HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-03 e-packet@2:00Thursday, March 3, 2022
2:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
TELECONFERENCE MEETING
Zoom Link: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/81340021021
School District Liaison Standing Committee of the City
Council
Special Meeting Agenda
1
March 3, 2022School District Liaison Standing
Committee of the City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE
The School District Liaison Standing Committee may meet by teleconference, consistent with the
Brown Act as amended by AB 361 (2021). Under the amended rules, the City will not provide a
physical location for members of the public to participate in the teleconference meeting.
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.
Mayor Nagales, Councilmember Flores 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:
Via Zoom:
Join Zoom meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/81340021021
(Enter your email and name)
Join by One Tap Mobile :
US: +16699006833,,81340021021# or +13462487799,,81340021021#
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: 813 4002 1021
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/16/2022
2
March 3, 2022School District Liaison Standing
Committee of the 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.
Remote Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
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 11:00 a.m. on the meeting date.
Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by
visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application
used by Committee Members and staff.
Comments received by the deadline will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud
during the meeting.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/16/2022
3
March 3, 2022School District Liaison Standing
Committee of the 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.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of July 26, 2021.1.
Report regarding an update on a proposal to construct a public playground on the
Sunshine Gardens Elementary School site. (Joshua Richardson, Parks Manager)
2.
Discussion on Youth Government Day. (Sharon Ranals, Assistant City Manager)3.
Report regarding a potential extended learning summer program offered by the City of
South San Francisco for students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School
District’s Big Lift Summer School program at Spruce Elementary School. (Laura
Armanino, Recreation and Community Services Supervisor)
4.
Report regarding the status of the Childcare Memorandum of Understanding between
the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District.
(Greg Mediati, Director of Parks and Recreation)
5.
To provide an update on where the District is in the process of workforce housing for
SSFUSD employees. (Shawnterra Moore, Superintendent)
6.
Adjournment.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/16/2022
4
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-149 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:1.
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of July 26, 2021.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™5
Page 1 of 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CITY LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
Minutes of the Meeting on Monday, July 26, 2021
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID -19) NOTICE
This meeting was conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Or der N-35-20 issued on
March 21, 2020 allowing for deviation of teleconference rules required by the Brown Act and pursuant to the order
of the Health Officer of San Mateo County dated March 16, 2020 as this meeting is necessary so that the South
San Francisco Unified School District can conduct necessary business and is permitted under the order as an
essential governmental function.
CALL TO ORDER - 1:10 p.m. by Board Clerk Patricia Murray
Members present: Trustee Patricia Murray Mayor Mark Addiego
Vice Mayor Mark Nagales
Also in attendance: Superintendent Shawnterra Moore City Manager Mike Futrell
Assistant Superintendent Jay Spaulding Police Chief Jeff Azzopardi
Director Ryan Sebers
Public Comments – The following individuals provided public comment:
▪ Eddy Holman
▪ Marcela Rivera
▪ Russell Lee
▪ Liliana Rivera
▪ Samantha Avila
1.) MOTION (Nagales/Addiego) to approve the minutes of the June 8, 2021 City Subcommittee meeting. Motion
Carried. (Unanimous)
2.) Discussion of the SSFUSD and SSF PD School Liaison Officers MOU
Superintendent Moore said the Board had directed staff to work on the parameters for the School Liaison
Officers (SLO’s) program on school campuses. In June, a preliminary MOU was reviewed by both District
and City staff. On July 20, following input from City Council, the SSFUSD school board, and members of the
community, a revised MOU was created with explicit items being called out and was being reviewed today.
This version (#9) is based on an anti-racist, anti-discriminatory MOU which clearly articulated the roles of the
two agencies and the established expectations for school staff to follow. She said District staff is clear on
when to contact SLO’s or when they should be handling disciplinary issues themselves. The MOU also has
an updated performance review and program assessment which will help to monitor the impact of the
program and determine whether it is meeting the established goals. Today’s discussion will include an
opportunity for any additional insights.
Mr. Futrell pointed out in the MOU that both District and City staff will work together throughout the year on
various issues such as training. He said there would likely be annual tweaks to the MOU. This is the first
time the City and District’s relationship has been memorialized regarding the SLO program. This formalized
collaboration means they can refine the MOU to meet the intent of making the program successful. He noted
one amendment whereby SLO’s would not wear a full on uniform, but have a more casual approach by
dressing in a polo-type shirt and slacks. Dr. Moore stated that the following MOU language was added after
6
Page 2 of 3
the agenda for this meeting was posted, “When serving in the role of a School Liaison Officer on school
campuses, and when practical, officers will wear a designated alternate uniform to present a more casual
appearance (example, polo shirt with utility slacks). Officers may have all necessary safety equipment for the
performance of their duties to include a bullet-resistant vest worn under their clothing and all use of force
tools to allow for appropriate de-escalation.” Mr. Futrell noted that there may be times when an SLO needs
to respond to a City emergency, but the City prefers they have a casual look and will work with the District on
what that would be.
Vice Mayor Nagales questioned who would pay for the training which was mentioned in the MOU. Mr. Futrell
stated that the City has always paid for training officers and recommended they continue to do so going
forward. Vice Mayor Nagales requested this be included in the MOU.
Vice Mayor Nagales asked, under the role and responsibilities section for SLO’s, what restraints and
seclusion means. He said it is traumatic when a student is arrested in school and asked how this could be
handled in a non-public setting. Chief Azzopardi said it is easier than it was in the past. He noted that only
one student in the two years before COVID-19 was handcuffed. This was an old mindset to send a message
to students with which he never agreed. He said no student would be arrested during lunch and their goal is
to not take anyone out in handcuffs, but to walk the student out with no one seeing the interaction. He added
that a Principal, Assistant Principal, or Counselor is always present with the police and a student. If a
situation is deemed unsafe for others, police may need to use handcuffs.
Vice Mayor Nagales referenced an MOU item regarding how investigations are conducted on campus. He
asked if a school administrator requests an SLO and since they initiated the assistance, they would be
responsible for the questioning and potential search of a locker. Chief Azzopardi replied that has always
been the case. Vice Mayor Nagales asked if a criminal act had been determined would the questioning and
searching become the SLO’s responsibility. Chief Azzopardi said the SLO’s and school staff continue to
work together. The school has the authority over administrative searches. Vi ce Mayor Nagales questioned
whether police can go onto campus regarding an off-campus incident. Chief Azzopardi replied the SLO and
school administrators would continue to work together if the incident happened on campus. If something
occurred off campus and police need to go to a school to speak with the student, that would have nothing to
do with the school as it is a criminal investigation and the responsibility is that of the officer. The majority of
calls are for administrative searches which the District has the authority over. Chief Azzopardi said they have
moved away from this and try to speak to the student off campus. Vice Mayor Nagales asked and Chief
Azzopardi confirmed that a school administrator is present when a student is questioned on c ampus. Vice
Mayor Nagales inquired at what point a student’s parents are notified that their child is being questioned by
the police. Chief Azzopardi said the laws around interviewing a juvenile, whether or not it happens on
campus or not, have changed. A student is read their rights immediately, parents are contacted, and a
County official is assigned to them right away.
Vice Mayor Nagales questioned the review process. He asked if there is a complaint regarding an SLO,
would it be handled by their supervisor who, along with a school administrator, would try to mediate it. Chief
Azzopardi confirmed the process. Vice Mayor Nagales asked if it is not resolved, would it be elevated to
Chief Azzopardi and a school administrator. Chief Azzopardi confirmed that an SLO complaint would be
given to their supervisor and he becomes part of the discussion with Mr. Sebers and Dr. Moore to see if the
situation can be fixed. He added that if the District is uncomfortable with an SLO on their campuses, he
would remove that officer, but that has not happened in four years.
Vice Mayor Nagales spoke about the yearly review of the MOU. He suggested that even if there are no
changes, it should not be “automatically renewed” and asked that those words be removed. He
recommended the City Subcommittee would review the MOU annually before it is provided to the City and
the Board for approval. Trustee Murray said it could go to the City Subcommittee, but having staff review it
would be good enough for her. Mayor Addiego said the City Subcommittee could review the MOU at any
time and that process may not need to be formalized.
Mayor Addiego asked how many students had been arrested on campus in the past two years (prior to
COVID). Chief Azzopardi replied that one student and one teacher had been arrested in that time. Mayor
Addiego inquired about the circumstances with the student arrest. Chief Azzopardi said the student had used
a lock in the form of brass knuckles and punched another student several time. Mayor Addiego said that
situation seems violent enough to warrant an arrest.
Trustee Murray acknowledged the wonderful collaboration between the City and District and thanked Dr.
Moore, Mr. Futrell, and their staffs. She said the MOU is student-centered, discusses student rights, anti-
7
Page 3 of 3
racism, accountability, training, and focused on relationship building, an important skill for students to learn
since it is a part of their education.
Next steps:
Trustee Murray asked for the SLO dress code amendment to be added to the MOU.
Mr. Futrell asked for an amendment to be added stating that the “the City of SSF will bear the cost of SLO
training.”
Mayor Addiego said he asked, at a previous City Subcommittee meeting, if the MOU is not approved by both
the City and the school board before the start of school, would officers be on campus. Dr. Spaulding said the
District would not call the police and they would not respond until the MOU is approved. Mr. Sebers added
that in situations where administrators have their scope of discretion and are calling, in a consultative
manner, for police assistance, the District would proceed with its standard internal procedures. Mayor
Addiego asked if SLO’s would not be on campus without an MOU. Dr. Moore confirmed that in a recent
Board discussion, it was agreed that without a signed MOU by both agencies in place, the program would be
suspended. Mayor Addiego said since school starts in three weeks, City Council needs to act this week. He
asked about the Board’s plans. Trustee Murray said the Board could hold a special meeting if everyone was
in agreement. Mayor Addiego said the MOU approval would be added to Wednesday’s City Council agenda
and then it would be up to the Board to make it happen. Mr. Futrell asked how he would reference the
actions of the City Subcommittee today when the City Council is presented with the MOU. The MOU was
then formally endorsed as follows.
3.) MOTION (Nagales/Addiego) to approve the SLO MOU (version #9) with the City Council and the school
district with the two amendments included. Motion Carried. (Unanimous)
Adjournment at 1:58 p.m.
8
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-150 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding an update on a proposal to construct a public playground on the Sunshine Gardens Elementary
School site. (Joshua Richardson, Parks Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the School District Liaison Standing Committee of the City Council be apprised
of a proposal to construct a public playground on the Sunshine Gardens Elementary School site.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
It has been noted for many years by City staff and residents that the Sunshine Gardens Neighborhood of South
San Francisco is underserved with regards to public parks and open space.This condition is also identified in
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan.Unfortunately,the Sunshine Gardens Neighborhood is
lacking options for available open space which could be utilized to provide park amenities for the
neighborhood.
With this in mind and at the request of the Liaison Committee,in 2015,sites on the Sunshine Gardens
Elementary School campus for a public playground were evaluated.Based on various concerns for safety and
security,as well as school programming and site topography,an underutilized lawn area at the front of the
school was determined to be the most appropriate location where such an amenity could be constructed.The
Liaison Committee directed staff to conceptualize how such a playground could be placed on the site without
impacting school operations or safety. A copy of this plan is attached to this report.
Understanding the continued need for parkland in this neighborhood,the City is seeking direction and feedback
from the Committee on the possibility of developing a park at this location.The attached rendering shows just
one concept for this space,which takes into account the topography and the programming needs of the school.
As such,it provides for an elementary school age-appropriate area (with play elements and fitness-type
equipment)close to the school which could be closed off and only used by the students during the school day,
and could be accessed by the public during non-school hours.The two to five-year-old play area adjacent to the
corner could be used by the public all throughout the day.The equipment on this playlot could also be furnished
with age-appropriate equipment for TK students,as play equipment on school premises may not designed for
this population.
City staff are continuing to explore other options for park locations in the Sunshine Gardens Neighborhood,
though available land is scarce.The City is seeking feedback from the Liaison Committee if locating a park on
the frontage of Sunshine Gardens Elementary is worth pursuing at this time.If this remains an option,the City
Staff would like to schedule future meetings to learn more about how the campus currently functions,and what
access,parking,screening,and other constraints or opportunities there may be from the school perspective,
which have not yet been identified.
If the District and City would like to further explore this opportunity in earnest,City Staff would proceed in
hiring a landscape architect to determine costs,produce designs,perform community outreach and address any
issues that may be present at the site.A funding source for creation of this public park and playground remains
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™9
File #:22-150 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:2.
issues that may be present at the site.A funding source for creation of this public park and playground remains
to be determined and will require further discussion between the City and District.Staff estimate a rough order
of magnitude cost to be $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 to construct the park,depending on what amenities are
selected.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™10
SUNSHINE GARDENS ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PLAYGROUND CONCEPT
Scale: 1” = 20’-0”northAPPROX.
130’ x 120’=
15,600 s.f.
OF TURF, TO REMAIN -
RE GRADE AND INSTALL
NEW TURF
5-12 play area for school use
during school hours, open to
public after school and weekends
youth fitness
center
2-5 play area
open to public
0 20 ft.
RAMP
D
NLADDERSEATSAAAACC
new trees, typical
bench,
typical
11
3/3/22, 1:34 PM 2. 22-150 Report regarding an update on a proposal to construct a public playground on the Sunshine Gardens Elementary School …
https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings/1729-school-district-liaison-standing-committee-of-the-city-council-on-2022-03-03-2-00-pm/agenda_items…1/2
Agenda Item
2. 22-150 Report regarding an update on a proposal to construct a public playground on the Sunshine
Gardens Elementary School site. (Joshua Richardson, Parks Manager)
Legislation Text Attachment I - Sunshine Gardens Playground 2015 Plan
2 Public Comments
Cynthia V at March 03, 2022 at 7:15am PST
Oppose
Having a public park on a school campus is a huge liability for both agencies (SSFUSD and the City of
SSF). The health and safety of the students, teachers and staff, are at risk. Even if the park is "closed,"
during school hours, this will not mediate the risk of attracting unwanted strangers onto campus. There are
many questions that also need to be asked and answered, here are just a few.
Who will pay for it? Another school bond measure? We know how well that money gets spent and
allocated... Increase taxes...again?
Who will maintain it? SSFUSD can barely keep up and maintain the outside grounds they already have,
and you want to add more? Same goes for the City of SSF Parks Dept.
What about public restrooms? We know what happens when a public restroom is not available at a park,
and people need to relieve themselves.
Who will keep out the mentally ill/homeless people? All one needs to do is spend a day on Mission Rd.
and you will see countless mentally ill and homeless people sprawled out on the various benches located
along Mission Rd. Many congregate outside 7-11. Once they learn about a public park just 2 blocks up
Holly Ave., word will spread, it will be a huge magnet, and signage does not seem to stop people much
these days.
SSFPD is already stretched thin, and you want to add a public park with the upper green space, that is
secluded from the street with poor access and then get a quick response from SSFPD when they are
called?
Once the homeless tents get set up, and they will (it has already happened at the SSG upper field in the
past) who will remove them? But wait, the homeless advocates will come with hot food, clean needles and
crack pipes, because homeless people need a place to live too. It's not against the law to be homeless.
Teachers already find beer bottles, drug paraphernalia, and condoms on campus, and SSG is fenced and
NOT open to the public. What will happen once it becomes open to the public? The health and safety of
our students, teachers, and staff should be the first priority.
We already have parks in and near the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood.
There are two playgrounds in the neighborhood at Willow Gardens. There is Centennial Park, which is
perfect for kids and families to ride bikes and scooters.
12
3/3/22, 1:34 PM 2. 22-150 Report regarding an update on a proposal to construct a public playground on the Sunshine Gardens Elementary School …
https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings/1729-school-district-liaison-standing-committee-of-the-city-council-on-2022-03-03-2-00-pm/agenda_items…2/2
Soon there will be a 1.3 acre park at our Community Civic Campus for the neighborhood to enjoy.
So few families today even walk to parks. It is fair to say, the most drive to parks, and then circle around
for the closest parking spot they can find.
Taking a look at the history of the SSG neighborhood, it is not the SSFUSD's problem for the poor
planning on the part of the City of SSF. When the neighborhood was built beginning in the early 1950's,
and continuing for DECADES, and taking a look at ALL of the new construction OVER the last 70 years,
there have been many opportunities to build a park, and HOUSING has won every time.
Taking another look at history, several years ago, teachers were suppose to keep their doors locked and
closed during the school day, due to the threat of an active shooter. Now teachers have to keep their doors
wide-open. Again, making students, teachers, and staff easy targets.
The health and safety of the students, teachers, and staff at the Sunshine Gardens site, is the number one
priority.
PS - Please hold future meetings (if any) AFTER school hours, so teachers and staff may attend in person
and be heard. Seems odd to be holding this meeting during school hours...
Guest User at February 28, 2022 at 8:00pm PST
Oppose
Once again, Sunshine Gardens Elementary has to go through this preposterous proposal. The grounds are
for the Elementary school children to keep them safe and away from strangers. There will be a new park
built right by the new Police Station/ new library / community center. It's not far for a walk to the new
park once built. We don't need another park at a school. Keep it safe for the School children, teachers &
staff. It belongs to the School District and not for public use.
13
3/3/22, 1:34 PM 1. 22-149 Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of July 26, 2021. - City of South San Francisco
https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings/1729-school-district-liaison-standing-committee-of-the-city-council-on-2022-03-03-2-00-pm/agenda_items…1/1
Agenda Item
1. 22-149 Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of July 26, 2021.
Legislation Text 07.26.2021 School District Liaison Minutes
1 Public Comment
Guest User at February 28, 2022 at 9:19am PST
Support
If we do construct a public playground, are they also going to build a public restroom as well, problem
being we don't won't to have the public using school restrooms.
14
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-151 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:3.
Discussion on Youth Government Day.(Sharon Ranals, Assistant City Manager)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™15
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-152 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:4.
Report regarding a potential extended learning summer program offered by the City of South San Francisco for
students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School District’s Big Lift Summer School program at
Spruce Elementary School.(Laura Armanino, Recreation and Community Services Supervisor)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the School District Liaison Standing Committee of the City Council be appraised
of a potential extended learning summer program offered by the City of South San Francisco for
students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School District’s Big Lift Summer School program
at Spruce Elementary School.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As members of the Committee may recall,the City partnered with the South San Francisco Unified School
District (District)in 2019 to offer an extended day program for its STEAM Summer School Program at
Sunshine Gardens Elementary School for third through eighth grade students,serving 80 children.The direct
costs associated with operating this program were reimbursed by the District,while in-kind operational costs
and coordination services were provided by the City. The program was offered at no cost to families.
Parks and Recreation Department staff met with Keith Irish,Assistant Superintendent of Education Services,
Dr.Marcos Garcia,and Dr.Marianne Hew,lead and co-leads for the District summer school program,on
February 4,2022.District staff again requested that the City’s Parks and Recreation Department partner with
the District to create an extended day or after school program to complement the District’s Big Lift Summer
School (BLISS) programs, which operate until 3:30 p.m.
The District will be operating two Big Lift summer schools at Spruce Elementary School and Los Cerritos
Elementary School this year.At this time,staff identified the Spruce Elementary School site as the most
desirable location to host the afterschool component,based on classroom availability,community need,and
limited staffing availability.This partnership will essentially offer a full day program to children with working
parents who may not otherwise enroll in summer school if after school care was not provided.This six-week
program, including lunch, is offered at no cost.
The intent is for the City’s program to be available on an optional basis for working parents who need full-day
care for their children while remaining on campus.The afternoon extended day program,managed and staffed
by the Parks and Recreation Department,would operate from 3:30 p.m.until 6:00 p.m.allowing parents to pick
up their children after typical work hours.The City is proposing operating four classrooms,serving 80 students
in grades kindergarten through fifth grade from June 14 -July 20.The District will be reimbursing the City for
the direct costs of operating the extended day program.
The City is also looking to hire four District high school students to work in the extended day program.This
opportunity will give them valuable work experience and perhaps inspire some to enter the teacher or early
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™16
File #:22-152 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:4.
learning professional employment pipeline.
As the provider of preschools,before and after school programs,and seasonal camp programs,the Parks and
Recreation Department fully appreciates,supports and advocates for affordable,high-quality programs for
children in South San Francisco.The provision of an extended day program for working families is essential for
many families to be able to take advantage of a summer school program,which is particularly important to
equitably address learning loss associated with COVID-19.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost to operate the extended day program in partnership with the District is approximately
$36,000.Based on discussions held to date,the District will reimburse the City for direct expenses so this
program can be offered at no cost to families.In-kind services,including administration and overhead will be
provided by the City.
CONCLUSION
The Childcare Program will continue to provide programming to the community and looks forward to
partnering with the District.Staff’s goal is to provide high-quality learning,socialization and recreation
programs,in addition to much needed options for working parents who require wrap around services year-
round.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™17
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-153 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:5.
Report regarding the status of the Childcare Memorandum of Understanding between the City of South San
Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District.(Greg Mediati,Director of Parks and
Recreation)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the School District Liaison Subcommittee receive a report on the status of the
Childcare Memorandum of Understanding and provide feedback and direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 2016,the South San Francisco Unified School District (District)and the City of South San Francisco (City)
entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU)to define their relationship and responsibilities in
connection with City-operated before and after school licensed recreation programs,City-operated After School
Education and Safety (ASES)grant-funded programs,and City-operated Summer Camp programs which
typically operate at Ponderosa Elementary School in addition to several non-District sites.
Currently,the City operates and subsidizes programs at the District locations noted below.Also included below
are each site’s licensed or otherwise approved capacities.During COVID-19,however,capacities at each of
these sites have been reduced to meet minimum physical distancing and room capacity standards.
Before and After School Recreation Program
·Buri Buri Elementary School (130 children)
·Monte Verde Elementary School (200 children)
·Ponderosa Elementary School (160 children)
·Spruce Elementary School (30 children)
ASES Program
·Community Learning Center / Library Department Program (75 children)
·Los Cerritos Elementary School (55 children)
·Martin Elementary School (55 children)
Summer Camp
·Ponderosa Elementary School (113 children)
The Childcare MOU purposefully “places additional responsibilities and obligations on the parties in
connection with the City’s use of District’s facilities,”and “in no way replaces or supersedes the requirements
and obligations under the Joint Use Agreement (JUA)already in place.”After the initial agreement expired in
2020,the City and District renewed the agreement for an additional one-year term,which expired July 31,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™18
File #:22-153 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:5.
2021. At this time, staff continue to work together in good faith, however, the MOU is effectively moot.
The purpose of the Childcare MOU is to:
·Memorialize program operating hours;
·Align the City’s program with the District’s school year calendar;
·Specify classrooms, restrooms, outdoor space, and campus access at each location;
·Clarify the provision of keys and alarm codes;
·Document District contributions to meet requirements of the ASES grant,for which the City
serves as the grant lead agency on behalf of the District;
·Identify Ponderosa School as a designated Summer Camp site,unless an alternative site is
provided;
·Outline custodial responsibilities for each agency for childcare sites;
·Condition that the City obtain District approval for use of school sites on non-school days and
school breaks;
·Extend the City first right of refusal for new or expanded childcare programs at school sites
where the City already operates a program to avoid space conflicts with providers;
·Provide a timeline and approval process for new or expanded programs; and
·Require an annual meeting to evaluate the relationship and identify any issues.
The Joint Use Agreement between the City and School District,which does not expire until 2028,is the
controlling document.A copy of the Joint Use Agreement is attached for Liaison Committee’s convenience.All
of the Park and Recreation Before and After School and Summer Camp programs that are operated in
partnership with the District continue to be covered by the Joint Use Agreement.There is no financial or
budgetary impact related to the Childcare MOU.
Need for a Childcare MOU
While the MOU has expired,staff do continue to work in good faith to coordinate after school and summer
programs together.There have been few,if any,conflicts at this time,however,not having an agreement in
place has created concerns and uncertainty for the future.
With the possible expansion of transitional kindergarten at District facilities,City staff desire conversations
between both parties on how this impacts classroom and program assignments,which the MOU provides.Staff
do,however,understand the complexity of this issue,and difficulty the District has in planning and funding this
endeavor.
Any uncertainty of future classroom assignments related to TK or other matters hinders program planning and
enrollment.At this time,staff are currently enrolling for afterschool programs for the 22/23 school year with
little certainty of what spaces, and therefore program capacity, will be available for children.
The MOU also memorializes each parties’responsibilities,which is especially important with recent staff
turnover.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™19
File #:22-153 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:5.
Status of Negotiations
Staff from both the City and District last met on February 24,2021 to discuss the Childcare MOU,and sporadic
communications have occurred via email since then despite efforts to meet,largely due to COVID-related
business interruptions.
In 2021,District staff proposed a redlined copy of the MOU to City staff,for which City staff provided
comments and feedback.There are several minor areas where staff are seeking clarification,and believe these
can readily be resolved.However,the greatest area of disagreement,is a larger policy matter:District staff and
their legal counsel believe that the MOU should not defer to the JUA,adopted by the Board of Trustees and
City Council,but should serve as a standalone legal document.The City’s position is that the MOU is a
supplementary document to the JUA that provides additional clarification on items related to childcare.
As discussed earlier,the MOU notes that “this MOU in no way replaces or supersedes the requirements and
obligations under the Joint Use Agreement already in place,”which is important as the JUA is the guiding
document for the mutual sharing of City and District facilities for greater community benefit at the lowest
possible cost to taxpayers.Having this as a standalone document that defers to the JUA allows flexibility to
renegotiate smaller business matters via updates to the MOU,rather than reopening negotiations to the
overriding JUA, which can be an arduous, lengthy and costly process.
Staff appreciates the past and ongoing commitment from the District in serving the District’s students by
supporting the City’s provision of affordable high-quality care and learning support outside of school hours
through this partnership.
Discussion and feedback from the Liaison Subcommittee is appreciated.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-154 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:6.
To provide an update on where the District is in the process of workforce housing for SSFUSD employees.
(Shawnterra Moore, Superintendent)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Attached - Staff Report and attachment from a previous meeting for reference and discussion.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™51
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-139 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:2.
..Title
Report regarding the feasibility of affordable housing development on surplus South San Francisco School
District sites, and of implementing public employee and teacher preferences in affordable housing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the School District Liaison Standing Committee receive a presentation regarding
the feasibility of affordable housing development on surplus South San Francisco School District sites for
public employees, and of implementing public employee and teacher preferences in affordable housing.
BACKGROUND
City staff presented a very similar item to the School District Liaison Standing Committee (Committee)on July
27,2018.Some facts and figures in this report have been updated to reflect current economic conditions,while
others have not. New numbers and older numbers have been noted as such.
Currently,the median income in San Mateo County for a single person household is $104,700 and for family of
four is $149,600 (see Attachment 1 for San Mateo County Income Limits).Accordingly a median individual
household can comfortably afford no more than $2,600 a month in rent,and a family of four is limited to about
$3,700 a month in rent.Prior to the pandemic,the median rent for a market rate one-bedroom apartment in
South San Francisco was roughly $3,000 per month,now it is closer to $2,000.Prior to the pandemic,the
median rent for a market rate two-bedroom apartment hovered just below $4,000 per month,now it is closer to
$3,400.So while the median household today may be able to afford market rate rent,is expected that rental
rates will rebound (two bedrooms are rebounding very quickly)and households earning the median income or
below will have further limited in their housing options.
Given these housing constraints,construction of affordable housing has become increasingly important to
ensure those who occupy critical professions in our cities -teachers,public safety,community services -can
live in close proximity to the communities they serve.Several years ago,the Governor signed into law several
bills that make construction of affordable housing for teachers and school district employees more streamlined.
Assembly Bill 1157 (Mullin)allows school boards to bypass the surplus property process if the property is to
be used for teacher or school district employee housing.Additionally,Senate Bill 1413 (Leno)allows districts
permission to set aside housing for its employees and to use state and federal low income housing tax credits (a
critical source of funding for affordable housing projects).Combined,this new legislation opens the door for
school districts to actively pursue the utilization of their surplus lands for affordable housing projects.
DISCUSSION
In considering whether or not an affordable housing project on surplus District property is feasible,staff looked
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/24/2022Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™52
File #:22-139 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:2.
In considering whether or not an affordable housing project on surplus District property is feasible,staff looked
at whether or not there would be a need and at what income levels,where the project might be located,how the
project could be financed, what gap funding would be necessary, and how to narrow any funding gap.
Local Need for Affordable Housing
A brief survey of South San Francisco Unified School District (District)employee salaries in 2018 illustrated
the tremendous need for affordable housing to serve these critical positions.At that time,teachers with 10 or
fewer years of experience make less than 80%of the area median income and are considered low income.
Additionally,district employees including paraprofessionals,security guards,custodians,ground maintenance
workers,and nutrition assistants and leads all make less than 50%of the area median income and are
considered very low income.While many more District positions would fall into these categories,those listed
above are meant to be representative of the range of positions that may qualify for affordable housing.
A similar survey of City of South San Francisco (City)employees in 2018 found that many positions also
qualify for affordable housing.Police officers,associate planners,management analysts,and computer
technicians all make less than 120%of the area median income and would be considered moderate income.
Accountants,building inspectors,administrative assistants,park maintenance workers,permit technicians,plan
mechanics,and recreation and community services program coordinators would all be considered low income.
Library clerks,building maintenance custodians,and preschool teachers would be considered very low income.
As with the review of District salaries,these City positions are meant to be representative and not exhaustive of
those that may qualify for affordable housing.
Note that,what an individual makes and what their total household income is may be different.Total household
income by household size is used to determine eligibility for affordable housing.For example,two individuals
earning low income salaries -about $80,000 each -combined would be considered above-moderate income and
would not qualify for affordable housing.However,if that same household had two children (making it a four-
person household) they would qualify as moderate income.
Locating an Affordable Housing Project on Surplus District Land
City staff identified the Fox Ridge site located at 2525 Wexford Avenue in South San Francisco as an
appropriate site for a townhome and small,multi-family development that fits seamlessly into the surrounding
single family neighborhood.The site has not been used as a school since 1992,is currently occupied by a
daycare center,and is used by local area residents for open space.The site is surrounded by neighborhoods
zoned RH-8,which allow eight dwelling units per acre.Fox Ridge,at 6.9 acres,can accommodate 55.2 units.
As an affordable housing development,the State Density Bonus would entitle a fully-affordable project to an
80%density bonus.This would bring the total number of units allowable on the site to 99.36 units,which
rounds to 100 units.Aproject that is one-third affordable to households making less than 80%of the area
median income and two-thirds available at market rate rents would be afforded a 50%density bonus,bringing
the total unit count to 82.8 units, which rounds to 83 units.
In 2018,the City’s economic development and housing consultant,BAE Urban Economics,modeled two
financing schemes for a low-rise (three-story)development of 74 units including mostly townhomes and some
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/24/2022Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™53
File #:22-139 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:2.
financing schemes for a low-rise (three-story)development of 74 units including mostly townhomes and some
clustered,multi-family units on the Fox Ridge site.At that time,the maximum State Density Bonus was 35%,
hence the lower number of units modeled.The first financial model assumed a fully-leveraged four percent
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)project,which would restrict all of the units to,on average,60%of
the area median income.Some units could reach up into the low income category (up to 80%of the area
median income),but others would have to be offered at a much lower income level (to extremely low income
households earning 30%of the area median income)in order to average out to 60%.This project results in a
funding gap of approximately $15.9 million.
Next,the City’s consultant modeled a project partially leveraging LIHTC and serving,on average,households
earning 60%of the area median income,while also offering units at higher income levels,averaging 100%of
the area median income.This development would offer units to a broader income range and may be most
appropriate based on the survey of District and City salaries.The consultant also reduced the unit sizes by 25%.
In this scenario,a one-bedroom would be roughly 600 square feet,a two-bedroom approximately 800 square
feet,and a three-bedroom about 1,200 square feet.This project results in a funding gap of approximately $9.9
million. Both models assume that the District will donate the surplus land to the project.
Based on the higher unit count afforded by the State Density Bonus today,one might expect that a larger project
may have a slightly smaller funding gap than described above.That said,construction costs have also escalated
significantly since 2018.What the School District and the City should expect is that any fully-affordable project
on this site will require a fairly substantial gap funding source, as well as land donation.
Funding Gap Reduction Measures
One important local public funding source is the San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF),which is
supported by Measure K,a countywide half-cent sales tax approved by the county electorate.While
communications with San Mateo County staff in charge of administering the AHF funds suggest the funds
cannot be used for a targeted population of one municipality or a specific employer,the project could
potentially set aside some units for a broader population and receive funds.Alternatively,a case may be made
for a prioritization system that does not restrict individuals from obtaining housing at the project,but rather
prioritizes public employees.Whether or not this is acceptable to the County will have to be determined.The
average subsidy for new construction amounts to roughly $60,000 per unit or $4.4 million for the 74-unit
project modeled.
The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART)of San Mateo County,a joint powers authority with the
County of San Mateo and associated incorporated cities,raises public and private funds to allocate for
affordable housing needs.To date,the endowment has contributed approximately $12.4 million to various
projects,including one recent contribution to the Pacifica School District for a 40-unit project.This is a funding
source that should be explored should a project move forward on surplus District land.
Finally,the City has affordable housing funds which may be utilized,at the discretion of the City Council,for
affordable housing serving a range of incomes.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/24/2022Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™54
File #:22-139 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:2.
Federal Fair Housing Act Considerations
A concern with limiting affordable housing to a discreet population -be it teachers,city employees,or some
other sub-group of the general population -is the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA).The FHA prohibits
discrimination in the sale,rental and financing of housing.Frequently,affordable housing developers give
priority to households that live or work in the jurisdiction in which the property is located,which is a generally
accepted practice within the confines of the FHA.The City of Foster City recently began exploring the
feasibility of an affordable housing project that gives priority to public employees,in addition to people who
live and work in the City.This program proposes the following order of priority:city employees,district
employees,people who live and work in the city,people who live in the city,people that work in the city,and
all others who are income qualified.
If the City and/or School District were interested in implementing a public employee preference for housing,a
similar system to that considered by Foster City might be explored.It would,though,require a demographic
study be conducted to demonstrate that the preference policy would not create a disproportionate impact on a
protected group.Fair housing laws aim to prevent disproportionate impact that would be a form of prohibited
housing discrimination.For example,if an agency’s employees are predominantly Caucasian,but the
community it serves is not,then providing a preference to the agency’s employees would create a
disproportionate impact,providing affordable housing to a mostly Caucasian group that is not reflective of the
community.
If a demographic study showed a public employee preference would not create a disproportionate impact,the
City or School District could proceed with requiring it.However,if the demographic study showed an impact,
the preference would have to be adjusted and rethought -or potentially not implemented at all -in order to
avoid the impact.Additionally,even with a demographic study supporting a public employee preference,there
would remain risk of litigation alleging that the study was flawed and the program resulted in a
disproportionate impact on a protected group.
CONCLUSION
An affordable housing project targeting a range of incomes will serve the City and the District in meeting the
housing needs of qualifying employees.Frequently,affordable housing projects are harder to qualify
households for than anticipated -incomes must line up with the units available -and so broadening the
eligibility of the project may be necessary to fill all of the units.Staff suggests that a model similar to the City
of Foster City’s be explored.This could prioritize households for the Fox Ridge site in the following order:
District employees,City employees,households that live and work in South San Francisco,households that live
in South San Francisco,households that work in South San Francisco,and all other income eligible households.
Not only will this help mitigate concerns regarding FHA and may make the project eligible for AHF funding,
but it will also ensure the long-term viability of the site by reducing delays in filling vacant units.
Should the District be interested in pursuing an affordable housing development at the Fox Ridge site,the City
could provide technical assistance in the form of developer solicitation and selection.The City has undertaken
many partnerships for the development of affordable housing,including at 636 El Camino Real with MidPen
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/24/2022Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™55
File #:22-139 Agenda Date:3/3/2022
Version:1 Item #:2.
many partnerships for the development of affordable housing,including at 636 El Camino Real with MidPen
Housing,the Rotary Senior Housing project on Miller Avenue,the Grand &Linden Family Apartments by
ROEM,the Bridge Housing project at the PUC Site,428-432 Baden development by For the Future Housing,
and the Eden Housing project at the Old Firehouse site in the Downtown.
Attachments
1.San Mateo County Income Limits by Household Size
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/24/2022Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™56
Income limits effective 04/01/2021.
Please verify the income and rent figures in use for specific programs.
NOTES
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *38,400$ 43,850$ 49,350$ 54,800$ 59,200$ 63,600$ 68,000$ 72,350$
Very Low (50% AMI) *63,950$ 73,100$ 82,250$ 91,350$ 98,700$ 106,000$ 113,300$ 120,600$
HOME Limit (60% AMI) *76,740$ 87,720$ 98,700$ 109,620$ 118,440$ 127,200$ 135,960$ 144,720$
HERA Special VLI (50% AMI) ***63,950$ 73,100$ 82,250$ 91,350$ 98,700$ 106,000$ 113,300$ 120,600$ See Note regarding HERA for FY2021***
HERA Special Limit (60% AMI) ***76,740$ 87,720$ 98,700$ 109,620$ 118,440$ 127,200$ 135,960$ 144,720$ See Note regarding HERA for FY2021***
Low (80% AMI) *102,450$ 117,100$ 131,750$ 146,350$ 158,100$ 169,800$ 181,500$ 193,200$
State Median (100% AMI) 104,700$ 119,700$ 134,650$ 149,600$ 161,550$ 173,550$ 185,500$ 197,450$
Income Category SRO *+Studio 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Extremely Low *959$ 1,027$ 1,233$ 1,425$ 1,590$
Very Low *1,598$ 1,713$ 2,056$ 2,375$ 2,650$
Low HOME Limit*1,598$ 1,713$ 2,056$ 2,375$ 2,650$ effective 6/01/2021; 2021 HOME Limit
High HOME Limit (65%)*2,078$ 2,227$ 2,673$ 3,088$ 3,445$ effective 6/01/2021; 2021 HOME Limit
HERA Special VLI (50% AMI) ***1,598$ 1,713$ 2,056$ 2,375$ 2,650$
HERA Special Limit (60% AMI) ***1,918$ 2,055$ 2,467$ 2,850$ 3,180$
Low**2,558$ 2,741$ 3,290$ 3,801$ 4,240$ CA Tax Credit Rent limits: Low & Med Income Group
HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR)2,350$ 2,923$ 3,553$ 4,567$ 4,970$ HUD-published Fair Market Rents
Median **3,196$ 3,426$ 4,112$ 4,750$ 5,300$ CA Tax Credit Rent limits: Low & Med Income Group
NOTES
*
**CA Tax Credit Rent Limits for Low and Median Income Group
***
*+
2021 San Mateo County Income Limits
as determined by HUD, State of CA HCD, and County of San Mateo
Income figures provided by HUD for following San Mateo County federal entitlement programs: CDBG, HOME, ESG.
For San Mateo County, the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) & the HUD 2010 HOME hold-harmless provision permit multifamily tax
subsidy projects (MTSPs) & HOME projects placed in service before 1/1/2009 to continue to use HOME/tax credit/tax exempt bond rents based on the
highest income levels that project ever operated under. Once these units are placed in service, the rents will not adjust downward should HUD establish
lower incomes/rents in any subsequent year. Marketing of vacant units should be targeted to the current year's income schedule. However, HUD's Section 8
income limits are larger that those defined by Section 3009(a)(E)(ii) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289). Therefore, for
FY2018 no special income limits are necessary.
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
Maximum Affordable Rent Payment ($)
SROs with -0- or 1 of the following - sanitary or food preparation facility in unit; if 5+ SRO HOME-assisted units, then at least 20% of units to be occupied by
persons with incomes up to 50% AMI.
HUD-defined Area Median Income $149,600 (based on householdof 4). State defined median $149,600 (household of 4) due to hold harmless policy.
57
OTHER NOTES (generic)
1
High HOME Limit rent set at lower of: (a) 30% of 60% AMI,or (b) FMR (HUD Fair Market Rent).
For 2011, the FMR for Studio is the lower rent.
2
3 Table below provides rent guidance on appropriate income schedule to use:
12/01/2011 - 11/30/2012
2012
2012
1/1/2009 to 5/13/2010
2018 HERA Special
Rent Calcuations - The following is the assumed family size for each unit: Studio:1 person 1-BR:1.5 persons 2-BR:3 3-BR: 4.5 4-BR:6
Maximum affordable rent based on 30% of monthly income and all utlilites paid by landlord unless further adjusted by HUD. Utliity allowances for tenant-paid
utliites may be established by Housing Authority of County of San Mateo Section 8 Program.
2009
Maximum Inc. Limits SchedulePlaced in Service Date
On or before 12/31/2008
Rent schedules at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdrdatas_landing.html for additional information as well as the various income schedules. Please also refer to
www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2018/supplemental.asp
12/18/2013 - 03/05/2015
04/14/2017 to 3/31/18 2017
20126/1/2011 - 11/30/2011
2014
12/01/2012 - 12/17/2013 2013
4/01/2019 to 4/01/2020 2019
03/06/2015 - 03/27/16
5/14/2010 - 5/31/2011
2015
4/01/2018 - 3/31/2019 to present 2018
03/28/2016 - 4/14/2017
4/01/2021 to present 2021
2016
4/01/2020 to 4/01/2021 2020
58
revised 04/30/2021
For HUD-funded programs, use the Federal Income Schedule. For State or locally-funded programs, you may use
the State Income Schedule. For programs funded with both federal and state funds, use the more stringent income levels.
Please verify the income and rent figures in use for specific programs.
San Mateo County Income Limits (based on Federal Income Limits for SMC)Effective 4/30/2021 - Area median Income $149,600 (based on household of 4)
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *38,400$ 43,850$ 49,350$ 54,800$ 59,200$ 63,600$ 68,000$ 72,350$
Very Low (50% AMI) *63,950$ 73,100$ 82,250$ 91,350$ 98,700$ 106,000$ 113,300$ 120,600$
Low (80% AMI) *102,450$ 117,100$ 131,750$ 146,350$ 158,100$ 169,800$ 181,500$ 193,200$
Median (100% AMI)104,700$ 119,700$ 134,650$ 149,600$ 161,550$ 173,550$ 185,500$ 197,450$
Moderate (120% AMI)125,650$ 143,600$ 161,550$ 179,500$ 193,850$ 208,200$ 222,600$ 236,950$
NOTES
*2021 State Income limits provided by State of California Department of Housing and Community Development
2021 San Mateo County Income Limits
as determined by HUD - effective June 28, 2021
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
For Section 8 Rental Assistance Programs, the income limit is 50% AMI based on family size.
59
Income limits effective 04/01/2021.
Please verify the income and rent figures in use for specific programs.
NOTES
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *38,400$ 43,850$ 49,350$ 54,800$ 59,200$ 63,600$ 68,000$ 72,350$
Very Low (50% AMI) *63,950$ 73,100$ 82,250$ 91,350$ 98,700$ 106,000$ 113,300$ 120,600$
HOME Limit (60% AMI) *76,740$ 87,720$ 98,700$ 109,620$ 118,440$ 127,200$ 135,960$ 144,720$
HERA Special VLI (50% AMI 63,950$ 73,100$ 82,250$ 91,350$ 98,700$ 106,000$ 113,300$ 120,600$ See Note regarding HERA for FY2021***
HERA Special Limit (60% AM 76,740$ 87,720$ 98,700$ 109,620$ 118,440$ 127,200$ 135,960$ 144,720$ See Note regarding HERA for FY2021***
Low (80% AMI) *102,450$ 117,100$ 131,750$ 146,350$ 158,100$ 169,800$ 181,500$ 193,200$
State Median (100% AMI) 104,700$ 119,700$ 134,650$ 149,600$ 161,550$ 173,550$ 185,500$ 197,450$
Inc SRO *+Studio 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Extremely Low *959$ 1,027$ 1,233$ 1,425$ 1,590$
Very Low *1,598$ 1,713$ 2,056$ 2,375$ 2,650$
Low HOME Limit*1,598$ 1,713$ 2,056$ 2,375$ 2,650$ effective 6/01/2021; 2021 HOME Limit
High HOME Limit (65%)*2,078$ 2,227$ 2,673$ 3,088$ 3,445$ effective 6/01/2021; 2021 HOME Limit
HERA Special VLI (50% AMI 1,598$ 1,713$ 2,056$ 2,375$ 2,650$
HERA Special Limit (60% AM 1,918$ 2,055$ 2,467$ 2,850$ 3,180$
Low**2,558$ 2,741$ 3,290$ 3,801$ 4,240$ CA Tax Credit Rent limits: Low & Med Income Group
HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR)2,350$ 2,923$ 3,553$ 4,567$ 4,970$ HUD-published Fair Market Rents
Median **3,196$ 3,426$ 4,112$ 4,750$ 5,300$ CA Tax Credit Rent limits: Low & Med Income Group
NOTES
CA Tax Credit Rent Limits for Low and Median Income Group
Income figures provided by HUD for following San Mateo County federal entitlement programs: CDBG, HOME, ESG.
For San Mateo County, the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) & the HUD 2010 HOME hold-harmless provision permit multifamily tax
SROs with -0- or 1 of the following - sanitary or food preparation facility in unit; if 5+ SRO HOME-assisted units, then at least 20% of units to be occupied
2021 San Mateo County Income Limits
as determined by HUD, State of CA HCD, and County of San Mateo
HUD-defined Area Median Income $149,600 (based on householdof 4). State defined median $149,600 (household of 4) due to hold harmless policy.
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
Maximum Affordable Rent Payment ($)
60
OTHER NOTES (generic)
High HOME Limit rent set at lower of: (a) 30% of 60% AMI,or (b) FMR (HUD Fair Market Rent).
For 2011, the FMR for Studio is the lower rent.
Table below provides rent guidance on appropriate income schedule to use:
Rent schedules at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdrdatas_landing.html for additional information as well as the various income schedules. Please also refer to
4/01/2019 to 4/01/2020 2019
4/01/2020 to 4/01/2021 2020
4/01/2021 to present 2021
03/28/2016 - 4/14/2017 2016
04/14/2017 to 3/31/18 2017
4/01/2018 - 3/31/2019 to present 2018
12/01/2012 - 12/17/2013 2013
12/18/2013 - 03/05/2015 2014
03/06/2015 - 03/27/16 2015
5/14/2010 - 5/31/2011 2012
6/1/2011 - 11/30/2011 2012
12/01/2011 - 11/30/2012 2012
Placed in Service Date Maximum Inc. Limits Schedule
On or before 12/31/2008 2018 HERA Special
1/1/2009 to 5/13/2010 2009
Maximum affordable rent based on 30% of monthly income and all utlilites paid by landlord unless further adjusted by HUD. Utliity allowances for tenant-
Rent Calcuations - The following is the assumed family size for each unit: Studio:1 person 1-BR:1.5 persons 2-BR:3 3-BR: 4.5 4-BR:6
61