that is a joint effort between theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development andthe VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program tomove Veterans and their families out of homelessnessand into permanent housing through a voucherprogram that allows homeless Veterans to rentprivately owned2023Many of these resources are shared with applicableresidents through the funded Samaritan House andCORA shelter systems. The City provides an annualgrant to a fair housing service provider using its HOMEAdministrative funds.Project Sentinel, provides comprehensive fair housingservices including complaint investigation, communityoutreach and education to San Mateo Countyresidents. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202046
5-9A - Amend the Zoning Code tocomply with Health and SafetyCode Section 17021.5 regardingemployee housing for six or feweremployeesThe City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to allowemployee housing in accordance with Health andSafety Code Section 17021.5, to permit andencourage the development and use of sufficientnumbers and types of employee housing facilities asare commensurate with local needs.2016This item has been included in a recent zoning textamendment update reviewed by the PlanningCommission and adopted by the City Council.COMPLETE6-1A - Support Equal HousingOpportunity LawsThe City shall require that all recipients of locally-administered housing assistance funds and othermeans of support from the City acknowledge theirunderstanding of fair housing law and affirm theircommitment to the law. The City shall providematerials to help with the understanding of andcompliance with fair housing law.2023The City provides an annual grant to a fair housingservice provider using its HOME Administrative funds.Project Sentinel, provides comprehensive fair housingservices including complaint investigation, communityoutreach and education to San Mateo Countyresidents. ONGOING6-1B - Regional CooperationThe City shall participate with other jurisdictions in SanMateo County to periodically update the Analysis ofImpediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County, areport that helps jurisdictions identify impediments tofair housing and develop solutions.2023The City is a member of the 21 Elements TechnicalAdvisory Committee, which is working to addresshousing shortage and displacement concerns.ONGOING6-2A - Legal Counsel andAdvocacy AssistanceThe City shall support nonprofits providing legalcounseling and advocacy assistance concerning fairhousing laws, rights, and remedies to those whobelieve they have been discriminated against. Persons2023The City provides an annual grant to a fair housingservice provider using its HOME Administrative funds.Project Sentinel, provides comprehensive fair housingservices including complaint investigation, communityoutreach and education to San Mateo Countyresidents. ONGOING7-1A - Assist withenergy/weatherization and waterconserving modifications/featuresin existing residential rehabilitationprojectsThe City will continue to provide funds to non-profitorganizations that provide energy efficiency upgradesand/or weatherization improvements for very low- andlow-income households.2023Through the City's Housing Rehabilitation Programand CDBG subrecipient grants, the City encouragesweatherization and energy efficiency upgrades.The City continues to provide funding and technicalassistance to energy efficiency upgrade programs,including the Home Energy Renovation Opportunity(HERO) program. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202047
7-2A - Continue to provideinformation on energy efficientstandards for residential buildingsThe City shall promote the use of passive and activesolar systems in new and existing residential buildingsto ensure that State residential energy conservationbuilding standards are met. The City's Climate ActionPlan (CAP), adopted in February 2014, also includesmeasures to promote energy efficiency, which areactively implemented.2023Building Division staff implements and enforces theCalifornia Green Building Code for all new residentialand commercial projects. During residentialrehabilitation projects, like Rebuilding Together,replacement of appliances/utilities includes energy andwater conserving models.The City promotes the use of solar panels withreduced permitting fees and streamlined review andinspections. In addition, the City Council adopted aClimate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2014, that setsforth reduction measures that apply to residentialdevelopment. Measure 3-5 in the CAP promotesenergy information and sharing, and educating thecommunity about energy-efficiency behaviors andconstruction. ONGOING7-3A - Title 24The City shall continue to enforce State requirements,including Title 24 requirements, for energyconservation in residential development andencourage residential developers to consideremploying additional energy conservation measureswith respect to the following:2023The CAP includes measures that encourage theintegration of higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and communityfaculties, and to reduce the dependence on autosthrough smart parking practices. In addition, the Citycontinues to implement Title 24 requirements throughthe Building Division. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202048
7-3B - Promote Green BuildingFeaturesThe City will utilize the following tools to promotegreen building and energy conserving features in newand existing residential construction.In 2009, the City completed the Green X-Ray House,transforming an existingsingle-family home into an energy efficient modelhome. The City will use theGreen X-Ray House as a public outreach tool todisseminate informationregarding energy-saving opportunities, offering regulartours to homeowners andhomebuilders as well as for promotional events. Thishome features an array ofproducts including solar panels, radiant floor heatingand recycled glass tiles.Staff has adopted the a Green Building Ordinance(2014).2023Building Division staff implements and enforces theCalifornia Green Building Code for all new residentialand commercial projects. During residentialrehabilitation projects, like Rebuilding Together,replacement of appliances/utilities includes energy andwater conserving models. The Green X-Ray house isno longer in operation. ONGOINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202049
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE E - Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7No Data AvailableSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202050
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE F - Annual Building Activity Report Summary - Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired pursuant to GC Section 65583.1(c)(2)Affordability by Household Incomes(Units that DO NOT count towards RHNA)Activity TypeExtremely Low-IncomeVery Low-IncomeLow-IncomeTotal UnitsDescription of ActivityRehabilitation Activity0000Preservation of Units At-Risk0000Acquisition of Units0000Mobilehome Park Preservation0000Total Units by Income0000Affordability by Household Incomes(Units that DO count towards RHNA)Activity TypeExtremely Low-IncomeVery Low-IncomeLow-IncomeTotal UnitsDescription of ActivityRehabilitation Activity0000Preservation of Units At-Risk0000Acquisition of Units0000Mobilehome Park Preservation0000Total Units by Income0000SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202051
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE G - Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of (CCR Title 25§6202)No Data AvailableSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202052
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportTABLE H - Locally Owned Surplus Sites (CCR Title 25 §6202)No Data AvailableSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202053
2020 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Housing Element Annual Progress ReportLEAP Reporting (CCR Title 25 §6202)Total Award Amount300,000.00Task$ Amount Awarded$ Cumulative ReimbursementRequestedTask StatusOther FundingNotesHousing Element Cycle 6Update150,000.00.00In ProgressOtherGeneral Plan FundBART ROW Park Area Plan150,000.00.00In ProgressOtherPark In Lieu FundSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - 202054
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 16, 2020
TO: Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Nell Selander, Deputy Director, Economic & Community Development
Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner, Economic & Community Development
SUBJECT: Update on RHNA 6 Housing Element Update Process
This memo provides an update on the sixth cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) Housing Element Update process. In particular, it focuses on the Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND), which was recently announced by the State’s Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD). Key deadlines for our Housing Element are summarized here
are described in greater details below:
June 2020 HCD releases number for the region (the RHND)
July 2020 Draft Blueprint (which may affect allocations)
Fall 2020 Draft methodology (which may provide insight into the allocations)
Dec 2020 Final Blueprint
Spring 2021 Final methodology/draft allocations
Winter 2021 Final allocations
Fall 2022 Housing Element hearings/consideration of approval
As part of the Housing Element process, HCD develops the total housing need determination
(RHND) for the Bay Area for an eight-year planning period (RHNA Cycle). The Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) then develops a methodology and distributes a share of the
region’s housing need to each jurisdiction. The City must then update the Housing Element its
General Plan to show the locations where housing can be built and the policies and strategies
necessary to meet the community’s housing needs.
On June 9, 2020, HCD provided the following RHND for the nine-county Bay Area, which will
cover the period from 2023 to 2030 (RHNA 6):
Income Category Housing Units Percent
Very Low Income (0-50% AMI*) 114,442 25.9%
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 65,892 14.9%
Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 72,712 16.5%
Above Moderate Income (120%+ AMI) 188,130 42.6%
TOTAL 441,176 100%
* Area Median Income
This RHND is approximately 2.3 times higher than the Bay Area’s RHND for RHNA 5 (which
was 187,990 units). Although the overall number of units increased significantly from the last
Page 2 of 6
RHNA cycle, the income breakdown did not change significantly. The overall increase is similar
to what other regions have experienced and is largely due to changes in the projection methodology
to better account for overcrowding. ABAG did not appeal the RHND during the appeals period.
To assist in developing a RHNA distribution methodology, ABAG has convened a Housing
Methodology Committee (Committee) consisting of elected officials and staff from each county,
as well as stakeholders from interest groups. San Mateo County representatives include
Councilmember Bonilla of the City of San Mateo, Councilmember Carlos Romero (representing
Urban Ecology), and Josh Abrams of the 21 Elements staff.
Ultimately, the Committee will recommend a RHNA methodology that assigns a total number of
housing units to each Bay Area jurisdiction and distributes each jurisdiction’s allocation among
the four affordability levels. The final methodology must be consistent with the development
pattern outlined in Plan Bay Area 2050. Plan Bay Area is a separate but related long-term visioning
exercise. The methodology must satisfy the statutory requirements for RHNA distribution,
including:
▪ Increasing housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities
and counties in an equitable manner throughout the region;
▪ Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting environmental and
agricultural resources, encouraging efficient development patterns, and achieving
greenhouse gas reduction targets;
▪ Promoting improved intraregional jobs-housing relationship, including balance between
low-wage jobs and affordable housing (jobs/housing fit);
▪ Balancing disproportionate household income distributions (more high-income RHNA to
lower-income areas and vice-versa); and,
▪ Affirmatively furthering fair housing.
The Committee has been meeting since October 2019 and will likely finalize its recommendations
by September 2020 for consideration by the ABAG Regional Planning Committee. At the June
2020 meeting, the Committee voted to give higher allocations to jurisdictions that 1) have more
jobs than housing or are near job centers and 2) have high opportunity areas. High opportunity
areas are defined based on factors such as quality of schools and low crime.
While the implication for the City of South San Francisco will not be known until fall 2020 at the
earliest, it is anticipated that most communities in San Mateo County will receive RHNA targets
several times higher than in RHNA 5, meaning that most jurisdictions will need to rezone land to
accommodate their RHNA, a process that often takes up to two years.
For more information, please contact Nell Selander at [email protected] / 650-829-6613 or
Tony Rozzi at [email protected] / 650-877-8535.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Page 3 of 6
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 8, 2020
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Nell Selander, Economic & Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: ABAG Housing Methodology Committee’s RHNA Methodology
Recommendation
This memorandum provides an update on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
process for the upcoming RHNA Cycle 6, which will run from 2023 to 2031.
RHNA Process
The RHNA process begins with the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) determining the total number of new homes a region needs to build to meet
the housing needs of people at all income levels. This total number of new homes for a region is
known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). The RHND is then apportioned
to each jurisdiction by the region’s planning agency. For the nine-county Bay Area, the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the designated planning agency responsible for
establishing a methodology to set the RHNA for each jurisdiction in the region.
On June 9, 2020, HCD provided ABAG with the Bay Area’s RHND. Together, jurisdictions in the
region will be required to plan for the construction of 441,176 units in RHNA Cycle 6, which will
run from 2023 to 2031.
Table 1. Bay Area RHND, 2023-2031
Income Category Percent Housing Units
Very Low 25.9% 114,442
Low 14.9% 65,892
Moderate 16.5% 72,712
Above Moderate 42.6% 188,130
Total 100.0% 441,176
Page 4 of 6
Determining a Methodology
To begin developing a methodology for apportioning the RHND and assigning each jurisdiction
its RHNA, ABAG establishes a Housing Methodology Committee (HMC). The HMC’s role is to
engage with ABAG staff on regional housing issues and make a formal recommendation on the
RHNA methodology to the ABAG Executive Board, for final approval. The HMC ensures that the
recommended methodology and resulting allocation meet statutory requirements and is consistent
with the forecasted development pattern envisioned in Plan Bay Area 2050.
The HMC is comprised of nine elected officials (one from each Bay Area county); 12 jurisdiction
housing or planning staff (at least one from each county); 16 regional stakeholders representing
diverse perspectives, from equity and open space to public health and public transit; and one
partner from state government. The City’s Economic & Community Development Department
Deputy Director sat on the HMC in August and September 2020, replacing the representative for
San Mateo County staff who had to recuse himself in July.
HMC Deliberations
At its meeting in June 2020, the HMC came to consensus around several principles to guide the
development of the RHNA methodology. The HMC concluded the following.
• Housing should go to jurisdictions with more jobs than housing and to communities exhibiting
racial and economic exclusion.
• The methodology should focus on equity, represented by high opportunity areas with higher
incomes and better schools.
• New allocations should not be limited by past RHNA. For example, if a community only
experienced 5% growth in the last RHNA cycle, that should not limit future growth to 5%.
• Acknowledged concern about requiring housing in areas prone to natural hazards, like wildfire,
but that RHNA may not be the best way to address this concern. Communities particularly
concerned about this are encouraged to talk to ABAG staff about assumptions made in Plan Bay
Area 2050.
Following this, the HMC evaluated a RHNA methodology framework developed by ABAG staff
consisting of three primary components: 1) baseline allocation; 2) income allocation approach;
and 3) factors and weights.
Baseline Allocation
The first component is the baseline allocation. Five different baseline allocation approaches were
evaluated and in August the HMC reached consensus on using the 2050 Households (Blueprint)
as the baseline allocation. With this approach, a jurisdiction’s initial share of the RHND takes into
consideration the number of households that are currently living in a jurisdiction as well as the
number of households expected to be added over the next several decades. The HMC preferred
this option because it satisfies the requirement that the RHNA methodology be consistent with
Plan Bay Area 2050, while also providing a middle ground between using a jurisdiction’s existing
households and its expected housing growth rate assumed in the Plan.
If RHNA were apportioned using only the baseline allocation (and not also an income allocation
approach, and factors and weights), South San Francisco would have received the following
RHNA numbers using each baseline methodology considered.
Page 5 of 6
1. 2050 Households (Blueprint) methodology: 4,080 units
2. 2019 Households methodology: 3,430 units
3. Housing Growth (Blueprint) methodology: 5,300 units
4. Urbanized Area methodology: 2,880 units
5. Existing Jobs methodology: 6,270 units
Income Allocation Approach
The second component is income allocation. This is a critical step, as RHNA is not just a total
number of units a jurisdiction must plan for, but units assigned to four income categories: very
low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The HMC considered two income allocation approaches
– the income shift approach and the bottom-up approach. The income shift approach allocates the
total number of units to a jurisdiction first and then an income allocation methodology is used to
distribute the units among the four income categories. By contrast, the bottom-up approach uses
factors and weights to separately determine allocations for the four income categories.
The HMC reached consensus in using the bottom-up, as it allows for more fine-grained control
over allocations for particular income categories. This approach also supports statutory fair
housing goals enabling lower-income units to be directed specifically toward areas of high
opportunity. It may also help address concerns about displacement pressures in jurisdictions with
a higher percentage of lower-income households by reducing the number of above moderate-
income units allocated to those jurisdictions.
If RHNA were apportioned based solely on the baseline allocation and the income shift approach,
South San Francisco would receive 4,073 total units. Because the bottom-up approach relies on
the factors and weights described below to apportion units at every income level, there is no similar
comparison number of units.
Factors and Weights
The third and final component is “factors and weights.” The HMC considered various weights and
factors that could tilt allocations to one jurisdiction over another based on the jurisdictions physical
and demographic characteristics. These factors and weights included characteristics such as
proximity to jobs via transit and auto, racial divergence, jobs-housing balance, natural hazards,
and various others.
The HMC considered methodologies using various combinations of factors and weights, which
the Committee was able to visualize using ABAG’s online tool, available here: https://rhna-
factors.mtcanalytics.org/option2.html. Over the course of several meetings in late August and
September, the HMC narrowed in on two primary methodologies, known as Options 5A and 6A,
as well as two variants of these methodologies, known as 7A and 8A. All four of these
methodologies stress high opportunity areas as a crucial factor for apportioning RHNA. For South
San Francisco, this actually means fewer units will be allocated, as the City is not considered to be
a high opportunity area. The specific formulas for these four allocation methodologies are
summarized in Attachment 1, while graphics showing the growth rate for each jurisdiction from
current housing stock to the end of RHNA Cycle 6 using these four methodologies are depicted in
Attachment 2.
Page 6 of 6
During the deliberations on the methodology, it seemed as if the HMC would vote to recommend
Option 6A. This methodolgy seemed to have support from the more prominent Committee
members and it distributed units fairly evenly across the region. However, at the final meeting to
consider the methodology on September 18, 2020, several Committee members began advocating
for Option 8A. Option 8A replaces the “Jobs-Housing Fit” factor for low and very low income
allocations with half “Jobs Proximity-Auto” and half “Jobs Proximity-Transit”. The effect of this
is minimal for most jurisdictions, but it allocates almost 6,000 more low and very low income units
to San Francisco and 1,000 more low and very low income units to Oakland. The value of this is
in clustering housing for lower income households in areas that are closer – both by transit and by
car – to jobs, rather than dispersing those units across the entire region.
HMC Recommendation
Ultimately, the HMC voted nearly unanimously (with four dissenting votes and one abstention) to
recommend Option 8A, which apportions RHNA using the Households 2050 baseline allocation,
the bottoms-up income allocation approach, and the factors high opportunity areas and job
proximity-auto and -transit to allocate the housing units across jurisdictions. For South San
Francisco, this means a RHNA allocation of roughly 3,980 units, as you can see in the
illustrative allocation example included as Attachment 3. Had the HMC voted to recommend
Option 6A, South San Francisco would likely have a RHNA allocation of approximately 4,010
units.
CONCLUSION
Although the HMC has voted to recommend a RHNA methodology and the ABAG Executive
Board will soon vote to formally adopt a methodology, ABAG will not issue draft allocations until
Spring 2021. After that, an appeals period will ensue and final allocations will be made by ABAG
by the end of 2021. The RHNA allocations illustrated in Attachment 3 may shift as communities
inquire with ABAG staff about how their community’s households were estimated for Plan Bay
Area 2050. Since the baseline allocation has the largest impact of the three methodology
components, one can assumed that some communities may attempt to revise their Plan Bay Area
2050 projections to influence their eventual RHNA. The ABAG Executive Board next meets on
October 15, 2020 and is expected to begin discussing the recommended RHNA methodology.
Please contact me with any questions at (650) 829-6613 or [email protected].
Attachments:
1) Final Four Methodology Formulas
2) Growth Rates Associated with the Final Four Methodologies
3) Illustrative Allocation Using Recommended Methodology
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #:21-117 Name:
Status:Type:Staff Report Agenda Ready - Administrative Business
File created:In control:2/9/2021 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/24/2021
Title:Report to discuss options to allow moderate density housing in residential districts that currently only
allow single family dwellings. (Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior
Planner)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:1. Att 1 - City of Eugene, OR Missing Middle Housing Handbook, 2. Att 2 - City of Sacramento FAQ on
Housing Policy Proposal, 3. Att 3 - City Council Presentation, 4. SB 343 Item - Item 14 Public
Comment Emails_Redacted
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Report to discuss options to allow moderate density housing in residential districts that currently only allow
single family dwellings.(Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on an option to modify single family zoning to
allow more housing with the General Plan update.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
During the General Plan Update process to date,the City’s approach has focused on developing new housing in
areas near transit and jobs,while preserving existing residential neighborhoods that traditionally have been
characterized by single-family homes.
Meanwhile,however,there has been a national policy discussion to address “missing middle”housing with
approaches that allow moderate density housing in areas zoned solely for single family homes.Missing middle
housing as a term typically refers to housing types including duplex,triplex,fourplex,cottage,townhouse and
other smaller multi-unit attached and detached housing types (“multi-plexes”)compatible in scale with single
family homes.These housing types generally have small-to medium-sized footprints and are often two stories
or less,allowing them to blend into existing neighborhoods.Missing middle housing also refers to housing that
is affordable to those earning between 80-120%of the area median income,which is too much to qualify for
subsidized housing and too little to afford to purchase high-income properties or rent at market rates.
These moderate-density housing types were commonly built in neighborhoods prior to the 1940s (thus the term
“missing middle”).After this time period,the adoption of zoning ordinances that separated residential use types
resulted in large areas where only single-family dwellings were allowed to be built.South San Francisco is in
keeping with this general profile.The broader downtown area has many existing examples of moderate-density
housing,particularly along Miller,Grand,Baden and Commercial Aves east of Orange Ave.These buildings
were constructed in the early-to mid-1900s,up to the 1960s,and contain four or more units.The majority of
these buildings are no more than two stories;example imagery is included in the attached presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-117,Version:1
these buildings are no more than two stories;example imagery is included in the attached presentation
(Attachment 3).
By the early 1950s,the City had adopted zoning districts that restricted residential densities.The 1953 Zoning
Ordinance includes a R-1 District allowing only single family dwellings,a R-2 District allowing single family
dwellings and duplexes,and a R-3 District allowing multi-family units.Based on this,the subdivisions that
were developed between 1940 and 1960 (such as Sunshine Gardens,Buri-Buri,and Brentwood)were entirely
single-family detached housing.The allowed residential uses in these districts have remained largely
unchanged since that time,with R-1 now called RL Low Density Residential,R-2 now called RM Medium
Density Residential,and R-3 now called RH High Density Residential.South San Francisco’s low-density
residential zoned areas currently allow one single family residence,and were recently updated to allow an
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU), in keeping with state law.
South San Francisco’s existing inventory of housing,as shown in the table below,indicates the percentage of
all residential units for each specific housing type,as well as the percent of total land area.Single-family
residential zoning dominates the land area in the City that is currently devoted to housing.A smaller percentage
of units and land area is devoted to moderate-density housing types.
Housing Type Percent of residential units Percent of total City land area
Single family residential 67% of units 33.8% of land area
Duplex/triplex/fourplex 8.1% of units 1.5% of land area
Multi-family (5+ units)23.4% of units 4.1% of land area
Missing Middle Housing Policy Examples
Many state and local governments are analyzing options related to housing provision and affordability,
including new zoning regulations to allow moderate-density units in areas that previously only allowed single-
family units.The intent is that over time,the residential neighborhoods in these communities will have a mix of
single-family homes and multi-plexes as properties are developed.Single family homes are still permitted with
the new zoning regulations, but they are no longer the only option available.
To ensure compatibility with their surroundings,missing middle housing policies typically include zoning
standards and design guidelines or form-based codes to control the outward appearance of buildings to maintain
the overall neighborhood scale and character.As an example,the City of Eugene,Oregon prepared a handbook
that highlights potential design principles and strategies and identifies prototypes for each of the different
housing types (see Attachment 1).
With appropriate design guidelines,multi-plex buildings can be designed to take the form of a single-family
home in space and character,but contain multiple smaller units compared to traditional single-family residence.
As an example,in South San Francisco’s typical low-density residential zoning districts,single family homes
are allowed a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.On a 5,000 square foot lot,this floor area ratio would allow
2,500 square feet of built area,which would accommodate an approximately 2,300 square foot unit and a one-
car garage.If allowed,a duplex could be developed with two 1,050 square foot residential units and a two-car
garage,and a triplex with three 630 square foot units and a three-car garage.If moderate-density housing were
allowed in single-family neighborhoods,South San Francisco’s current parking regulations would need to be
updated,as parking standards for multi-plex buildings typically require one off-street space per unit,where
South San Francisco currently requires two-four off-street parking spaces per residence in low-density zoning
districts (depending on the number of bedrooms and house size).
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-117,Version:1
Jurisdictions that have adopted modifications to single family zoning to allow multi-plex buildings found
support from activists including,affordable housing and tenants’advocates,environmental organizations,and
for-profit and nonprofit housing developers.Opponents to these modifications typically express concern with
property rights,degradation of traditional single-family neighborhoods,increased parking and traffic impacts
and increased demand for services throughout the community.
Following are recent examples of middle missing housing policies highlighting different approaches:
City of Sacramento
The City of Sacramento is currently updating its General Plan.In January 2021,the Sacramento City Council
identified a list of key strategies being considered for their 2040 General Plan.One of these key strategies is to
permit a greater array of housing types,such as duplexes,triplexes,and fourplexes in existing residential
neighborhoods.The proposed strategy would not eliminate the ability to construct single-family dwellings,but
would allow duplexes,triplexes and fourplexes by-right in traditionally single-unit zone neighborhoods.
Sacramento is proposing to regulate the form and size of buildings to ensure that the new housing types would
not be incompatible to the surrounding area.All housing types would still have to comply with the Citywide
Design Guidelines. See Attachment 2 for more information on Sacramento’s proposal.
City of Portland, Oregon
The City of Portland adopted the Residential Infill Project in August 2020,legalizing up to four residential units
on residential lots.Portland’s regulations are different in that they allow up to six units when at least half are
income restricted to families earning less than 60%of the median family income.Portland’s regulations also
differentiate lot coverage allowances for the different housing types;one-unit buildings are allowed to cover
50% of the lot, two-unit buildings are allowed 60%, and triplexes and fourplexes up to 70%.
State of California
In California,recent examples include state legislation related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs)and junior
accessory dwelling units (JADUs).As of January 21,2021,an ADU and JADU are allowed on a lot with an
existing single-family dwelling unit in any configuration provided that the JADU is created entirely within the
existing single-unit dwelling.The State is currently considering Senate Bill 9 (SB 9),which would allow for
duplexes and lot splits in single-family residential zones to be allowed by-right and would streamline the
associated process.
General Plan Update Process / Next Steps
Staff and the consultant team are continuing with the General Plan Update process.The last major milestone
was the City Council’s acceptance of a Preferred Land Use Scenario (PLUS)in November 2020.Subsequent to
this action,the General Plan team has transitioned to the following efforts which would be influenced by the
missing middle housing topic:
·Preparing draft General Plan policy frameworks for each of the GP Elements (including Land Use,
Equity, and Sustainability).
·Updating the City’s Housing Element concurrently with the General Plan update process.The regional
housing needs allocation (RHNA)for the next Housing Element cycle is 3,957 units,which includes
872 very low-income units;502 low-income units;720 moderate income units and 1,863 above
moderate-income units.Missing middle housing units typically serve moderate to above moderate-
income households and could be a tool to meet housing obligations.
·Preparing the Zoning Ordinance Update.One of the new items proposed in the Zoning Ordinance is theCity of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-117,Version:1
·Preparing the Zoning Ordinance Update.One of the new items proposed in the Zoning Ordinance is the
inclusion of Form-Based Codes.As discussed above in the examples from other jurisdictions,the use of
form-based codes for missing middle housing would better ensure compatibility with surrounding
neighborhoods.
At the outset of the General Plan update process,staff and the consultant team focused efforts to prioritize new
housing in areas near transit and jobs.Specifically,new housing land use designations are proposed in the El
Camino Real,Lindenville and East of 101 sub-areas as part of the accepted Preferred Land Use Scenario.Staff
and the consultant team did not study options to allow missing-middle housing types in low-density residential
zoning districts based on early feedback.The public was informed at community meetings that no land use
changes were contemplated for the single-family districts.If this approach is recommended for further
consideration, staff recommends additional community outreach.
It would be possible to incorporate this analysis into the General Plan/Housing Element Update if staff were
given such direction in the near timeframe.If the City Council wishes to explore this approach further,staff and
the consultant team have prepared a two-phase approach:
1.Phase 1 would include initial technical analysis on missing middle housing in South San Francisco,
examples of development regulations from other jurisdictions,and exploration of missing middle
scenarios,including anticipated new housing.The project team would facilitate up to two (2)virtual
community meetings and a Community Advisory Committee meeting on missing middle housing.
Results of the analysis and public engagement would be presented to the City Council for
recommendation and initiation of Phase II.Phase I is anticipated to run from April to June and cost
$49,600.
2.If initiated by City Council,Phase 2 would include additional Zoning Code analysis and the reissuing of
the EIR Notice of Preparation.The Zoning Code would include:micro-scale analysis of the City's
Residential Low and Residential Medium areas;the development of additional transect zoning;and the
creation of building and frontage types appropriate for these areas.Phase II is anticipated to run from
July - August at a cost of $50,400.
The total estimated cost for Phase I and Phase II as outlined above is $100,000 and the work is estimated to
extend the overall General Plan update process by up to four months.
Alternatively,the City Council could pause on proceeding with further analysis at this time and continue to
track progress of SB 9,which is currently under consideration at the State Legislature.If SB 9 is enacted,staff
would bring forward the necessary zoning code revisions for City Council consideration to ensure consistency
with State law.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1.City of Eugene, Oregon Missing Middle Housing Handbook
2.City of Sacramento FAQ on Housing Policy Proposal
3.City Council Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Report regarding housing program goals,existing housing policies and programs,and housing fund balances.
(Nell Selander, Deputy Director, Economic & Community Development Department)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a study session on housing program goals,existing housing
policies and programs, and housing fund balances.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Below is a brief description of the City’s housing policies and programs,as well as the current unencumbered
cash balances of the City’s housing funds and the goals they serve.
City Housing Goals
The policies and programs described below help serve the City’s housing goals, which include:
·Preventing displacement and homelessness prevention;
·Creating and preserving affordable housing units;
·Promoting housing production at all income levels;
·Leveraging local dollars by seeking and utilizing federal, state, and regional housing resources.
“Affordable housing”and “below market rate (BMR)housing”refers to residential units made affordable to
low and moderate income households.Typically,affordable for-sale housing targets households earning 120%
or less of the area median income.In San Mateo County,that is a family of four earning less than $171,700 or
an individual making less than $120,200.On the other hand,affordable rental housing targets households
earning less than 80%of the area median income.That is a family of four earning less than $139,400 or an
individual making under $97,600.
Existing Housing Policies & Program
City Council has adopted numerous policies and programs to advance the above-mentioned housing goals,
including those described below.
Rental Assistance Program
One of the most effective tools the City has in preventing homelessness and displacement is its rental assistance
program.The YMCA Community Resource Center located on Huntington Avenue in South San Francisco
administers the program,which provides rental assistance to low income South San Francisco residents
experiencing an immediate financial hardship.More recently,the program has been augmented significantly to
provide assistance to residents impacted by COVID-19 and the Shelter in Place Order.In Fiscal Year 2019-
2020,City Council appropriated $250,000 for the program.Council appropriated another $250,000 for the
program in the current fiscal year.
Housing Nonprofits
Through its Community Development Block Grant program and housing funds,the City supports a number of
nonprofit community organizations that provide critical housing resources,including shelters,home repairs,
File #:20-489,Version:1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/19/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-489,Version:1
nonprofit community organizations that provide critical housing resources,including shelters,home repairs,
legal assistance, and referral services.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
For years,the City has had an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring developers of market rate,for-sale
housing to include a set-aside of below market rate units.In 2018,following State legislation allowing it,the
City Council voted to expand the inclusionary housing ordinance to market rate,rental housing developments.
These inclusionary housing policies ensure that a percentage of all new housing units constructed in South San
Francisco are set aside for households earning under 120% of the area median income.
Commercial Linkage Fee
Prior to 2012,the City,through the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency,had a direct and steady source
for funding for affordable housing.After the State dissolved redevelopment agencies in 2012,the City was left
without this important source of funding to support housing organizations and fund new affordable housing
development.To help begin to make up this shortfall,in 2018,the City Council adopted a commercial linkage
fee.This fee is charged on new commercial development to help offset the impact it has on the need for
affordable housing.
Program Administration
Critical to the success of the City’s housing program is its administration.City staff monitor existing affordable
housing units -reviewing annual rent increases for rental units and ensuring for-sale units are occupied
according to their deed restrictions -and negotiate affordable housing agreements for new developments.
Central to the administration of the housing program is having transparent guidelines.
Staff have spent the past year collecting best practices,reviewing past practices,and drafting new below market
rate housing guidelines for both rental and for-sale housing.Staff intend these new guidelines to provide
instruction to market-rate housing developers and occupants of below market rate units on the specific
requirements they must follow.The goal is to provide a framework to ensure new affordable units remain
restricted to below market rates for at least 55 years.
Housing Fund Balances
The City has three housing funds,which it can use to preserve affordable housing,fund the construction of new
affordable housing development,to support housing programs,and for administration.These three housing
funds have the following origins and unencumbered cash balances.
Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund - Fund 241
Fund 241 has an unencumbered cash balance of $2.25 million as of July 1,2020.This fund’s assets were
transferred to the City as the Housing Successor to the former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
This fund will eventually be expended,as there are no new significant revenues being deposited into it.What
little revenues it derives are from loan repayments and earned interest.
Housing Trust Fund - Fund 205
Fund 205 has an unencumbered cash balance of $850,000 as of July 1,2020.This fund derives revenue from
developer in lieu fees and community benefit payments.If a developer has an inclusionary housing requirement
(a below market rate unit set-aside)and is able to pay an in lieu fee,this is where those funds are deposited.
City Council set the in lieu fee for affordable housing units quite high -$308,000 per required below market
rate unit -so it is unlikely that many developers will pay the fee rather than build the affordable units.As a
result, this fund is unlikely to grow significantly in the coming years.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/19/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-489,Version:1
Commercial Linkage Fees - Fund 823
Fund 823 has an unencumbered cash balance of $2.8 million as of July 1,2020.This fund derives its revenue
from impact fees paid by commercial developers to offset their impact on the need for affordable housing.As
our biotech cluster continues to grow,this fund is expected to grow substantially in the coming years.Currently,
the charge on biotech and office development is $15 per square foot. Hotel and retail uses pay a lower fee.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund of receiving this report.
CONCLUSION
The staff reports that follow this aim to continue further the goals set forth in this staff report,utilizing both
City housing funds and State grants.To follow is a report on the City’s Rental Assistance Program and a
proposal to create a Landlord Default Prevention Program,as well as reports on the Permanent Local Housing
Allocation, a State source of affordable housing funding, and a new model for securing middle-income housing.
Attachments:
1.Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/19/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #:20-280 Name:
Status:Type:Staff Report Public Hearing
File created:In control:4/21/2020 City Council
On agenda:Final action:5/13/2020
Title:Report regarding proposed amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
modify regulations pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units, and determination that the proposed
amendments are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Gaspare
Annibale, Associate Planner & Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:1. Attachment 1 - Draft Planning Commission Minutes for April 16, 2020, 2. Attachment 2 - Planning
Commission Resolution #2852-2020, 3. Attachment 3 - City Council Presentation for May 13, 2020
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Report regarding proposed amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to modify
regulations pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units,and determination that the proposed amendments are
statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).(Gaspare Annibale,Associate
Planner & Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending Title 20 (“Zoning”)of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code to modify regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units and
waive further reading, and determine that the amendments are statutorily exempt from CEQA.
BACKGROUND
On January 1,2020,several bills were signed into law that changed regulations on Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).The three laws that have the most impact on ADU
development are Assembly Bill (AB 881),Senate Bill 13 (SB 13),and Assembly Bill 68 (AB 68).The new
laws touch on multiple aspects of the local regulation of ADUs and JADUs,and they require the City to modify
its current zoning regulations,found in section 20.350.035 of the Zoning Ordinance.Local ordinances that do
not conform to the State laws are null and void.The City’s current ordinance contains provisions that are not
consistent with the mandatory elements of the new laws,and,therefore,the City’s ordinance will need to be
amended in order for the City to enforce its local regulations.
DISCUSSION
The South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)regulates accessory dwelling units and junior accessory
dwelling units in Section 20.350.035.An ADU is an attached,detached,or converted residential unit that
provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with an existing
or proposed single or multi-unit dwelling;a JADU is a residential unit that is no more than 500 square feet in
size and contained entirely within a single-unit dwelling.Section 20.350.035 regulates the development of
these secondary dwelling units with regard to location,development standards,parking requirements,and deed
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-280,Version:1
restrictions.
The previous regulations included the following:
·Review Period:120 days
·Eligible Site: Lot containing single-family dwelling unit.
·Maximum Number of ADUs Allowed: 1 ADU or Junior ADU (JADU)
·Maximum Lot Coverage: Lot coverage requirement of the zoning district.
·Maximum Floor Area:
o FAR requirement of the zoning district
o Limit to 50% of primary unit floor area, with a max of 900 sq. ft.
·Maximum Height:12-15 feet, depending on construction type.
·Minimum Setback:
o Rear: 5 feet
o Interior Side: 5 feet
o Street Side: Setback requirement of zoning district
o Distance from primary dwelling unit: 6 feet
o Garage converted to ADU: No setback requirement
·Parking Requirement:1 space for the ADU; ADU parking waived if:
o ½ mile from transit,
o In historic district,
o On-street parking permit required and not offered to ADU, or
o 1 block from car share.
·Parking Replacement:Provide replacement parking,in any configuration,when an ADU/JADU
replaces required parking for the primary residence.
·Occupancy:The owner must occupy the primary residence or ADU/JADU.
Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to Comply with State Legislation
AB 68 and 881 -which went into effect on January 1,2020 -set forth new laws governing ADUs and JADUs.
In response to the State legislation,staff has prepared changes to SSFMC Section 20.350.035 in order to bring
the Municipal Code into compliance with new State ADU and JADU legislation.
Attachment 3 (Presentation)summarizes these changes,and includes a side-by-side comparison of how the new
State Legislation changes each parameter of the City’s previous zoning requirements for ADUs and JADUs.In
addition,the proposed changes are summarized in the discussion below,and full details are included in the
proposed Ordinance.
·Review Period:For all types of ADUs (Detached,Attached,or Within an Existing Structure),and
JADUs,the review period is 60 days from the date of deeming an application for an ADU/JADU as
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-280,Version:1
JADUs,the review period is 60 days from the date of deeming an application for an ADU/JADU as
complete.
·Eligible Site:For all types of ADUs,an eligible site includes a lot that allows single and/or multi-family
housing. A JADU is permitted on a lot that allows single-family housing.
·Maximum Number of Units Allowed:
For all types of ADUs, a lot with an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling permits:
o 1 ADU or JADU within the proposed or existing space of the dwelling or an accessory structure;
or
o 1 Detached, new construction ADU plus 1 JADU within a proposed or existing dwelling; or
o 1 Detached ADU; or
o 1 Attached ADU.
For all types of ADUs, a lot with an existing multi-unit dwelling permits:
o 25%of the existing units for ADUs or 1 ADU,whichever is greater,within existing areas not
currently used as livable space;plus 2 Detached ADUs.Indoor covered parking,for example,
would be eligible for conversion to an ADU.
For JADUs:one JADU is permitted per lot only within existing or proposed space of a single-unit
dwelling.
·Maximum Lot Coverage:The maximum lot coverage requirement for all types of ADUs is the
requirement of the zoning district.However,800 sq.ft.shall be permitted even if the ADU exceeds lot
coverage requirements. This does not apply to JADUs.
·Maximum Floor Area:
Detached and Attached ADUs:
o The Floor Area Ratio (FAR)requirement is the standard of the zoning district;however,800 sq.
ft.shall be permitted even if the ADU exceeds FAR.Furthermore,the maximum floor area for
Attached ADUs is 50% of the primary unit floor area or 800 sq. ft., whichever is greater.
o Studio/1-bedroom is limited to a maximum of 850 sq. ft.
o 2+ bedroom is limited to a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft.
ADUs Within an Existing Structure:
o Conform to the footprint of the existing structure and also an expansion of up to 150 sq.ft.to
accommodate ingress and egress is permitted if the ADU is created within an existing accessory
structure.
JADUs:
o The maximum floor area for a JADU is 500 sq. ft.
·Maximum Height:
o Detached ADU: 16 feet
o Attached ADU and ADU Within an Existing Structure: height requirement of the zoning district
o This does not apply to JADUs as this is a conversion within an existing space
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-280,Version:1
·Minimum Setbacks:The minimum setback for all types of ADUS, excluding JADUs:
o Front: setback requirement of the zoning district
o Interior/Street Side: 4 feet
o Rear: 4 feet
o Distance between structures: 6 feet
o Existing living area or accessory structure converted to ADU: no setback requirement
·Entry Requirement:Access is required for all types of ADUs and JADUs;however,for JADUs
interior entry to the primary dwelling unit is required if separate sanitation facilities are not provided for
the JADU.
·Parking Requirement:The parking requirement for all types of ADUs,excluding JADUs,is 1 space
per ADU or per bedroom,whichever is less.This may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway.
However, ADU parking is waived if:
o Within ½ mile walking distance from transit;
o Within a historic district;
o On-street parking permit is required and not offered to the ADU; or
o Located within 1 block from car share.
·Parking Replacement:Replacement parking is not required when an ADU or JADU replaces required
parking for the primary residence.
·Occupancy:Owner occupancy requirements are not permitted from 2020-2025 for ADUs;however,for
a JADU, the owner must occupy the primary residence or JADU.
·Fees:
o ADUs are exempt from utility connection fees and capacity charges unless they are constructed
with a new single family home,or if the homeowner requests to install a separate connection for
the ADU.
o Impact fees cannot be charged for ADUs less than 750 sq.ft.Any impact fees charged for an
ADU of 750 sq.ft.or more can be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of
the primary dwelling unit.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Zoning Text Amendments pertaining to accessory dwelling
unit regulations at the April 16,2020 Planning Commission Hearing,and recommended approval to the City
Council. The meeting minutes are included as an attachment to this staff report (Attachment 1).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Zoning Text Amendments are statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code and Section
15282(h)of the CEQA Guidelines because it is an accessory dwelling unit ordinance that is implementing the
provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Zoning Text Amendments will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City.However,as discussed
above,the new State laws prohibit cities from collecting utility connection fees and capacity charges unless the
ADU is constructed with a newly constructed primary dwelling,and they also significantly restrict the casesCity of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-280,Version:1
ADU is constructed with a newly constructed primary dwelling,and they also significantly restrict the cases
where cities can charge impact fees,for new ADUs and JADUs.As a result,there may be indirect fiscal
impacts in the future, although these impacts would be difficult to quantify.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The proposed Zoning Text Amendments help to achieve the following priority of the City’s Strategic Plan:
Priority #2: Quality of Life, Initiative 2.3 - Promote a balanced mix of housing options.
The proposed Zoning Text Amendments pertaining to accessory dwelling unit regulations will promote the
construction of additional residential units,adding to the City’s diverse housing stock and providing more
housing options.
CONCLUSION
These proposed Zoning Text Amendments are intended to bring the City’s accessory dwelling unit regulations
and development standards into compliance with new State law governing accessory dwelling units that
became effective on January 1, 2020.
Staff recommends that the City Council waive further reading and introduce an ordinance amending Title 20
(“Zoning”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations.
Attachments:
1.Draft Planning Commission Minutes for April 16, 2020
2.Planning Commission Resolution No. 2852-2020
3.City Council Presentation for May 13, 2020
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Report regarding an urgency ordinance of the City of South San Francisco further enacting a temporary
moratorium on small business and nonprofit entity evictions due to nonpayment of rent where the failure to pay
rent results from income loss resulting from the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney)
RECOMMENDATION
,W LV UHFRPPHQGHG &LW\ &RXQFLO ZDLYH UHDGLQJ LQWURGXFH E\ WLWOH DQG DGRSW DQ XUJHQF\ RUGLQDQFH RI WKH
&LW\ RI 6RXWK 6DQ )UDQFLVFR IXUWKHU HQDFWLQJ D WHPSRUDU\ PRUDWRULXP RQ VPDOO EXVLQHVV DQG QRQSURILW
HQWLW\ HYLFWLRQV GXH WR QRQSD\PHQW RI UHQW ZKHUH WKH IDLOXUH WR SD\ UHQW UHVXOWV IURP LQFRPH ORVV
UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKH 1RYHO &RURQDYLUXV &29,' Approval of an urgency ordinance requires a four-
fifths vote.
BACKGROUND
In March 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-28-20 that suspended all state law
provisions that would prevent local governments from limiting residential or commercial evictions related to
the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), and suspended state law provisions providing for foreclosure, unlawful
detainer, and those that would allow landlords to evict or otherwise eject a residential or commercial tenant or
occupant of residential real property after foreclosure. Subsequently, the County of San Mateo (“County”)
adopted an Emergency Regulation establishing a temporary, countywide moratorium on evictions for non-
payment of rent by residential tenants directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, the San Mateo
Superior Court also suspended the entry of default in any pending unlawful detainer action during the period of
May 14, 2020 through June 12, 2020.
On April 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1598-2020 enacting a temporary eviction
moratorium on small businesses and nonprofit entities due to nonpayment of rent, where the failure to pay rent
results from income loss resulting from COVID-19. The Urgency Ordinance and its accompanying staff report
dated April 8, 2020 are attached for ease of reference to this staff report.
Most recently on May 29, 2020, the Governor extended the aforementioned suspensions and protections
afforded by Order N-28-20 to remain in effect until July 28, 2020. The County also extended its Emergency
Regulation on May 26, 2020, which extended the existing residential eviction moratorium to June 30, 2020.
DISCUSSION
The temporary eviction moratorium enacted by Urgency Ordinance No. 1598-2020 was set to expire, and has
expired, on May 31, 2020. At this time, the economic impact resulting from COVID-19 and various state and
local Shelter-In-Place orders continues to affect all commercial sectors of the City simultaneously. Both
non-essential businesses, which have seen the most dramatic impact causing all operations to cease, and
essential businesses continue to be dramatically affected. For instance, the City’s hotel industry, conference and
meeting spaces, and business-to-business sales that support large gatherings continue to be adversely impacted.
Therefore, it is essential to continue the protections against small business and nonprofit entity evictions that
were put in place under Urgency Ordinance No. 1598-2020. The consequences of such evictions will jeopardize
)LOH 20-389,9HUVLRQ 1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/7/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
)LOH 20-389,9HUVLRQ 1
public health, safety and welfare and worsen the ongoing severe economic impacts of COVID-19 to the City’s
commercial sector.
For these reasons, it is recommended that City Council adopt an urgency ordinance to further enact the same
temporary moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent by small business and nonprofit entities impacted
by COVID-19. This proposed Urgency Ordinance will provide the same protections to small businesses and
nonprofits impacted by COVID-19 as the April 8, 2020 Urgency Ordinance No. 1598-2020. For example, if
small businesses or nonprofit entities are able to demonstrate their inability to pay rent due to COVID-19
circumstances, they would be protected against evictions by reasons of failure to pay rent. Similarly, this
proposed urgency ordinance would still require the small business or nonprofit entity repay any back due rent
no later than six (6) months following the expiration of the ordinance. Additionally, the small business or
nonprofit entity could still use this proposed ordinance as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action.
This proposed urgency ordinance, upon its adoption, would expire on June 30, 2020 with the County of San
Mateo’s Emergency Regulation imposing a residential eviction moratorium. If the County further extend that
Emergency Regulation beyond June 30, 2020, this urgency ordinance would be automatically extended to that
same future date. The Council also has the ability to further extend or shorten the expiration of this proposed
urgency ordinance and its temporary moratorium.
FISCAL IMPACT
As presented at the April 8, 2020 Council meeting, approval of the staff recommendations will have no direct
fiscal impact on the City's General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Urgency Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§
21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”) under Section 15061(b)
(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended City Council waive reading, introduce by title, and adopt an urgency ordinance of the City
of South San Francisco further enacting a temporary moratorium on small business and nonprofit entity
evictions due to nonpayment of rent where the failure to pay rent results from income loss resulting from the
Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).Approval of an urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths vote.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 1598-2020 (4/8/2020)
2. April 8, 2020 City Council Staff Report
City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/7/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Report regarding renter protection measures for residential tenants in South San Francisco.(Nell Selander,
Deputy Director of Economic Development and Housing)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council hold a study session regarding potential renter protection measures for
residential tenants in South San Francisco.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On January 9,2019,the City Council held a study session to discuss potential renter protection and anti-
displacement measures that the City Council could adopt within South San Francisco.Staff’s presentation
included introductory information on:
·Types of residential displacement,including:evictions,demolitions,rent increases,and/or physical
renovations or changes in use.
·Impacts of displacement,including:loss of neighborhood stability,overcrowding of units,health issues,
impacts on local businesses, etc.
·Existing City programs,state laws,and recent regional policy discussions (e.g.,CASA)affecting renter
protections.
·Overview of existing programs in other cities, including:
o Minimum lease terms
o Rent Review Board and/or Mediation
o Relocation Assistance
o Voluntary Rent Programs
After discussing the different options available,the Council directed staff to provide additional research,
analysis,and recommendations on three specific policy initiatives:enhanced notification for rent increases,
minimum lease terms,and relocation assistance.At the July 10th Council meeting,Council requested more
information on mediation.This report provides the additional information requested by Council at the January 9
th study session and the July 10th Council meeting.
Demographic Information
South San Francisco’s population of 67,120 lives in 20,712 households.Of these households,61%are
homeowners and 39%are renters.The renter households can be broken out further by type of residence:37%of
renter households live in attached or detached single family homes,15%in developments with two to four
units, 47% in developments with five or more units, and 1% in mobile homes, RVs, or boats.
File #:19-134,Version:1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/17/2020Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-134,Version:1
The Winston Manor,Sierra Highlands,Buri Buri,Westborough,Sign Hill,and Paradise Valley neighborhoods
are home to most of the City’s single family homes;whereas,Downtown,Avalon,and Orange Park are
predominated by multi-family housing.Sunshine Gardens has,perhaps,the most diverse housing stock,with a
near even split between multi-family housing and single family homes.Native Hawaiian and other Pacific
Islanders are most likely to rent attached and detached single family homes.Households identifying as African
American,two or more races,and other are least likely to rent single family homes,and most likely to live in
larger apartment complexes.
According to rentcafe.com,as of July 2019,the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in South San
Francisco is $2,883 (5%increase from last year).In order for a household to afford a one-bedroom apartment in
South San Francisco,the household must earn at least $115,320.The median income in South San Francisco is
$92,074.
Furthermore,over 49%of renter households are rent burdened,meaning they spend more than 30%of their
household income on rent.More specifically,over 65%of renter households earning less than $75,000 a year
experience rent burden,whereas less than 18%of households that make more than that experience rent burden.
Households earning between $20,000 and $35,000 are most rent burdened (84%).
Proposed Renter Protection Initiatives
Based on the Council’s direction from the January 9th study session and an additional request at the July 10th
City Council meeting,staff is now returning with more specific information and recommendations,regarding
the following renter protection initiatives:enhanced notification,minimum lease terms,relocation assistance,
mediation,and anti-rent gouging.At the conclusion of this study session,staff would be prepared to bring back
legislation to implement these initiatives, based on the Council’s feedback and direction.
1.Enhanced Notification Requirements
Currently,State law requires landlords to notify tenants at least 30 days prior to rent increases of 10%or
less.If the increase is 10%or more,landlords must provide 60 days’notice (Civil Code Section §827b).
State law preempts the City from increasing these notification requirements.However,Assembly Bill 1110
(Friedman)would increase notification requirements.If AB 1110 passes as currently drafted,it will take
effect in January of 2020 and will increase the notification of tenants of a rent increase of more than 10%
from 60 days to 90 days.
Staff recommends City Council consider requiring landlords to notify the City if they increase rent more
than 5%.At this time,the City does not monitor rent increases.This notification procedure will provide the
City with valuable rental unit data and rental rate information to inform future policies.It is industry
practice to assume a 3%increase in rental rates year over year when developing new housing.Additionally,
the Consumer Price Index (CPI)fluctuates year-to-year,but on average is below 4%.As such,setting the
noticing requirement at 5%will still allow for the profit typically assumed by developers and account for
usual increase in the cost of goods without imposing a noticing requirement on reasonable rent increases.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/17/2020Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-134,Version:1
The cities of San Jose,Mountain View,and Los Angeles have Landlord Registries to provide eviction
protections and ensure a fair rate of return on investment for landlords.Notification of rental increases are a
component of their reporting requirements.Additionally,the City of El Cerrito is currently exploring the
concept of a Rent Registry to collect data on rental units and rental rates.
2.Minimum Lease Terms
Currently,when an initial residential lease term expires,the lease converts to a month-to-month tenancy.
Minimum lease term policies afford tenants the right to lock in their rental rate and lease term for a
minimum of 12-months or longer,if desired.Tenants have the option of waiving the minimum 12-month
term to negotiate a shorter-term or elect a month-to-month lease,but landlords at minimum must offer a 12-
month lease term option.Because rents cannot be increased during the term of a lease,unless stipulated at
the outset,minimum lease terms can provide stability and predictability to renters.At the end of the lease
term, the landlord and tenant may renew the lease at a new rate with the offer of another minimum term.
At this time,staff does not recommend adopting a minimum lease term policy because it may have the
unintended consequence of inducing landlords to raise rents.For example,if a landlord does not want to
offer a tenant a new,year-long lease,they may offer the new lease term at an unreasonably high rent,so that
the tenant cannot accept it.
3.Relocation Assistance
Tenant relocation assistance policies establish financial assistance to eligible residential households
displaced due to code violations,remodel,renovation,demolition,or repurposing of a property.Staff
recommends approaching relocation assistance in two ways.
1)Requiring payment of relocation assistance to tenants when the housing unit they occupy is deemed
unsafe and uninhabitable by the City’s Building Division or Code Enforcement (also referred to as “red-
tagging”).
2)Requiring relocation assistance for households evicted at no fault of their own who earn less than 120%
of the area median income (AMI).
Displacement Due to Red-tagging
In the red-tagging scenario,relocation assistance would be triggered when a code violation is issued and
the tenant household is required to vacate the unit whether temporarily or permanently.Staff
recommends that this relocation assistance be provided regardless of the tenant household’s income,as
it is incumbent upon landlords to maintain housing in safe and habitable condition.If the landlord is
unable to pay the relocation assistance at the time it is required,staff would recommend that the City
remit the relocation assistance to the tenant and place a lien against the property.San Mateo County,the
City of San Mateo,City of Fremont provides this benefit to households displaced due to red-tagging.
Staff is bringing forward an urgency ordinance establishing relocation benefits in the case red-tagging at
an upcoming City Council meeting.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/17/2020Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-134,Version:1
Displacement Due to No-fault Eviction
No-fault eviction occurs when a tenant’s lease is terminated at no fault of their own.For example,a
tenant may be evicted so that the landlord or their family member can move into the unit,for the
landlord to complete a remodel or extensive renovations,or because the landlord intends to change the
use of the property from residential to some other use,such as commercial.In the no-fault eviction
scenario,relocation assistance would be triggered when a planning or building permit application is
submitted to the City for discretionary or ministerial approval that will result in the displacement of a
tenant,or when notice is given to the tenant that their lease is being terminated.Tenants who are evicted
due to their own conduct (non-payment of rent,breach of lease,nuisance,etc.)would not be eligible for
relocation assistance under this program.
Further,staff recommends that tenant households be eligible for this no-fault eviction relocation benefit
if they earn 120%or less of the area median income and occupy a unit in a multi-family housing
property with two or more units.Generally speaking,households in South San Francisco earning about
60%of the area median income are most rent burdened.However,staff recommends setting the
threshold for eligibility at 120%of the area median income to help prevent discrimination against lower
income households.For example,if a landlord has to provide relocation benefits to a household of four
earning $80,000 per year,but not a household earning $120,000,that landlord may be more likely to
rent to the higher income household.
Relocation Benefit
For both the red-tagging and no-fault eviction relocation assistance programs described above,staff
recommends Council consider requiring a relocation assistance benefit equal to three months’rent based
on the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Fair Market Rent (FMR)calculation for San
Mateo County for a similar-sized rental unit.For Fiscal Year 2019,the FMR calculations are as follows:
$2,069 for a studio,$2,561 for a one-bedroom,$3,170 for a two-bedroom,$4,153 for a three-bedroom,
and $4,392 for a four-bedroom.
Additionally,City Council may want to consider providing a hardship exemption to landlords,as well
as an extra month of compensation to households meeting special circumstances.A hardship exemption
would exempt low income landlords or those impacted by accident or natural disaster from having to
provide relocation assistance.Some special circumstances to consider for an additional benefit for
displaced households include senior or handicapped households,households including at least one
minor,or households that have occupied the subject housing unit for a long period of time,such as five
or more years.
4.Mediation
In the cities of San Leandro and Palo Alto,mediators or rent review boards mediate between tenants and
landlords on issues related to rent increases and encourage them to come into voluntary agreement.Rent
mediation ordinances typically require owners of residential rental properties to include specified language
on the availability of rent mediation services on rent increase notices to tenants.While there is no limit on
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/17/2020Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-134,Version:1
on the availability of rent mediation services on rent increase notices to tenants.While there is no limit on
how much rent can be increased,a tenant may request mediation (typically to a Landlord Tenant Mediator
or Board)if she/he feels the increase is excessive.Mediation ordinances typically establish a timeframe for
rent increase notification.A key feature of existing rent mediation ordinances is that the final decision of
any mediation process is non-binding.
The goals of rent mediation generally are the same as rent regulation (limiting unreasonable rent increases
and preventing displacement).The main difference is that mediation programs attempt to achieve this goal
through a non-binding mediation process rather than legally binding regulatory requirements,and that
mediation programs generally tend to be more permissive in establishing acceptable rent increases.Rent
mediation can also be applied to more rental units and not,like rent regulation,only to units built before
1995.
Staff does not recommend adopting a mediation or rent board at this time since the City is still exploring
rental protection policies and has not established rental ordinance to set rules for mediation.
5.Anti-Rent Gouging
Assembly Bill 1482 (Chiu)currently being considered in the State legislature caps annual rent increases by
7%plus the percentage change in the cost of living,or 10%,whichever is lower.In this case,the bill would
ban property owners from increasing the rental rate more than 10%in the preceding 12 months.This rent
cap would not apply to owners with less than 10 single-family homes.Although this bill does not have any
reporting requirements tied to the rental caps,it does prevent landlords from increasing rents more than
10%every year.If AB 1482 passes through Senate votes it will go back to the Assembly for a final vote.If
approved,AB 1482 will take effect in January of 2020.Staff recommends that Council consider adopting
local anti-rent gouging legislation similar to AB 1482 should it not pass the State legislature.
FISCAL IMPACT
At this time,it is unknown how much enforcement of the above renter protection measures will cost.
Implementation of similar measures -including tracking and online reporting -has cost other communities in
the range of $30,000 to $50,000.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Renter protection measures address the following Strategic Plan area:Strategic Plan Priority Area 2 Quality of
Life, Initiative 2.3 - Promote a balanced mix of housing options in South San Francisco.
CONCLUSION
Staff is seeking direction from City Council on which of the following renter protection measures should be
prepared for Council consideration and possible adoption:
1.enhanced notification for rent increases;
2.minimum lease terms;
3.relocation assistance;
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/17/2020Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-134,Version:1
4.mediation; and
5.anti-rent gouging.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/17/2020Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™