Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.11.23@600 Regular CCWednesday, January 11, 2023 6:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA HYBRID IN-PERSON /VIRTUAL MEETING 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 1 January 11, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE 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 Addiego, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Nicolas and essential City staff may 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. The City Council 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. 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 all-cc@ssf.net. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 72-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 all-cc@ssf.net, 72-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. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/12/2023 2 January 11, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED Join Zoom meeting https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/85068921549 (Enter your email and name) Join by One Tap Mobile : US: +16699006833,,85068921549# or +16694449171,,85068921549# 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: 850 6892 1549 How to observe the Meeting (no public comment): 1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26, Comcast, Channel 27, or AT&T, Channel 99 2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council 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 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 City Council and staff. How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting: 1) By Phone: (669) 900-6833. Webinar ID is 850 6892 1549. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called. By One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,85068921549# or +16694449171,,85068921549# 2) Online at: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/85068921549 a. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. b. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. c. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. IN-PERSON: Please complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber ’s. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/12/2023 3 January 11, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The City Council's regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Mayor (District 3) MARK NAGALES, Vice Mayor (District 2) MARK ADDIEGO, Councilmember (District 1) JAMES COLEMAN, Councilmember (District 4) EDDIE FLORES, Councilmember (District 5) ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer SHARON RANALS, Interim City Manager SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/12/2023 4 January 11, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF Emergency Operations Center January Winter Storm Staff Presentation PUBLIC COMMENTS Comments received by the deadline will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud during the meeting. The Public Comment portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter NOT on the agenda. Comments on agenda items will be taken when that item is called. If joining the conference by phone you may raise your hand by dialing *9 and *6 to unmute. State law prevents Council from responding to public comments or taking action on matters not on the agenda . The Council may refer comments to staff for follow -up. Speakers are limited to three minutes. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Speakers that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum will be muted. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of December 5, 2022, December 13, 2022, December 14, 2022, and December 19, 2022. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 1. Report regarding a resolution ratifying the Interim City Manager’s proclamation of the existence of a local emergency relating to major storm and flooding events. (Sharon Ranals, Interim City Manager and Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 2. Resolution ratifying the Interim City Manager’s proclamation of the existence of a local emergency relating to major storm and flooding events. 2a. Report regarding a resolution approving an employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Sharon Ranals for service as Interim City Manager and amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Salary Schedule to add an Interim City Manager position. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 3. Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/12/2023 5 January 11, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution approving an employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco Sharon Ranals for service as Interim City Manager and amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Salary Schedule to add an Interim City Manager position. 3a. Report regarding a resolution approving an amended and restated employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Rosa Govea Acosta for service as City Clerk. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 4. Resolution approving an amended and restated employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Rosa Govea Acosta for service as City Clerk. 4a. Report regarding a resolution to continue conducting City Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 5. Resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco declaring the continuing need for the City legislative bodies to meet remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public and making related findings. 5a. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the existing consulting agreement with Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc. of San Mateo, California, for $35,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $183,802 for the construction phase of the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss1301). (Brian Schumacker, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent - Project Manager) 6. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the existing consulting agreement with Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc. (CCMI) of San Mateo, California, for $35,000 for a total not to exceed an amount of $183,802 for Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss1301). 6a. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for Community Development Block Grant funds allocated through the City of Daly City to support Project Read and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the 2023 - 2024 Revenue Budget upon receipt of grant award. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) 7. Resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for Community Development Block Grant funds allocated through the City of Daly City to support Project Read and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the FY2023 - 2024 Revenue Budget upon receipt of grant award. 7a. Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/12/2023 6 January 11, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding a resolution approving the Annual Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22. (Karen Chang, Director of Finance) 8. Resolution approving the Annual Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22. 8a. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Study Session on the Draft Housing Element and Response to Review Comments by the Department of Housing and Community Development (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) 9. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/12/2023 7 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-32 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #: Emergency Operations Center January Winter Storm Staff Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/11/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 Emergency Operations Center January Winter Storm Events City Council Update January 11, 2023 9 Historic Weather Event •Storm #1 -December 31, 2022 •Storm #2 -RED Major Storm January 4 -5, 2023 •Storm #3 -January 9-10, 2023 10 PG&E Outages •At storm’s peak, 8,400 customers were without power •Residents may visit www.pge.com and click on view & report outages •Outages caused by high wind and downed trees •City offered Temporary Evacuation Point (TEP) 11 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 12 Emergency Operations Center (EOC) •Preserve life safety •Protect the environment •Protect property •Public Information •Support field operations •Provide situational updates 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 TEMPORARY EVACUATION POINTS (TEP) 20 Library •The Main Library was open additional hours on Sunday January 8. •We provided a haven from the storm plus computers, wireless access, electrical outlets, and books. 21 • Sandbags available to residents 24/7 at the Corporation Yard. • Staff distributed over 5,000 sandbags / 80 tons of sand. • Storm prep information posted on Public Works webpage and social media pages 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PREPARE FOR THE NEXT STORM FORECAST BE PREPARED 29 Need Help? Call or Text 2 -1-1 for non-emergencies! 30 Emergency Operations Center January Winter Storm Events Thank You Questions 31 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-40 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #: City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/11/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™32 Start time Completion time Email Name / Nombre Would you like to speak If you would like to speak on an agenda item(s), Enter the Agenda Item Number(s) below. If adding more than one item, please add a comma between each number. Por favor ingrese el número de artíc... 1/11/23 13:32:27 1/11/23 17:54:53 anonymous Tom Carney Yes/Si Hi Rosa how are you Agenda Item PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 Public Comment • Angelai LengWong at January 11, 2023 at 12:03pm PST Support I would like to propose a speed bump be placed on Avalon Drive by Waverly Court. I live in the cul de sac of Waverly Court, and people are speeding down the hill, making it very dangerous for us to make that left turn onto Avalon Drive. A speed bump is already in place further up the hill, by Seville Way, but it is right by the stop sign, so it’s basically useless. Please make our streets safer for our families. Thank you! 33 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-15 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:1. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of December 5, 2022, December 13, 2022, December 14, 2022, and December 19, 2022. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™34 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nagales called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmember Addiego, absent Councilmember Coleman, present in Council Chambers Councilmember Flores, present in Council Chambers Vice Mayor Nicolas, present in Council Chambers Mayor Nagales, present in Council Chambers AGENDA REVIEW No changes. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 1. Report regarding Resolution No. 206-2022 approving Parcel Map 22-0270 for the purposes of creating two lots through the merger of two existing lots and vacation of a portion of Cypress Avenue as part of the 201 Baden Firehouse Work project, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Parcel Map, and authorizing the recording of said Parcel Map and all related documents with the San Mateo County Recorder. (Jason Hallare, Senior Civil Engineer) City Attorney, Sky Woodruff, presented the report. Motion — Councilmember Flores /Second – Councilmember Coleman: To approve Resolution No. 206-2022 approving Parcel Map 22-0270 for the purposes of creating two lots through the merger of two existing lots and vacation of a portion of Cypress Avenue as part of the 201 Baden Firehouse Work project, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Parcel Map, and authorizing the recording of said Parcel Map and all related documents with the San Mateo County Recorder, by roll call vote: AYES Councilmember Flores and Coleman, Vice Mayor Nicolas, and Mayor Nagales; NAYS: None; ABSENT: Councilmember Addiego. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2022 7:00 p.m. Hybrid In-Person/Virtual via Zoom Municipal Services Building 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco The City Council 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. 35 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 5, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 2 CLOSED SESSION Entered: 7:06 p.m. 2. Closed Session: Public Employment (Pursuant to Government Code § 54957) Title: City Manager 3. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: City property at 367 Marina Boulevard (APN 015-011-350) City Negotiators: Nell Selander, Director of Economic and Community Development; Ernesto Lucero, Acting Deputy Director of Economic and Community Development; and Lindsay D'Andrea, Assistant City Attorney Negotiating Party: Ensemble Investments Under Negotiations: Price and terms Resumed: 8:25 p.m. Report out from Closed Session by Mayor Nagales: Direction given. No reportable action. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Nagales adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Maricela Lomeli Mark Nagales Administrative Assistant II Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / 36 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nagales called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmember Addiego, present Councilmember Coleman, present Councilmember Flores, present Vice Mayor Nicolas, present Mayor Nagales, present POSTING OF COLORS Colors were honorably and duly posted by members of the South San Francisco Police Explorers Program. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by City Manager Mike Futrell. INVOCATION Bishop Emeritus, Most Reverend William J. Justice. STAR SPANGLED BANNER Performed by the Praise & Glorify Choir. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. Introduction of Elected Officials in attendance Mayor Nagales introduced the elected officials and/or their representatives that were in attendance. 1. Mayor declares the purpose of the meeting. Mayor Nagales declared the purpose of the meeting which is the reorganization of the City Council. 2. Resolution No. 207-2022 canvassing returns and declaring results of the 2022 General Municipal Election of November 8, 2022. City Clerk Govea Acosta read into the record resolution 207-2022. Motion - Vice Mayor Nicolas / Second - Councilmember Coleman: To approve Resolution No. 207-2022 canvassing returns and declaring results of the 2022 General Municipal Election of November 8, 2022, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman and Flores, Vice Mayor Nicolas, and Mayor Nagales; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2022 6:00 p.m. South San Francisco Conference Center 255 S. Airport Boulevard 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco 37 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 2 3. Oath of office Administered to Officials Elected on November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election. a. Honorable Councilman Mark Addiego, District 1 Sworn in by: Honorable Kevin Mullin* b. Honorable Councilwoman Buenaflor "Flor" Nicolas, District 3 Sworn in by: Mary Giusti* c. Honorable Councilman Eddie Flores, District 5 Sworn in by: Liset Alvarado* d. Honorable City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta, At-Large Sworn in by: Jasmine Acosta-Govea* e. Frank Risso, City Treasurer, At-Large Sworn in by: Olive Risso * Duly deputized for the purpose of swearing-in the elected officials noted. Councilmember Flores, Councilmember Addiego, City Clerk Govea Acosta, and City Treasurer Frank Risso delivered incoming remarks, 4. Presentation to Outgoing Mayor and Outgoing Mayor Remarks Vice Mayor Nicolas presented the Mayor with a gift and proclamation thanking him for his leadership. Mayor Nagales delivered outgoing remarks. 5. Reorganization of the City Council: a. Nominations for Mayor; close of nominations; appointment Motion - Councilmember Coleman / Second - Councilmember Addiego: To nominate and appoint Honorable Buenaflor “Flor” Nicolas to serve as Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman and Flores, Vice Mayor Nicolas, and Mayor Nagales; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None Ignatius Deltavio Nicolas administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Mayor Nicolas. Mayor Nicolas delivered incoming remarks. b. Nominations for Vice Mayor, close of nominations; appointment City Attorney Woodruff provided an overview of the City Council Handbook, which indicates the process of selecting a Vice-Mayor and noting that Councilmember Nagales would be eligible to serve as Vice Mayor due to his transition from an at-large election to district election appointment. Motion – Mayor Nicolas / Second – Councilmember Addiego: To nominate and appoint Honorable Mark Nagales to serve as Vice-Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, Flores, and Nagales, Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None 38 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 3 6. Presentation to Outgoing City Manager Vice Mayor Nagales presented a proclamation from Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Saul Miranda from Senator Josh Becker’s office presented a certificate of recognition, Linda Wolin from the Office of Supervisor Dave Pine presented a resolution to City Manager Futrell. Mayor Nicolas read and presented a proclamation from the City of South San Francisco to City Manager Futrell for his service and dedication to the community. City Manager Futrell delivered his outgoing remarks. 7. Incoming Remarks from Mayor Nicolas Mayor Nicolas delivered incoming remarks. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Nicolas adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Maricela Lomeli Buenaflor Nicolas Administrative Assistant I Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / 39 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nicolas called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmember Addiego, present in Council Chambers Councilmember Coleman, present in Council Chambers Councilmember Flores, present in Council Chambers Vice Mayor Nagales, present in Council Chambers Mayor Nicolas, present in Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Roy Earnest with the Center for Age Friendly Experience led the pledge. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Futrell requested to move Consent Calendar Item No. 21 and 23 to Administrative Business. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF No announcements. PRESENTATIONS 1. Cultures United 2022 Recap Presentation, Maryjo Nuñez, Lead for America Fellow, City Manager’s Office. Maryjo Nunez presented the report. Councilmember Coleman and Vice Mayor Nagales thanked staff for their work and for incorporating diverse cultures. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2022 6:00 p.m. HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA Via Zoom The City Council 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. 40 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 2 2. Presentation on Promotores program end of year update. (Tamiko Huey, Management Analyst II) Management Analyst Huey an overview of the services offered by the Promotores. Councilmember Addiego noted his concern about the prevalent food insecurity throughout the city and thanked the team for their outreach efforts. Vice Mayor Nagales noted his previous conversations with City Manager Futrell intended to address community needs. He suggested that Council revisit the program structure. Councilmember Coleman requested an overview of the community's needs throughout the pandemic. Councilmember Flores thanked the Promotores for their work and dedication to the community. He requested an overview of the data collection process. Management Analyst Huey provided an overview. Mayor Nicolas thanked the Promotores for their assistance and inquired about the wrap-around services. Management Analyst Huey provided an overview. 3. Presentation: Age-Friendly Initiative Update; Roy Earnest, Associate Director, Center for Age Friendly Excellence (CAFÉ). (Sharon Ranals, Assistant City Manager) Councilmember Addiego noted that rent affordability is a burden to the community. Mayor Nicolas provided an overview of the city’s outreach effort, including reaching the Latino community. Councilmember Coleman noted that District 4 has the most senior population and emphasized the importance of connecting with residents of the Rotary Plaza and Alida Manor homes. Mr. Earnest indicated that he was in the process of reaching out to the community. 4. Presentation to City Council on behalf of the Jordanian American Association from Paul Formosa, CFO South San Francisco Scavenger Co., Inc. Paul Formosa presented a recognition on behalf of the Jordanian American Association. Vice Mayor Nagales accepted the recognition. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals provided public comment: In-Person: • Meris Ota, President of Board of Directors of HIP Housing Mayor Nicolas thanked Taryn Lim, South San Francisco winner of the 2023 Calendar Contest. Via Zoom: • Isabel – Oyster Cove Marina • Jeremy Lee 41 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 3 COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Vice Mayor Nagales thanked staff and the community for attending the City Council Reorganization event and congratulated Mayor Nicolas. Councilmember Addiego reported his trip to the city's Sister City, Atotonilco el Alto, Jalisco. He congratulated Councilmember Richard Hedges for his appointment to the City of San Mateo City Council and noted his excellent leadership. Councilmember Coleman thanked Vice Mayor Nagales for his Mayoral leadership. Congratulated Mayor Nicolas and noted the importance of working together. Councilmember Flores congratulated Mayor Nicolas for her leadership. He acknowledged Martin Cruz for his contributions to the community and noted the 35-member delegation that visited the City of South San Francisco. He reported that the City Council presented a Certificate of Recognition to celebrate Ballet Folklorico Alma de Mexico's 31st Anniversary. He requested that staff work with the County of San Mateo to coordinate flu and COVID vaccination events soon. At his request, City Attorney Woodruff provided an overview of AB 361, which modified the Brown Act to allow teleconference meetings in response to the pandemic. He noted the changes beginning January 1, 2023. Lastly, he reminded the community that 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is available for all individuals. Mayor Nicolas shared her participation in community events. CONSENT CALENDAR The City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar, after which Council voted and engaged in discussion of specific item as follows. Items No. 21 and 23 were moved to Administrative Business. Items No. 22 and 24 were pulled by Councilmember Addiego and Vice Mayor Nagales for further discussion. 5. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of September 28, 2022, October 12, 2022, October 26, 2022, November 9, 2022, and November 16, 2022. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 6. Motion to accept the construction improvements of 2021 Concrete and Green Infrastructure Project (No. st2203) (Angel Torres, Senior Civil Engineer) 7. Report regarding Resolution No. 208-2022 to continue conducting City Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 8. Report regarding Resolution No. 209-2022 approving a Master Encroachment Agreement with Bandwidth IG, LLC for the Installation of Network Facilities within the Public Rights- of-Way. (Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works/City Engineer) 9. Report regarding Resolution No. 210-2022 authorizing the acceptance of $4,000 in grant funding from the Association of Science and Technology Centers to support programs and services promoting gender equity in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math careers at the Grand Avenue Branch Library’s Makerspace and amending the Library Department’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment # 23.035. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) 42 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 4 10. Report regarding Resolution No. 211-2022 authorizing the use of $139,584.80 of Police Asset Forfeiture Funds for the purchase of public safety ballistic shields and protective body armor for all sworn personnel. (Scott Campbell, Chief of Police) 11. Report regarding Resolution No. 212-2022 authorizing the acceptance of $266,185 in grant funding from California Public Utilities Commission for Local Agency Technical Assistance for the development of a Broadband Master Plan and Fiber Optic Design Project and amending the Information Technology Department’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 23.036. (Tony Barrera, Director of Information Technology) 12. Report regarding Resolution No. 213-2022 for the procurement of furniture, fixtures and equipment and authorizing the City Manager to execute a purchasing contract with vendor One Workplace of Santa Clara, CA for the Civic Campus Phase 2: Library, Parks & Recreation and Community Theater/Council Chamber (pf 2207), in the amount not to exceed $1,689,968. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects). 13. Report approving Resolution No. 214-2022 license agreement and fee for tiebacks within Dubuque Avenue for the construction of 580 Dubuque Avenue and approving budget amendment number 23.040. (Jason Hallare, Senior Civil Engineer) 14. Report regarding Resolution No. 215-2022 authorizing the acceptance of a grant in the amount of $25,000 from Genentech's South San Francisco Community Fund for the Parks and Recreation Department’s REAL After School Program at Martin and Los Cerritos Elementary Schools as well as the Senior Services Program and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Operating Budget pursuant to Budget Amendment #23.034. (Angela Duldulao, Acting Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation Department) 15. Report regarding Resolution No. 216-2022 authorizing the acceptance of donations from various community partners totaling $1,000 for Fiscal Year 2022-23, as well as in-kind donations of supplies and volunteer support for Parks and Recreation Department programs and events. (Angela Duldulao, Acting Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation Department) 16. Report regarding Resolution No. 217- 2022 authorizing the acceptance of $15,000 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support the South San Francisco Promotores Program and approving Budget Amendment 23.033. (Tamiko Huey, Management Analyst II) 17. Report regarding Resolution No. 218-2022 approving a purchase agreement for ten cardiac monitors/defibrillators in the amount of $444,148.89, and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with Zoll Medical Corporation (Richard Walls, Emergency Medical Services Chief) 18. Report regarding Resolution No. 219-2022 authorizing acceptance of a grant from the Urban Area Security Initiative in the amount of $100,000 to enhance security and access for Fire Department facilities located at 480 North Canal Street, amending the Fire Department’s operating budget for FY 22-23 via Budget Amendment 23.037, and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the City and County of San Francisco Urban Area Security Initiative to accept FY 2022 grant funds. (Matthew Samson, Deputy Fire Chief) 43 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 5 19. Report regarding Ordinance No. 1648-2022 repealing current Building Code regulations under Title 15 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and adopting by reference the 2022 California Building Standards Codes with certain local amendments. (Phillip Perry, Chief Building Official) 20. Report regarding Resolution No. 220-2022 to amend the wage and salary schedule for the City of South San Francisco for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and approving budget amendment number 23.039 (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) 22. Report regarding Resolution No. 222-2022 authorizing the Fire Department to donate one surplus fire apparatus, a 1999 Spartan fire engine VIN#4S7AT409XYC031783, to the City College of San Francisco’s Fire Science vocational education program. (Matthew Samson, Deputy Fire Chief) 24. Report regarding Resolution 224-2022 awarding a shuttle operations services agreement to ACE Mobility Solutions in an amount not to exceed $350,000 for South San Francisco Community Shuttle Operations. (Marissa Garren, Management Analyst I) Motion – Vice Mayor Nagales /Second – Councilmember Coleman: To approve Consent Calendar 5- 20, 22, and 24, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 21. Report regarding Resolution No. 221-2022 approving the First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions with Eden Housing, Inc. for the sale of a portion of the City-owned property at 201 Baden for a senior affordable housing development. (Nell Selander, Economic & Community Development Director) Director of Economic and Community Development Selander presented the report and provided an overview of the requested action. Vice Mayor Nagales inquired about the timing of the projects. Director Selander responded. Councilmember Flores inquired about penalties from HCD if funds were not encumbered. Director Selander explained the funding and noted there was time to spend on the project. Motion – Vice Mayor Nagales /Second – Councilmember Flores: To approve Resolution No. 221- 2022 approving the First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions with Eden Housing, Inc. for the sale of a portion of the City-owned property at 201 Baden for a senior affordable housing development, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 23. Report regarding Resolution No. 223-2022 approving budget amendment BA-23.038 to the Fire Department FY 2022-23 Operating Budget in the amount of $436,964.50 and allow the City to participate in the California Assembly Bill 1705 (2019) Public Provider Ground Emergency Medical Transport Intergovernmental Transfer (PP-GEMT-IGT) Program. (Richard Walls, Emergency Medical Services Chief) 44 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 6 Richard Walls presented the report and provided an overview of AB 1705. Motion – Councilmember Addiego /Second – Councilmember Coleman: To approve Resolution No. 223-2022 approving budget amendment BA-23.038 to the Fire Department FY 2022-23 Operating Budget in the amount of $436,964.50 and allow the City to participate in the California Assembly Bill 1705 (2019) Public Provider Ground Emergency Medical Transport Intergovernmental Transfer (PP-GEMT-IGT) Program, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 25. Motion to confirm the facility sign graphic for the Library | Parks & Recreation building at the Community Civic Campus. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects). Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist presented the report and provided an overview of the Council's direction to select from two designs. Council engaged in discussions related to graphics and names. A consensus of the Council to move forward with changes to 1c based on the diagram presented with the report via a Thursday memo to reflect centered words and a different font for the ampersand. The item will move forward without needing Council approval unless significant changes are requested. Motion – Vice Mayor Nagales /Second – Councilmember Flores: To confirm the facility sign graphic for the Library | Parks & Recreation building at the Community Civic Campus. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects), by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 26. Report regarding Resolution No. 225-2022 appointing Sharon Ranals to the position of Interim City Manager and Interim Executive Director of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and authorizing a City Council ad hoc committee to negotiate the terms of employment during the appointment. (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director). City Attorney Woodruff presented the report and noted that at the direction of the City Council, the ad-hoc committee comprised of Mayor Nicolas and Councilmember Flores, along with Human Resources Director Lockhart, met with Assistant City Manager Ranals to discuss the terms of her employment while sitting as Interim City Manager. Assistant City Manager Ranals will become Interim City Manager after January 8, 2023. Councilmember Addiego requested that the ad-hoc committee discuss the terms of appointment and full designation as City Manager. Human Resources Director Lockhart provided an overview of the process and noted the request. Council thanked City Manager Futrell for his service and leadership and wished him the best of luck in his new journey as City Manager for the City of Riverside. Assistant City Manager Ranals thanked City Manager Futrell for his leadership and the Council for the opportunity to serve as Interim City Manager. Motion – Councilmember Addiego /Second – Vice Mayor Nagales: To approve Resolution No. 225- 2022, appointing Sharon Ranals to the position of Interim City Manager and Interim Executive 45 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 7 Director of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and authorizing a City Council ad hoc committee to negotiate the terms of employment during the appointment., by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Nicolas adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Maricela Lomeli Buenaflor Nicolas Administrative Assistant II Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / 46 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nicolas called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmember Addiego, present Councilmember Coleman, absent Councilmember Flores, present Vice Mayor Nagales, absent Mayor Nicolas, present AGENDA REVIEW No changes. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Report regarding Resolution No. 208-2022 authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Ensemble Investments, LLC for the disposition of a City-owned property located at 367 Marina Boulevard (APN 015-011-350) for a hotel development. (Ernesto Lucero, Acting Deputy Director, Economic and Community Development Department). Economic and Community Development Director Selander presented the report and provided an overview of negotiations with the developer. Councilmember Addiego requested clarification on site use. City Attorney Woodruff provided an overview. Motion — Councilmember Addiego /Second – Councilmember Flores: To approve Resolution No. 208-2022 authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Ensemble Investments, LLC for the disposition of a city-owned property located at 367 Marina Boulevard (APN 015-011-350) for a hotel development, by roll call vote: AYES Councilmember Addiego and Flores, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSENT: Councilmember Coleman and Vice Mayor Nagales. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2022 4:00 p.m. Teleconference via Zoom The City Council 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. 47 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 19, 2022 MINUTES PAGE 2 ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Nicolas adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Maricela Lomeli Buenaflor Nicolas Administrative Assistant II Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / 48 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-06 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Report regarding a resolution ratifying the Interim City Manager’s proclamation of the existence of a local emergency relating to major storm and flooding events.(Sharon Ranals, Interim City Manager and Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to ratify the Interim City Manager’s proclamation, in her capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, declaring the existence of a local emergency relating to major storm and flooding events. BACKGROUND Government Code sections 8630 and 8634, contained within Article 14 of the California Emergency Services Act, empower the City Council and Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a “Local Emergency” when the City of South San Francisco (“City”) is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity. Under the Municipal Code, an “emergency” for the purpose of declaring a Local Emergency is defined as “the actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property” within South San Francisco, caused by conditions such as “air pollution, fire, flood, storm. . .” In such circumstances, the City Manager acting as the Director of Emergency Services is authorized to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a Local Emergency if the City Council is not in session, or to request the City Council to proclaim such a state of Local Emergency. On January 3, 2023, the Interim City Manager, in her capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, issued a proclamation proclaiming the existence of a Local Emergency due to major storm and flooding events. As shown by events leading up to that proclamation, South San Francisco has experienced unprecedented atmospheric river weather events, which resulted in storm, heavy rainfall and damaging winds that have continued throughout the weeks after. These severe weather conditions have resulted in flooding, mudslides, fallen trees, and related incidents. For instance, storm weather damages included flooding and closure of Highway 101 at Oyster Point in both directions (which has since been re-opened); water leaks and damages at various City facilities; and mudslides at Hillside Blvd. and the Sign Hill areas. The County of San Mateo and the City have both opened and been operating their respective Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in response to red/major storm advisories issued by the National Weather Service. In response to the major storm events,the City will need to take preventive and remedial actions,such as: establishing Temporary Evacuation Points;undertake streets,storm drain,and public facility repairs;debris clean-up;outreach and communication to the public regarding weather conditions and incidents;conduct damage assessments for facilities and locations impacted by storm,wind or flooding incidents;and staffing the EOC operations.The proclamation issued on January 3,2023 was intended to ensure the availability of mutual aid;the ability to enter into necessary contracts pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of California Public Contract Code Section 22050;and an effective response to potential injuries or property damage resulting from the major storm and flooding events or other related conditions thereto which would constitute “extreme peril City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™49 File #:23-06 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. to the safety of persons and property within the City”. On January 10, 2023, the Interim City Manager issued a second proclamation proclaiming the continued existence of a Local Emergency due to major storm and flooding events, which also reaffirmed the findings, bases and intents of the January 3, 2023 proclamation. Since then, the conditions leading up to said Local Emergency proclamation continue to remain. Thus, it is recommended that the City Council ratify the Interim City Manager’s proclamation of a Local Emergency. Once ratified, the Local Emergency will remain in effect until terminated by the City Council. In accordance with Government Code section 8630, the City Council will review the proclamation of local emergency within sixty (60) days from this ratification and would terminate the local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. Additionally, consistent with Public Contract Code section 22050(c)(2), the City Council must review the emergency action related to contracting at every regularly scheduled meeting until the action is terminated, to determine, by a four-fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the action. FISCAL IMPACT The declaration of a Local Emergency itself has no direct fiscal impact but would ensure the City’s ability to receive mutual aid, enter into necessary contracts, secure available federal, state and regional assistance funding, and able to appropriately direct resources in response to the local emergency. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This action is related Priority Area 3.0, Public Safety, under the goal of disaster response and crisis communication. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to ratify the Interim City Manager’s proclamation, in her capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, declaring the existence of a local emergency relating to major storm and flooding events. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™50 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-07 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:2a. Resolution ratifying the Interim City Manager’s proclamation of the existence of a local emergency relating to major storm and flooding events. WHEREAS,Government Code sections 8630 and 8634,contained within Article 14 of the California Emergency Services Act,empower the City Council and Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a Local Emergency when the City of South San Francisco (“City”)is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity; and WHEREAS,Section 2.72.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code empowers the City Manager,in the City Manager’s capacity as the Director of Emergency Services,to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a Local Emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session, or to request the City Council to proclaim such a state of Local Emergency; and WHEREAS,South San Francisco Municipal Code section 2.72.060 (a)(1)provides that whenever a local emergency is proclaimed by the Director of Emergency Services,the City Council shall take action to ratify the proclamation within seven (7) days thereafter or the proclamation shall have no further force or effect; and WHEREAS,South San Francisco Municipal Code section 2.72.020 defines “emergency”for the purposes of proclaiming a Local Emergency as “the actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within this city caused by such conditions as air pollution,fire,flood, storm,epidemic,riot,drought,sudden and severe energy shortage,plant or animal infestation or disease or earthquake,or other conditions,including conditions resulting from war or imminent threat of war,but other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy,which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services,personnel,equipment and facilities of this city,requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat”; and WHEREAS,on January 3,2023,the Interim City Manager,in her capacity as the Director of Emergency Services,issued a proclamation proclaiming the existence of a Local Emergency due to major storm and flooding events; and WHEREAS, the proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services is based on the following findings: (1)That at the time of the proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services,the City Council is not in session. (2)That conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within the City caused by major storm and flooding events.Specifically,the City has experienced significant atmospheric river conditions including storm,heavy rainfall and damaging winds during the past few days,which weather conditions have resulted in severe flooding, mudslides and related incidents.These incidents include:flooding and closure of Highway 101 at Oyster Point in both directions;flooded roadways in the City;water leaks and damages at various City facilities;over-powered pumps;downed trees;and mudslides at Hillside Blvd. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™51 File #:23-07 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:2a. at various City facilities;over-powered pumps;downed trees;and mudslides at Hillside Blvd. and the Sign Hill areas.Based on information from the National Weather Service and the County of San Mateo (“County”)Emergency Operations Center (“EOC”),an upcoming Red/Major Storm is expected for the City in the next few days.Said storm will include additional heavy rain and significant damaging wind.The City and County are expected to or have already commenced EOC operations at the time of this proclamation.In response to the major storm event,the City will need to take preventive and remedial actions,such as: establishing Temporary Evacuation Points,undertake streets,storm drain,and public facility repairs;debris clean-up;outreach and communication to the public regarding weather conditions and incidents;conduct damage assessments for facilities and locations impacted by storm, wind or flooding incidents; and staffing the EOC operations. (3)That the aforesaid conditions of extreme peril warrant and necessitate the proclamation of a Local Emergency. WHEREAS,the proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services regarding the existence of a Local Emergency was issued on January 3,2023 with the intent to ensure the availability of mutual aid;the ability to enter into necessary contracts pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of California Public Contract Code Section 22050;and an effective response to potential injuries or property damage resulting from the major storm and flooding events or other related conditions thereto which would constitute “extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City” as described therein; and WHEREAS,on January 10,2023,the Interim City Manager,in her capacity as the Director of Emergency Services,issued a proclamation proclaiming the continued existence of a Local Emergency due to major storm and flooding events,which proclamation is based on and reaffirmed the foregoing findings,bases and intent; and WHEREAS,the City Council is required to review and ratify the Interim City Manager’s proclamation related to the existence of a Local Emergency due to major storm and flooding events for its continued effect; and WHEREAS,since the Interim City Manager’s proclamations,South San Francisco has experienced additional severe storm events including heavy rain and significant damaging wind,which have resulted in additional severe flooding,mudslides and related incidents as described above,and the City is continuing to operate its Emergency Operations Center while collaborating with County and regional agencies on monitoring severe weather conditions, formulating responses, and assessing damages; and WHEREAS,as such conditions continue to remain and in the interest of public health and safety,as affected by the emergency caused by the major storm and flooding events,the City Council desires to ratify the Interim City Manager’s proclamation; and WHEREAS,based on substantial evidence set forth in this Resolution,the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,do hereby declare and order the following: 1.The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. 2.The City Manager’s January 10,2023 Proclamation of a Local Emergency due to major storm City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™52 File #:23-07 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:2a. 2.The City Manager’s January 10,2023 Proclamation of a Local Emergency due to major storm and flooding events is hereby ratified.It is hereby confirmed that a Local Emergency exists throughout the City of South San Francisco. 3.During the existence of said Local Emergency,the powers,functions and duties of the Director of Emergency Services shall be those prescribed by state law and the ordinances,resolutions,and approved plan of the City,as well as well as this resolution and any subsequent emergency orders of the City Council, in order to mitigate the effects of said Local Emergency. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this Local Emergency shall continue until it is terminated by proclamation of the City Council.Pursuant to Section 8630 of the Government Code,the City Council shall proclaim the termination of a local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff is directed to place an item on the City Council agenda for review at least ever sixty (60)days from the effective date of this Resolution to determine the need for continuing the Local Emergency pursuant to section 8630,Article 14,of the California Emergency Services Act.City staff is also directed,pursuant to Public Contract Code section 22050(c)(2),to place an item on every regular City Council agenda to review the emergency action related to contracting until the action is terminated, to determine, by a four-fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™53 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-13 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. Report regarding a resolution approving an employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Sharon Ranals for service as Interim City Manager and amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Salary Schedule to add an Interim City Manager position.(Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving an employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Sharon Ranals for service as the Interim City Manager and amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Salary Schedule to add an Interim City Manager position. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On November 17,2022,City Manager Mike Futrell announced his intention to resign from his position as City Manager of the City of South San Francisco after more than eight years of service with the City.Mr.Futrell’s last day of active service as City Manager will be December 24,2022,and last day of employment with the City will be January 8,2023.As plans to recruit for a new City Manager are getting underway,Council identified a need for an Interim City Manager while the position is vacant and until a permanent City Manager appointment is made. At its December 14,2022,meeting,Council adopted a resolution appointing Sharon Ranals as Acting City Manager from December 24,2022 to January 8,2023 and as Interim City Manager after January 8,2023 and until such time the position of City Manager is filled on a permanent basis.The resolution further directed the Ad Hoc Subcommittee to negotiate the terms of an employment agreement with Ms.Ranals for her service as Interim City Manager. Ms.Ranals has served as the City’s Assistant City Manager since August,2019.Prior to her appointment as Assistant City Manager,she served as the City’s Parks and Recreation Director for fifteen years.Due to her depth of knowledge and experience Ms. Ranals is highly qualified to serve as the City’s interim City Manager. The proposed agreement is the result of discussions among the Ad Hoc Subcommittee,Ms.Ranals,the Director of Human Resources,and City Attorney.It sets the annual base salary for the Interim City Manager position at $336,689.20,which is 10%above the current base salary for the Assistant City Manager and 4.86%above the base salary of the Police Chief.The base salary would be adjusted by any across-the-board changes to salaries for employees in the Executive Management Unit.Benefits would be the same as provided to employees in the Executive Management Unit.The agreement allows Ms.Ranals to accrue vacation above the 480-hour cap in the Executive Management Compensation Plan.At the end of the Interim City Manager assignment,an accrued and unused vacation above the 480-hour cap would be cashed out at the hourly equivalent rate of for the base salary for the Interim City Manager position. Additionally,the Agreement allows Ms.Ranals to be reinstated to the position of Assistant City Manager at the end of the Interim City Manager assignment.It recognizes that,as Interim City Manager,she may make temporary appointments to the Assistant City Manager position,which would terminate upon her reinstatement to the Assistant City Manager position. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™54 File #:23-13 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. The resolution amends the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Salary Schedule to include the position of Interim City Manager with the base salary stated above. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact for this item.Although the Interim City Manager base salary will be greater than the budgeted amount for the City Manager position,a budget amendment is not necessary because of the salary savings resulting from the Assistant City Manager position remaining vacant during the period that Ms. Ranals serves as Interim City Manager. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN An Interim City Manager is essential to maintaining efficient and effective operations during the pendency of a vacant City Manager position.The Interim City Manager will provide continued oversight to staff and support to City Council for implementation of all strategic objectives. CONCLUSION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the employment agreement with Sharon Ranals for service as the Interim City Manager and amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Salary Schedule to add the position of Interim City Manager. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™55 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-14 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. Resolution approving an employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco Sharon Ranals for service as Interim City Manager and amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Salary Schedule to add an Interim City Manager position. WHEREAS, City Manager Mike Futrell provided notice to the City Council of his intent to resign from the position of City Manager effective at the end of the day on January 8, 2023, and that his last day actively serving in the position will be December 24, 2022; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution to appoint Sharon Ranals to the position of Interim City Manager while it recruits for a new permanent City Manager and until a new permanent City Manager starts work with the City. The Interim City Manager will also serve as Interim Executive Director of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Successor Agency”); and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized an ad hoc committee of Mayor Nicolas and Councilmember Flores to negotiate with Sharon Ranals regarding the terms of employment for the period that she serves as Interim City Manager and Interim Executive Director of the Successor Agency; and WHEREAS, the City and Sharon Ranals desire to execute an employment agreement to outline the salary, benefits, and other terms of employment for service as Interim City Manager. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco as follows: 1.The Employment Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. 2.The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Salary Schedule is amended as shown in Exhibit B to add the position of Interim City Manager. 3.The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the attached Employment Agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco, subject to any minor modifications that are approved as to form by the City Attorney that do not substantially increase the City’s obligations hereunder. 4.This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™56 1 INTERIM CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into and is effective as of January 9, 2023 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Sharon Ranals (hereinafter referred to as "Ranals" or "Employee"), with reference to the following facts: RECITALS WHEREAS, prior to the Effective Date, Ranals was employed by the City as the City's Assistant City Manager ("ACM"). As the ACM, Ranals was entitled to the benefits afforded management employees under the Executive Management Compensation Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to employ Ranals to act as and perform the duties of the Interim City Manager. WHEREAS, Ranals is agreeable to performing the duties of Interim City Manager under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. WHEREAS, the City has adopted an ordinance establishing the City Manager form of government in the City of South San Francisco and setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the City Manager. WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City and Ranals to enter into an Employment Agreement concerning compensation, benefits, terms, and conditions of employment of Ranals as the Interim City Manager and to serve the following purposes: A. To retain Ranals to perform services in a professional manner and to provide her compensation and employment benefits which will induce Ranals to remain in the employment of the City as Interim City Manager for the period of time specified herein; B. To assure Employee that, except as provided hereinafter, upon the termination of her employment as Interim City Manager, she shall return to the performance of her duties as the Assistant City Manager earning the same salary and enjoying the same benefits she would have earned and enjoyed, respectively, had she remained employed as the ACM during the term of this Agreement; and C. To reserve to the City, however, a fair and just means of (i) terminating the employment of Employee as Interim City Manager in the event that Ranals, for any reason, becomes unable or unwilling to discharge fully the duties of the office of Interim City Manager, or (ii) terminating the employment of Ranals as Interim City Manager in the exercise of the right of the City Council to fill the position of City Manager as the Council sees fit, and in all events to reserve to the City the right and ability to terminate Ranals’s position as Interim City Manager at the will of the City Council when the position of City Manager is filled by a permanent employee or at any other time, with or without reason. 57 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: AGREEMENT 1. EMPLOYMENT. City hereby employs the Employee, and the Employee hereby accepts employment with the City in the position of Interim City Manager, on the terms and conditions and for the compensation herein set forth. 2. SCOPE OF DUTIES AND SERVICES. (a) Under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Employee shall personally provide all the services and duties ordinarily performed by the City Manager for the City under the direction and control of the City Council and as set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code and other applicable laws, written policies and rules. Among other things, Employee has the authority to interview, hire and fire employees, and direct the workforce subject to the specific limitations set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In addition, Employee shall serve as Interim Executive Director of the Successor Agency to the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and shall assume any other positions to which the City Manager has been appointed by the City Council. Employee shall perform her obligations and responsibilities diligently within the time parameters indicated by the City Council, applying the highest degree of professionalism, ethics, integrity and competency to the discharge of every aspect of her obligations. (b) Employee shall not engage in any activity which is or may become a conflict of interest, prohibited contract, or which may create an incompatibility of office as defined under California law. Employee shall comply fully with her reporting and disclosure obligations under regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC"). (c) Employee agrees to remain in the exclusive employ of the City during the term of this Agreement. Employee shall dedicate her full energies and qualifications to her employment as the Interim City Manager, and shall not engage in any other employment except as may be specifically approved in writing in advance by the City Council. 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall terminate upon an appointee assuming the position of City Manager; provided, however, that this Agreement may be terminated at any time in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4. COMPENSATION. For the services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement, Employee shall receive the following compensation and benefits: (a) Compensation. Employee shall be paid an annual base salary of three hundred thirty six thousand six hundred eighty-nine dollars and twenty cents ($336,689.20), which is an equivalent hourly rate of one hundred sixty-one dollars and eighty-seven cents ($161.87). Employee's base salary shall be increased by the same percentage and at the same time any discretionary across-the-board increase is granted to the City's employees covered by the Executive Management Compensation Plan. Employee's salary shall be payable in 58 3 installments at the same time as other employees of the City covered by and in accordance with the Executive Management Compensation Plan. (b) General Benefits. Except as may be otherwise provided herein, Employee shall be provided the compensation and benefits offered to all other employees covered by the Executive Management Compensation Plan. As used herein, benefits include but are not necessarily limited to, vacation, sick leave, holidays, administrative leave, retirement, health insurance, dental insurance, car allowance, long-term disability insurance, and life insurance. Employee shall not be compensated for any hours worked overtime because Employee is exempt from overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. (c) Automobile. Employee's duties require that she have continuously available transportation for business or related purposes. Employee shall provide her own vehicle for her normal business and personal use. The Employer shall provide Employee with a monthly auto allowance pursuant to the Executive Management Compensation Plan. (d) Expense Reimbursement. (i) The City recognizes that certain general expenses, dues, subscriptions, travel, and subsistence expenses are reasonably incurred by the Employee in the performance of job-related activities, functions, meetings, professional development, and professional conferences such as the annual International City Manager's Association, California City Management Foundation, League of California Cities and League's Managers' Division. The City agrees to budget and pay for or reimburse the Employee for these expenses; provided, however, that the amount paid under this subsection (d)(i) shall be limited by the amount the Council budgets for such expenditures. (ii) City agrees to reimburse Employee for expenses related to educational courses, short courses, executive coaching, seminars and institutes that will benefit the City and improve Employee's professional abilities; provided, that any such reimbursements may not exceed the amount the Council budgets for such expenditures. (iii) City shall reimburse Employee for membership and participation in any community or civic organizations in which the City requires or encourages Employee to participate; provided, that any such reimbursements may not exceed the amount the Council budgets for such expenditures, but shall never be less than the actual costs of membership and participation in any organization in which the City requires Employee to participate. (e) Excess Vacation Accrual. In recognition of the significant demands placed on the Interim City Manager, during the term of this agreement employee shall be permitted to exceed the vacation accrual cap of 480 hours as set forth by the Executive Management Compensation Plan. Employee shall continue to accrue vacation at 9.23 hours per pay period in accordance with the Executive Management Compensation Plan. At the end of the Interim City Manager assignment, any accrued and unused vacation hours above the 480-hours cap shall be cashed out to Employee at the hourly equivalent rate of her Interim City Manager salary as set forth in section 4(a). 5. REINSTATEMENT AS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. Notwithstanding 59 4 anything to the contrary stated herein, during the term of this Agreement, Employee may, upon giving the City 30 days' advance written notice, resign her position as Interim City Manager and return to the position of and be reinstated as the ACM. Employee may elect, and shall be granted, reinstatement to the position of ACM upon termination of this Agreement. (a) In the event that Employee returns to the position of and is reinstated as the ACM for any reason hereunder, Employee's salary and benefits shall be adjusted to match that which would have been in effect at the time she is so reinstated had she not entered into this Agreement and had, during the term of this Agreement, retained and performed the duties of her position as ACM, including any across-the-board adjustments to base compensation awarded to employees covered by the Executive Management Compensation Plan. Any benefits or rights that she enjoyed solely as the Interim City Manager under the Executive Management Compensation Plan shall terminate upon her resumption of her ACM position. Under such circumstances, it shall be presumed that during the term of this Agreement Employee did not and would have not received any salary increases as the ACM as a result of any performance evaluations. (b) During the term of this Agreement, the ACM position shall be considered a temporary assignment, and, in the event that Employee determines that said position should be filled while serving as Interim City Manager, it shall be communicated as such. Any temporary assignment to the position of ACM shall terminate upon Employee’s reinstatement to the position and shall be terminable at will. Any employee accepting a temporary assignment to the ACM position shall be informed in writing that Ranals has the right to "bump" said employee out of the ACM position should Ranals’s employment as Interim City Manager terminate and Ranals therefore be entitled to be reinstated to said ACM position. 6. TERMINATION AND RESIGNATION. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated herein, the City Council has the right, upon thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to Employee, to terminate Employee’s employment as Interim City Manager at any time during the term of this Agreement with or without cause, and nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the City Council to terminate the services of Employee at any time without cause, subject only to the provisions set forth in this Section 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may terminate Employee's employment as the Interim City Manager under this Agreement for cause as specified in Section 6(b), below, upon 24 hours’ advance written notice. The parties agree that Employee serves at the will of the City Council and that this Agreement and Chapter 2.36 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (to the extent not inconsistent with this Agreement) contain all of the terms and conditions of Employee's employment as Interim City Manager. Employee waives any and all rights that she may have (i) to challenge or appeal any such termination or (ii) to invoke any due process (procedural or substantive) rights or protections as conditions to the City's right to terminate her employment hereunder. (a) Upon the City Council's termination of Employee's employment as Interim City Manager or termination of this Agreement, Employee shall have the right to be reinstated to the position of ACM under the same terms and conditions set forth in Section 5(a), above. 60 5 (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Employee is terminated as the Interim City Manager for any or all of the reasons set forth below, then: (i) she shall not be entitled to be reinstated as the ACM, and (ii) she shall not be entitled to any severance pay under the Exempt Management Compensation Program: (i) conviction of or plea of guilty or nolo contendre to any criminal offense involving moral turpitude or any other crime (other than minor traffic violations or similar offenses) which is likely to have a material adverse impact on the City or on the Employee’s reputation, provided that Employee may be placed on administrative leave without pay should she be charged with such a crime or crimes; (ii) conviction of any crime involving an “abuse of office or position,” as that term is defined in Government Code Section 53243.4. (iii) willful destruction, theft, misappropriation, or misuse of City property; (iv) intoxication on duty, whether by alcohol or non-prescription drugs; (v) unexcused absence; (vi) dishonesty, fraud, or misconduct in office; (vii) fraud or dishonesty in securing this appointment; (viii) violation of State or federal discrimination laws concerning race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital status, sex or age concerning either members of the general public or City employees; (ix) willful or unlawful retaliation against any other City official or employee or member of the general public who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges or otherwise brings to the attention of any appropriate authority any facts or information relative to actual or suspected violations of any law occurring on the job or directly related thereto; or (x) refusal to comply with any lawful direction, decision or order given or made by a majority of the City Council (xi) any grossly negligent action or inaction by Employee that materially and adversely: (a) impedes or disrupts the operations of City or its organizational units; (b) is detrimental to employees or public safety; or (c) violates City’s properly-established rules or procedures. (c) If, upon the termination of this Agreement, Employee receives any cash settlement from the City related to that termination, the Employee shall fully reimburse the City the amount of said cash settlement if the Employee is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of the office of Interim City Manager. Said reimbursement shall be paid to the City within thirty (30) days after said conviction becomes final and is no longer subject to any appeal. 61 6 7. BONDING. City shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bond required of Employee as the Interim City Manager under any law or ordinance. 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) Notices. Any notice to be given by either party to the other shall be in writing and shall be considered delivered when transmitted either by personal delivery or by mail, registered or certified, postage pre-paid with return receipt requested and properly addressed as follows or by email and fax (if by email and fax, the notice shall be deemed received on the date sent provided that there is evidence that the notice was received on that date): To City: Mayor & City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080 With copy to: Sky Woodruff, City Attorney 1999 Harrison Street, 9th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 To Employee: Any party may change her/its address for purposes of this section by giving the other party written notice of the new address in the manner •set forth above. (b) Waiver. The waiver of any breach of any provision hereunder by either party to this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other provision or subsequent breach hereunder, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party marking the waiver. (c) Construction of Terms. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall be construed according to their plain meaning and shall not be construed for or against either party. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment or exhibits hereto. (d) Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, void or invalid, in whole or in part, for any reason, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of such entire or partial invalidity, the parties hereto agree to enter into supplemental or other agreements to effectuate the intent of the parties and the purpose of this Agreement. 62 7 (e) Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, with venue proper only in the County of Marin, State of California. (f) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties pertaining to the employment of Employee by the City and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations, promises and understanding of the parties, whether oral or in writing. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding, unless executed in writing by all parties and this Agreement may not be altered, amended or modified by any other means. Each party waives their future right to claim, contend, or assert that this Agreement was modified, canceled, superseded or changed by any oral agreement, course of conduct, waiver, or estoppel. (g) Other Terms and Conditions of Employment. The Council, in consultation with the Employee, may fix any such other terms and conditions of employment relating to the performance of the Employee, provided the terms or conditions do not conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 63 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first written above. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BY: _________________________________ Flor Nicolas, Mayor ATTEST _____________________________________ Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM _____________________________________ Sky Woodruff, City Attorney SHARON RANALS By: _________________________________ Sharon Ranals 5266444.4 64 Executive Management Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 1/09/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type MINIMUM CONTROL POINT MAXIMUM Assistant City Manager N100 7/22/2022 EXEC Houly 121.62$ 133.78$ 147.15$ Bi-Weekly 9,729.00$ 10,702.00$ 11,772.00$ Monthly 21,080.00$ 23,188.00$ 25,507.00$ Assistant to the City Manager N180 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 72.78$ 80.06$ 88.06$ Bi-Weekly 5,822.00$ 6,405.00$ 7,045.00$ Monthly 12,615.00$ 13,876.00$ 15,264.00$ Interim City Manager N110 1/9/2023 EXEC Hourly 161.87$ Bi-Weekly 12,949.60$ Monthly 28,057.47$ Communications Director N190 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 104.39$ 114.82$ 126.31$ Bi-Weekly 8,351.00$ 9,186.00$ 10,105.00$ Monthly 18,094.00$ 19,903.00$ 21,893.00$ Deputy City Manager N120 11/11/2022 EXEC Hourly 104.39$ 114.82$ 126.31$ Bi-Weekly 8,351.00$ 9,186.00$ 10,105.00$ Monthly 18,094.00$ 19,903.00$ 21,893.00$ Director of Capital Projects N195 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 104.39$ 114.82$ 126.31$ Bi-Weekly 8,351.00$ 9,186.00$ 10,105.00$ Monthly 18,094.00$ 19,903.00$ 21,893.00$ Director of Economic & Community Development N140 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 106.52$ 117.17$ 128.88$ Bi-Weekly 8,521.00$ 9,373.00$ 10,311.00$ Monthly 18,463.00$ 20,309.00$ 22,340.00$ Director of Finance N145 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 108.41$ 119.25$ 131.17$ Bi-Weekly 8,672.00$ 9,540.00$ 10,494.00$ Monthly 18,790.00$ 20,669.00$ 22,736.00$ Fire Chief N150 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 124.32$ 136.75$ 150.43$ Bi-Weekly 9,946.00$ 10,940.00$ 12,034.00$ Monthly 21,549.00$ 23,704.00$ 26,074.00$ Director of Human Resources N130 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 104.39$ 114.82$ 126.31$ Bi-Weekly 8,351.00$ 9,186.00$ 10,105.00$ Monthly 18,094.00$ 19,903.00$ 21,893.00$ Page 1 of 1 65 Executive Management Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 1/09/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type MINIMUM CONTROL POINT MAXIMUM Director of Information Technology N165 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 107.39$ 118.13$ 129.94$ Bi-Weekly 8,591.00$ 9,450.00$ 10,395.00$ Monthly 18,614.00$ 20,475.00$ 22,523.00$ Library Director N110 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 104.87$ 115.36$ 126.90$ Bi-Weekly 8,390.00$ 9,229.00$ 10,152.00$ Monthly 18,178.00$ 19,996.00$ 21,995.00$ Director of Parks and Recreation N175 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 109.12$ 120.03$ 132.03$ Bi-Weekly 8,729.00$ 9,602.00$ 10,563.00$ Monthly 18,914.00$ 20,805.00$ 22,886.00$ Chief of Police N155 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 127.57$ 140.33$ 154.36$ Bi-Weekly 10,206.00$ 11,226.00$ 12,349.00$ Monthly 22,112.00$ 24,323.00$ 26,756.00$ Director of Public Works N160 7/22/2022 EXEC Hourly 108.95$ 119.85$ 131.84$ Bi-Weekly 8,716.00$ 9,588.00$ 10,547.00$ Monthly 18,885.00$ 20,774.00$ 22,851.00$ Page 1 of 1 66 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-09 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. Report regarding a resolution approving an amended and restated employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Rosa Govea Acosta for service as City Clerk. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Rosa Govea Acosta. DISCUSSION On November 6, 2018, Rosa Acosta was duly elected as City Clerk of the City of South San Francisco (“City”). She was reelected on November 8, 2022, and was sworn into office on December 13, 2022. Subsequent to her election in 2018, the City and Ms. Acosta negotiated the terms of an Employment Agreement, including salary and benefits. At the time that it was approved, the Employment Agreement provided Ms. Acosta with an annual salary, which, along with benefits, represented a total compensation package equivalent to the 60% percentile of the City’s compensation benchmark survey cities for City Clerk. It also provided Ms. Acosta would receive the same across-the-board salary adjustments as employees covered by the Executive Management Compensation Plan and the same benefits as the Executive Management Group of the City and she is eligible for retiree medical benefits. As a classic employee under PERS with prior City service, she is also entitled to receive retirement benefits in accordance with the 2.7% at 55 formula.. The attached Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between the City and Ms. Acosta makes several clarifying edits to align the agreement with the parties’ intent that Ms. Acosta receive the same salary adjustments and benefits as employees covered by the Executive Management Compensation Plan. It also establishes that the City will undertake a new total compensation survey for the position using the benchmark cities used for the Executive Management Unit. If the City Council approves any changes to Ms. Acosta’s compensation as a result of the survey, the changes will be retroactive to December 13, 2022, when she was sworn in for her new term of office. The City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee has reviewed the proposed terms. The Agreement will remain in place as long as Ms. Acosta serves as the elected City Clerk of the City. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action, since no changes are being made to the City Clerk’s compensation at this time. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN This item supports the strategic initiative of Workforce Development and Fiscal Sustainability, ensuring that the City’s compensation remains competitive to attract and retain a high-quality workforce while ensuring that financial commitments are within the City’s means. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™67 File #:23-09 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the amended and restated employment agreement between Rosa Govea Acosta and the City of South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™68 1 AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY CLERK EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT d THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY CLERK EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into in South San Francisco, California, this clay ofI, 2019 ___ day of __________, 2023 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY”, and ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, an individual, hereinafter referred to as "ACOSTA" (collectively referred to herein as “Parties”) .: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, ACOSTA is the duly elected City Clerk of the City and has served in this role since December 11, 2018. CITY and ACOSTA entered into a City Clerk Employment Agreement effective March 13, 2019. ACOSTA was reelected to the position of City Clerk at the November 2022 General Municipal Election. The City Council recognizes that ACOSTA is an individual who has the education, training, and experience in local government management to serve in the position of City Clerk; and WHEREAS, CITY and ACOSTA desire to enter into this AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY CLERK EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT to outline the compensation and benefits that ACOSTA will continue to receive from CITY in exchange for her service as City Clerk; and WHEREAS, ACOSTA desires to accept the compensation and benefits under the terms and conditions as set forth herein;. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of this Agreement, and the mutual promises, covenants and stipulations herein contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. EMPLOYMENT: Pursuant to her election by the voters of CITY, ACOSTA serves as the City Clerk of CITY and carries out all of the duties, powers and responsibilities of City Clerk, specifically prescribed in State law , including California Government Code Sections 40800 , and the Municipal Code. SECTION 2. TERM: SECTION 2. TERM: 69 2 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shallDecember 13, 2022 and shall remain in place for as long as ACOSTA is the duly elected City Clerk or until the office becomes vacant in accordance with California Government section 36502. e SECTION 3. SALARY: A. CITY agrees to pay ACOSTA an annual base salary of one hundred thirty- nine sixty-one thousand six seven hundred and eighty sixty-one dollars ($139,680($161,761) payable in installments at the same time as other employees of the CITY are paid. The salary shall be effective from the first date of employment of December 11, 2018.in the Executive Management Unit. No later than March 1, 2023 the City shall conduct a total compensation survey for the City Clerk position utilizing the parameters and benchmark cities used for Executive Management Unit. Adjustments to base salary shall be take into consideration both market position and internal alignment. The results of the survey will be presented to the City Council by March 8, 2023. Any agreed compensation adjustments shall be approved by City Council and retroactive to December 13, 2022. B. Consistent with Article 2 of the Executive Management Compensation Plan, ACOSTA shall receive the same across-the board base salary increases, and one-time recognition payments, if any, as provided to the Executive Management Unit for the duration of her term as City Clerk. SECTION 4. RETIREMENT: office becomes vacant in accordance with California Government section 36502. remain in place for as long as ACOSTA is the duly elected City Clerk or until th 70 3 A. As of February 1, 2001 , ACOSTA has been covered by the retirement program (i.e., Public Employees' Retirement System - P.E.R.S.) by which all other "Miscellaneous Employees" of the CITY are covered. B. ACOSTA is emolled enrolled in the CalPERS retirement system as a classic Miscellaneous Employee first hired by the City prior to April 24,. 2010, which provides that ACOSTA is entitled to receive benefits in accordance with the 2..72.7% at 55 formula. ACOSTA’s contribution shalJ shall be calculated in accordance with PERS laws and regulations and CITY’s contract with CALPERS., C. CITY participates in Social Security and Medicare. ACOSTA shall have her statutory contribution to Social Security and Medicare deducted from her paycheck for her share and the CITY will pay its share of Social Security and Medicare. D. Subject to the terms and conditions of the CITY’s Deferred Compensation Plan and IRS rules, ACOSTA may participate in the CITY’s section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan and 125 Flexible Benefit Plan. E. As ACOSTA began her employment with the City in 2001, ACOSTA is entitled to retiree medical benefits as provided to other eligible Executive Management Group members in accordance with the terrns terms of the Executive Management Group Compensation Plan Secti.on 4.] 0 Section 4.10 at the same level and on the same terms as exist now or may be applicable in the future ·for aJI other retiretis.for all other retirees. SECTION 5. OTHER BENEFITS: A. ACOSTA shall be entitled to and shall receive the same employment benefits as provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan,. The City agrees to provide the same vision, dental and comprehensive medical insurance as is provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. B. The City shall maintain and make required premium payments on behalf of ACOSTA for the same short term and long-term disability coverage as provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. C. The City shall provide ACOSTA with the same Life and Accidental Health and Dismemberment Insurance, Retirement Health Savings and Executive Wellness, Executive Management Professional Development Allowance, Education Expense Reimbursement Program benefits as is provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. 71 4 A. e1 joyed by the CITY'S Executive Management Group, including such benefits as , allJowances and reimbursements, health, dental, vision, D. ACOSTA shall be entitled to accrue Holiday, Vacation, Administrative, floating holiday, and sick leave set forth and at the rate specified. ACOSTA’s tenure in public service has been considered to determine the vacation accrual rate. As a result, vacation accrual rate shall start at the accrual rate equal to that of an employee with 19 years of City service, as specified in the Executive Management Compensation Plan, which is currently 200 hours per year, 7.69 hours accrued incrementally each pay period. Rates of accrual, accrual caps, forfeiture and payouts of unused leave time shall be as provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. SECTION 5. Ol'I1ER BENEFITS: E. R ACOSTA shaJl be entitled to accrm vacation leave at a rate of200 hours per year, 7.69 hours accmed incrementally each pay period ACOSTA shall be entitled to administrative leave as provided pursuant to the Executive Management Compensation Plan., which is currently eighty (80) hours per year.. F. CACOSTA shalJ be entitled to eighty (80) hours of administrative leave per year, which is inclusive of the forty (40) hours of administrative leave provided pursuant to ACOSTA is entitled to receive a monthly automobile allowance as specified in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. D.G. CITY shall pay fi:>r for the professional dues and subscriptions of ACOSTA necessary for her continuation and full pa1ticipation participation in appropriate professional organizations, subject to available budgeted funds. E.H. CITY shall pay for the professional memberships of various professional and service organi.zationsorganizations. In addition, other organizations sponsor and offer short courses, institutes, seminars, and the like, which would be beneficial to ACOSTA’S professional development. ACOSTA’S travel, subsistence, and other related expenses shall be reimbursed consistent with applicable City policy and available budgeted funds. F.I. Benefits as outlined above shall be continue to be in effective from the first day of employment, December I I11, 2018 and re-election, November 8, 2022. SECTION 6. INDEMNffICATION INDEMNIFICATION AND BONDING: A. CITY shalJ shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify ACOSTA against any tort, professional liability claim or demand or other legal action, whether compensation., sick leave. Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 1" 72 5 groundlless groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of ACOSTA’s duties in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code section 825. ACOSTA’s conviction for a felony or misdemeanor shall be a basi.s basis for CITY'S exemption of this indemnification. CITY may compromise and settle any such claim or suit: and pay the amount of any settlement or judgment rendered therefrom. B. CITY shalJ shall bear the fol I full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of ACOSTA under any law or ordinance. SECl'ION SECTION 7. NOTICES: Notices pursuant to this Agreernent Agreement shall be given by deposit in the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: (1) CITY: Mayor City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 71 I •· 711 - 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, Califomia California 94083 (2) ACOSTA: Rosa Govea Acosta, CMC MMC City Clerk P.O. Box 71 I 711 - 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, Califomia California 94083 Alternatively, notices required pmsuant pursuant to this Agreement may be personally served in the same manner as applicable to civil judicial process. Notice shalJ shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or as of the date of deposit of such written notice in the United States Postal Service. SECTION 8. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event it becomes necessary for either CITY or ACOSTA to bring a lawsuit to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the parties agree that a court of competent jurisdiction may determine and fix a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid the prevailing party. SECTION 9., GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. The text herein shall constitute the entire Agreement between the Parties. B. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of ACOSTA. 73 6 C. This Agreement shall become effective commencing on the Effective Date. D. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Agreement is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agree1mentAgreement, or porticm portion thereof: , shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and effocteffect. Further, the parties shalll shall meet and confer in good faith to devise alternative language to replace the unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable term and shall amend this Agreement in writing to include such new term. E. This Agreement may only be aniended h1 amended in writing upon mutual agreement of the Parties. [Signatures on thefbllowing the following page] 74 7 5255537.6 75 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-10 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:4a. Resolution approving an amended and restated employment agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Rosa Govea Acosta for service as City Clerk. WHEREAS, on November 6, 2018, Rosa Govea Acosta was duly elected as City Clerk of the City of South San Francisco (“City”); and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2018 Rosa Govea Acosta was sworn in as the City’s City Clerk and assumed the duties of City Clerk; and WHEREAS, subsequent to her election, Ms. Acosta and the City negotiated the terms of the Employment Agreement, including salary and benefit. The City and Ms. Acosta executed the Employment Agreement in March 2019; and WHEREAS, Ms. Acosta was reelected to the position of City Clerk on November 8, 2022, and was sworn into office on December 13, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City and Rosa Govea Acosta desire to execute an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement to make clarifying edits to align the agreement with the parties’ intent regarding the benefits and compensation that Ms. Acosta will receive in exchange for her service as City Clerk, and to reflect that the City will undertake a new total compensation survey fore the position of City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said Employment Agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco, subject to any minor modifications that are approved as to form by the City Attorney that do not substantially increase the City’s obligations hereunder. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™76 1 AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY CLERK EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY CLERK EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into in South San Francisco, California, this ___ day of __________, 2023 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY”, and ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, an individual, hereinafter referred to as "ACOSTA" (collectively referred to herein as “Parties”) : WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, ACOSTA is the duly elected City Clerk of the City and has served in this role since December 11, 2018. CITY and ACOSTA entered into a City Clerk Employment Agreement effective March 13, 2019. ACOSTA was reelected to the position of City Clerk at the November 2022 General Municipal Election. The City Council recognizes that ACOSTA is an individual who has the education, training, and experience in local government management to serve in the position of City Clerk; and WHEREAS, CITY and ACOSTA desire to enter into this AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY CLERK EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT to outline the compensation and benefits that ACOSTA will continue to receive from CITY in exchange for her service as City Clerk; and WHEREAS, ACOSTA desires to accept the compensation and benefits under the terms and conditions as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of this Agreement, and the mutual promises, covenants and stipulations herein contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. EMPLOYMENT: Pursuant to her election by the voters of CITY, ACOSTA serves as the City Clerk of CITY and carries out all of the duties, powers and responsibilities of City Clerk, specifically prescribed in State law, including California Government Code Sections 40800, and the Municipal Code. SECTION 2. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on December 13, 2022 and shall remain in place for as long as ACOSTA is the duly elected City Clerk or until the office becomes vacant in accordance with California Government section 36502. 77 2 SECTION 3. SALARY: A. CITY agrees to pay ACOSTA an annual base salary of one hundred sixty-one thousand seven hundred and sixty-one dollars ($161,761) payable in installments at the same time as other employees of the CITY in the Executive Management Unit. No later than March 1, 2023 the City shall conduct a total compensation survey for the City Clerk position utilizing the parameters and benchmark cities used for Executive Management Unit. Adjustments to base salary shall be take into consideration both market position and internal alignment. The results of the survey will be presented to the City Council by March 8, 2023. Any agreed compensation adjustments shall be approved by City Council and retroactive to December 13, 2022. B. Consistent with Article 2 of the Executive Management Compensation Plan, ACOSTA shall receive the same across-the board base salary increases, and one-time recognition payments, if any, as provided to the Executive Management Unit for the duration of her term as City Clerk. SECTION 4. RETIREMENT: A. As of February 1, 2001, ACOSTA has been covered by the retirement program (i.e., Public Employees' Retirement System - P.E.R.S.) by which all other "Miscellaneous Employees" of the CITY are covered. B. ACOSTA is enrolled in the CalPERS retirement system as a classic Miscellaneous Employee first hired by the City prior to April 24, 2010, which provides that ACOSTA is entitled to receive benefits in accordance with the 2.7% at 55 formula. ACOSTA’s contribution shall be calculated in accordance with PERS laws and regulations and CITY’s contract with CALPERS. C. CITY participates in Social Security and Medicare. ACOSTA shall have her statutory contribution to Social Security and Medicare deducted from her paycheck for her share and the CITY will pay its share of Social Security and Medicare. D. Subject to the terms and conditions of the CITY’s Deferred Compensation Plan and IRS rules, ACOSTA may participate in the CITY’s section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan and 125 Flexible Benefit Plan. E. As ACOSTA began her employment with the City in 2001, ACOSTA is entitled to retiree medical benefits as provided to other eligible Executive 78 3 Management Group members in accordance with the terms of the Executive Management Group Compensation Plan Section 4.10 at the same level and on the same terms as exist now or may be applicable in the future for all other retirees. SECTION 5. OTHER BENEFITS: A. ACOSTA shall be entitled to and shall receive the same employment benefits as provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan,. The City agrees to provide the same vision, dental and comprehensive medical insurance as is provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. B. The City shall maintain and make required premium payments on behalf of ACOSTA for the same short term and long-term disability coverage as provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. C. The City shall provide ACOSTA with the same Life and Accidental Health and Dismemberment Insurance, Retirement Health Savings and Executive Wellness, Executive Management Professional Development Allowance, Education Expense Reimbursement Program benefits as is provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. D. ACOSTA shall be entitled to accrue Holiday, Vacation, Administrative, floating holiday, and sick leave set forth and at the rate specified. ACOSTA’s tenure in public service has been considered to determine the vacation accrual rate. As a result, vacation accrual rate shall start at the accrual rate equal to that of an employee with 19 years of City service, as specified in the Executive Management Compensation Plan, which is currently 200 hours per year, 7.69 hours accrued incrementally each pay period. Rates of accrual, accrual caps, forfeiture and payouts of unused leave time shall be as provided in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. E. ACOSTA shall be entitled to administrative leave as provided pursuant to the Executive Management Compensation Plan, which is currently eighty (80) hours per year.. F. ACOSTA is entitled to receive a monthly automobile allowance as specified in the Executive Management Compensation Plan. G. CITY shall pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of ACOSTA necessary for her continuation and full participation in appropriate professional organizations, subject to available budgeted funds. H. CITY shall pay for the professional memberships of various professional and service organizations. In addition, other organizations sponsor and 79 4 offer short courses, institutes, seminars, and the like, which would be beneficial to ACOSTA’S professional development. ACOSTA’S travel, subsistence, and other related expenses shall be reimbursed consistent with applicable City policy and available budgeted funds. I. Benefits as outlined above shall continue to be in effective from the first day of employment, December 11, 2018 and re-election, November 8, 2022. SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION AND BONDING: A. CITY shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify ACOSTA against any tort, professional liability claim or demand or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of ACOSTA’s duties in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code section 825. ACOSTA’s conviction for a felony or misdemeanor shall be a basis for CITY'S exemption of this indemnification. CITY may compromise and settle any such claim or suit and pay the amount of any settlement or judgment rendered therefrom. B. CITY shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of ACOSTA under any law or ordinance. SECTION 7. NOTICES: Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be given by deposit in the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: (1) CITY: Mayor City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 - 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94083 (2) ACOSTA: Rosa Govea Acosta, MMC City Clerk P.O. Box 711 - 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94083 Alternatively, notices required pursuant to this Agreement may be personally served in the same manner as applicable to civil judicial process. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or as of the date of deposit of such written notice in the United States Postal Service. 80 5 SECTION 8. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event it becomes necessary for either CITY or ACOSTA to bring a lawsuit to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the parties agree that a court of competent jurisdiction may determine and fix a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid the prevailing party. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. The text herein shall constitute the entire Agreement between the Parties. B. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of ACOSTA. C. This Agreement shall become effective commencing on the Effective Date. D. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Agreement is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and effect. Further, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to devise alternative language to replace the unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable term and shall amend this Agreement in writing to include such new term. E. This Agreement may only be amended in writing upon mutual agreement of the Parties. [Signatures on the following page] 81 6 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the City of South San Francisco has caused this Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by the Mayor and duly attested by its Assistant City Clerk, and ACOSTA has signed and executed this Agreement. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: ___________________________ Flor Nicolas, Mayor, City of South San Francisco ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA By: ___________________________ Rosa Govea Acosta, MMC City Clerk ATTEST: ______________________________ Assistant City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ City Attorney 5255537.6 82 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-17 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. ..Title Report regarding a resolution to continue conducting City Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings.(Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to continue allowing the City Council and advisory bodies to conduct meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings in compliance with AB 361 (2021). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Adopted and signed into law on September 16,2021,Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361)permits local legislative bodies to meet remotely during a declared state of emergency by complying with certain statutory requirements and making certain findings relating to the ability to meet safely in person.After an initial remote meeting utilizing the provisions of AB 361,to continue teleconference meetings the City Council will be required to reconsider the circumstances of the emergency every 30 days that the City’s legislative bodies need to be able to continue to meet remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public. On September 21,2021,the City Council adopted an initial Resolution No.166-2021 making findings and declaring the need for the Council and advisory bodies to continue meeting remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public and authorizing remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e).Since the adoption of those resolutions,the City Council has utilized a hybrid in- person/teleconference meeting model.During this time,the Delta and Omicron variants have surged to be a significant risk and caused case spikes throughout the state.The City has continued to review and has adopted subsequent resolutions to reconsider the public health emergency circumstances and made additional findings required by AB 361.State and local governments have continued to monitor and respond to the trends impacting public health circumstances. The San Mateo County Health Department and the State continues to recommend indoor masking,especially for gatherings that include the elderly,immunocompromised,or people who are not vaccinated.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet (6’) from others outside of the household. The Council is being asked to review the prior AB 361 findings to continue teleconference meetings under AB 361 for the City’s legislative bodies.Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to declare these findings remain true so that these bodies can continue to meet remotely. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN Continued use of teleconference meetings will promote community participation,contributing to the City’s Strategic Plan Priority No. 6 - Community Connections. FISCAL IMPACT City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™83 File #:23-17 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. There is no fiscal impact. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s legislative body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and making related findings in compliance with AB 361 (2021). City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™84 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-18 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:5a. Resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco declaring the continuing need for the City legislative bodies to meet remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public and making related findings. WHEREAS,on March 4,2020,Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available,formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments,and help the State prepare for a broader spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS,on March 11,2020,the City Council adopted Resolution No.35-2020 declaring a local emergency due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS,on May 13,2020,the City Council adopted Resolution No.57-2020 amending and updating a local emergency due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS,on March 17,2020,in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M.Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and WHEREAS,as a result of Executive Order N-29-20,staff set up virtual meetings for all City Council and legislative body meetings; and WHEREAS,on June 11,2021,Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21,which placed an end date of September 30, 2021, for agencies to meet remotely; and WHEREAS,since issuing Executive Order N-08-21,the Delta variant has emerged,causing a spike in COVID- 19 cases throughout the state; and WHEREAS,on August 3,2021,in response to the Delta variant,the San Mateo County Health Department ordered all individuals to wear masks when inside public spaces and maintain social distancing; and WHEREAS,on September 16,2021,the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361)(2021)which allows for local legislative bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions, including that the City Council makes specified findings; and WHEREAS,since the passage of AB 361,the Delta and Omicron variants and sub-variants have spread across the Bay Area,the state and nationwide,causing an additional spike in COVID-19 cases and creating significantly higher risks of infection and hospitalization; and WHEREAS,in response to the fast-spreading Omicron variant,the California Department of Public Health issued an order on December 15,2021,requiring everyone in the state to wear masks in indoor public spaces and workplaces,which order and the County Health Department’s order are effective through February 15, 2022; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™85 File #:23-18 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:5a. WHEREAS,the County Health Department continues to recommend indoor masking,especially for gatherings that include the elderly, immunocompromised, or people who are not vaccinated; and WHEREAS,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet (6’) from others outside of the household; and WHEREAS,the City cannot maintain social distancing requirements for the public,staff,Councilmembers,and advisory body members in their respective meeting locations; and WHEREAS,because of the rise in cases due to the Omicron variant and sub-variants,the City is concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who intend to attend Council and advisory body meetings; and WHEREAS,on September 21,2021,the City Council adopted an initial Resolution No.166-2021 making findings and declaring the need for the Council and advisory bodies to continue meeting remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public and authorizing remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e),and thereafter has both utilized a hybrid in-person/teleconference meeting model as well as reviewed and adopted additional resolutions reconsidering the circumstances of the public health emergency and making findings and declaring the need for the Council and advisory bodies to continue meeting remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public and authorizing remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e); and WHEREAS,the City Council has again reconsidered the circumstances of the Governor’s state of emergency proclamation pursuant to Government Code section 8625, which remains active; and WHEREAS,the circumstances described under Resolutions No.166-2021 and subsequent resolutions continue to exist and the City continues to be concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who intend to attend Council and advisory body meetings; and WHEREAS,the City shall ensure that its meetings comply with the provisions required by AB 361 (2021)for holding teleconferenced meetings. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1.The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated into this Resolution. 2.In compliance with AB 361 (2021),and to continue to conduct teleconference meetings without complying with the usual teleconference meeting requirements of the Brown Act,the City Council makes the following findings: a)The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and b)The state of emergency,as declared by the Governor and City Council,continues to directly impact the ability of the City Council and the City’s advisory bodies,as well as staff and members of the public, from meeting safely in person; and c)The CDC continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet (6’)from others City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™86 File #:23-18 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:5a. c)The CDC continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet (6’)from others outside of the household;however,the City cannot maintain social distancing requirements for the Councilmembers, advisory bodies, staff and public in the meeting spaces; and d)The City Council and advisory bodies continue to need to be able to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. 3.City Council and City’s legislative body meetings may continue to be conducted remotely in compliance with AB 361, to better ensure the health and safety of the public. 4.The City Council will revisit the need to conduct meetings remotely within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution. * **** City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™87 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-1065 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:6. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the existing consulting agreement with Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc. of San Mateo, California, for $35,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $183,802 for the construction phase of the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss1301).(Brian Schumacker, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent - Project Manager) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the consulting agreement with Contractor Compliance and Monitoring,Inc.of San Mateo,California in an amount of $35,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $183,802 for the construction phase of the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (CIP Project No.ss1301).CCMI provides labor compliance monitoring services for the construction phase of the Project and post project auditing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City selected Contractor Compliance and Monitoring,Inc.(CCMI)through a competitive proposal process.The City executed a contract with CCMI on October 29,2018,to develop and monitor a Labor Compliance Program (LCP)per California Labor Code,the Department of Industrial Relations,and Federal Wage Requirements (Davis-Bacon Act),for the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project currently under construction.The State Revolving Fund (SRF)loan requirements dictate the development and monitoring of an LCP. CCMI’s original scope of work defined 48 monthly audits.CCMI’s first audit occurred in November 2019, and the 48th audit occurred in October 2022.The project is now expected to extend approximately two additional months and thus will require two additional audits that are outside CCMI’s contracted scope. In addition to CCMI’s LCP audits,staff anticipates that CCMI will need to assist the City with preparing for and responding to an expected project close-out compliance inspection by the California State Revolving Fund (SRF)auditors.This assessment was not predicted at the time of the original agreement and was therefore not in CCMI’s scope,and staff considers an SRF audit to be very likely based upon conversations among professional peers.CCMI has done an exceptionally thorough job on the project,as their work has been observed to be very complete, and the firm was complemented by SRF personnel during site checks. Additional contract authority in the amount of $35,000 is necessary to cover the two additional monthly audits by CCMI, and the assistance related to the project close-out audit by SRF staff. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funding for this amendment exists in the City of South San Francisco Fiscal Year 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss1301). RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Approval of this action contributes to the City’s Strategic Plan by providing a better quality of life for residentsCity of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™88 File #:22-1065 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:6. Approval of this action contributes to the City’s Strategic Plan by providing a better quality of life for residents by improving public infrastructure and water quality. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the City Council approve the amendment and authorize the City Manager to execute the first amendment to the Consulting Agreement with Contractor Compliance and Monitoring,Inc.of $35,000 for a total not to exceed the amount of $183,802. ATTACHMENTS 1.CCMI Response to Request for Proposal for Labor Compliance Services for the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project 2.Executed CCMI Consulting Services Agreement City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™89 1 Response to Request for Proposal for Labor Compliance Services for the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project City of South San Francisco Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc. Northern California 635 Mariners Island Blvd. #200 San Mateo, CA 94404 Phone: 650-522-4403 Fax: 650-522-4402 ATTACHMENT 1 90 2 August 8, 2019 Re: Request for Change Order Labor Compliance Services for the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project City of South San Francisco Contractor Compliance and Monitoring Inc. (CCMI) was selected to perform the labor compliance on this project. We are enforcing both California and federal prevailing wage compliance. We have already successfully met with the US DOL representative and he is satisfied with the level of labor compliance work being done on the project. This project was bid with the express understanding that there would be no more than 6 subcontractors on this project. The number of contractors/subcontractors defines the number of audits which must be completed each month. There are currently 20 contractors/subcontractors on the project and while the work has not tripled, it certainly has more than doubled.. CCMI is therefore requesting a change order to cover labor compliance for up to a maximum of 30 contractors on the project for an additional amount of $75,302. This amount will be divided over the remaining months of the projects and billed as a flat fee each month. If the project is completed earlier than anticipated, the balance of any fee not yet paid will still be due and payable to CCMI. Sincerely, Deborah E.G. Wilder, President CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE & MONITORING, INC. www.ccmilcp.com 635 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD., SUITE 200 - SAN MATEO, CA 94404 – P 650-522-4403 – F 650-522-4404 Project Analyst: Yvonne Nickles – ynickles@wilderlawfirm.com 91 ATTACHMENT 2 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-1066 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:6a. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the existing consulting agreement with Contractor Compliance and Monitoring,Inc.(CCMI)of San Mateo,California,for $35,000 for a total not to exceed an amount of $183,802 for Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss1301). WHEREAS,the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project currently under construction is funded by the State Revolving Fund (SRF); and WHEREAS,the SRF loan requirements dictate the development and monitoring of a Labor Compliance Program (LCP)per California Code,the Department of Industrial Relations,and Federal Wage Requirements (Davis-Bacon Act); and WHEREAS,the City selected Contractor Compliance and Monitoring,Inc.(CCMI)through a competitive proposal process to develop and monitor the LCP; and WHEREAS,because of the increased level of effort and because the LCP is a specific requirement of the SRF loan program, staff recommends amending the consulting agreement with CCMI by the amount of $35,000; and WHEREAS,funding for this amendment exists in the City of South San Francisco Fiscal Year 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss1301). NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the existing Consulting Services Agreement for monitoring services to Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $183,802. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement,of which a draft is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A,on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to take any other actions consistent with the intent of this resolution that do not materially increase the City’s obligations. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™137 [SECOND] AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND [CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING, INC. ] THIS [SECOND] AMENDMENT TO THE [Consulting Services] AGREEMENT is made at South San Francisco, California, as of [xxxx, by and between THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (“City”), a municipal corporation, and [Contractor Compliance and Monitoring, Inc. ] (“Contractor”), (sometimes referred together as the “Parties”) who agree as follows: RECITALS A. On [October 19, 2018], City and Contractor entered that certain [Consulting Services] Agreement (“Agreement”) whereby Contractor agreed to [provide labor compliance monitoring services for the construction phase of the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project (CIP Project No. ss1301) ]. A true and correct copy of the Agreement and its exhibits is attached as Exhibit A. B. City and Contractor now desire to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Contractor hereby agree as follows: 1. All terms which are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Amendment, unless specifically provided herein to the contrary. 2. Section 2: Compensation. Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended such that the City agrees to pay Contractor a sum not to exceed $183,802, with the understanding that up to $148,802 has already been paid to Contractor. Contractor agrees this is the City’s total contribution for payment of costs under the Agreement unless additional payments are authorized in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and said terms of payment are mutually agreed to by and between the parties in writing. All other terms, conditions and provisions in the Agreement remain in full force and effect. If there is a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement will control unless specifically modified by this Amendment. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 138 Dated: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONTRACTOR By: By: City Manager [NAME] Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney 139 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-00 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for Community Development Block Grant funds allocated through the City of Daly City to support Project Read and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the 2023 -2024 Revenue Budget upon receipt of grant award.(Valerie Sommer,Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant proposal for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds allocated through the City of Daly City for FY 2023-2024 in the amount of $20,000 to support Project Read and authorize the Finance Director to adjust the 2023-2024 revenue budget upon receipt of a grant award letter. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant proposal for CDBG funds allocated through the City of Daly City.Last year Project Read received $20,000 from this program to support 35 adult literacy students living in Daly City.We anticipate receiving the same amount for FY 23-24. We have received Daly City CDBG funds for over fifteen years. Adult learners receive free services that include 1)a literacy assessment,2)free one-on-one tutoring or small group tutoring,3)free workbooks and dictionaries,and 4)use of library computers.Adult literacy services target adults with low level English reading and writing skills and focus on basic skill development.Over the year 34%of our adult learners are from Daly City,while 60%are from South San Francisco and 6%from San Bruno and Colma. In 1985,when Project Read was established,we were encouraged by the California State Library to serve North San Mateo County,thus increasing the number of people served.Part of our funding structure is reliant on matching funds from California Library Literacy Services (CLLS).Matching funds are based on the amount expended on literacy services and the number of adult literacy students served.Even through the pandemic, last year,CLLS supported our program with a grant of $66,355.By serving students in Daly City,San Bruno and Colma,we increase the amount received in matching funds.In addition,expanding our geographic area has proven successful when applying for grants to support enhanced programming for low-income,low-literacy participants. Most Project Read participants are SSF residents and benefit from our core adult literacy services.Additional SSF community support from grant-funded programs includes visits from Learning Wheels,Families for Literacy programs,and workshops on digital literacy.Prior to COVID-19,annual core user participation reached over 450 SSF regularly participating in at least one of these enhanced programs. FISCAL IMPACT Grant funds received from the CDBG program for FY 2023-2024 will offset general fund expenses;there will be no need to increase the Library Department’s budget for expenditures.Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing or matching funding.Adopting this resolution will authorize the Finance Director City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™140 File #:23-00 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:7. commit the City to ongoing or matching funding.Adopting this resolution will authorize the Finance Director to amend the 2023-2024 revenue budget upon receipt of a grant award letter. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Support of Project Read’s Adult Literacy services will provide enhanced literacy programming for low literate adults within the City and surrounding communities.The strengthening of learning programs is an action item in the City Strategic Plan under Priority #2: Quality of Life. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant proposal for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds allocated through the City of Daly City for FY 2023- 2024 in the amount of $20,000 to support Project Read and authorize the Finance Director to amend the revenue budget upon receipt of a grant award letter.Receipt of these funds will enable Project Read to continue adult literacy services to Daly City. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™141 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-01 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for Community Development Block Grant funds allocated through the City of Daly City to support Project Read and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the FY2023 - 2024 Revenue Budget upon receipt of grant award. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Library Department established Project Read to assist adults and their families in reaching literacy goals; and WHEREAS,in addition to the services provided within the City,Project Read provides adult literacy services to approximately 35 individuals in Daly City; and WHEREAS,these services have been supported in previous years by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding administered through the City of Daly City; and WHEREAS,staff recommends authorizing Project Read to apply for CDBG funding in the amount of $20,000 for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 to support adult literacy services in Daly City; and WHEREAS,staff further recommends authorizing the Director of Finance to adjust the FY2023-2024 revenue budget upon receipt of a grant award letter of any amount of CDBG funding awarded by the City of Daly City as a result of this grant application. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the filing of a grant application for Community Development Block Grant funds allocated through the City of Daly City for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby authorizes the Director of Finance to adjust the FY 2023-24 revenue budget upon receipt of notification that Daly City CDBG grant funds have been awarded to Project Read. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute any necessary documents for the grant application and/or receipt of grant funds and designates the City Manager of the City of South San Francisco as the signatory for CDBG funding. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™142 File #:23-01 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:7a. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™143 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-03 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding a resolution approving the Annual Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22.(Karen Chang, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Annual Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and making findings regarding the continuing need for unexpended balances of impact fees as of June 30, 2022, and as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Under state law (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.),the City is authorized to collect fees from new development to fund necessary improvements to public facilities to mitigate the impacts of that new development.In Fiscal Year (FY)2021-22,the City administered 13 distinct impact fee and in-lieu fee programs along with one (1)sewer capacity charge.These programs support new development’s share of certain capital infrastructure projects.The impact fees charged are based upon a pro-rata share of estimated costs for necessary public improvements.The sewer capacity charge is a cost recovery charge based on the proportional benefit to the person or property being charged.It is associated with providing collection and treatment capacity through the existing infrastructure available and future capital projects. Government Code Section 66000 et seq.requires the City to review the status of collected impact fees and sewer capacity charges annually.The impact fee and sewer capacity charge report for fiscal year ending June 30,2022 (“AB 1600 Report”)is provided as Exhibit A to the resolution associated with this staff report.The table below is a summary of each fund’s ending balances as of June 30, 2022. Fees and Charges Area Ending Balance Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee (1)Citywide $185,903 Childcare Impact Fee Citywide $13,901,164 Commercial Linkage Impact Fee (Affordable Housing)Citywide $8,914,100 Library Impact Fee (2)Citywide $674 Park Construction Fee Citywide $8,914,911 Park Land Acquisition Fee Citywide $3,230,072 Public Arts In-Lieu Fee (2)Citywide 0 Public Safety Impact Fee Citywide $2,551,609 Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (2)Citywide $3,890,857 Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee (3)Oyster Point $29,836 Park In-Lieu Fee Plan Area $2,959,482 Sewer Impact Fee Plan Area $4,872,807 Traffic Impact Fee (1)(4)East of 101 $20,870,699 Sewer Capacity Charges Plan Area $10,408,664 Total $80,730,778 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™144 File #:23-03 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. Fees and Charges Area Ending BalanceBicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee (1)Citywide $185,903Childcare Impact Fee Citywide $13,901,164Commercial Linkage Impact Fee (Affordable Housing)Citywide $8,914,100Library Impact Fee (2)Citywide $674Park Construction Fee Citywide $8,914,911Park Land Acquisition Fee Citywide $3,230,072 Public Arts In-Lieu Fee (2)Citywide 0 Public Safety Impact Fee Citywide $2,551,609 Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (2)Citywide $3,890,857 Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee (3)Oyster Point $29,836 Park In-Lieu Fee Plan Area $2,959,482 Sewer Impact Fee Plan Area $4,872,807 Traffic Impact Fee (1)(4)East of 101 $20,870,699 Sewer Capacity Charges Plan Area $10,408,664 Total $80,730,778 (1)In October 2020, the City repealed the impact fees. The remaining balances will be used to fund future projects. (2)In October 2020, the City adopted and established the new impact or in-lieu fees. (3)The ending balances do not include a loan balance of $3,595,152 from the former Redevelopment Agency,which is now the Successor Agency,for dollars advanced by the former RDA to complete the interchange before all impact fees had been collected. (4)For FY 2021-22,Traffic Impact fees are only used to fund new development’s share for new and expanded roadway and intersection improvements in the East of 101 plan area. Aside from fund balances,under the requirements of AB 1600,the Report also needs to show the planned projects for the upcoming fiscal year (FY 2022-23)using the various impact and in-lieu fees or sewer capacity charges.This information can also be found in Exhibit A.The Report is also published on the City’s website on December 22, 2022. Report’s URL: <https://www.ssf.net/departments/finance/financial-reports/development-impact-fee-reports/-fsiteid-1> UNEXPENDED FUND(S) REMAINING FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS One of the provisions in the State law regulating development fees is to regularly review funds collected and held for more than five years and to make certain findings to continue to hold those funds.Given the multi-year nature of the capital projects to be financed,it is expected that funds will be accumulated and used based on the timing of construction. The Childcare Impact Fee has funds remaining for past five years.Funds will be allocated for future projects which include: West Orange Library Preschool Conversion Project (total cost ~$12-15m)The City has set a lofty goal to create 100 new preschool spaces in the former main library building.Thousands of young scholars would benefit from this project over the course of the building’s lifespan.Remodeling and seismic retrofitting of the existing main library facility into a licensed preschool center is estimated to cost $15 million dollars.Conceptual design and cost estimating was complete in 2019 and escalated for cost increases in 2022.The existing library will be relocated to their new main library at the Civic Campus in mid-2023,allowing for design and renovations to begin immediately after.Design for the West Orange Library Preschool will begin in Spring 2023,with construction scheduled for late 2024. Westborough Preschool (currently budgeted $3.25m,actual cost TBD,likely >$9m)The City would like to construct a new licensed preschool facility to serve this growing need in the Westborough neighborhood. Funding,using Childcare Impact Fees,would fund the design and construction of a new facility,which the Parks and Recreation Department would operate.Staff is projecting the site would serve 40 children;however, design will confirm the size and scope of the building.This work will be prioritized after the West Orange Library Preschool Conversion Project, as funding allows. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™145 File #:23-03 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. FISCAL IMPACT This informational report is used to satisfy the annual reporting requirements.There is no financial impact related to this report,as impact fee revenues and expenditures have already been approved as part of the City’s budget.Reporting of this information satisfies the regulatory requirements for the City to continue to impose impact fees on new development. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Adoption of the resolution supports the City’s strategy on financial stability. CONCLUSION The City’s impact fee program has helped fund important City infrastructure to accommodate growth from new development,which ultimately supports the City Council’s efforts to build better neighborhoods that can integrate new development while preserving the City’s existing character.The information contained in this report demonstrates the City’s current use of impact fee funds and the continued need for impact fee funding per the requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™146 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-04 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:8a. Resolution approving the Annual Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), the City is required to annually report certain information regarding the collection of development impact fees; and WHEREAS, under the Mitigation Fee Act, the City is also required to make certain findings every five (5) years regarding unexpended impact fees and summarize those findings in the annual report (“Report”); and WHEREAS, the Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22 identifies unexpended impact fee programs for which findings are required; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66013, the City is also required to annually report certain information in connection with the collection of Sewer Capacity Charges; and WHEREAS, the Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, contains both the annual reporting information for the City’s development impact fee programs and also contains a section with the necessary annual information for Sewer Capacity Charges; and WHEREAS, the Report has been available at City Hall for at least fifteen (15) days prior to this Council meeting and was distributed to all Councilmembers in advance of said meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings outlined in the Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, as required by Government Code Sections 66006. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™147 1 Annual Impact Fee Report For the City of South San Francisco For Fiscal Year 2021-22 This report contains information on the City of South San Francisco’s development impact fees for the Fiscal Year 2021-22. The annual reporting requirements are in Government Code section 66000 et seq. Please note that this annual report is not a budget document but rather meets reporting requirements. The report does not intend to represent a full picture of currently planned projects. It only reports project information, revenues, and expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Government Code Section 66006 requires agencies to outline the status of development impact fees. Government Code Section 66001 requires local agencies to submit five-year financial reports. The annual report is available to the public within 180 days after the last day of the fiscal year. The report is presented to the public agency (the City Council) at least 15 days after it is made available to the public. This report summarizes each of the development impact fee programs. Requirements under Government Code Section 66006 are: 1. A brief description of the fee program. 2. The amount of the fee. 3. Beginning and ending balances of the fee program. 4. Amount of fees collected, interest earned, and transfers/loans. 5. An identification of each public improvement. The expenditures on each project. The total percentage of the cost of the public improvement is funded with development impact fees. 6. A description of each interfund transfer or loan. The date the loan will be repaid, the rate of interest, and a description of the public improvement. 7. The estimated date when projects will begin if enough revenues are available to construct the project. 8. The number of refunds made to property owners. This report also summarizes five-year reporting information for the Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee program as required under Government Code Section 66001: 1. The purpose of the fee expenditure. 2. The reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose used. 148 2 3. All sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements. 4. The approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (3) above are deposited into the appropriate account or fund. This report also contains information on the City of South San Francisco’s sewer capacity charges. Government Code Section 66013 requires agencies to submit annual reports on the status of sewer capacity charges. The public must have access to the report within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year. This report summarizes the following information for the sewer capacity charges: 1. A description of the charges deposited in the fund. 2. The beginning and ending balance of the fund and the interest earned from investment in the fund. 3. The amount collected in that fiscal year. 4. An identification of all the following: a. Each public improvement on which charges were expended and the amount of the expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost of the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one source of funding was used. b. Each public improvement on which charges were expended that was completed during that fiscal year. c. Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the following fiscal year. 5. A description of each interfund transfer or loan from the capital facilities fund, the date the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest. In the case of an interfund transfer, the report identifies the public improvements on which the money is or will be expended. More detailed information on the various fee programs is available. Nexus studies, master plans, capital improvement programs, and budgets are all made public on the City's website. The City does not earmark impact fees for any specific project as revenues come in. Nexus studies outline capital improvement projects. Nexus studies examples may include future sewer infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and other capital facilities. This report is accurate as of the time of publication. Any proposed plans are subject to change based on City Council action. 149 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Citywide Impact Fee Program Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Fund (Fund 822) Overview and Required Findings ............................................................................5 Financial Reporting ..................................................................................................6 Childcare Impact Fee Fund (Fund 830) Overview and Required Findings ............................................................................7 Financial Reporting ..................................................................................................8 Commercial Linkage Impact Fee (Fund 823) Overview and Required Findings ............................................................................9 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................10 Library Impact Fee (Fund 824) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................11 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................12 Park Construction Fee (Fund 806) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................13 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................14 Park Land Acquisition Fee (Fund 805) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................15 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................16 Public Arts (Fund 827) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................17 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................18 Public Safety Impact Fee Fund (Fund 821) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................19 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................20 Transportation Impact Fee (Fund 825) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................21 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................22 150 4 Plan Area Impact Fee Programs Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee Fund (Fund 840) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................23 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................25 Park In-Lieu Fee (Funds 206 – 209) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................26 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................27 East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee Fund (Fund 810) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................28 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................29 East of 101Traffic Impact Fee Fund (Fund 820) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................30 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................31 Other Reportable Citywide Charges Sewer Capacity Charge Fund (Fund 730) Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................32 Financial Reporting ................................................................................................33 Fee Schedules........................................................................................................................34 151 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Program The City Council adopted this nexus study for the citywide impact fee program in 2017. The study identified the need to support the Bicycle Master Plan adopted by the City in February 2011 by Resolution 23-2011. The General Plan establishes that maintaining bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure requires funding sources. The Bicycle Master Plan recommends the completion of the City’s existing network of bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The purpose of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Program is to establish funding for completion of the City’s existing network of bicycle paths. Additional daily trips due to development projects place more demands on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures in the city. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee. 3. Refer to page 6 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee. 4. See page 6 of this report for Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fees collected, and interest earned. 5. There were no projects worked on during the Fiscal Year 2021-22 using the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee funding. 6. There is one project planned for Fiscal Year 2022-23. 7. The approximate date for funding and execution of projects will be determined, at the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There were no potential refunds to property owners. 152 6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Program (Fund 822) This citywide development impact fee program funds bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Development projects generate additional daily trips that place more demands on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures in the city. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $116,813 Additions Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fees collected $73,981 Interest earned $1,279 Unrealized gains/losses ($6,170) Total additions $69,090 Disbursements % Fee Funded Total disbursements 0 Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $185,903 Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 % Fee Funded Additional funding for Oyster Pt & E.Grand Corridor Improvement (tr1602) $156,915 100% ($156,915) Remaining balance after planned projects $28,988 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $926 $50,347 $14,639 $50,901 $69,090 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 926 50,347 14,639 50,901 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 926 50,347 14,639 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 926 50,347 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 926 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue Available $926 $51,273 $65,912 $116,813 $185,903 153 7 Childcare Impact Fee Program The City Council adopted the nexus study for this citywide impact fee program in 2001. The study identified the need for new and expanded childcare facilities in the City. Updates since 2001 to this fee program have included a periodic inflation change. The fee program includes a 5% administrative fee. The estimated cost of the new and expanded facilities included in the nexus study totaled $43.9 million. The nexus study identified new development’s share of the cost as 24.6% of the total new and expanded facilities cost. Development impact fee revenue was estimated at $11.3 million, which includes administrative costs of 5% of total fee revenue. Existing development’s share of the cost is $33.1 million (75.4% of new facilities) which must be funded with other funding sources. Other funding sources may include the City’s General Fund, grants, developer contributions, and Community Development Block Grants. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The purpose of the Childcare Impact Fee Program is to provide new development’s share of funding for new and expanded childcare facilities required at build-out of the City. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the Childcare Impact Fee. 3. Refer to page 8 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for the Childcare Impact Fee. 4. See page 8 of this report for the amount of the Childcare Impact Fees that have been collected, and interest earned. 5. There was one project worked on during Fiscal Year 2021-22 using the Childcare Impact Fee funding. 6. There are three projects planned for Fiscal Year 2022-23 7. The approximate date for funding and constructing future facilities will be determined, at the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds for facility construction have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds to property owners. 154 8 Childcare Impact Fee (Fund 830) This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share of new and expanded childcare facilities to serve the City. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $6,788,327 Additions Childcare Impact Fees collected $7,656,815 Interest earned $115,072 Unrealized gains/losses ($556,751) Total additions $7,215,136 Disbursements % Fee Funded City administration $2,800 100% Projects for Fiscal Year 2020-21 Design and Construction of New Preschool Facility (pf2101) $99,499 100% Total disbursements ($102,299) Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $13,901,164 Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 % Fee Funded Additional funding for new preschool facility design and construction (pf2101) $3,250,000 36% Additional funding for Library – Parks & Rec Phase II Measure W (pf2103) $490,000 100% Additional funding for West Orange Library Preschool Project (pf2301) $4,000,000 100% Total planned projects ($7,740,000) Remaining balance after planned projects $6,161,164 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $1,295,310 $920,469 $665,458 $642,118 $7,215,136 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 527,347 1,295,310 920,469 665,458 642,118 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 387,646 527,347 1,295,310 920,469 665,458 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 163,207 387,646 527,347 1,295,310 920,469 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 43,099 163,207 387,646 527,347 1,295,310 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years ¹ 2,275,802 2,242,749 2,388,979 2,737,625 3,162,673 Total Revenue Available $4,692,411 $5,536,728 $6,185,209 $6,788,327 $13,901,164 Note: 1. Funds are to be allocated to planned projects including but not limited to New Preschool Design and Construction and the West Orange Library Preschool Project. 155 9 Commercial Linkage Fee Program The nexus study for this citywide impact fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2018 by Resolution 123-2018. The study justified the need to provide sufficient funding for affordable housing and established a nexus between the need for affordable housing and the impacts of commercial development within the City. The impact fee program supports the City of South San Francisco’s adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element, which includes the goal of promoting the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The purpose of the Commercial Linkage Impact Fee program is to provide funding for affordable housing for employees who work in the City as a result of new commercial development. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the Commercial Linkage Impact Fee. 3. Refer to page 10 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for the Commercial Linkage Impact Fee. 4. See page 10 of this report for the amount of Commercial Linkage Impact Fees that have been collected and interest earned. 5. There was no project worked on during the Fiscal Year 2021-22 using the Commercial Linkage Fee funding. 6. There is no planned project during the Fiscal Year 2022-23 using the Commercial Linkage Impact Fee funding. 7. The approximate date for funding and execution of projects will be determined, at the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There were no potential refunds to property owners. 156 10 Commercial Linkage Impact Fee Program (Fund 823) The Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF) Ordinance (No. 1560-2018) was adopted by the City Council on August 22, 2018, establishing a fee on certain commercial development to generate local funding for affordable housing. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $10,211,626 Additions Commercial Linkage Impact Fees collected $3,425,285 Unrealized Gains/Losses ($433,904) Interest earned $86,303 Total additions $3,077,684 Disbursements % Fee Funded Payroll Professional and special services and program $24,758 $4,350,452 100% 100% Total disbursements ($4,375,210) Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $8,914,100 No planned project for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 % Fee Funded Total planned projects 0 Remaining balance after planned projects $8,914,100 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available¹ FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $0 $0 $4,957,461 $5,375,874 $3,077,684 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 4,957,461 5,375,874 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 4,957,461 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years (121,710) (4,496,919) Total Revenue Available $ $ $4,957,461 $10,211,625 $8,914,100 Note: 1. Revenue includes initial transfer from Gas Tax 2105 in FY 2019-20 157 11 Library Impact Fee Program The nexus study for this impact fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2020. Ordinance 1608-2020 amended the Municipal Code to include Chapter 8.74 establishing the library impact fee. Based upon the City’s projected population increase and current per capita usage of facilities and collections materials, the City will need approximately 9,900 square feet of additional library space and 32,000 additional materials in circulation in order to maintain the current library service standard. The study identified the need to better implement the goals of maintaining adequate service standards in the face of the increase in library service demands. The study estimates that the total projected cost associated with future residential and non-residential development through 2040 would be approximately $7.8 million. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The Library Impact Fee is collected to provide new development’s share of funding for additional library space and materials to maintain current library service standard. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. Refer to page 12 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this fee. 4. Refer to page 12 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interested earned. 5. There were no projects worked on during the Fiscal Year 2021-22 using the Library Impact Fee. 6. There is no planned project during the Fiscal Year 2022-23 using the Library Impact Fee funding. 7. The approximate date for funding and execution of projects will be determined, at the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds to property owners. 158 12 Library Impact Fee (Fund 824) This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share for additional library space and materials to maintain current library service standard. Library Impact Fees for non-residential developments went into effect on November 23, 2020. Library Impact Fees for residential development will go into effect on January 1, 2022. No library Impact Fees were collected in fiscal year 2020-21. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $0 Additions Library Impact Fees collected $693 Interest earned $1 Unrealized Gains/Losses ($20) Total additions $674 Disbursements 0 Total disbursements 0 % Fee Funded Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $674 Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 0 % Fee Funded Total planned projects 0 Remaining balance after planned projects $674 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $674 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years 0 Total Revenue Available $ $ $ $ $674 159 13 Park Construction Fee The nexus study for this impact fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2017. Ordinance 1520-2016 amended the Municipal Code to include Chapter 8.67 adopting the parkland acquisition fee and park construction fee. The purpose of the Park Construction Fee is to provide funding for the construction of park facilities and improvements. The General Plan, the Parks & Recreation Master Plan, and the East of 101 Area Plan call for 3 acres of parkland and facilities per 1,000 new residents and ½ an acre of parkland and facilities per 1,000 new employees. The City incurs the costs of administering the fee program and preparing analyses and reports related to it. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The purpose of the Park Construction Fee fund is to provide new development’s share of funding developing new parks and recreation spaces at a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 new residents in multifamily development projects and 0.5 acres per 1,000 new employees in commercial development projects. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. Refer to page 14 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this fee. 4. Refer to page 14 of this report for the number of fees collected and interest earned. 5. There was one project worked on during Fiscal Year 2021-22 using the Park Construction Fee funding. 6. There are two projects planned for Fiscal Year 2022-23 using the Park Construction Fee. 7. The approximate date for further funding and developing park land and recreation facilities will be determined, at the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds to property owners. 160 14 Park Construction Fee (Fund 806) This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share for developing new park and recreation spaces. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $5,344,782 Additions Park Construction Fees collected $3,963,057 Unrealized Gains/Losses ($280,158) Interest earned $56,928 Total additions $3,739,827 Disbursements Transfer out to Capital Improvements: Orange Park Sports Field Renovation (pk1402) $169,698 % Fee Funded 100% Total disbursements ($169,698) Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $8,914,911 Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 % Fee Funded Transit Village Park (pk2101) ($1,000,000) 100% Linden Park Project (pk2305) ($300,000) 30% Remaining balance after planned projects $7,614,911 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $25,169 $2,112,813 $1,158,551 $3,069,717 $3,739,827 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 25,169 2,112,813 1,158,551 3,069,717 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 25,169 2,112,813 1,158,551 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 251,169 2,112,813 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 251,169 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years (7,550) (21,467) (1,021,468) (1,247,468) (1,417,166) Total Revenue Available $17,619 $2,116,515 $2,275,065 $5,344,782 $8,914,911 161 15 Park Land Acquisition Fee The City Council adopted the nexus study for this impact fee program in 2017. Ordinance 1520- 2016 amended the Municipal Code to include Chapter 8.67, adopting the parkland acquisition fee and park construction fee to generate funding for parks in South San Francisco. The General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan, and the East of 101 Area Plan each lay out specific park requirements. The current need is three acres of park land per one thousand future residents and one half of an acre per one thousand new employees is the current need. This fee differs from the City’s Quimby Act fee in Section 19.24.040 et seq of the Municipal Code. The Quimby Act allows for the imposition of land dedication requirements and in-lieu fees for residential subdivisions. The Act does not apply to other types of residential development projects or commercial development projects. The Park Land Acquisition Fee is applied to residential and non-residential development projects to support the demands for parks and recreation spaces generated by new residents of residential development projects and new employees of non-residential development projects. The nexus study calculated the fee for park land acquisition based on the number of residents generated by each new type of residential unit and the number of employees per 1,000 square feet in non- residential development projects. The City adopted the Park Land Acquisition Fee under the authority of the Mitigation Fee Act. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The purpose of the Park Land Acquisition Fee fund is to provide new development’s share of funding for acquiring new parks and recreation spaces at a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 new residents in multifamily development projects and 0.5 acres per 1,000 new employees in commercial development projects. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. Refer to page 16 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this fee. 4. Refer to page 16 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interest earned. 5. One project utilized the Park Land Acquisition Fee fund in FY 2021-22. Refer to page 16 of this report for identification of public improvement on which fees were expended, the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with the fees. 6. There are two projects planned for FY 2022-23 using Park Land Acquisition Fee. 7. The approximate date for funding and acquiring park land will be determined, at the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds to property owners. 162 16 Park Land Acquisition Fee (Fund 805) This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share for acquiring new park and recreation spaces. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $1,603,773 Additions Park Land Acquisition Fees collected $1,707,708 Unrealized Gains/Losses ($101,907) Interest earned $21,978 Total additions $1,627,779 Disbursements % Fee Funded Transfer out to Capital Improvements: Transit Village park (pk2101) $1,480 100% Total disbursements ($1,480) Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $3,230,072 Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23: % Fee Funded Transit Village Park (pk2101) Linden Park Project (pk2305) $2,000,000 $1,000,000 97% 100% Projects appropriated from prior fiscal years: Transit Village Park (pk2101) $683,827 Total planned projects ($3,683,827) Remaining balance after planned projects ($453,755) Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $54,663 $311,271 $502,798 $771,214 $1,627,779 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 54,663 311,271 502,798 771,214 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 54,663 311,271 502,798 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 54,664 311,271 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 54,664 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years 0 0 0 36,174 37,654 Total Revenue Available $54,663 $365,934 $868,732 $1,603,773 $3,230,072 163 17 Public Arts In-Lieu Fee In October 2020, the City Council passed ordinance number 1613-2020 creating the public art requirement. The City is dedicated to improving infrastructure, economic development and cultural diversity through acquisition and exhibition of public art. The public art requirement applies to any new non-residential development project and that it requires such projects to contribute public art with a value of at least one percent (1%) the amount of construction costs. In lieu of contributing public art, the public art requirement will allow for the payment of an in-lieu fee into a public art fund at the value of half of one percent (0.5%) of the amount of construction costs. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The Public Arts In-Lieu Fee is collected to provide cultural and artistic art to enhance the quality of life for individuals living in, working in, and visiting the City. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. Refer to page 18 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this fee. 4. Refer to page 18 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interested earned. 5. There were no projects worked on during the Fiscal Year 2021-22 using the Public Arts In-Lieu Fee. 6. There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 using the Public Arts in-Lieu Fee. 7. The approximate date for further funding will be determined at the direction of the City Council when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds to property owners. 164 18 Public Arts In-Lieu Fee (Fund 827) This citywide in-lieu fee funds the cultural diversity through acquisition and exhibition of public art in the City. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $0 Additions In-lieu fees collected $0 Interest earned 0 Total additions 0 Disbursements % Fee Funded Total disbursements 0 Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $0 Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 % Fee Funded There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 0 Total planned projects 0 Remaining balance after planned projects $0 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years Total Revenue Available $ $ $ $ $ 165 19 Public Safety Impact Fee Program The City Council adopted the nexus study for this citywide impact fee program in 2012. The study identified the need for new and expanded public safety capital facility and equipment to support new development projects. This fee program also includes an annual inflation adjustment. The fee program includes a 2% administrative fee. The estimated cost of the new and expanded public safety equipment and facilities included in the nexus study totaled $40.4 million. The nexus study identified new development’s share of the cost at $10.4 million (25.6% of the total new and expanded equipment and facilities cost). Existing development’s share of the cost is $30.0 million (74.4% of new equipment and facilities) which must be funded with other funding sources such as the City’s General Fund, grants, or developer contributions. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The Public Safety Impact Fee is collected to provide new development’s share of funding for new and expanded public safety capital facility and equipment required at build out of the City. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. Refer to page 20 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this fee. 4. Refer to page 20 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interested earned. 5. There is one project worked on during Fiscal Year 2021-22 using Public Safety Impact Fee. 6. There was one project planned for FY 2022-23 using the Public Safety Impact Fee fund. 7. The approximate date for further funding and constructing facilities and procuring future equipment identified in the nexus study will be determined when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds to property owners. 166 20 Public Safety Impact Fee (Fund 821) This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share of new and expanded capital facility and equipment to serve the City. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $1,499,387 Additions Public Safety Impact Fees collected – Fire $1,013,709 Public Safety Impact Fees collected – Police Unrealized Gains/Losses $730,687 ($78,632) Interest earned $15,658 Total additions $1,681,422 Disbursements % Fee Funded Transfer out to Capital Improvements: Police Ops & 911 Dispatch Ctr (PSIF) (pf2208) $568,741 55.3% Transfer out to Equipment Replacement $60,459 100% Total disbursements ($629,200) Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $2,551,609 % Fee Funded Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Training Tower maintenance (pf1704) $350,000 100% Total planned projects ($350,000) Remaining balance after planned projects $2,201,609 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $869,407 $479,101 $479,419 $246,467 $1,681,422 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 133,199 869,407 479,101 479,419 246,467 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 268,278 133,199 869,407 479,101 479,419 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 228,138 268,278 133,199 869,407 479,101 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 72,992 228,138 268,278 133,199 869,407 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years (735,976) (676,893) (832,732) (708,206) (1,204,207) Total Revenue Available $836,038 $1,301,230 $1,396,672 $1,499,387 $2,551,609 167 21 Transportation Impact Fee Program The nexus study for this impact fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2020. Ordinance 1607-2020 amended the Municipal Code to include Chapter 8.68 establishing the transportation impact fee. The nexus study identified the need for transportation improvements and facilities needed to serve the growth, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities. The nexus study has identified $160.8 million in transportation infrastructure improvements such as roads, sidewalks, traffic lights, bicycle lanes and pathways, curbs and gutters, and medians caused by new developments throughout the City. The City seeks to mitigate these transportation impacts caused by new development and to allow the City to recover approximately $33.7 million in costs associated with the new development by providing for the payment of the citywide Transportation Impact fee. Annual Reporting Information: 1. The Transportation Impact Fee is collected to provide new development’s share of funding for new and expanded transportation capital facility and equipment required at build out of the City. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. Refer to page 22 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this fee. 4. Refer to page 22 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interested earned. 5. There were no projects work on during the Fiscal Year 2021-22 using the Transportation Impact Fee. 6. There are three projects planned for Fiscal Year 2022-23 using Transportation Impact Fee. 7. The approximate date for funding and execution of projects will be determined, at the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds to property owners. 168 22 Transportation Impact Fee (Fund 825) This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share for transportation improvements and facilities needed to serve the City. Transportation Impact Fees for non-residential developments went into effect on November 23, 2020. Transportation Impact Fees for residential development will go into effect on January 1, 2022. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $1,962,343 Additions Transportation Impact Fees collected Unrealized Gains/Losses $2,043,540 ($145,887) Interest $30,861 Total additions $1,928,514 Disbursements % Fee Funded Total disbursements 0 Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $3,890,857 Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 % Fee Funded OYSTER PT & E GRAND COORIDOR IMP (tr1602) $927,029 22% GRAND AVE OFF-RAMP REALIGNMENT (tr2201) $3,250,000 100% RIGHT OF WAY INFRA ASSMT & UPG (tr2302) $80,000 100% Total planned projects ($4,257,029) Remaining balance after planned projects ($366,172) Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $1,962,343 $1,928,514 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 1,962,343 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years 0 0 Total Revenue Available $ $ $ $1,962,343 $3,890,857 169 23 Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee Program The City Council adopted this plan area fee program on May 23, 1984, using a February 1983 Feasibility Study prepared by Nolte and Associates in conjunction with Resolution No. 71-84 which created the “Oyster Point Contribution Formula.” The 1983 Feasibility Study identified the need for the Oyster Point Interchange project, which was, at that time, referred to as the grade separation project. Updates to the fee program since 1984 include the following: 1. An ongoing inflation adjustment. 2. June 26, 1996, fee program changes via Resolution No. 102-96 included adjustments for: a. the inflationary index that reduced the fee by approximately 22%, b. the project description which increased the scope of the project to include the Terrabay hook ramps and the southbound off-ramp flyover, and the use of more current trip generation rates. 3. October 9, 1996 fee program change via Resolution No. 152-96 that added additional land uses with their associated trip generation rates. The Feasibility Study identified new development’s share of the grade separation project cost at 64.8% and existing development’s share of the cost at 35.2%. The grade separation was completed and funded in 1995 and is not part of this annual report. The increased scope portion of the project, added in 1996, was identified as being 100% the responsibility of new development. Of this additional scope, the flyover, estimated to cost $6.4 million, was completed in 2005, and the hook ramps, estimated to cost $15 million, were completed in October 2006. Additional work relating to property transfers and gaining final Caltrans project acceptance is ongoing. Required 5-Year Findings for Unexpended Funds/Annual Reporting Requirements 1. The purpose of the Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee Program is to provide new development’s share of funding for this project required at build-out of the plan area. 2. Refer to page 25 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for this fee. 3. Refer to page 25 of this report for fees collected and interest earned. 4. The reasonable relationship between the Oyster Point interchange impact fee and the purpose for which it is charged is demonstrated in the 1983 Feasibility Study by Nolte and Associates, and in the fee program updates in Resolution No. 102-96 and Resolution No. 152-96. As of June 30, 2021, there continues to be a need for Oyster Point Interchange Impact fees due to further developments in that area of South San Francisco. 170 24 5. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated for Oyster Point Interchange projects can be found in the updates adopted via Resolution No. 102-96 and Resolution No. 152-96. Additional working relating to property transfers and gaining final Caltrans project acceptance is ongoing. 6. Buildout in the Oyster Point Interchange area is ongoing due to further developments in South San Francisco. The City’s buildout is assumed to occur over a 20-year period, which is consistent with the General Plan. 7. There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year 2021-22 using Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fees. 8. The fund has one loan from the former Redevelopment Agency. Please refer to page 25 of this report. The amount owed as of June 30, 2022, is approximately $2.15 million. Since the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency in 2012, the interest rate charged by the Successor Agency is 0%. The loan is repaid as new impact fee revenue is received. Given that the amount of future impact fee revenue is unknown, the repayment date is unknown. There were no other interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds of Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fees to property owners. 10. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee. 171 25 Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee (Fund 840) This plan area development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share of the Oyster Point Interchange project. Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $2,382,627 $3,506,445 $1,216,377 $75 $1,436,127 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 23,655 2,382,627 3,506,445 1,216,377 75 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 658,996 23,655 2,382,627 3,506,445 1,216,377 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 353,592 658,996 23,655 2,382,627 3,506,445 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 453,587 353,592 658,996 23,655 2,382,627 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years (3,842,646) (6,853,059) (7,709,466) (7,090,470) (8,511,815) Total Revenue Available $29,811 $72,256 $78,634 $38,709 $29,836 Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $38,709 Additions Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fees collected Unrealized Gains/Losses $1,444,207 ($9,901) Interest earned $1,821 Total additions $1,436,127 Disbursements % Fee Funded Repayment of RDA Loan $1,445,000 100% Total disbursements ($1,445,000) Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $29,836 Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2021-22 % Fee Funded There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year 2021-22 0 Remaining Balance After Planned Projects $29,836 Loans to Oyster Point Interchange Fee Fund from Successor Agency to RDA Due Date and Interest Rate Balance, July 1, 2021 $3,595,152 None & 0% Less payment during fiscal year $1,445,000 Balance, June 30, 2022 ($2,150,152) Fees available (future fees required) for current and completed projects ($2,120,316) 172 26 Park In-Lieu Fee City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Title 19 Subdivisions, Chapter 19.24 Improvements requires every subdivider who subdivides land to dedicate a portion of such land, pay a fee, or do both, for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve future residents of such subdivision. The in-lieu fee shall be determined using the formula set out in Chapter 19.24.090(a). [Units in Structure X Average Residents per Unit X 0.003 (3 acres per 1,000 Residents) X Average Fair Market Value per acre = in-lieu fee]. Fees shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (AUC-CPI); such annual adjustment shall be approved by resolution of the City Council. In addition, the City may collect reasonable administrative fee to cover the cost of administering the program. Annual Reporting Information 1. The purpose of the Park in-lieu fee is to acquire land and develop new parks and recreation facilities, or for the rehabilitation and enhancement of existing neighborhood parks, community parks, and recreational facilities. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. Refer to page 27 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for this fee. 4. Refer to page 27 of this report for the amount of fees collected, and interest earned. 5. There is one project worked on during Fiscal Year 2021-22 using Park In-Lieu Fee. 6. There is one planned project on in FY 2022-23 using the Park In-Lieu Fee. 7. The approximate date for further funding will be determined at the direction of the City Council when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds of Park In-Lieu Fees to property owners. 173 27 Park In-Lieu Fee (Funds 206 – 209) The Park In-Lieu fee may only be used for acquiring land and developing new park and recreation facilities, or for the rehabilitation and enhancement of existing neighborhood parks, community parks, and recreational facilities. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $3,850,903 Additions Fees collected $0 Unrealized Gains/Losses ($149,020) Interest earned $112,650 Adjustment from prior fiscal year ($122,566) Total additions ($241,307) Disbursements % Fee Funded Orange Park Sports Field Renovation (pk1402) Centennial Trail Vision Plan (pk2103) $508,546 $141,569 100% 100% Total Disbursements ($650,115) Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $2,959,482 Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 % Fee Funded Centennial Trail Improvements (pk2302) $2,400,000 100% Projects appropriated from prior fiscal years $836,469 (pk1402, pk1806, pk1807, pk2103) ($3,236,469) Remaining Balance After Planned Projects ($154,890) Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available¹ FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $1,857 $1,334,811 $2,711,304 $8,479 ($119,110) Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 876,288 1,857 1,334,811 2,711,304 8,479 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 14,695 876,288 1,857 1,334,811 2,711,304 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 10,543 14,695 876,288 1,857 1,334,811 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 165,262 10,543 14,695 876,288 1,857 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years 643,197 597,282 (100,223) (1,214,937) (977,589) Total Revenue Available $1,711,842 $2,835,476 $4,838,732 $3,850,903 $2,959,482 Note: 1. Revenue includes developer's contributions or reimbursement and transfer from Park Construction Fees. 174 28 East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee Program The 2002 nexus study for this fee was adopted by the City Council in 2002. The study identified the need for new and rehabilitated sewer collection and treatment facilities to serve the area located east of US 101 in the City of South San Francisco. This fee program also includes an annual inflation adjustment. The estimated cost of the 20 new and expanded sewer projects included in the study totaled $21.4 million. The study identified new development’s share of the cost of the required facilities at $15.5 million (72.4% of the total new and expanded facilities cost) while existing development’s share of the cost (existing deficiency) is $5.9 million (27.6% of new facilities). New development’s share of the cost, $15.5 million, was increased to include some master planning costs ($425,000) and some CEQA reviewing costs ($600,000) for a total cost to new development of $16,425,000. Of that amount, $12,429,000 was to be sewer impact fee funded and $4,066,000 was to be funded directly by developer contributions. Of the twenty total projects listed in the nexus study, eleven projects are either fully or partially funded with the sewer impact fee funds, four are existing development’s responsibility, four are to be funded by developer contributions, and one is to be funded with a combination of developer contributions and revenues from existing development. Existing development’s share will be funded with the sewer charges appearing on property tax bills as a direct levy. Annual Reporting Information 1. The purpose of the Sewer Impact Fee Program is to provide new development’s share of funding for new and rehabilitated sewer collection and treatment facilities to serve the area located east of US 101 at build-out of the plan area. 2. Refer to page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. Refer to page 29 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for this fee. 4. Refer to page 29 of this report for the amount of fees collected, and interest earned. 5. There was one project worked on in FY 2021-22 using the Sewer Impact Fee. 6. There are no planned project in FY 2022-23 using the Sewer Impact Fee. 7. The approximate date for further funding will be determined at the direction of the City Council when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds of Sewer Impact Fees to property owners. 175 29 East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee (Fund 810) This plan area development impact fee program funds new development's fair share of new and rehabilitated sewer collection and treatment facilities to serve the area located east of US 101 in the City. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $4,144,279 Additions Sewer Impact Fees collected $985,102 Unrealized Gains/Losses ($182,470) Interest earned $36,514 Total additions $839,146 Disbursements % Fee Funded City administration $2,800 100% Pump Station #2 Upgrade (ss1702) $107,818 3% Total Disbursements ($110,618) Remaining balance as of June 30, 2022 $4,872,807 Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 % Fee Funded There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 0 Des for Current Capital Project $4,864,572 Total planned projects ($4,864,572) Remaining Balance After Planned Projects $8,235 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $2,265,191 $1,881,711 $1,491,447 $452,369 $839,146 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 188,815 2,265,191 1,881,711 1,491,447 452,369 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 551,441 188,815 2,265,191 1,881,711 1,491,447 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 472,461 551,441 188,815 2,265,191 1,881,711 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 888,164 472,461 551,441 188,815 2,265,191 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years (1,527,170) (923,485) (970,765) (2,135,354) (2,057,057) Total Revenue Available $2,838,902 $4,436,134 $5,407,840 $4,144,279 $4,872,807 176 30 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program The 2001 nexus study for this plan area fee was adopted by the City Council in 2002. The study identified the need for new and expanded roadway and intersection improvements to serve the area located east of US 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The study was updated on May 6, 2005, and on July 19, 2007. This fee program includes an annual inflation adjustment and a 2.5% administrative fee. The estimated cost of the new and expanded facilities included in the 2007 study totaled $38.5 million ($32.4 million in net cost after accounting for fees already received). There are 26 road improvements listed in the 2007 study and two studies for a total of 28 projects. The study determined that new development would be responsible for 100% of the cost of the 28 projects. Annual Reporting Information 1. The purpose of the East of 101Traffic Impact Fee Program is to provide new development’s share of funding for new and expanded roadway and intersection improvements to serve the area located east of US 101 at build-out of the plan area. 2. See page 34 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee. 3. See page 31 of this report for beginning and ending balance of the account for this fee. 4. See page 31 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interest earned. 5. There were 9 projects worked on in FY 2021-22 using the Traffic Impact Fee. 6. There is one project planned for FY 2022-23 using the Traffic Impact Fee. 7. The approximate date for further funding will be determined at the direction of the City Council when adequate additional funds have accumulated. 8. There were no interfund transfers or loans. 9. There are no potential refunds of Traffic Impact Fees to property owners. 177 31 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (Fund 820) This plan area development impact fee program funds new development's fair share of new and expanded roadway and intersection improvements east of US 101 to serve the City of South San Francisco. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $22,527,967 Additions Traffic Impact Fees collected $5,040,331 Unrealized Gains/Losses ($957,039) Interest earned $191,916 Total additions $4,275,208 Disbursements % Fee Funded City administration $2,800 100% CIP disbursements $5,929,676 Total disbursements ($5,932,476) Remaining Balance as of June 30, 2022 $20,870,699 Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 % Fee Funded Oyster Pt & E Grand Corridor Improvements (tr1602) $2,416,056 77% Des for Current Capital Project $13,869,776 Total planned projects ($16,285,832) Remaining balance after planned projects $4,584,867 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $5,716,072 $8,837,963 $5,058,500 $44,230 $4,275,208 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 119,374 5,716,072 8,837,963 5,058,500 44,230 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 1,745,975 119,374 5,716,072 8,837,963 5,058,500 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 1,462,604 1,745,975 119,374 5,716,072 8,837,963 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 1,986,284 1,462,604 1,745,975 119,374 5,716,072 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years 1,429,496 2,711,469 3,537,862 2,751,828 (3,061,274) Total Revenue Available $12,459,805 $20,593,457 $25,015,746 $22,527,967 $20,870,699 178 32 Sewer Capacity Charge Program The original analysis was adopted by the City Council in 2000 and annual updates included a preset adjustment to the charges based on borrowing costs. The most current Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis by Bartle Wells & Associates is dated August 26, 2009 and was adopted by the City Council in April of 2010 to be effective in Fiscal Year 2010-11. This analysis identifies the need for sewer collection and treatment capacity in the City of South San Francisco. There are two components to the Sewer Capacity Charge: the capital assets valuation charge and the capital improvements charge. The capital assets charge accounts for the existing value of the sewer collection and treatment system which is calculated using the depreciated replacement cost of the system’s assets. The capital assets charge (also called a “buy-in” fee) assigns a value to the benefit that new development receives from the availability of sewer capacity (which existing development has maintained over the years through the sewer rates). The total depreciated replacement value is $161.6 million, of which 37.2 percent is new development’s fair-share, or $60.1 million. The second component is the charge for future improvements to the system identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The total cost of these future improvements is $84.6 million, the fair-share allocation to new development is 37.2 percent of that amount, or $29.8 million. The total fair-share is $90 million. These funds may be used for capital improvements to maintain capacity in the system. Annual Reporting Information: 1. Refer to page 33 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for the sewer capacity fund, the amount of charges collected, and the interest earned from investment of moneys in the fund. 2. There is one project that was worked on in FY 2020-21 using the sewer capacity charge program. Refer to page 33 of this report for an identification of the public improvement on which charges were expended, the amount of the expenditures on each improvement. 3. Refer to page 33 of this report for an identification of public improvements anticipated to be undertaken in the next fiscal year. 4. The sewer capacity charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the facilities for which the fee is charged (see Cal. Gov. Code § 66013, subd. (a)). 5. The sewer capacity charge’s accounting and reporting requirements are being met, i.e., the revenues are kept in a separate fund and the City provides annual reports on the use of the funds collected (see Cal. Gov. Code §§ 66013, subds. (c) and (d)). 6. There were not any interfund transfers or loans. 179 33 Sewer Capacity Charges (Fund 730) This fee program funds the cost associated with providing collection and treatment capacity to new development, both through the existing infrastructure provided, and through future capital projects not funded by other sources. Beginning balance, July 1, 2021 $7,726,129 Additions Fees collected Unrealized Gains/Losses $3,130,802 ($373,689) Interest earned $75,294 Total additions $2,832,407 Disbursements % Fee Funded City administration $2,800 100% Transfer out to Sewer Enterprise Fund: Pump Station #2 Upgrade (ss1702) $147,072 3% Total disbursements ($149,872) Remaining Balance as of June 30, 2022 $10,408,664 Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2021-22 % Fee Funded There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year 2021-22 0 Transfer to Sewer Enterprise Fund: Pump Station #2 Upgrade (ss1702) $1,309,593 Total planned projects ($1,309,593) Remaining balance after planned projects $9,099,071 Five-Year Revenue Test Using First in First Out Method Revenue Available FY 2017/18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Current Fiscal Year $5,565,334 $3,187,257 $2,297,395 $1,916,350 $2,832,407 Prior FY (2-yr Old Funds) 1,635,518 5,565,334 3,187,257 2,297,395 1,916,350 Prior FY (3-yr Old Funds) 1,777,053 1,635,518 5,565,334 3,187,257 2,297,395 Prior FY (4-yr Old Funds) 213,972 1,777,053 1,635,518 5,565,334 3,187,257 Prior FY (5-yr Old Funds) 222,438 213,972 1,777,053 1,635,518 5,565,334 In Excess of Five Prior Fiscal Years 92,283 (55,576) (6,312,809) (6,875,725) (5,390,079) Total Revenue Available $9,506,598 $12,323,558 $8,149,748 $7,726,129 $10,408,664 180 34 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Land Use Cost per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet (SQFT) Residential Single-Family $243 per unit Multi-Family $170 per unit Mobile Home $127 per unit Commercial/Industrial Commercial / Retail $.36 per SQFT Hotel / Visitor Services $.24 / visitor SF Office / R&D $.09 per SQFT Industrial $.12 per SQFT Commercial Linkage Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Gross Square Feet Commercial Floor Area Minus Existing Floor Area × Current Fee Amount for Applicable Land use Category where the Land Use Fee is: $5.52 per sf for hotel $2.76 per sf for restaurant and retail $16.55 per sf for office and R&D Library Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Land Use Cost per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet (SQFT) Residential Up to 8 du / ac $725.86 per unit 8.1-18 du / ac $635.39 per unit 18 + du / ac $540.71 per unit Commercial/Industrial Commercial / Retail $.07 per SQFT Hotel / Visitor Services $.03 / visitor SF Office / R&D $.13 per SQFT Industrial $.04 per SQFT Park In-Lieu Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Park In-Lieu Fee shall be determined using the formula set out in Chapter 19.24.090(a). [Units in Structure X Average Residents per Unit X 0.003 (3 acres per 1,000 Residents) X Average Fair Market Value per acre = in-lieu fee] 181 35 Childcare Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Land Use per Unit or per Gross Sq. Ft. (GSF) Residential Up to 8 du / ac $3,626.26 per unit 8.1-18 du / ac $3,175.72 per unit 18 + du / ac $2,703.56 per unit Residential – Applications Deemed Complete before 1/1/2022 Up to 8 du / ac $2,072.01 8.1-18 du / ac $1,945.33 18 + du / ac $1,938 Commercial/Industrial Commercial / Retail $0.71 per GSF Hotel / Visitor Services $0.26 per GSF Office / R&D $1.32 per GSF Industrial $0.52 per GSF 182 36 Park Land Acquisition Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Land Use per Unit Residential Single-Family $2,976 per unit Duplex to Four-plex $2,571 per unit 5 to 19 $2,183 per unit 20 to 49 $1,759 per unit 50+ $1,535 per unit Mobile Home $2,286 per unit Park Construction Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Land Use per Unit Residential Single-Family $27,376.96 per unit Duplex to Four-plex $23,647.54 per unit 5 to 19 $20,076.23 per unit 20 to 49 $16,188.71 per unit 50+ $14,125.08 per unit Mobile Home Park Acquisition/Construction Fee for Nonresidential for Fiscal Year 2021-22 $21,029 per unit Commercial/Industrial Commercial / Retail $1.32 per SQFT Hotel / Visitor Services $1.26 per SQFT Office / R&D $3.10 per SQFT Industrial $1.47 per SQFT Public Arts In-Lieu Fees Fiscal Year 2021-22 Every non-residential development project shall provide qualifying public art with a value equal to not less than 1% of construction costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the development site. A non-residential development project may elect to make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund, in lieu of acquisition and installation of public art on the development project site. 183 37 Public Safety Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Land Use per Unit or per Square Foot (SF) Residential Up to 8 du / ac $1,452.19 per unit 8.1-18 du / ac $1,271.06 per unit 18 + du / ac $1,081.55 per unit Commercial/Industrial Commercial / Retail $0.46 per SF Hotel / Visitor $0.27 per SF Office / R&D $1.15 per SF Industrial $0.42 per SF Transportation Impact Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Land Use per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet (SQFT) Residential Single-Family $7,039.20 per unit Multi-Family $4,056.46 per unit Commercial/Industrial Commercial / Retail Office/ R&D Industrial $26.62/ SQFT $30.53/ SQFT $13.77/ SQFT Hotel $2,565.85/ room 184 38 Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The impact fee is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicle trips by $154 and by the percentage increase in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) as published in the Engineering News- Record (ENR) from the date of adoption, when the CCI was 6,552.16, to the current effective CCI. Vehicle Trips are based on average daily traffic (ADT). The rates shown below are based on 1,000 gross square feet of land use. The ENR CCI published in May is used to calculate monthly increases. The CCI for May 2020 and 2021 were 12,816.67 and 13,425.35, respectively, resulting in a percentage increase of 4.75%. Land Use ADT Trip Rate per 1,000 GSF General Industrial 5.72 Manufacturing 4.18 Warehousing 4.71 Hotel 11.00 General Office Building 12.88 Research & Development (R&D) 5.55 Restaurant (Dinner House/High Turn-over) 58.97 / 172.21 General Commercial 50.28 OPI Impact Fee: = (Development Area, SF /1000 SF) X ($154.00) X (Monthly ENR-CCI) / (6,552.16) Sewer Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The generation rate for all land use is 400 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of building area. New Sewer Impact Fee = ($5.60/Gallon) X (1.0475) = ($5.87/Gallon) Traffic Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Area of Building x Land Use Fee where the Land Use Fee is: R&D/office = $6.66 per building sq. ft. Hotel = $1,552.08 per room Commercial/retail = $27.63 per building sq. ft. Sewer Capacity Charge for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The fee is updated each calendar year. The fee is currently $5,497 per EDU. An EDU, or Equivalent Dwelling Unit, is the amount and strength of sewage equivalent to that discharged by a single-family residence. EDU = (0.00347 x Q) + (0.362 x BOD) + (0.589 x TSS). Q = gallons per day of sewage to be discharged; BOD = pounds per day of biochemical oxygen demand to be discharged; TSS = pounds per day of total suspended solids to be discharged. 185 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-1064 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. Study Session on the Draft Housing Element and Response to Review Comments by the Department of Housing and Community Development (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City Council share any comments on the revised Draft Housing Element and Review Comment Letter from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for incorporation into the final Draft Housing Element being prepared for the adoption hearing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session on August 9,2022 to discuss the draft Housing Element.The document includes obligations for zoning to produce housing and programs to support various equity, affordability, and access issues related to housing for the period of 2023-2031. Since that time,staff has taken the City Council and Planning Commission’s comments,as well as the public advocacy letters received,and modified the draft Housing Element for submittal to the State’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD).Updates have been provided via regular Thursday memorandums.Staff submitted the draft Housing Element to HCD on September 9,2022 and received a comment letter within the 90 day timeline on December 7,2022.The response to those comments and revised draft Housing Element is the subject of this study session. Staff has completed responses to each HCD comment except for edits to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing section,which requires additional time for data requests and analysis.A consultant to the City will have this completed and ready for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at future hearings.Edits are red-lined throughout the document and the location of the edit is indicated in the attached HCD comment letter.Staff recommends that the City Council review both documents and provide any guidance, as desired. Both the HCD comments and staff’s edits are fairly minor -they primarily consist of further analysis supporting the proposed housing programs,edits to timing for program deliverables,and clarification showing how the draft Housing Element complies with state law. UPCOMING SCHEDULE To meet the state deadline of January 31,2023 for local adoption of the draft Housing Element,the following schedule is proposed. 1.City Council study session tonight 2.Planning Commission consideration of the draft housing element on 1/19/23 3.City Council consideration of the draft housing element for adoption on 1/25/23 4.Submittal to HCD by 1/31/23 Staff,in coordination with the City Attorney,will provide a draft Housing Element in substantial compliance with state law governing housing elements for Council consideration and adoption.Adoption of a HousingCity of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™186 File #:22-1064 Agenda Date:1/11/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. with state law governing housing elements for Council consideration and adoption.Adoption of a Housing Element in substantial compliance with state law by January 31,2023 will ensure that our jurisdiction is not subject to penalties or override of local decision-making related to new development. CONCLUSION Please review the HCD comment letter,staff responses,and red-lined edits and provide any additional feedback to staff for incorporation into final hearing documents over the next two weeks. Attachments 1.HCD comment letter and staff responses 2.Revised draft Housing Element City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™187 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov December 7, 2022 Nell Selander, Director Economic and Community Development Department City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Nell Selander: RE: City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of South San Francisco’s (City) draft housing element received for review on September 9, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on December 5, 2022 with Tony Rozzi, Stephanie Skangos, Danielle Thoe, and consultant Sabina Mora. In addition, HCD considered comments from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance; David Kellogg, Campaign for Fair Housing Elements' and YIMBY Law; Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County; and Kevin Burke pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) (1) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed. 188 Nell Selander, Director Page 2 Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html HCD appreciates the commitment and cooperation of the housing element update team during the update and our review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Molivann Phlong, of our staff, at Molivann.Phlong@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Paul McDougall Senior Program Manager Enclosure 189 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 December 7, 2022 APPENDIX CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A.Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, §65588 (a) and (b).) As part of the review of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female- headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). B.Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1.Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Integration and Segregation: The element reports some data regarding segregation and integration of race, disability, familial status, and income but should specifically evaluate patterns of households by income, including comparing areas geographically throughout the City, coincidences with other components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., disparities in access to opportunity and disproportionate housing need) and incorporating local data and knowledge and other relevant factors. Disparities in Access to Opportunity: The element should describe availability and access to transportation mobility geographically within the City and impacts on the various components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., race, disability, income, overpayment). Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: The element includes some general information on persons experiencing homelessness and housing conditions but should also evaluate those needs, impacts and patterns within the City, such as areas of higher need. For homelessness, the element should examine disproportionate Updated language added on P. 22. Red-lined Appendix 2.1 evaluates program effectiveness for special needs populations Redlined analysis beginning on P. 136 as well as Maps 1-17 Attachment Redlined edits and map on P. 138-40 190 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 December 7, 2022 impacts on protected characteristics (e.g., race, disability) and patterns of need, including access to transportation and services. For housing conditions, the element should discuss any areas of potentially higher needs of rehabilitation and replacement. The element may utilize local data and knowledge such as service providers and code enforcement officials to assist this analysis. Contributing Factors: The element identifies many contributing factors to fair housing issues but must prioritize these factors to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). 2.Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).) Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).) Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): The element must quantify the number of existing ELI households by tenure and analyze their housing needs, including overpayment, overcrowding and other characteristics, resources and strategies and the magnitude of housing needs. Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter and owner). Housing Costs: While the element includes estimated rents for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data. The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge) to better reflect market conditions. Housing Stock Condition: While the element briefly mentions substandard housing based on ACS data, it should estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations. Special-Needs Populations: While the element identifies the number of persons experiencing homelessness Countywide, it should include an estimate and analysis of persons experiencing homelessness within the City utilizing the most recent Point in Time count. Redlined edits for Homelessness on P. 48 and 153 and for Housing Conditions P. 46 and 136 Redlined edits on P. 164 Redlined edits on P. 48 Redlined edits on P. 37 Redlined edits on P. 45 Redlined edits on P. 46-47 Redlined edits on P. 153 191 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 December 7, 2022 3.An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Progress toward the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): As you know, the City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022, however, the element must demonstrate the affordability of units in the planning period based on actual sales price, rent level, or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). This analysis should specifically address listed pipeline projects (Table 5-2) that are “under review”. The element must also discuss availability or likelihood the units will be built in the planning period and should account for any barriers to development, phasing, anticipated build out horizons, market conditions and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period. Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions for the realistic residential capacity on identified sites in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. The element must clarify whether the number of units estimated for each site is adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level. For example, the element could list recent and pending developments by zone, allowable densities, number of units and built density. In addition, the element must account for the likelihood of residential development in zones that allow for 100 percent nonresidential development. For example, the element could discuss which zones allow 100 percent nonresidential development, evaluate all (residential and nonresidential) recent trends in the zones, discuss how often these developments include a residential component and account for that likelihood in the calculation of residential capacity. Lastly, the element heavily relies on sites where specific plans are not complete. The element must describe the timing of when the specific plans will be completed and clarify whether appropriate zoning is in place prior to implementing the specific plans. Small Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is suitable and appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).) The element lists small sites but must also evaluate whether the sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income households and add or modify programs as appropriate. For example, the element could list past consolidations by the number of parcels, number of owners, zone, number of units, affordability and circumstances leading to consolidation and relate those trends to the identified sites or could explain the potential for consolidation on a site-by-site basis. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element describes in general the existing use of each nonvacant site for example Red-lined edits throughout Chapter 5 and beginning on P. 75 Red-lined edits beginning on P. 77 Red-lined edits beginning on P. 78 192 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 December 7, 2022 “commercial” or “industrial”. This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period. In addition, the element needs to also analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. For example, the element includes sites identified as warehouse, parking lot, civic, residential, and religious, but no analysis was provided to demonstrate whether these existing uses would impede development of these sites within the planning period. The element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified. The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors. Replacement Housing Requirements: Absent a replacement housing program, sites with existing residential uses are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. If utilizing sites with existing residential uses, the element must include a program or remove the sites. The replacement housing program must have the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites: Nonvacant sites identified in the prior planning period or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless the site is available at appropriate densities and the element includes a program to make sites available by right in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) The element should denote any sites identified in prior planning periods and add or modify programs, if necessary. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element projects 336 ADUs over the planning period or approximately 47 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning period. These trends are inconsistent with HCD records (3 reported in 2018, 4 in 2019, 47 in 2020, and 41 in 2021) and do not support an assumption of 47 ADUs per year. To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if number and affordability assumptions are not met. Availability of Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply capacity, including the availability and access to distribution facilities to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period. Red-lined edits beginning on P. 78 Comment noted. No carryover nonvacant or vacant sites from RHNA Cycle 5 are included in Cycle 6. Red-lined edits beginning on P. 79 Red-lined edits beginning on P. 80 193 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 December 7, 2022 For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The element should demonstrate compliance with these requirements and add or modify programs, if necessary. Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City, it must describe any other known environmental constraints or conditions within the City that could preclude development on identified sites in the planning period (e.g., airport compatibility and related land use controls, shape, contamination, easements, overlays). Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: •Emergency Shelters: The element should list and evaluate the development standards of the MI zone that allows emergency shelters and clarify whether emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary action. The element should provide an analysis of proximity to transportation and services for these sites, hazardous conditions, and any conditions in appropriate for human habitability. In addition, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement. •Supportive Housing: Supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) The element must describe and analyze the City’s supportive housing standards and codes and demonstrate consistency with Section 65583(c)(3) or add or revise programs to comply with the statutory requirements. •Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Low Barrier Navigation Centers shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate. •By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by- right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate. Red-lined edits beginning on P. 80 Updated electronic sites inventory to be submitted with adopted HE Red-lined edits to address each item below beginning on P. 108 194 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 December 7, 2022 •Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The element must describe where SROs are allowed and how (development standards and permit procedures) or add a program as appropriate. •Manufactured Housing: The element must clarify whether manufactured homes on -a permanent foundation are treated similar to single-family uses pursuant to Government Code section 65852.3 or add a program if necessary. 4.An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types in all zones that allow residential uses. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, feasibility, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints. The analysis must specifically describe and analyze SB 330 requirements, maximum lot coverage in the RH-50 zone, height limits in the RM-22, DRM, and T3 zones, maximum floor area ratios in the ETC zone without utilizing a community benefit, the FAA height constraint in the T6 zone, and whether there are minimum unit sizes. In addition, the element should specify the notes in Table 4-2 development standards. Lastly, the element must describe and analyze parking requirements in all zones that allow residential uses. Red-lined edits starting on P. 49 - P. 59 Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. While the element lists total fees and the percentage of development cost, it must list and analyze planning fees including, but not limited to, conditional use permits (CUP), zone changes, general plan amendments, variances, site plans, specific plans, affordable housing in lieu fee, lot line adjustment, and other environmental fees. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element should include programs to address identified constraints. Red-lined edits starting on P. 59 - P. 62 Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development, including any design review. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. For example, the element should identify and analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty, the presence of processes or guidelines to promote certainty and add or modify programs as appropriate. Finally, the element should discuss compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and timing requirements, including streamlining determinations and add or modify programs as appropriate. Red-lined edits starting on P. 66 195 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 December 7, 2022 Streamlining Provisions: The element should clarify whether the City has procedures consistent with streamlining procedures pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 and include programs as appropriate. Zoning Fees and Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards, fees, and inclusionary requirements for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1). On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe and analyze the degree and type of code enforcement for impacts on housing supply and affordability. Local Ordinances: While the element analyzes the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, it must describe and analyze whether the City has a short-term rental ordinance or other ordinances and requirements that impact housing development. Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element briefly describes its reasonable accommodation procedures. However, the element should also describe the process and decision-making criteria such as approval findings and analyze any potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, the element must describe and analyze how group homes for six or fewer and seven or more are allowed within the City and add programs as appropriate. For your information, zoning should simply implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, population types and licenses. These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones, most notably low-density zones, which can constrain the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities. Requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses. 5.Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. While the element includes a list of at-risk properties within the next ten years, the table shows Magnolia Plaza Apartments at-risk of expiring in 2017 with a “low” risk level. The element must address whether this property was maintained as affordable and analyze the risk of affordability expiration. In addition, the element must include an analysis of preservation versus replacement costs, a list of qualified entities with capacity to preserve at-risk properties and identify funding sources to maintain affordability. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).). Red-lined edits starting on P. 31 and reference to preservation Program EQ-8.1 Red-lined edits starting on P. 64 - P. 65 Red-lined edits starting on P. 54 - P. 60 New sub section starting on P. 62 Red-lined edits starting on P. 62 Red-lined edits starting on P. 63 and reviews ADU and STVR regulations Red-lined edits starting on P. 69 and include a new program recommendation 196 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8 December 7, 2022 C.Housing Programs 1.Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, §65583, subd. (c).) To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs must have specific commitment to housing outcomes and discrete timing (e.g., at least annually or by January 2024). Examples of programs to be revised include: •Program EQ-2.1 (Legal Counsel and Advocacy Assistance): The program should include proactive outreach regarding available services. •Program EQ-3.1 (Provide Renter Education and Assistance): The program should include proactive outreach to tenants. •Program EQ-3.2 (Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider Anti-displacement): The program should commit to a specific action or outcome to implement the program. •Program EQ-4.1 (Provide Resident Housing Rights Education): The program should include proactive outreach for the identified trainings. •Program EQ-6.1 (Increase Affordable Units): The program must include specific actions on how the City will increase units as well as proactive outreach. •Program EQ-6.2 (Incentivize Development): The program should specify whether incentives are in place or include timing for implementing the incentives. •Programs EQ-7.2 (Fund Home Repair for Low Income Residents), CRT-10.1 (Maintain and Update Preapproved ADUs), CRT-10.2 (Continue ADU Construction Management Program), CRT-11.1 (Connect Residents to Mortgage Assistance), PRSV-1.1 (Minor Home Repair), PRSV-1.3 (Provide Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation), PRSV-5.1 (Monitor At-Risk Units), PRSV-7.3 (Expand Maintenance and Abatement Assistance Programs): The programs should include proactive outreach. •Program EQ-8.2 (Provide Fair Housing Training): The program should be revised and commit to AFFH training for landlords regardless of implementing the rental registry. •Program CRT-4.1 (Site Acquisition for Affordable Housing): The program should describe how often the site acquisition will occur, what potential incentives will be offered, and include proactive outreach to developers. •Program CRT-4.3 (Allow Waivers or Deferrals of Fees for Affordable Housing Development): This program should describe the criteria for waivers and whether the process will be discretionary. •Programs CRT-9.2 (Preserve Naturally-Occurring Affordable Housing), CRT-12.1 (Encourage Resident Controlled Limited-Equity Housing), SNP-5.4 (Reduce or Red-lined edits completed as suggested below. 197 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9 December 7, 2022 Abolish Parking Requirements for Developmentally Disabled Populations), SNP- 5.5 (Create ADU Rent Restriction Incentives): The programs must be revised to include specific timing for implementation. •Program CST-4.1 (Implement Adopted Objective Design Standards): The program must include actions and timing to implement the objective standards. •Program SNP-1.3 (Facilitate Multigenerational Housing), and SNP-2.1 (Facilitate Housing for All Needs): The programs should be revised to include specific timing of implementation beyond “consider” and “encourage” housing. •Program SNP-3.2 (Promote Disabled Housing Resources and Programs): The program must include timing and annual revisions. •Program SNP-9.1 (Continue to Promote Home Sharing): The program should include proactive outreach as well as how often it will be publicized. •Many programs identified under the climate section currently state “at some time during the planning period”. The programs should include specific timing for implementation. 2.Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows: Program CRT-7.1 (Coordinate with SSFUSD Regarding Housing on Closed School Sites) and CRT-7.2 (Allow Housing on Sites with Institutional Uses): The programs should clarify whether the school sites and institutional sites are also identified in the sites inventory. If the sites are needed to meet the RHNA, additional information on timing and likelihood of availability must be included. Program CRT-8.2 (Adopt Updated Zoning Ordinance as Companion to General Plan): The program must clarify whether the updated zoning ordinance that the City is relying on to meet the RHNA has been completed by the start of the planning period (January 31, 2023). For your information, if these sites are not rezoned prior to the beginning of the planning period and if rezoning is necessary to accommodate a shortfall of adequate sites in the planning period, sites must permit housing by-right pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c)(1) and 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). Red-lined edits indicated no SSFUSD sites included in RHNA Red-lined edits indicate updated zoning completed in November 2022 198 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10 December 7, 2022 Program CRT-9.1 (Create Affordable Housing Overlay Zone): The program should describe concrete actions and include specific timing for implementation. Program CST-3.1 (Ensure Zoning Consistency): After a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should revise this program to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law as well as include specific timing for implementation. 3.Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows: Program CRT-4.5 (Implement State Density Bonus Law): The program must commit to reviewing and amending the City’s current density bonus ordinance for compliance with current state law and monitor compliance and update as necessary. (Gov. Code, § 65915.) Program SNP-5.2 (Codify Flexibility into the Inclusionary Ordinance): The program should be revised to include specific implementation by removing “consider”. Program SNP-8.2 (Implement Permanent Supportive Housing): The program should clarify whether the actions are to implement AB 2162, by-right permanent supportive housing requirements as well as include specific timing for implementation. Program CST-1.1 (Expedite Permit Review): The program must clarify how the City will expedite reviews by including specific implementation actions with timing. Program CST-3.2 (Reduce Parking Requirements): The program must clarify what parking standards will be revised. 4.Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete City awaits separate letter indicating non-compliance as all current zoning has been reviewed and approved by HCD to date. No new programs added. 199 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11 December 7, 2022 analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or numeric objectives and, as appropriate, must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. In addition, Table 6-13 (pp. 132-135) list a fair housing action plan recommendations to address fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. This list of actions and timing should be integrated into the programs to incorporate measurable or numerical objectives to affirmatively further fair housing. Table 6-13 is directly implemented as the Equity Programs beginning on P. 142 D.Quantified Objectives Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).) The element must include quantified objectives to establish an estimate of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. While the element includes these objectives for units that can be constructed, it must also include an estimate of housing units that can be rehabilitated and conserved over the planning period. Estimates updated in Table 7-2 on P. 179 E.Consistency with General Plan The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) While the element discusses how internal consistency will be achieved with other elements of the general plan as part of the housing element update, it should also discuss how internal consistency will be maintained throughout the planning period. Updated language added on P. 3 200 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 January 2023 Public Draft with HCD Comment Letter Revisions Dated December 7, 2022 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Planning Division 201 202 203 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – Introduction to Our City ................................................................................... 1 Role and Content of Housing Element ................................................................................................................. 2 Relationship with the General Plan – ShapeSSF .................................................................................................. 2 Related City Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................................... 4 Public Participation and Engagement ..................................................................................................................... 5 Organization of Housing Element ........................................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 2 – Review of Previous Housing Element ............................................................ 19 We Achieved a Lot .................................................................................................................................................. 19 We Have Persistent Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 20 We Have Opportunities Ahead ............................................................................................................................ 21 Housing Element Changes for Cycle 6 ............................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 3 – Housing Needs in Our City ............................................................................. 26 Key Facts: Population Growth and Demographics .......................................................................................... 26 Key Facts: Income, Tenure and Poverty ............................................................................................................. 27 Key Facts: Housing Units and Occupancy .......................................................................................................... 29 Key Facts: Assisted Housing At-Risk of Conversion ....................................................................................... 30 Key Facts: Workforce, Employment and Industry ........................................................................................... 32 Key Facts: Housing Affordability for Renters and Owners ............................................................................ 34 Key Facts: Common Housing Problems ............................................................................................................. 36 Key Facts: Special Housing Needs........................................................................................................................ 38 Key Facts: Planning for People with Disabilities................................................................................................ 41 Key Facts: Equity, Displacement, COVID-19, and Climate Change ............................................................ 45 Projected Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ................................................................................ 47 Chapter 4 – Housing Constraints in Our City .................................................................... 50 Governmental Constraints .................................................................................................................................... 50 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ................................................................................................................. 69 Non-Governmental Constraints .......................................................................................................................... 73 Chapter 5 – Housing Resources in Our City....................................................................... 76 Available Sites for Housing Overview – Pipeline Project Analysis ............................................................... 76 Lindenville Opportunity Corridor ....................................................................................................................... 88 South Airport Boulevard Opportunity Corridor ............................................................................................. 95 El Camino Real – North Opportunity Corridor ............................................................................................ 101 El Camino Real – South Opportunity Corridor ............................................................................................. 105 Financial Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 114 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 116 204 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Chapter 6 – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Our City .................................... 118 South San Francisco’s Fair Housing Assessment Primary Findings ............................................................ 119 Concentrations of Fair Housing Factors .......................................................................................................... 128 Fair Housing Factors for Disproportionate Housing Need......................................................................... 131 Site Inventory AFFH Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 134 Resident Needs Local Survey ............................................................................................................................. 152 Contributing Factors ............................................................................................................................................. 156 Fair Housing Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 159 Chapter 7 – Housing Plan – Goals and Policies ................................................................ 164 Equity to Implement the Fair Housing Action Plan ....................................................................................... 165 Creation and Facilitation to Promote New Housing Development.......................................................... 173 Remove Constraints to Housing Development ............................................................................................. 182 Preserve Existing Housing and Neighborhoods ............................................................................................. 185 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life ................................................................................................................ 188 Support Special Needs Populations ................................................................................................................... 191 Build Climate Resiliency ....................................................................................................................................... 199 Quantified Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 202 Chapter 8 – Appendices ...................................................................................................... 204 Appendix 1.1 Summary of Stakeholder Listening Sessions Appendix 1.2 Comment Letters Appendix 1.3 Summary of Response to Comments Appendix 1.4 HCD Review Comment Letter, dated December 7, 2022 – Redlined City Response Appendix 2.1 Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Appendix 3.1 ABAG Housing Needs Report Appendix 4.1 Zoning Ordinance Form-Based Districts Appendix 4.2 Century Urban Evaluation of Land and Development Costs Appendix 6.1 South San Francisco Fair Housing Assessment Appendix 6.2 South San Francisco AFFH Map and Data Packet Appendix 6.3 South San Francisco AFFH Segregation Report (UC Merced) Appendix 6.4 AFFH Resident Survey Analysis Appendix 6.5 Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities Appendix 6.6 State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations 205 TABLE OF CONTENTS South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 iii List of Figures1 Figure 1-1 Housing Now vs. Housing in 2030 Community Feedback ...................................................... 6 Figure 4-1 Zoning Map ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 5-1 Opportunity Corridors .................................................................................................................. 87 Figure 5-2 Lindenville Key Opportunity Sites ............................................................................................... 89 Figure 5-3 Lindenville Corridor Map of Housing Opportunity Sites ....................................................... 90 Figure 5-4 Priority Development and Transit Priority Areas Adjacent to Lindenville ........................ 90 Figure 5-5 South Airport Boulevard Key Opportunity Sites ..................................................................... 96 Figure 5-6 South Airport Boulevard Corridor Map of Housing Opportunity Sites ............................ 97 Figure 5-7 Transit Priority Areas and Environmental Constraints Adjacent to S. Airport ................ 98 Figure 5-8 El Camino Real – North Key Opportunity Sites .................................................................... 102 Figure 5-9 El Camino Real – North Corridor Map of Housing Opportunity Sites ........................... 103 Figure 5-10 Priority Development and Transit Priority Areas Adjacent to ECR – North ................ 103 Figure 5-11 El Camino Real – South Key Opportunity Sites ..................................................................... 105 Figure 5-12 El Camino Real – South Corridor Map of Housing Opportunity Sites ............................ 106 Figure 5-13 Priority Development and Transit Priority Areas Adjacent to ECR – South ................. 107 1 Figures are numbered according to the section of the text in which they appear. 206 TABLE OF CONTENTS iv List of Tables2 Table 1-1 General Plan Update Growth Projections ................................................................... 4 Table 1-2 General Plan Community Engagement Summary ................................................... 10 Table 3-1 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ......................................................................... 30 Table 3-2 Assisted Affordable Units ........................................................................................... 31 Table 3-3 South San Francisco and San Mateo County Population with Developmental Disabilities ......................................................................................... 41 Table 3-4 Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities in South San Francisco Compared to San Mateo County ............................................ 42 Table 3-5 Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in San Mateo County ............ 43 Table 3-6 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) .......................................................... 49 Table 4-1 Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2022 ........................... 51 Table 4-2 Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts ......................................... 55 Table 4-3 Development Standards – Downtown Residential Zoning Districts .................... 57 Table 4-4 Development Standards – Downtown Station Area Zoning Districts .................. 58 Table 4-5 Development Standards – Form Based Zoning Districts ........................................ 59 Table 4-5 Total Fees (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees) per Unit ................................................................................................................................. 61 Table 4-6 Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs ......................................... 62 Table 4-7 Permit Processing Times (In Months) ........................................................................ 68 Table 5-1 Total RHNA Summary ................................................................................................ 76 Table 5-2 Pipeline Projects ............................................................................................................ 83 Table 5-3 City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements .............................................................. 86 Table 5-4 Opportunity Sites Development Capacity Under Adopted Zoning ..................... 86 Table 5-5 Lindenville Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites .................................................... 91 Table 5-6 South Airport Boulevard Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites ............................ 99 Table 5-7 El Camino Real – North Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites ............................ 104 Table 5-8 El Camino Real – South Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites ............................ 108 Table 6-1 Local Policies to Encourage Housing ....................................................................... 121 Table 6-2 Local Policies to Mitigate Displacement .................................................................. 121 Table 6-3 Local Policies Not in Place to Address Housing Stabilization ............................. 122 Table 6-4 Local Policies for Further Study ............................................................................... 122 Table 6-5 Isolation and Dissimilarity Indices: Income ............................................................ 123 Table 6-6 Isolation and Dissimilarity: Races and Ethnicity .................................................... 123 Table 6-7 Income Distribution of Opportunity Sites ............................................................... 135 Table 6-8 El Camino Real North Census Block Group Demographic Data and Site Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 136 2 Tables are numbered according to the section of the text in which they appear. 207 TABLE OF CONTENTS South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 v Table 6-9 El Camino Real South Census Block Group Demographic Data and Site Inventory ..................................................................................................................... 137 Table 6-10 Lindenville Census Block Group Demographic Data and Site Inventory ......... 140 Table 6-11 South Airport Census Block Group Demographic Data and Site Inventory .............................................................................................................. 141 Table 6-12 Summary of Very-Low- and Low-Income Units by Corridor ............................. 151 Table 6-13 Fair Housing Action Plan Recommendations ........................................................ 161 Table 7-1 Updated Goals informed by ShapeSSF and Housing Element Update ............. 165 Table 7-2 Summary of Quantified Objectives, 2023-2031 ...................................................... 203 208 TABLE OF CONTENTS vi This page intentionally blank 209 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 1 Chapter 1 – Introduction to Our City The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents. The Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for zoning for and developing additional housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of South San Francisco. State law (Government Code Sections 65580- 65589.8) requires that every city and county in California adopt a Housing Element, subject to State approval, as part of its General Plan. Per Senate Bill (SB) 375 (Statutes of 2008), the planning period for the Housing Element is eight years. This document is an update to the Housing Element, a component of the City of South San Francisco’s recently updated General Plan (ShapeSSF). The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2015. This updated Housing Element corresponds to the planning period of January 31, 2023 to January 31, 2031, which are the periods established by State law for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions. The City itself is not necessarily responsible for building or producing this housing, but it must demonstrate that it has policies and programs in place to support housing construction for all income levels, as well as available land appropriately zoned to accommodate new housing. The Housing Element must include a variety of statistics on housing needs, constraints to development, and policies and programs to implement a variety of housing-related land use actions, and a detailed inventory of “opportunity sites” on which future housing may be built. The Housing Element is the only element of a locality’s General Plan that must be approved (“certified”) by the State, through its Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ensure it meets all statutory requirements. Having a certified Housing Element is a prerequisite for many State grants and funding programs. This is the sixth cycle of the Housing Element and covers the eight-year period from 2023 to 2031. 210 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 2 ROLE AND CONTENT OF HOUSING ELEMENT The purpose of this Housing Element is to adopt a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City of South San Francisco. The State mandates the inclusion of seven elements in all General Plans; one of these is the Housing Element. The Housing Element is South San Francisco’s primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population within the city’s boundaries. Accordingly, this Housing Element identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing needs of the city and states goals, policies, quantified objectives, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including a discussion of available financial resources. The Housing Element must also identify sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City’s allocation of the regional housing need. South San Francisco intends to implement a set of programs and projects to meet the goals, policies, and objectives included herein. AUTHORITY All California localities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections 65580-65590) to adopt Housing Elements as part of their general plans and submit draft and adopted elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review with compliance with State law. HCD is required to review Housing Elements and report its written findings within 60 days for a draft Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585(b)) and within 90 days for an adopted Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585(h)). In addition, Government Code Section 65585(c) requires HCD to consider written comments from any group, individual, or public agency regarding the Housing Element under review. STATUS This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco’s recently updated General Plan, known as ShapeSSF. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2015, and the General Plan was entirely re-written and updated by the City Council in Fall October, 2022. This updated Housing Element reflects the community visioning set forth in the updated General Plan and corresponds to the planning period of January 31, 2023 to January 31, 2031, and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projection period of the same time frame. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GENERAL PLAN – SHAPESSF STATE LAW State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” This implies that all elements 211 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 3 have equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and it must be closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element must also be consistent with area Specific Plans including those currently being developed in South San Francisco. SHAPESSF – ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Typically, Housing Element Updates are done outside of a holistic General Plan Update – in this case, however, the recent General Plan Update explored and planned for several RHNA projection periods. This Housing Element Update will implementimplements the recently adopted General Plan vision and include a combination of programs and policies from the General Plan’s guidance, community input, and the existing Housing Element for 2015-2023, and the Affimatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis conducted as part of this Housing Element Update. In its recent General Plan Update which covers the period between 2023 and 2040, South San Francisco residents laid out a vision for the future of housing: The City of South San Francisco ensures a high quality of life for all residents by providing a diverse supply of housing affordable to all income levels. The City promotes housing opti ons for households with distinct needs, including multigenerational families, empty nesters, and younger and older adults. The City of South San Francisco encourages new housing production while also preserving affordable housing and protecting vulnerable residents from housing instability and displacement. The City guides new housing into complete neighborhoods with access to retail and services, parks and open space, community services, and transit. In promoting the production of new housing, the City will make progress to achieving a better balance of jobs and housing. The contemplated land use changes, policy goals, and companion zoning for the General Plan Update inform the actions and opportunity sites of the Cycle 6 Housing Element. As this Housing Element is being developed, theThe City will have completed its effort to comprehensively update the General Plan, known as ShapeSSF in October, 2022. As part of that process, an entirely new zoning ordinance was adopted and became effective on November 26, 2022 with comprehensive rezoning to permit and streamline new housing starts. To ensure internal consistency among all General Plan elements, work on both the General Plan Update and the Housing Element Update has been drafted together. To ensure internal consistency among all General Plan elements, work on both the General Plan Update and the Housing Element Update were coordinated. Synchronized development of the General Plan Update and Housing Element Update ensures consistency with all General Plan elements and community goals. But it is important to maintain internal consistency – therefore, the General Plan (and Housing Element) will be reviewed on an annual basis with a report submitted to the state Department of Housing and Community Development each year by April 1st with an analysis of internal organization and composition. 212 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 4 The General Plan includes many local interventions and actions needed on a smaller scale to address issues and concerns unique to certain neighborhoods. While the citywide policies in the General Plan are expected to be applied throughout all South San Francisco, the General Plan augments citywide goals and policies and provides policies and implementation actions specific to South San Francisco’s unique sub-areas. The General Plan growth projections for housing, jobs and population are consistent with this Housing Element. As much of the city is already built out and vacant parcels are few, most development will occur at sites that are currently developed and will undergo intensification or redevelopment. Growth projections are shown below in Table 1-1. Most employment and residential growth is anticipated in three primary corridors – El Camino Real, Lindenville and East of Highway 101. All other sub-areas are expected to experience population growth attributable to residential infill, including gradual accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development. As part of the General Plan and Housing Element implementation, the City has also initiated a Lindenville Area Specific Plan to thoughtfully integrate housing with existing industrial and commercial uses. Table 1-1 General Plan Update Growth Projections 2018 2040 Projection % Change Population 67,400a 107,200 59% Housing Units 21,200b 39,000 84% Employment 52,600c 137,600 162% a American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2014-2019), Table DP05. b American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2014-2019), Table B25001. c U.S. Census LEHD, 2017, Strategic Economics, 2019. RELATED CITY PLANNING EFFORTS DOWNTOWN STATION AREA AND EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA SPECIFIC PLANS The City continues to implement successful specific plans near high quality transit. Staff implements the: 1) 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), which is a 20-year plan to guide development in the ½-mile radius of the city’s Downtown Caltrain Station, and 2) the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which evaluates mixed-use development adjacent to the city’s South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station. Continuing to implement both plans is a policy priority in the General Plan Update. The plans aim to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse community in the Downtown core and at the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue adjacent to the new Library and Parks and Recreation facility. The plans include strategies to enhance connectivity and improve accessibility to transit for all community members, including pedestrians and bicycles. Both plans also include objective design standards for all types of development in the planning area. 213 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 5 LINDENVILLE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN The City received a grant from MTC/ABAG to evaluate expanding the successful DSASP Priority Development Area to the south of the existing downtown area, into an industrially zoned district known as Lindenville. Because this area is rich in transit and large, lightly- developed sites, the General Plan Update identified and upzoned this area as an important corridor for creating a mix of housing, retail, light-industrial and creative uses. Adoption of the specific plan will further support the City’s success meeting RHNA for the 2023-2031 period. The planning effort was formally kicked off in May 2022 and anticipated for adoption by December 2023 in line with funding requirements. A new set of community outreach meetings and engagement opportunities is planned to begin in July 2022currently underway. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT The Housing Element is an important document that will shape the future of our community. It is important that it reflects the vision of the people who make South San Francisco unique. To accomplish this, South San Francisco developed a broad and diverse outreach plan designed to reach as many community members who live and work here as possible. The development of the Housing Element underscores the importance of effective community engagement through strategies like targeted outreach, partnering with local organizations, and connecting people to services. Community partners are essential in helping the city connect with underrepresented populations who have not participated in traditional civic processes. Stakeholders in the process of developing this Housing Plan include policymakers, tenants, property owners, low-income residents, landlords, non-profit housing developers, real estate development community, and community-based groups with clients in need of affordable housing representing those with disabilities or disproportionate housing needs, including YMCA, Legal Aid, Project Sentinel, and Faith in Action. It is more important than ever to include as many voices as possible in the Housing Element. Housing Elements at their best can provide an opportunity for everyone to add their voice to the conversation. However, many people are too often left out of the process. Renters, workers, young families, youth, people of color, immigrants, refugees, non-English speakers, and people with disabilities are often unable to participate in outreach activities when scheduled, don’t know how to get involved, or don’t trust the process. Our goal was to change that. Specifically, we: ▪ Ensured foreign language translation and interpretation was included in our meetings and materials. ▪ Designed a website that was mobile friendly, with accessibility features and in multiple languages. (Lower-income residents, young adults and people of color are more likely to use their phones.) 214 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 6 ▪ Formed an Equity Advisory Group consisting of 18 organizations across San Mateo County that provided feedback on outreach and materials, and shared information about the Housing Element Update and how to participate in the process with the communities they serve. ▪ Held meetings in partnership with community organizations [including meetings in Spanish with English interpretation]. ▪ Developed an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing survey which received 832 responses from South San Francisco residents, including 324 renters, 87 precariously housed, 149 Hispanic residents, 364 earned less than $99,999/year, 158 earned less than $49,000/year, 210 households had a household member with a disability, 248 households had an older adult (over age 65+), and 49 were single parent households. For some of the work, we partnered with other San Mateo County jurisdictions for a first-of- its-kind countywide outreach effort, through an award-winning collaboration called 21 Elements. Below is a summary of key takeaways and considerations related to growing South San Francisco’s housing stock that emerged throughout the outreach process. KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT To summarize the feedback from residents of South San Francisco and the entire San Mateo County region, the figure below illustrates feelings today versus hopes for the future of housing. Key concepts are then defined and briefly explained to illustrate the housing opportunities and challenges for this Housing Element to solve. FIGURE 1-1 HOUSING NOW VS. HOUSING IN 2030 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Housing Now Housing in 2030 Community benefits: New development must create community benefits for both residents and employees. 215 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 7 Diverse housing types: A range of housing types for different income levels and household types must be produced to balance job and housing growth and distribute the potential impacts of future growth in the city. Consider impacts of future growth: The City must consider the impacts of future growth, including potential displacement, on existing residents and be strategic about the amount and pace of growth. Promote Sustainability: The City must identify methods to make sure land use decisions and development promotes sustainability, such as creating complete neighborhoods and encouraging new development to incorporate energy-efficient design. Our Housing is personal: People often have differing views on housing because it is a very personal issue tied to feelings of safety, belonging and identify. Often the comments reflected people’s current housing situation. Those with safe, stable housing that they can afford were more concerned with change. Those without were more interested in bolder policies and more housing generally. Many people shared meaningful stories of being priced out of their communities or of their children not being able to live in the community where they grew up. Click here for a sample story. The price of housing is frightening: Many voiced concerns about the high cost to rent or buy a home today, either for themselves, friends, or family. It is an issue that touches a lot of lives. More housing is needed: Generally, people believe we need more housing, particularly affordable housing. However, there are diverging views on how to accomplish this, where housing should go, and what it should look like. Single-family neighborhoods are polarizing: While some people voiced their interest in upzoning single-family neighborhoods or eliminating them altogether, other homeowners want to protect them and in turn, the investment they have made. Affordable housing is a top concern: Many felt that more needed to be done to promote affordable housing. They also felt that developers should be eligible for incentives and opportunities that make them more competitive. The process is too complicated: There was significant concern that the development process was too slow and there was too much uncertainty. Better information is needed: People wanted to know how to find affordable housing in their communities and navigate the process of applying for it. Big Issues are connected: Transportation, climate change, access to living wage jobs and education opportunities are all tied to housing and quality of life. These issues are not siloed in people’s lives and there is a desire to address them in interconnected ways. 216 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 8 Equity is on our mind: People want to talk about housing inequities and, even more so, discuss how to solve them. There was interest in ways to create new opportunities for housing and asset building for all that also address past exclusions. Regional input matters but there’s more to figure out: It was valuable to build a broader sense of community and share resources at the countywide level. However, it was challenging to engage non-resident community members on jurisdiction-specific input. Diversity in participation was a challenge: Despite partnering with organizations to engage with the hardest to reach communities and providing multilingual outreach, achieving diversity in participation was challenging. In the wake of COVID-19, organizations already operating on limited resources were focused on supporting immediate needs, while the added stresses of life coupled with the digital divide added additional barriers for many. HOW WE INCORPORATED WHAT WE HEARD INTO THE PLAN The City of South San Francisco benefited from a twofold community engagement process – the General Plan Update has engaged with the community over the past 3+ years; additionally, the collaborative 21 Elements working group led a series of Housing Element specific engagements with the San Mateo County AND South San Francisco stakeholders. The conversation about RHNA, the need for zoning to create new opportunity sites for housing, and the right mix of housing programs and policies occurred throughout the General Plan Update process. Therefore, this Housing Element Update is a direct implementation of the community-based input and vision for South San Francisco’s housing. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ENGAGEMENT VIA THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE South San Francisco set out to collect as much feedback as possible from the community, from their general concerns and ideas to where new housing could go. It was also important to consider community outreach best practices and consult and partner with organizations working in the community, to ensure we were reaching as many people as possible and doing so thoughtfully. As mentioned above, there has been much engagement on housing location, policy, equity, and affordability for the last three years as the City updated the General Plan. Community meetings, informational pop-ups events, surveys and interactive workshops were core tools, particularly as the COVID-19 global pandemic minimized in-person engagement for over two years. A summary of community engagement hosted meetings is listed below in Table 1-2. WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA As a starting point for accomplishing extensive outreach, South San Francisco developed a clear online presence with all the information needed to understand the update process and know how to participate. ▪ South San Francisco Website/Webpage and Social Media (www.ssf.net/planning) ▪ General Plan Update – ShapeSSF (www.ShapeSSF.com) 217 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 9 ▪ Let’s Talk Housing Website South San Francisco Webpage (www.letstalkhousing.org/ south-san-francisco) To reach a broader audience and supplement the South San Francisco webpage, we launched the Let’s Talk Housing website with 21 Elements in March 2021. Our goal was to clearly explain what a housing element is, why it matters, and how to get involved. It was made available in Arabic, Chinese, English, Spanish and Tagalog, designed to be responsive on all types of devices and included accessibility features. As part of this effort, we also developed a South San Francisco webpage with our timeline, engagement activities [like surveys and mapping exercises], and resources that also linked to our South San Francisco website. As of January 2022, the website has been viewed more than 17,000 times, with more than 20% occurring from mobile devices. Let’s Talk Housing Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube accounts were also created and maintained to keep people informed about upcoming or past event. 218 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 10 Table 1-2 General Plan Community Engagement Summary Existing Conditions Report Community Visioning Land Use Alternatives Programs and Policies Draft Plan Release Up- coming Total Multilingual Meetings 37 Community Workshop 1 2 7 2 1 13 Sub-Area Meetings 9 4 3 3 19 Pop-ups 4 1 5 Spanish Language Meetings 5 Padres en Accion 1 1 Workshop 1 1 Sub-Area Meetings 1 1 1 3 Boards/Commission Meetings 43 Joint PC/CC 1 1 3 5 City Council 1 1 1 1 4 Planning Commission 2 1 1 4 Youth Advisory Commission 1 1 2 General Plan Community Advisory Committee (GP CAC) 5 2 5 8 3 23 GP CAC Forum 3 1 4 Commission on Racial and Social Equity 1 1 Other Outreach 54 Online Surveys 2 6 10 2 20 Videos 2 6 8 Story Bank 1 1 Stakeholder meetings 24 1 25 After completing a series of introductory Meetings to the Housing Element Update (see below), we supported 21 Elements in developing shorter 4-minute snippets to ensure information was more accessible and less onerous than watching an hour-long meeting. Two videos were produced–What is a Housing Element and How it Works and Countywide Trends and Why Housing Elements Matter–in Arabic, Chinese, English, Spanish, and Tagalog. They were made available on the Let’s Talk Housing YouTube channel and website and shared on social media 219 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 11 21 ELEMENTS COMMUNITY MEETINGS We also participated in several meetings and webinars in partnership with 21 Elements, including: Virtual countywide meeting – South San Francisco helped develop and facilitate a 90-minute virtual countywide meeting about the Housing Element update. Held on April 8, 2021, the meeting provided community members with an introduction to the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort, and countywide trends. South San Francisco staff then facilitated a breakout room discussion with community members on housing needs, concerns, and opportunities, and answered any questions. A poll was given during the meeting, to identify who was joining us and more importantly who was missing from the conversation, including if they rent or own, who they live with, their age, and ethnicity. Time for questions was allotted throughout, and meeting surveys were provided to all participants after the meeting along with all discussed resources and links. Six introductory meetings were held across the county between March and May 2021, and 1,024 registered for the series. Of those who registered, the majority identified as White (66%) or Asian (15%) and were 50 years or older; nearly half were 50 to 69 years old and almost a fifth were over 70. Almost half had lived over 21 years in their homes and three -fourths owned their homes. Breakout Session: South San Francisco had modest attendance with approximately six public participants. Much of the conversation centered on what to do in single-family home neighborhoods. Participants reported that in past, they did not always feel comfortable speaking honestly. Generally, there was a split between those who wanted to protect those neighborhoods and those who saw development opportunities. In any case, everyone agreed that they wanted to ensure any rezoning in single-family neighborhoods maximize affordable and ownership opportunities. There was also a desire to ensure transit connections to these neighborhoods. Post Event Survey: The participants rated the meeting with an average of 3.7 out of 5. They valued the balance between expertise and accessible language, as well as the positive attitude of those who presented. Several expressed interest in a broader dialogue between cities, or with participants from other cities, in order to gain other perspectives and share concerns. Relatedly, there was interest in more discussion on racial equity and in having a better representation of the demographic and class diversity of our region. All About RHNA Webinar – An in-depth dive into sites methodology with 264 registered participants. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White (66%) or Asian (15%), and were 50 years or older; nearly half were 50 to 69 years old and almost a fifth were over 70. Almost half had lived over 21 years in their homes, and three-fourths owned their own homes. The recording of this meeting and the FAQ can be found here. Translated Event - On July 26th, San Mateo County jurisdictions joined a virtual countywide meeting about the Housing Element Update in Spanish, hosted by El Comité, a trusted 220 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 12 community organization. English interpretation was provided so non-Spanish speaking staff to participate in the conversation. In total, 57 people participated. A recording of this meeting was made available after and can be viewed here. LISTENING SESSIONS South San Francisco joined 21 Elements for a facilitated series of listening sessions held between September and November 2021 to hear from various stakeholders who operate countywide or across multiple jurisdictions. The four sessions convened more than 30 groups including fair housing organizations, housing advocates, builders/developers (affordable and market-rate), and service providers, to provide observations on housing needs and input for policy consideration. Summaries for each session can be found here or in Appendix 1.1. Key themes included: Fair Housing: Concern for the end of the eviction moratorium, the importance of transit- oriented affordable housing and anti-displacement policies, and the need for education around accessibility regulations and tenant protections. Eight stakeholder groups provided this feedback, including the following: ▪ Center for Independence www.cidsanmateo.org ▪ Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) www.clsepa.org ▪ Housing Equality Law Project www.housingequality.org ▪ Legal Aid for San Mateo County www.legalaidsmc.org ▪ Project Sentinel www.housing.org ▪ Housing Choices www.housingchoices.org ▪ Public Interest Law Project www.pilpca.org ▪ Root Policy Research www.rootpolicy.com Housing Advocates: Concern for rent increases and the need for ongoing outreach to underserved and diverse communities, workforce housing, deeply affordable and dense infill, and tenant protections for the most vulnerable. Six stakeholder groups provided this feedback, including the following: ▪ Housing Leadership Council www.hlcsmc.org ▪ Faith in Action www.faithinactionba.org ▪ Greenbelt Alliance www.greenbelt.org ▪ San Mateo County Central Labor Council www.sanmateolaborcouncil.org ▪ Peninsula for Everyone www.peninsulaforeveryone.org ▪ San Mateo County Association of Realtors www.samcar.org 221 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 13 Builders and Developers: Local funding, tax credit availability, and concern that appropriate sites limit affordable housing while sites, construction costs, and City processes limit market- rate housing. Twelve stakeholder groups provided this feedback, including the following: ▪ Affirmed Housing (Affordable) www.affirmedhousing.com ▪ BRIDGE Housing (Affordable) www.bridgehousing.com ▪ The Core Companies (Affordable, Market Rate) www.thecorecompanies.com ▪ Eden Housing (Affordable) www.edenhousing.org ▪ Greystar (Market Rate) www.greystar.com ▪ Habitat for Humanity (Affordable) www.habitatsf.org ▪ HIP Housing (Affordable) www.hiphousing.org ▪ Mercy Housing (Affordable) www.mercyhousing.org ▪ MidPen Housing (Affordable) www.midpen-housing.org ▪ Sand Hill Property Company (Affordable, Market Rate) www.shpco.com ▪ Sares | Regis (Market Rate) www.srgnc.com ▪ Summerhill Apartment Communities (Market Rate) www.shapartments.com Service Providers: More affordable housing and vouchers or subsidies for market-rate housing are needed, along with on-site services and housing near transit, and jurisdictions should work with providers and people experiencing issues before creating programs. 10 stakeholder groups provided this feedback, including the following: ▪ Abode Services www.adobeservices.org ▪ Daly City Partnership www.dcpartnership.org ▪ El Concilio www.el-concillio.com ▪ HIP Housing www.hiphousing.org ▪ LifeMoves www.lifemoves.org ▪ Mental Health Association of San Mateo County www.mhasmc.org ▪ National Alliance on Mental Illness www.namisanmateo.org ▪ Ombudsman of San Mateo County www.ossmc.org ▪ Samaritan House San Mateo www.samaritanhousesanmateo.org ▪ Youth Leadership Institute www.yil.org CREATING AN AFFORDABLE FUTURE WEBINAR SERIES South San Francisco and 21 Elements offered a 4-part countywide webinar series in the fall of 2021 to help educate community members about local housing issues. The sessions were advertised and offered in Cantonese, Mandarin and Spanish, though participation in non- English channels was limited. All meetings and materials can be found here. The following 222 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 14 topics, and how each intersects with regional housing challenges and opportunities, were explored: ▪ Why Affordability Matters: Why housing affordability matters to public health, community fabric and to county residents, families, workers and employers. ▪ Housing and Racial Equity: Why and how our communities have become segregated by race, why it is a problem and how it has become embedded in our policies and systems. ▪ Housing in a Climate of Change: What is the connection between housing policy and climate change and a walk through the Housing & Climate Readiness Toolkit. ▪ Putting it All Together for a Better Future: How design and planning for much- needed new infill housing can be an opportunity to address existing challenges in our communities. The series included speaker presentations, audience Q&A, breakout sessions for connection, and debrief discussions. Participants were eager to discuss and learn more about housing challenges in their community. They asked questions and commented in the chat and shared their thoughts in a post-event survey. Overall, comments were mostly positive and in favor of more housing, though some were focused on the need for new affordable housing. There was a lot of interest in seeing more housing built (especially housing that is affordable), concern about change or impact to schools, parking, and quality of life, and personal struggles with finding housing that is affordable and accessible shared. Some participants wanted more in-depth education and discussion of next steps, while others had more basic questions they wanted answered. In total, 754 registered for the series. Of those who shared, the majority identified as White (55%) or Asian (24%) and ranged between 30 and 70 years old. Over half have lived in the county for over 21 years and nearly two-thirds owned their homes. For more information, see the Summary here. EQUITY ADVISORY GROUP In alignment with community outreach best practices, it was important to include the guidance of and foster partnerships with community organizations to help ensure everyone’s voices were heard during the Housing Element update. In response, an Equity Advisory Group (EAG) was formed consisting of 15 organizations or leaders across the county that are advancing equity and affordable housing. A stipend of $1,500 was originally provided for meeting four to five times over 12 months to advise on Housing Element outreach and helping get the word out to the communities they work with. After meeting twice in 2021, it was decided the best use of the EAG moving forward would be to provide more focused support in 2022 based on jurisdiction need and organization expertise. To date, EAG members have facilitated and hosted community meetings in partnership with 21 Elements, collected community housing stories to put a face to housing needs, advised on messaging, and amplified events and activities to their communities. The 223 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 15 EAG continue to work collaboratively with jurisdictions and deepen partnerships, as well as connect community members to the Housing Element Update process. All participating organizations are featured on the Let’s Talk Housing website and include the following: ▪ Ayudando Lations A Soñar (ALAS) www.alashmb.org ▪ Community Legal Services www.clsepa.org ▪ El Comite de Vecinos del Lado Oeste (El Comite) www.tenantstogether.org/resources/el-comité-de-vecinos-del-lado-oeste-east-palo- alto ▪ EPACANDO www.epacando.org ▪ Faith in Action www.faithinaction.org/federation/faith-in-action-bay-area/ ▪ Housing Choices www.housingchoices.org ▪ Housing Leadership Council www.hlcsmc.org ▪ Menlo Together www.menlotogether.org ▪ Nuestra Casa www.nuestracasa.org ▪ One San Mateo www.onesanmateo.org ▪ Peninsula for Everyone www.peninsulaforeveryone.org ▪ Puente de la Costa Sur www.mypuente.org ▪ San Mateo County Health www.gethealthysmc.org ▪ Youth Leadership Institute www.yli.org/region/san-mateo ▪ Youth United for Community Action www.youthunited.net Additionally, the EAG submitted a list of recommendations to all Cities, including South San Francisco, that has been considered and implemented as applicable into the Housing Programs in Chapter 7. PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT The draft Housing Element was released for public comments on July 5, 2022. Additionally, the document is posted online at www.ShapeSSF.com and provided to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission for review and recommendation regarding compatibility with the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan that regulates the location and height of housing projects adjacent to the SFO airport. On Thursday, August 25, 2022, the San Mateo City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) voted to approve the draft Housing Element. Additionally, each comment letter received up-to-date of submission of the draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development is included in the Appendix 1.2 and listed below for reference. These comment letters were incorporated into the Housing Element, as applicable. ▪ Housing Choices Comments for Developmental Disabilities, dated February 8, 2022 224 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 16 ▪ YIMBY Law, dated February 28, 2022 ▪ YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, dated April 21, 2022 ▪ Equity Advisory Group Policy Recommendations, dated June 10, 2022 ▪ Build Up San Mateo County, dated July 5, 2022 ▪ Housing Leadership Council, dated July 29, 2021 ▪ San Mateo County Anti-Displacement Coalition, dated August 8, 2022 ▪ Valley Oak Partners, dated August 9, 2022 ▪ Campaign for Fair Housing Elements / YIMBY Law, dated August 5, 2022 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSIONSACTION Both the Planning Commission and City Council considered the Housing Element’s adoption of the General Plan vision into specific opportunity corridors with companion programs and policies to ensure equitable access. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session on August 9, 2022, for community input on the draft Housing Element. Additional public meetings were scheduled after receiving the initial HCD Review comment letter dated December 7, 2022. These include: ▪ City Council Study Session on January 11, 2023 to review draft Housing Element edits ▪ Planning Commission Hearing to consider Adoption on January 19, 2023 ▪ City Council Hearing to consider Adoption of the Draft Housing Element as Substantially Compliant are anticipated after initial HCD review comments are received. All current comments received are included in Appendix 1.3 as a summary with associated changes to the draft Housing Element listed. The HCD Review comment letter dated December 7, 2022 is included as Appendix 1.4 with redlined comments indicated location of response in the revised Draft Housing Element. ORGANIZATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components: ▪ Chapter 2. Review of Previous Housing Element. A review of the prior Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production over the previous Housing Element planning period and an evaluation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations. ▪ Chapter 3. Housing Needs in Our City. An analysis of the city’s current and future housing needs. ▪ Chapter 4. Housing Constraints in Our City. An analysis of governmental and non- governmental constraints to housing production. 225 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 17 ▪ Chapter 5. Housing Resources in Our City. An inventory and analysis of housing resources to meet RHNA. ▪ Chapter 6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Our City. An Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis of the Opportunity Site Corridors. ▪ Chapter 7. Housing Plan – Goals and Policies. A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to address the city’s housing needs and equity goals. 226 1 | INTRODUCTION TO OUR CITY 18 This page intentionally blank 227 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 19 Chapter 2 – Review of Previous Housing Element The update of our housing element provides an opportunity to reflect on past achievements and challenges, identifying what is working and what is getting in the way in meeting South San Francisco’s housing needs. The following summary highlights key accomplishments and challenges from the previous housing element’s planning period (2015 to 2022). This information will help ensure that the updated element builds on success, responds to lessons learned, and positions us to better achieve our community’s housing priorities. As a response to HCD’s Review comment letter dated December 7, 2023, a section has also been added to evaluate the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations WE ACHIEVED A LOT There is a lot to be proud of as we reflect on implementation of the South San Francisco housing element over the past eight years: We built new senior housing and new affordable housing. By providing City-owned land (former redevelopment sites) at no cost, the developers of these projects were able to stitch together the financing to deliver 100% affordable housing, including an 81-unit senior housing project at 310 Miller Avenue; and two affordable housing projects totaling 84 units, located at 418 Linden Avenue and 201-219 Grand Avenue that are under construction. ADUs have ramped up. Accessory dwelling units, or ADUs (often referred to as second units or in-law units) have become increasingly popular after the City adopted a new ADU ordinance in response to changes in State law and removed its previous mandatory parking replacement policy. Interested homeowners can now more easily add ADUs to their property, and many are, helping to create new rental housing in existing neighborhoods. We are developing a new ADU program to do even more. As part of the Genentech Master Plan and in collaboration with Hello Housing, we developed a new program to better promote and manage ADUs. We expect these efforts to result in 35 to 38 new ADUs units in the next couple years under the first phase of the program. The market delivered on higher cost housing. As of 2021, the City had entitled about 1,259 housing units since 2015, meeting about 68% of its total RHNA requirement. However, about 75% of permitted units have been at the above-moderate-income level, and the City has only met about 43% of its moderate income, 23% of its very-low-income, and 20% of its low-income housing requirements. Additional housing units are in the pipeline, as there are about 3,500 housing units under construction, under review, or entitled in the city. However, even if all 228 2 | REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT 20 3,500 units are built by 2023, the City may not meet its RHNA requirement if pipeline housing continues to trend in the above-moderate-income category. This is because the rents and sales prices they can get for these units make the projects economically attractive, and there has been plenty of demand. Developments in this price range have included for-sale multi-family units close to BART, some attached units and townhomes and South San Francisco’s first high-density multi-family developments. We did most of what we said we would! We identified a number of policies and actions in our 2015-2022 housing element to address equity, fair access and affordability that required issue-specific studies and analysis and adoption of new ordinances or other actions. And we got most of these done, including adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Policy, Commercial Linkage Fee, and Park Impact Fee. These are all summarized in Appendix 2.1. The funds we are now collecting from new life sciences projects will help us fund affordable housing projects in the next planning period. We put our redevelopment sites to work. We were able to utilize our redevelopment sites to create new housing, with every site now in some form of development agreement. Nearly all of the new residential development of recent years has occurred on these sites. Our DSASP and El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan made a difference. While many of the properties in these areas had zoning in place to support residential and mixed- use redevelopment, adoption of these plans—coupled with strong market demand—was a key catalyst. Adoption of objective standards in these areas helped facilitate significant new residential developments. Along the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue corridor, the City entitled its largest multi-family project with 800-units at 1051 Mission Road, and a 172-unit development across the street at 988 El Camino Real. In the Downtown area, 1,235 have been entitled or constructed under the Specific Plan zoning and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance along Airport Boulevard, Grand Avenue, Cypress Avenue and Linden Avenue. WE HAVE PERSISTENT CHALLENGES While we got a lot done, there is a lot we still need to work on. Some of the challenges that kept us from achieving all of our housing goals include: High land and construction costs make housing development difficult. Unless building housing for the upper end of the market, it is difficult if not impossible to build more affordable housing without some form of incentive, which may include increases in density and/or financial support. Additionally, the competition for scarce land favors the office/life sciences sector that is well-capitalized with high office rental rates compared with residential development. It’s still faster and easier to build offices than to build housing. While individual office buildings, specifically for the Life Sciences sector, can get approved in 3-6 months once a campus plan has been approved, residential developments can take 9-12 months to go 229 2 | REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 21 through the process, even when covered by specific plan and environmental clearance (which makes already expensive projects even more costly). In part this is because office developments tend to be well-capitalized and well-quipped with experienced consultants, while residential developments struggle to comply with design standards, concerns from neighbors, and community benefit contributions that make stretched financials more difficult. We don’t always agree on what makes for a good design. Debates about the design of individual projects can take time and even then not result in outcomes that people like. Developers would prefer to have certainty about expectations so they can deliver project designs that get approved more quickly and they can save money on doing multiple design iterations. While we took a positive step toward creating clearer rules and greater certainty with adoption of multi-family design standards in the DSASP and implemented the objective standards of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, we have more work to do. Displacement pressures require continued attention. As land values have increased and market-rate housing developments have come in, there are concerns that lower-income residents and naturally occurring affordable housing (i.e., non-subsidized housing) are being displaced. While we worked with 21 Elements to better understand this issue and develop local responses, we will need to continue to give it careful attention and propose mitigations. The General Plan Update paid particular attention to this equity and displacement issue and has informed the updated Housing Element programs and policies. Some rezoning didn’t work the way we hoped. In the DSASP area, we upzoned some properties to encourage redevelopment of existing single-family properties to higher density multi-family developments. But due to the small lot sizes, challenges of land acquisition, and other factors we didn’t see significant development or change. Larger or aggregated parcels have contributed the vast majority of new units throughout the city. Mixed Use Zoning only works if Residential is required. The competition for land between residential developers and the office/life sciences sector will favor the strongest market. In this case, office/life science developers can pay much higher land costs and still turn tidy profit relative to market and affordable rate housing producers. Zoning that allows both but does not require housing have only developed with office/life sciences buildings. Areas adjacent to the airport remain challenging. Due to land use and height restrictions under the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, parts of the city adjacent to mass transit are prohibited from constructing new housing. Market dynamics are shifting attitudes and creating new realities, however. And local override procedures may unlock critical opportunity sites adjacent to multi modal nodes. WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD There are some things already in motion based on existing work efforts and trends and lessons learned that we are incorporating in our updated housing element: 230 2 | REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT 22 Implementing “Form Based Code” as a tool. Form Based Codes can help articulate community expectations for new development so that new proposals have a better sense of how to design their building. They help support a faster review and approval process because decisions about building size, setbacks and other factors have already been made. The General Plan Update includes new transect form-based code districts as part of the overall companion zoning that will streamline reviews and reduce uncertainty for housing developments. Creating objective design standards. The state now requires “objective standards” for review and approval of new housing. These are standards that anyone could read and know how to interpret and apply them. So instead of “design a beautiful building” (which five people might interpret in five different ways) the standards will provide clear, measurable guidance. The City has refined and adopted further objective design standards as part of the overall General Plan Update and companion zoning. Clarifying “community benefit” expectations. Establishing reasonable fee-based approaches to community benefits can help everyone understand what is expected, allowing projects to better plan their finances. Ad-hoc negotiations are difficult, time intensive, and unpredictable. We can also use fee reductions or waivers as an incentive to support the kinds of projects we would like to see more of. This approach is formalized in the recent companion zoning as part of the General Plan Update. Changing condominium subdivision limits. Our current regulations allow for subdividing properties into five or more condominiums. Lowering that threshold could create more ownership opportunities that are affordable to more people. Creating housing in new locations. With a comprehensive look at future growth of our community through the General Plan update, we can create new housing opportunities in areas such as East of Highway 101, in the transitioning Lindenville industrial area, and in the El Camino Real corridor between the South San Francisco BART Station to the north and the San Bruno BART station to the south. The City kicked off a Lindenville Specific Plan process to help guide this transition in May 2022. We are proactively preparing our opportunity sites for equitable development. Exploring the City’s ability to develop social housing. The City Council has requested the consideration of a ballot measure under Article 34 of the California Constitution to allow the City the ability to construct and operate low-income housing. This effort will be ongoing. Learning from our previous actions to support housing for special needs populations. The previous Housing Element included programs to further housing access/support for the elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness, as appropriate. A more detailed review and evaluation of each of the policies adopted under the previous Housing Element is included in Appendix 2.1. 231 2 | REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 23 HOUSING ELEMENT CHANGES FOR CYCLE 6 As presented above, the City of South San Francisco has been reasonably successful at promoting housing development consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the prior Housing Element. Among our City peers, we have led the push to build more market rate and affordable housing wherever possible by reducing review times and entitlement hurdles. Given the patterns of land use and development in the city, and the remarkable challenge of preserving land for residential housing in lieu of office development, this Housing Element continues the approach of its predecessor by promoting high-density housing development on infill sites, adjacent to transit wherever possible. In South San Francisco, these opportunity sites will be located mainly in four corridors: ▪ Lindenville Corridor as an extension of the Downtown. ▪ South Airport Boulevard Corridor to introduce housing in the E. Highway 101 area. ▪ El Camino Real – North Corridor between South San Francisco BART and Orange Avenue. ▪ El Camino Real – South Corridor between Orange Avenue and San Bruno BART. The General Plan Update process identified four primary goals to promote equitable housing and access throughout the city. These goals are shown below and inform the revised Housing Plan for this Element. ▪ Create a diverse range of housing options that create equitable opportunity for people of all ages, races/ethnicities, abilities, socio-economic status, genders, and family types to live in South San Francisco. ▪ Create high-quality residential neighborhoods. ▪ Ensure low-incomespecial needs population residents have access to safe housing and shelter throughout South San Francisco. ▪ Ensure low-incomespecial needs population households are protected from displacement. For the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, the Housing Plan has been organized to complement the City’s General Plan Update vision, outlined previously and identified via the four opportunity corridors listed. With the introduction of new programs and policies from the General Plan Update, the guiding policy framework has been simplified by consolidating and eliminating redundancies wherever possible, ultimately resulting in a more efficient and straightforward plan to encourage high-quality residential development, as well as to ensure a full range of affordable housing that is equitable and fairly located throughout the city. The proposed Goals, Policies, and Programs contained in this Housing Element Update have been modified from the prior Housing Element considering the findings discussed above, public comments received and based on the Housing Needs Assessment, Constraints Analysis, Housing Resources Inventory, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis 232 2 | REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT 24 contained within the document. The HCD Review comment letter dated December 7, 2022 specifically reminded the City to focus on linking these analyses with proposed Goals, Policies, and Programs. This is a reiteration that every proposed program is a combined result of previous Housing Element evaluation, new analysis, and public comments and suggestions from community partners. 233 2 | REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 25 This page intentionally blank 234 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 26 Chapter 3 – Housing Needs in Our City The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic conditions in South San Francisco, assess the demand for housing for households at all income levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment informs housing goals, policies and programs that address local housing needs. To understand how South San Francisco compares to the region, this assessment presents local data alongside county and state data where appropriate. This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous sources, including the United States Census, American Community Survey, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the State of California, Department of Finance. The COVID- 19 Pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in many data series, making analysis and predictions for the economy and housing markets difficult. South San Francisco has undergone much change since the end of the 20th century transitioned the city from industrial center to life sciences and research powerhouse. The continued growth of jobs has boosted South San Francisco’s economy but has contributed to the city’s jobs-housing imbalance. This has led to housing affordability and displacement issues, in addition to more commuter traffic congestion. As South San Francisco has continued to grow, the demographic characteristics of the city’s residents have continued to evolve. Understanding how the city has evolved will help shed light on the city’s most pressing housing needs and how to address them. The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet South San Francisco’s growth and housing challenges. This chapter provides demographic and housing market information to evaluate existing and future housing needs. It also describes existing housing conditions and community needs are and identifies groups with disproportionate housing needs. The assessment identifies population groups with the greatest housing need and provides direction and focus for housing goals, policies and programs in the Housing Plan (Chapter 7). Appendix 3.1 developed by the ABAG includes data on population, employment and household characteristics, housing stock characteristics and special housing needs for the City of South San Francisco. The following is a summary of key findings and implications from the report only, however, the entire analysis informs the City’s approach to this Housing Element’s goals, policies and programs to support housing access and creation, particularly for special needs populations. KEY FACTS: POPULATION GROWTH AND DEMOGRAPHICS ▪ The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the 2007-2008 Great Recession and the recent unprecedented impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. 235 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 27 ▪ South San Francisco’s population has been growing, with 12% growth in the city from 2000 to 2020 compared to 9% for the county and 15% for the Bay Area. This increase throughout the region is mostly due to natural growth (births minus deaths) and our strong economy drawing new residents to the region. Despite strong economic conditions, population growth has begun to slow partly due to rising housing costs as residents relocate to more affordable housing markets. The COVID-19 Pandemic has contributed to slower population growth in recent years. ▪ As the city has continued to grow, the racial composition has evolved since 1990, with a majority Asian Pacific Islander and Latino population in 2020. The majority of Asian Pacific Islanders reside in the Westborough sub-area, while the majority of Latinos reside in the Downtown sub-area. More than half of all South San Franciscans speak a language other than English at home. Nearly a quarter of the population speaks English less than very well. From 2000 to 2019, the fastest growing race/ethnic group in South San Francisco was Asian. South San Francisco also has a large Hispanic population which has remained stable over the same period. The White population has steadily decreased from 32% in 2000 to 20% in 2019. South San Francisco is more diverse than the Bay Area as a whole. In 2019, 41% of the population was Asian, 33% was Latinx, 20% was White and 1.8% was African American. In South San Francisco, people of color (non-white racial groups) make up 55% of seniors and 71% of youth under 18. ▪ South San Francisco’s diverse population indicates a need for providing housing resource and information in multiple languages. Programs EQ-2.1 and EQ-3.1 in the Housing Plan (Chapter 7), address this need. ▪ Since 1990, more people (families, multigenerational families, and non-families) are living together in a single household (11% increase in household size). In South San Francisco, the median age in 2000 was 35.6; by 2019, this figure had increased to 40 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and-over population has increased. These trends are mirrored in the region. Since more people are living together in a single household, there is a need for housing for larger households which is particularly expensive to build in an expensive housing market. Policies such as SNP-6.1 target a diverse mix of units to meet the needs of various household sizes. KEY FACTS: INCOME, TENURE AND POVERTY ▪ South San Francisco has a higher percentage of lower-income households than the rest of the county and region, with 48% of households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) compared to 40% of households in San Mateo County and 39% of households in the Bay Area as a whole. ▪ Almost half South San Francisco’s households are lower-income (48.6%) (earning less than 80% AMI). In South San Francisco, 39% of households earn more than 100% AMI and 15.5% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income. 236 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 28 Similar trends occur regionally. Many households fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries. Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. ▪ Currently, people of color in San Mateo County are more likely to experience poverty. The groups with the highest poverty rates in South San Francisco are American Indian/Alaska Native residents (15%) and Black/African American residents (11%). Asian/Pacific Islanders have the lowest poverty rate (4.5%). In South San Francisco fewer residents rent than own their homes: 39% versus 61%. This trend is similar in the overall region and has remained stable over the last two decades. ▪ In South San Francisco, 54% of Black households, 71% of Asian households, 63% of White households and 49% for Latinx households owned their homes. These disparities reflect differences in income and wealth stemming from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities. ▪ Low-income households that are below 80% AMI are just as likely to include renters as well as homeowners, but lower-income renters are more likely to be impacted when rents increase due to their income and the limited availability of choices in the rental housing market. ▪ In South San Francisco, 79% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 22% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners. ▪ Jurisdictions are required to provide the number of lower-income households by tenure (rental or ownership) that are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing. According to HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data pulled from the ACS for 2015-2019, the City of South San Francisco has 5,760 renter households that are considered Lower Income (earning less than 80% AMI). Of these lower income renter households, 3,720 households are cost burdened (spending more than 30% of households income on housing). The city has 5,535 owner occupied households that are considered Lower Income (earning less than 80% AMI). Of these lower income owner households, 2,615 households are cost burdened (spending more than 30% of households income on housing). ▪ Lower income, renter households are disproportionately represented in the cost burdened population. While renter households make up only 39% of total households in the city, they are 52% of cost burdened households. Lower income households make up 89% of cost burdened households in the city (both renter and owner occupied cost burdened households). South San Francisco will continue to face challenges in planning for affordable housing, especially very-low- and extremely low-income housing because of the limited supply of housing accessible to its very-low- and extremely low-income special needs populations. In 237 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 29 this Housing Element, the City has strengthened its policies and programs to more effectively promote low-, very-low- and extremely low-income housing over the planning period, including enhancing a number of strong policies and programs that are already in place and including clear timelines and quantified objectives. For example, the City will continue to use and strengthen its programs governing the use of Commercial Linkage Fee and In-Lieu Fees to fund affordable housing developments. This Housing Element creates a program to create an Affordable Housing Fund Policy to help target and prioritize funding towards projects that provide deeply affordable units for low- and extremely low-income residents. The Housing Element also sets numerical goals for achieving affordable housing milestones for very-low- and extremely low-income households. KEY FACTS: HOUSING UNITS AND OCCUPANCY ▪ South San Francisco had a total of 22,170 housing units as of 2019, which is less than 2% increase since 2010. Production has not come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region during this period. ▪ In South San Francisco, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Multi-Family Housing: Five-Plus Units. ▪ The housing stock of South San Francisco in 2020 was primarily made up of single- family detached buildings (59%), single-family attached (13%) and multi-unit buildings of five units or more (21%). ▪ Out of the 840 vacant units in South San Francisco in 2019, 26% were “for rent” and only 5% were “for sale.” ▪ In the Bay Area and the County 22% and 23% of vacant units are listed as “Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use” compared to 26% in South San Francisco. The County and region have a comparable proportion of vacant units listed as “for rent” as South San Francisco, with 24% in the Bay Area, 31% in San Mateo County and 26% in South San Francisco. This indicates that South San Francisco is providing rental units at a similar rate as the Bay Area and County. ▪ Between 2015 and 2021, 1,175 housing units were issued permits in South San Francisco. Eighty percent of permits issued in South San Francisco were for above- moderate-income housing, 11.4% were for moderate-income housing, and 8.9% were for low- or very-low-income housing. The city’s need for additional housing extends to both the rental and the for-sale market and the city has substantial need for increasing its overall supply as well as preserving existing units that are naturally affordable. “Missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and ADUs may open more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place. These units may also provide housing for special needs populations like large households and families with children which are especially constrained due to the high cost of developing larger units. 238 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 30 The City’s Housing Element has strong policies to encourage new housing development. Some examples are maintaining a vacant land inventory and acquiring sites that are vacant, underutilized, blighted, and/or nonconforming uses for the development of affordable housing, incentivize development through direct subsidies (i.e., Commercial Linkage Fee, State grants and tax credits), improve and implement the inclusionary housing program, and create affordable housing overlay zone permitting increased heights and densities for affordable housing developments to name a few. This element also encourages small-scale residential infill development in existing residential neighborhoods by going beyond State Law related to ADUs on single- and multi-family designated and zoned parcels and small subdivisions (SB 9) on single-family designated and zoned parcels. KEY FACTS: ASSISTED HOUSING AT-RISK OF CONVERSION Assisted housing units are those that offer financial aid or provide extra services for people in need of financial or basic living assistance. The data in Table 3-1 below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed- restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 614 assisted units in South San Francisco in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 12.1% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.3 Table 3-1 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion Income South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area Low 540 4,656 110,177 Moderate 0 191 3,375 High 74 359 1,854 3 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: ▪ Very-High Risk: Affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. ▪ High Risk: Affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. ▪ Moderate Risk: Affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. ▪ Low Risk: Affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. 239 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 31 Very High 0 58 1,053 Total Assisted Units in Database 614 5,264 116,459 Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the financing sources may not be included. Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database, 2020. In 1989, the California Government Code was amended to include a requirement that localities identify and develop a program in their housing elements for the preservation of assisted, affordable multi-family units. Section 65583(a)(8) requires an analysis of existing housing units that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during “the next 10 years” due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. In the context of this Housing Element update, assisted units are considered “at-risk” of conversion to market rate if the expiration date of their financing program falls before 2033 (i.e., 10 years from the beginning of the housing element planning period—2023). Table 3-2 below provides a summary of assisted affordable units in South San Francisco today. South San Francisco has 74 assisted housing units at high risk of conversion. Table 3-2 Assisted Affordable Units Affordable Units Total Units Funding Program Estimated Affordability End Year Risk Level Magnolia Plaza Apts. 630 Baden Ave 125 125 LIHTC 2017Confirmi ng Low Grand Oak Apts. 99 Oak Ave 42 43 LIHTC; HCD 2063 Low Chestnut Creek Senior Housing 65 Chestnut Ave 40 40 HUD 2043 Low Rotary Plaza 433 Aida Way 177 179 LIHTC; HUD 2068 Low Rotary Miller Ave. Senior Housing (Site A) 310 Miller Ave 80 81 LIHTC 2070 Low Greenridge 1565 El Camino Real 33 34 LIHTC 2052 Low 636 El Camino – Phase I 636 El Camino Real 61 62 LIHTC; CalHFA 2066 Low 636 El Camino – Phase II 636 El Camino Real 45 46 LIHTC; CalHFA 2066 Low Grand & Linden Family Apartments 201 Grand Ave 418 Linden Ave 82 84 LIHTC 2074 Low Fairway Apartments 77 Westborough Blvd. 74 74 HUD 2024 High The California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC) assists nonprofit and government housing agencies to create, acquire, and preserve housing affordable to lower-income 240 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 32 households. CHPC maintains a database of units throughout California that use federal funding programs to maintain their affordability. There are 614 assisted affordable units in South San Francisco in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 74 are noted to be at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion. The project listed as Magnolia Plaza Apts has just been confirmed as a recipient of San Mateo County Department of Housing funding to ensure the remaining 33 units of the 120-unit Senior Housing Project are rehabilitated and deed-restricted. A mission-driven nonprofit affordable housing developer controls all units at the site and none are at risk now. Details on the recent announcement available here: https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/news/county-awards- 54-million-housing-grants. The project listed as Fairway Apartments has regular renewals for HUD financing every five years. Local knowledge suggests that these will be renewed but the project is cumbersome due to a number of issues, including: ▪ Owner and HUD protracted negotiation over the Section 8 subsidy portion of the rent; and ▪ Threat of owner non-participation in Section 8 to increase subsidy offer from HUD. Because most of the projects were built more recently, and the deed restrictions apply for several decades, most of these developments are at-risk of conversion within the next 10 years. While the majority of the city’s units are low risk of converting to market rate, this Housing Element recognizes the important of planning for future conversions well in advance. This Housing Element includes a program to develop a Preservation Plan which will address how to preserve the city's deed restricted affordable units, particularly those like Fairway Apartments where tenant housing security is unfortunately used as a negotiation tool . Program EQ-8.1 – Create Preservation Plan addresses this need specifically. The City will also monitor annually its supply of subsidized affordable housing to know of possible conversions to market rate, including taking actions such as posting on the City website all existing state and federal notice requirements to nonprofit developers and property owners of at-risk housing. KEY FACTS: WORKFORCE, EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY ▪ South San Francisco is a jobs-rich community that attracts workers from across the region to its unique business mix of biotechnology, hospitality, and industries requiring industrially zoned land. Employment growth in South San Francisco was primarily driven by jobs in biotechnology and logistics (warehousing and distribution) businesses. Jobs at businesses engaged in non-biotechnology manufacturing declined during this period. ▪ The economy is anchored by a thriving life sciences community, which continues to grow. South San Francisco is home to the largest biotech cluster in the world, with 241 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 33 over 200 biotech companies. South San Francisco’s inventory of light industrial space is declining as the expansion of office/R&D space for biotechnology businesses drives reuse or redevelopment of existing industrial buildings throughout the East of Highway 101 campus area. ▪ As of 2018, there were approximately 57,000 jobs recorded in South San Francisco distributed across five major land uses. The city’s economic diversity helps to insulate the local economy from any future downturns that affect a single industry. Jobs in South San Francisco reflect the city’s ongoing dual role as “The Industrial City” and a global hub of the biotechnology industry. About 30% of total citywide employment was in the biotechnology sector in 2018, while 28% was associated with industries requiring industrial or “production, distribution, and repair” lands. ▪ South San Francisco residents have slightly lower educational attainment than the skills requirements for workers at South San Francisco jobs overall. Rates of educational attainment have greatly increased since 1990, but Pacific Islanders and Latinos have the lowest high school graduation rates (under 75%). ▪ While resident and worker educational attainment are similar, a slightly higher share of workers at jobs in South San Francisco hold Bachelors’ degrees, advanced degrees, or have completed some college or an Associate degree than city residents. ▪ Mismatches between job occupations and skills requirements versus resident occupations and skills requirements can make it more difficult for South San Francisco’s residents to access local jobs and jobs that pay a livable wage. High housing costs regionally and locally also create challenges for South San Francisco businesses to attract and retain workers—especially lower- and middle-income workers who struggle to afford housing near jobs in South San Francisco. ▪ Jurisdictions throughout the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. As of January 2021, South San Francisco’s unemployment rate was 7%, which was slightly higher than the regional unemployment rate of 6.6% but much lower than its pandemic-related high rate of 15.3% in April 2020. South San Francisco’s pre-pandemic unemployment rate was 2.3% (January 2020). ▪ Regardless of whether you live in South San Francisco and commute or whether you work in South San Francisco, most workers earn less than $75,000 annually. Specifically, 70% of employed residents earn less than $75,000 annually and 52% of workers in South San Francisco job sites (whether they live in South San Francisco or not) earn less than $75,000 annually. ▪ South San Francisco fastest growing industries are Transportation and Utilities, Professional & Managerial Services and Construction. Conversely, Retail lost jobs with a 10% decrease from 2010 to 2018. ▪ South San Francisco has been a net importer of workers for all wage groups since 2005. If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, 242 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 34 typically also with a high job to household ratio. The jobs-household ratio in South San Francisco has increased from 2.24 in 2002, to 3.24 jobs per household in 2018 and is much higher than in San Mateo County and the Bay Area. ▪ South San Francisco is a major importer of workers at higher wage levels compared to lower wage levels. South San Francisco has a significant relative surplus of jobs relative to residents. ▪ Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users. ▪ In South San Francisco the jobs-household ratio indicates that there is demand for housing options at prices that are affordable to households where individual workers make less than $75,000 annually. This Housing Element proposes policies to help provide housing for the city’s special needs workforce, including developing a workforce housing program, facilitating live/work housing, and programs to make it easier for the city’s workforce to buy and maintain their home such as participation in a regional down payment assistance program, connecting residents to mortgage assistance resources and providing funding for a home repair program for low-income residents. The Housing Element also sets numerical goals for achieving affordable housing milestones for lower-income households that make less than $75,000 annually. KEY FACTS: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY FOR RENTERS AND OWNERS ▪ Although South San Francisco is a relatively affordable community within the San Francisco Peninsula, increasing housing costs are still creating displacement pressures for residents who may work in the city, for workers who commute from nearby cities, and for potential employees who want to live close to where they work. Although it is not typical for cities to produce enough housing to accommodate their entire workforce, the growth in jobs in South San Francisco has vastly outpaced growth in the housing stock over recent decades. ▪ The COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent shift to widescale remote work, has resulted in a rise in vacancy rates and small decline in rents in the region most recently. Prior to the recent decline, year-over-year rent growth had been positive since 2009. Renters and low-income residents also tend to work in industries that were most affected by public health restrictions. While the state economy has experienced a rebound since that time, pandemic-induced job loss added further financial stress to low-income households. Through the California COVID-19 Rent Relief program, almost $70 million in rental assistance has been delivered to San Mateo County renters 243 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 35 and landlords serving more than 5,000 households as of March 2022. Most of the households served are considered extremely low-income. ▪ The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, higher prices, and greater displacement and homelessness. The number of homes constructed in South San Francisco increased 2.9% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the housing growth rate for San Mateo County and the Bay Area overall during this time period (4% and 5%, respectively). ▪ While housing prices in South San Francisco are more affordable than the county, they are still unaffordable to most residents and workers. Given high job growth and low housing growth in the county, the cost of housing in South San Francisco has increased significantly in the past decade. ▪ In 2020, the average sales price of a single-family home in South San Francisco was approximately $1,190,200. Home prices increased by 114% from 2010 to 2020. ▪ Rental prices increased by 42% from 2009 to 2019. The median rent in 2019 was $3,135. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $112,860 per year. ▪ In 2020, 59% of homes in South San Francisco were single-family detached, 13% were single-family attached, 6% were units in small multi-family buildings (2-4 units), and 21% were in medium or large multi-family buildings (5+ units). Moreover, South San Francisco’s housing consists of proportionally more detached single-family homes than the region as a whole (59% as compared to 52%in the Bay Area). ▪ Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 12,952 units in South San Francisco (61% of the housing). Among these 3+bedroom units, 18% are renter-occupied and 82% are owner-occupied. ▪ The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 152.6% in South San Francisco from $444,160 to $1,122,070. This change is above the change in San Mateo County, and above the change for the region. ▪ Like home values, rents have also increased across the Bay Area in the last decades. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced. Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 58.3% in South San Francisco, from $1,430 to $2,000 per month. In San Mateo County, the median rent has increased 41.1%, from $1,560 to $2,200. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase. ▪ South San Francisco is home to a considerable stock of naturally occurring affordable housing, primarily in smaller multi-family buildings, as well as a number of affordable properties with deed restrictions that will be expiring in the next five to ten years. Despite having lower rents in the County, lower- and middle- income residents still experience difficulties in maintaining decent permanent affordable housing. The 244 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 36 median income in the City is $92,704. Yet, there is significant income disparity for residents living near the downtown area. The minimum wage in South San Francisco is $15.25 and the median income for residents living near the downtown area is $28,744. According to National Low-Income Housing Coalition, a market-rate one- bedroom is $2,490. In order to afford a one-bedroom, a household must earn $47.88 per hour, or $95,700 a year. The City's most vulnerable lower income households live in this housing, primarily clustered in and around the Downtown. ▪ Forty eight percent of South San Francisco’s households may have difficulty competing for the limited number of rental units that are available at an affordable price because of earning incomes that are extremely low-income, very-low-, or low- income (less than 80% AMI). KEY FACTS: COMMON HOUSING PROBLEMS COST BURDEN The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In South San Francisco, 19% of households are cost burdened, while an additional 16% of households are severely cost burdened. In South San Francisco, 35% of households cost burdened or severely cost burdened. The following are the most cost-burdened residents in South San Francisco: ▪ Sixty-five percent households making less than 30% of AMI are severely cost burdened (spending more than 50% of their income on housing) and an additional 14% are cost burdened (spending between 30%-50% of their income on housing). ▪ Hispanic or Latinx residents as a proportion of the population are the most cost burdened. ▪ American Indian or Alaska Native and Black or African American are the most cost burdened. ▪ Forty-four percent of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. ▪ Thirty percent of large family households. ▪ Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in South San Francisco, 27.9% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 16.3% of those that own. 245 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 37 Additionally, 20.8% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 10.3% of owners are severely cost-burdened. ▪ Spending such large portions of income on housing puts households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. ▪ Cost-burdened households live in overcrowded homes and have limited money to dedicate towards other necessities such as food, transportation, and medical care. ▪ Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. OVERCROWDING ▪ Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. ▪ Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. ▪ In South San Francisco, 4.9% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.7% of households that own. In South San Francisco, 8.4% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 4.5% for those own. ▪ Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 3.0% of very-low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 2.1% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding. SUBSTANDARD HOUSING Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions to afford housing. While there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community, Census Data American Community Survey (ACS)— which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys, indicates 1.3% of renters in South San Francisco reported lacking a kitchen and 0.9% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.4% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.2% of owners who lack plumbing. In South San Francisco, owner households are more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to renter households and this is consistent across San Mateo County. 246 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 38 KEY FACTS: SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS Some population groups may have special housing needs such as mobility and accessibility barriers. In South San Francisco, 9% of residents have a disability and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 14% of South San Francisco households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. Also, 13% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, or being at risk of losing their home. These special needs populations are evaluated in the AFFH analysis with related programs to address issues, as appropriate. SENIORS ▪ The county can expect to see a 26% increase in the number of seniors between 2020 and 2030. For seniors over the age of 80, the percent increase is 56%. A key challenge in the coming years will be how to accommodate the needs of aging residents. ▪ There are 4,873 senior households in South San Francisco. Of these, 30% earn less than 80% AMI and 17% earn between 30% to 50% AMI. ▪ Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0% to 30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI. affordable housing options for these seniors are crucial. ▪ Seniors are significantly more likely to be homeowners than renters. Seniors need retrofits to allow them to age in place or stay in the community but in a smaller unit or with services available. FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS The special needs of female-headed households can include low-cost housing, suitable for children and located near schools and childcare facilities. Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. Thirteen percent of households in South San Francisco are female-headed family households and of those, 16% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line. South San Francisco has 1,269 female-headed, single-parent households. LARGE HOUSEHOLDS If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. South San Francisco has approximately 3,000 247 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 39 households with five or more members. In 2017, 20% of large households were very-low- income, earning less than 50% of AMI. EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS In South San Francisco, 15.5% households earn less than 30% of AMI are considered extremely low-income (ELI) and 4,064 households live below the poverty line. There are 3,355 extremely low-income households in South San Francisco. Of these, 1,365 are owner-occupied and 1,990 renter-occupied extremely low-income households. Households and individuals with extremely low incomes may experience the greatest challenges in finding suitable, affordable housing. Extremely low-income households often have a combination of housing challenges related to income, credit status, disability or mobility status, family size, household characteristics, supportive service needs, or a lack of affordable housing opportunities. Many extremely low-income households seek rental housing and most likely face overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard h ousing conditions. ELI are most likely facing overpayment, overcrowding or substandard housing conditions. The effects of COVID-19 have disparately harmed ELI households. These households typically include seniors on fixed incomes, individuals with disabilities, single parents, farmworkers, low-wage and minimum wage workers, and may be homeless. Housing affordability is a primary issue because frequently only one income is available to support the needs of the household—and only a limited amount of funds can be allocated to housing. While some of these households may find housing assistance through the Section 8 Housing Choice Program, many others struggle with high rents or overcrowded conditions. The pandemic has undoubtedly exacerbated income loss for undocumented, female headed households, and low-income residents who work in the service industry. The rent relief and protections of the California Tenant Relief Act and stimulus funding have assisted families from eviction, yet these are short-term fixes. Moreover, the housing crisis layered with the pandemic disproportionately impacts renters and especially extremely low incomelow- income households. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low- income households over the planning period. The city projects its extremely low-income households will be 50% percent of its very low-income RHNA (871) or 436 households over the next housing element cycle. HOMELESS According to the 2019 countywide homeless survey, there are 1,512 people experiencing homeless on a single night in San Mateo County. Of those, more than 900 were unsheltered and a significant number lived in RVs. 248 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 40 The vast majority of homeless people are single adults. Most homeless people are white and male.State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people that are homeless. Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In San Mateo County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.5% percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing. See Chapter 6 pp. 147 for an analysis of homelessness in South San Francisco. MIGRANT WORKERS In South San Francisco, the migrant worker student population totaled 37 during the 2019- 2020 school year and has decreased by 81.5% since the 2016-17 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 57.1% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market. NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS In South San Francisco, 8.7% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for San Mateo County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights, or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. Two Housing Element Goals (Equity and Special Needs Populations) target the housing needs of residents with special housing needs. This Housing Element includes programs that connect people with special housing needs with resources such as providing fair housing information and referrals, resident housing rights education, landlord housing rights 249 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 41 education, renter education and assistance, legal counsel and advocacy assistance. The City also commits to Enforce Equal Housing Opportunity Laws and to conduct regular fair housing assessments such as the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County, along with partner agencies. The housing element also prioritizes capital improvement programs for vulnerable populations and involves approaches that are focused on conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty. KEY FACTS: PLANNING FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES KEY FACTS: PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN OUR CITY Nine percent of the total South San Francisco population in the city has disability. In South San Francisco, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 33.6%, while adults account for 66.4%. ANALYSIS OF HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES People with developmental disabilities are defined as having a disability that emerged before age 18, is expected to be lifelong, and is of sufficient severity to require a coordinated program of services and support in order to live successfully in the community. Developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other disabling conditions similar in their functional impact to an intellectual disability. Under California’s Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive community setting. This shift to de-institutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requirement that local jurisdictions in their Housing Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Regional Center in order to live in their home community. Higher Prevalence of Developmental Disabilities in South San Francisco. South San Francisco is home to 967 people with developmental disabilities of whom 630 are adults and 337 are under age 18 (Table 3-3). This represents approximately one-quarter of the San Mateo County population of people with developmental disabilities, although South San Francisco’s total population is about 10% of the total county population. Table 3-3 South San Francisco and San Mateo County Population with Developmental Disabilities Age South San Francisco San Mateo County South San Francisco as % of County Under Age 18 337 1,169 29% 18 and Older 630 2,764 23% Total 967 3,933 25% Note: The South San Francisco population with developmental disabilities is based on zip code level data published by the Department of Developmental Services for zip codes 94015, 94080, 94128, and 94083 (may include some overlap with other 250 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 42 jurisdictions) as of September 2021. 961 of the South San Francisco total is in the two zip codes 94015 and 94080. The San Mateo County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021. Living Arrangements of South San Francisco Adults. The family home is the most prevalent living arrangement for South San Francisco’s adults with developmental disabilities, with 57% of adults continuing to live in the family home in 2021. Only 6% of South San Francisco adults with developmental disabilities have successfully transitioned to living in their own apartment compared to 11% in San Mateo County. Thirty-one percent of South San Francisco adults are living in licensed care facilities compared to 32% in San Mateo County (Table 3-4). As discussed below, opportunities for adults to live in a licensed facility are declining in San Mateo County, fueling the need for the City of South San Francisco to increase opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities to live in affordable housing with supportive services. Table 3-4 Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities in South San Francisco Compared to San Mateo County Adult Living Arrangements South San Francisco South San Francisco % of Total San Mateo County County % of Total In the Family Home 362 57% 1,556 56% Own Apartment with Supportive Services 38 6% 294 11% Licensed Facilities 196 31% 894 32% Other (Including Homeless) 34 5% 20 1% Total Adults 630 100% 2,764 100% Note: These data assume that all people with developmental disabilities under age 18 live in the family home. The impact of this assumption, if incorrect, is to underestimate the number of adults living in the family home who may need other residential living options. Source: Department of Developmental Services data as described for Table 3-4s. Increase of Autism Diagnosis Reflected in Increase in Adults in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the South San Francisco adult population with developmental disabilities correlates with a significant annual increase in the diagnosis of autism that began in the mid-1980s and did not level out until after 2015. The cumulative impact of this trend is already seen in the growth in the San Mateo County population age 18 to 41 with developmental disabilities. This trend will continue into the future and is the reason for projecting significant growth in housing needs among South San Francisco adults during the period of the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element. Longer Life Spans. Between September 2015 and June 2021, the California Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 33%. This is not due to migration of senior citizens with developmental disabilities to high-cost San Mateo County, but rather to 251 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 43 well-documented gains in life span among people with developmental disabilities. With longer life expectancy, more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are the single largest source of housing for adults with developmental disabilities in South San Francisco. Longer life spans also slow the pace of resident turnover in the county’s limited supply of licensed care facilities, which further reduces opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to secure a space in a licensed care facility. Table 3-5 Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in San Mateo County Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change 18 to 31 1,023 1,189 16% 32 to 41 397 457 15% 41 to 52 382 335 -12% 52 to 61 385 348 -10% 62 plus 327 435 33% Total Adults 2,514 2,764 10% Source: Department of Developmental Services data reported at the county level in June 2021 and September 2015. Decline in Licensed Care Facilities. The California Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, San Mateo County lost 5% of its supply of licensed care facilities for people with developmental disabilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities), thereby increasing the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the Regional Center. The countywide loss of supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that South San Francisco adults with developmental disabilities will become homeless or will be displaced from the county when they lose the security of their family home. Displacement. The California Department of Developmental Services has documented a 12% decline in the age group 42 to 51 and a 10% decline in the age group 52 to 61 in San Mateo County between September 2015 and June 2021. Considering gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in South San Francisco. Higher Rates of Physical Disabilities. People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability. Twenty-seven percent of San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities have limited mobility, and 13% have a vision or hearing impairment. The need for an accessible unit coupled with 252 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 44 the need for coordinated supportive services compounds the housing barriers faced by those with co-occurring intellectual and physical disabilities. Ineligibility for Many Affordable Rental Units. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of around $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, pricing them out of even the limited number of extremely low-income affordable housing units in South San Francisco. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to income-qualify for many of the affordable housing units for rent in South San Francisco. Transit-Dependent. Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car and rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community. Best Practices for Inclusion in Typical Affordable Housing. As demonstrated by a growing number of inclusive affordable housing developments in neighboring jurisdictions, South San Francisco can meet the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities by adopting policies and programs to promote their inclusion with coordinated services in typical affordable housing. The following considerations should guide South San Francisco in this pursuit: Integration in typical affordable housing is a priority in order to affirmatively further fair housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living and also to counter the displacement of adults with developmental disabilities out of San Mateo County. Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center should be encouraged. These fully funded coordinated services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment and are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment. A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children. Location near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities. Deeply affordable housing is needed, targeting incomes not more than 30% of AMI and taking advantage of Housing Authority Project Based Vouchers or HUD 811 Project Rental Assistance when available to create housing opportunities for those who cannot meet minimum income requirements for units priced at 30% of AMI. There is a limited supply of handicap accessible, affordable housing generally, and the supply is especially tight near transit. People with disabilities are also often extremely low -income due to the challenge of securing long-term employment, and due to higher medical bills. In 253 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 45 order to address these housing needs, this Housing Element incorporates recommendations and best practices received by local advocates. This Housing Element includes a number of policies and programs that Housing Choices identified as best practices related to encouraging housing development for people with disabilities and to address the challenges faced by people with physical and developmental disabilities. For example, the City will target its affordable housing incentives (density bonuses, grants, etc.) towards financing units for target special needs populations, such as people with disabilities. The City will also reduce or abolish parking requirements for housing units for developmentally disabled populations. For any City-led projects or funding, the City will grant additional points to proposals that address the City’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of extremely low-income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs. The City shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 150 new extremely low- and acutely low-income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities. The City shall also annually support the Golden Gate Regional Center with CDBG funding, as available, in its mission to serve those with developmental disabilities, and continue to provide grants to the Accessibility Modification Program. The City will also work with area employers to develop a coordinated apprenticeship program to increase the employment rate of persons with disabilities. These are only some of the programs targeted to persons with disabilities in this Housing Plan. KEY FACTS: EQUITY, DISPLACEMENT, COVID-19, AND CLIMATE CHANGE NEIGHBORHOOD EQUITY Some neighborhoods are identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” by the State of California based on a range of indicators such as access to quality schools, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.5However, neighborhoods don’t always receive an equitable share of these community resources and may be designated as “Low Resource” if they lack these amenities. About 1 in 5 residents in South San Francisco live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource,” while 1 in 4 live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource”. It is considered a best practice to avoid concentrating too much new housing growth in low resource neighborhoods. DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION Displacement, or the inability of residents to afford to remain in their homes, is a major concern in the Bay Area due to increasing housing prices. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low-and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they lose their support network. A related concern is the impact of gentrification or exclusion—when neighborhoods have limited or no housing 254 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 46 opportunities for low-and moderate-income residents. According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 16% of households in South San Francisco live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and6.5% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. Another 11% of households in South San Francisco live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. While South San Francisco has historically been a place where people of all income levels can find a place to live, regional housing demand has driven up the prices of home ownership and rentals across the Bay Area in recent years, making it more challenging for people earning at or below the county’s median household income to establish and retain residency in South San Francisco. Residents in some areas of South San Francisco are particularly vulnerable to displacement. Preserving existing affordable housing and preventing displacement of existing residents is an important goal in this housing element and the City’s approach involves focus on conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty and support residents who are at-risk of being displaced. Some programs include creating an anti- displacement plan, create a rental task force that will make recommendations about creating a rental registry, mediation programs and rental assistance, and the development of a local just cause for eviction ordinance. As previously mentioned, the City has also developed a Workforce Development Strategy that aims to support and strengthen the local workforce, encourage local hiring and prevent the displacement of existing residents. RENTERS AND THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC The emergence of the COVID‑19 Pandemic added to the financial stress of renters who struggled to find housing that was affordable even before the pandemic began. Low‑wage workers were already in a difficult financial position before state and local public health restrictions shut down parts of the economy in the spring of 2020, leaving many without jobs. Renters and low-income residents also tend to work in industries that were most affected by public health restrictions and closures such as retail, services, and healthcare. While the state economy has experienced a rebound since that time, pandemic‑induced job loss added further financial stress to low-income households. Most recently, as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the region has experienced significant net out-migration to more affordable areas, spurred by an increase in remote working arrangements.4 According to the California Department of Transportation,5 approximately 4,000 net migrants left the San Mateo County in 2020 and an average of 2,800 will leave between 2021 and 2026. In the “San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, California Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis as of December 1, 2020,” HUD, estimates 4 Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis for San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, California (huduser.gov). 5 California Department of Transportation: San Mateo County Economic Forecast. 255 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 47 population growth is expected to continue during the 3-year forecast period (2021-2023), but at a significantly slower rate given weak economic conditions and continued net out- migration due to continued high housing costs. According to the California Legislatures Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisory Report (January 2021) more than half of California workers who lost their jobs are members of lower‑income households (less than $50,000 in annual earnings). During the height of the pandemic, the estimated unemployment rate for workers in lower‑income households (15%) was five times higher than the estimated unemployment rate for workers in higher‑income households (3%).6 The report also highlights unprecedented actions of the state and federal governments to boost incomes and provide rental relief that have helped many households who otherwise would have faced eviction. The CA COVID-19 Rent Relief program which provides rent relief to California landlords and renters who have faced financial hardships due to the COVID-19, provided almost $70 million in rental assistance to San Mateo County renters and landlords and served more than 5,000 households in the County as of March 2022. Approximately 70% of households served in San Mateo County are considered extremely low-income earning < 30% AMI.7 The program will no longer accept applications after March 2022. CLIMATE CHANGE Both gradual climate change (like sea level rise) and hazard events (such as heat waves) can expose people, infrastructure, economy, building and property, and ecosystems to a wide range of stress-inducing and hazardous situations. These hazards and their impacts are likely to disproportionately affect the most sensitive populations in the city. Sea levels may rise by as much as 3 feet by the end of the century. East of Highway 101 and Lindenville will need to address sea level rise. The risks associated with climate change hazards have also increased, with sea level rise posing the greatest risk to South San Francisco. PROJECTED REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer 6 How has COVID‑19 Affected Renters and Homeowners? Legislative Analyst's Office of the California Legislatures Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisory Report January 2021 (https://lao.ca.gov/ Publications/Report/4312). 7 California COVID-19 Rent Relief Program Dashboard – Housing Is Key (https://housing.ca.gov/ covid_rr/dashboard.html). 256 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY 48 commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY The Plan Bay Area 20508 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element (2023-2031), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very-low-income households to market rate housing.9 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that result from recent legislation requiring HCD to incorporate the region’s existing housing need and additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones. These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION A starting point for the Housing Element process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA—the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the ABAG. State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,176. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/our- work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation. In December 2021, ABAG adopted a Final RHNA Methodology, which was subsequently approved by HCD in January 2022.10 For South San Francisco, the proposed RHNA is 3,956 units, a slated increase from the previous cycle. The total number of housing units and the distribution by income category requires the City to make sure there are adequate housing 8 Plan Bay Area 2050, adopted in October 2021, is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine- county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing, and transportation. 9 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories: 1) Very Low-Income: 0-50% of Area Median Income, 2) Low-Income: 50-80% of Area Median Income, 3) Moderate-Income: 80-120% of Area Median Income, and 4) Above Moderate-Income: 120% or more of Area Median Income. 10 Methodology was approved by ABAG’s Executive board on December 16, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021). HCD approved the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan on January 12, 2022. 257 3 | HOUSING NEEDS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 49 sites and programs to address a variety of housing choices, types and densities. The RHNA that South San Francisco received is broken down by income category as shown below in Table 3-6. As much of the city is already built out and vacant parcels are few in numberfew, most development will occur at sites that are currently developed and will undergo intensification or redevelopment. Most employment and residential growth is anticipated in the Lindenville, El Camino Real (North and South) and South Airport Boulevard Corridors. Table 3-6 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Income Group South San Francisco Units San Mateo County Units Bay Area Units South San Francisco % San Mateo County % Bay Area % Very-Low-Income (<50% of AMI) 871 12,196 114,442 22.0% 25.6% 25.9% Low-Income (50%-80% of AMI) 502 7,023 65,892 12.7% 14.7% 14.9% Moderate-Income (80%-120% of AMI) 720 7,937 72,712 18.2% 16.6% 16.5% Above-Moderate-Income (>120% of AMI) 1,863 20,531 188,130 47.1% 43.1% 42.6% Total 3,956 47,687 441,176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: ABAG. Of the city’s existing residential neighborhoods, Downtown and the El Camino Real corridor are projected to experience the most residential growth. All other residential neighborhoods are expected to experience population growth attributable to residential infill, including ADU development. New residential development along the South Airport Corridor would replace commercial uses only—no current residential zoning exists east of the Highway 101 freeway. 258 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 50 Chapter 4 – Housing Constraints in Our City Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must analyze “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures.” Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take action to mitigate or remove them. The ongoing General Plan Update conversation with the community highlighted California’s housing crisis and the need to reduce constraints to housing production. In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Government regulations affect housing costs, standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting fees impact the use of land or the construction of homes. With respect to the housing market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land use policies, zoning regulations, and development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may be regulatory constraints. The City of South San Francisco does our best to avoid all these self-imposed constraints on housing production. GENERAL PLAN The South San Francisco General Plan has been comprehensively updated (www.ShapeSSF.com) to plan for the next 20 years of development in South San Francisco and up to three (3) RHNA cycles to balance the anticipated jobs/housing ratio. Based on a review of the previous General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including developers and housing advocates, the previous General Plan was not an obstacle to housing development and was supportive of the development of a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density residential development. The General Plan Update does implement changes to ensure compliance with SB 330 requirements for streamlining. A handout is available on the City’s website detailing all submittal requirements: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28169/638035101544270000. Important details include a limit of five (5) public meetings with mandatory meetings including: ▪ One Design Review Board Hearing ▪ One Community Meeting, hosted by the applicant 259 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 51 ▪ One Planning Commission hearing for approval ▪ Two meetings held for City Council call for review, as needed; ▪ A codified land use permitting density for residential development; and ▪ Adopted objective design standards. While not an obstacle to housing development, the existing previous General Plan was limited in furthering South San Francisco’s housing goals given the limited priority development areas near mass transit. The unprecedented growth in population and need for housing development during the last decade informed the decision to expand housing into new adjacent corridors adjacent to transit. The General Plan Update includes several policies and action items to further develop housing of all types in South San Francisco and accommodates substantial housing growth (up to 14k units over the next 20 years) via a complete zoning and land use update that allows for new mixed-use designations for higher density development across the city. The General Plan Update does not pose an obstacle to housing development for any South San Franciscans including for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional housing, and those needing factory-built housing. As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses and densities at various locations in the city (https://shapessf.com/land_use_ and_community_design/). Listed below in Table 4-1 are the primary residential land use designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential development. Under existing designations, the City permits the construction of a range of housing types, including opportunities for higher density housing up to 200 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Table 4-1 Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2022 Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density Residential Low Density Residential 8 du/acre Medium Density Residential 22 du/acre Medium-High Density Residential 37.5 du/acre High Density Residential 50 du/acre Downtown Residential 125 du/acre Urban Residential 180 du/acre San Mateo County Low Density Residential 2.2 du/acre Mixed Use Low Density Mixed Use 60 du/acre Lindenville Neighborhood Center 80 du/acre Grand Avenue Core 100 du/acre 260 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 52 Medium Density Mixed Use 120 du/acre High Density Mixed Use 180 du/acre Downtown Transit Core 180 du/acre East of Highway 101 Mixed Use 200 du/acre East of Highway 101 Transit Core 200 du/acre Source: South San Francisco General Plan Update, 2022 (www.ShapeSSF.com). The General Plan Update process identified four primary goals to promote equitable housing and access throughout the city. These goals are shown below and their companion actions will inform the proposed Housing Element programs in the next section. ▪ Create a diverse range of housing options that create equitable opportunity for people of all ages, races/ethnicities, abilities, socio-economic status, genders, and family types to live in South San Francisco. ▪ Create High-quality residential neighborhoods. ▪ Ensure low-income residents have access to safe housing and shelter throughout South San Francisco. ▪ Ensure low-income households are protected from displacement. ZONING ORDINANCE South San Francisco’s most common land use is residential, with single-family homes covering about 34% of land, and multi-family housing covering about 6% of land. In fact, single-family residential is the dominant land use in all areas except El Camino Real, Lindenville, and East of Highway 101, meaning that there are distinct residential neighborhoods throughout most of the city. South San Francisco’s Zoning Ordinance was comprehensively updated and implements the General Plan vision and planning for up to three (3) RHNA cycles with citywide up- zoning and thoughtful policies to ensure that zoning does not impede housing development and enables development of a wide range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density residential development. These uses are particularly supported in the city’s primary development corridors Downtown, along El Camino Real, and on the South Airport Boulevard corridor. Prior to adopting new zoning, the City has amended the zoning map on a case-by-case basis to allow high density residential in traditionally commercial areas. This action was predicated on a City Council directive to support new housing consistent with the Preferred Land Use Scenario while the General Plan Update was completed. For example, in January 2022, the City amended the prior zoning map to create a planned development district to allow the construction of a multi-family residential development consisting of 480 units on parcels comprising 124 Airport Boulevard and 100 Produce Avenue. Several other pipeline housing projects were in the queue for similar action at the time of this writing contingent on the final adoption timeline of the General Plan Update. 261 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 53 To further promote housing construction in South San Francisco, the City has also adopted objective design standards and form-based zoning that provides clarity and fairness to housing developers. This is consistent with SB 35 and SB 9 expectations of local communities. Parking policies have been updated, too—former minimums are often set as maximums for residential and non-residential scenarios and the ability to request a parking reduction or utilize State Density Bonus law remain viable options. Figure 4-1 and Tables 4-2 through 4-5 below show the adopted Zoning Map and land use development standards to support the General Plan Update’s vision for furthering housing. 262 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 54 FIGURE 4-1 ZONING MAP 263 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 55 Table 4-2 Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Table and Companion Notes available on full document here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28492/638060225599270000 Standard RL-2.2 RL-8 RM-22 RH-37.5 RH-50 RH-180 Min. Density ― ― 15 du/ac 25 du/ac 40 du/ac 80 du/ac Max. Density 2.2 du/ac (A) 8 du/ac (A) 22 du/ac (A) 37.5 du/ac (A) 50 (A) 180 du/ac (A) Lot Size Min. Lot Area 32,600 sf (B) 5,000 sf (B) 5,000 sf (B) 5,000 sf (B) 5,000 sf (B) 20,000 sf (B) Min. Lot Area, Corner 32,600 sf (B) 6,000 sf (B) 6,000 sf (B) 6,000 sf (B) 6,000 sf (B) No min (B) Min. Lot Width 120 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft Min. Lot Width, Corner 120 ft 60 ft 60 ft 60 ft 60 ft ― Min. Lot Depth ― 80 ft 80 ft 80 ft 80 ft ― Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5 or 2,000 sf, whichever is greater 0.5 or 2,000 sf, whichever is greater 1.0 or 2,000 sf, whichever is greater ― ― ― Max. Lot Coverage 40% 50% 50% 65% 65% 85% Building Height Max. Primary Building (ft/stories) 30 ft/2 stories 28 ft/2 stories (D) 35 ft/3 stories (F) 50 ft/4 stories 50 ft/4 stories 85 ft Max. Accessory Building 12 ft if a floor slab is used; 15 ft is floor joist construction is used Setbacks (B) Min. Front Setback 20 ft (B) (C) 15 ft (B) (C) 15 ft (B) 15 ft (B) 15 ft (B) 10 ft (B) Min. Interior Side Setback 10 ft; 4 ft for SB 9 units 5 ft or 10% of lot width, whichever is greater, in no case less than 3 ft; 4 ft for SB 9 units 5 ft (F) 5 for the first 2 stories, 10 ft thereafter (G) 5 for the first 2 stories, 10 ft thereafter (E) (G) 10 ft © (G) Min. Street Side Setback 10 ft; 4 ft for SB 9 units (C) 10 ft; 4 ft for SB 9 units (C) 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 264 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 56 Table 4-2 Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Table and Companion Notes available on full document here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28492/638060225599270000 Standard RL-2.2 RL-8 RM-22 RH-37.5 RH-50 RH-180 Min. Rear Setback 20 ft (H) 20 ft (H) 20 ft (F) (H) 10 ft (for the first 2 stories); 15 ft thereafter (E) (H) 10 ft (for the first 2 stories); 15 ft thereafter (E) (H) 0 ft (B) (E) (H) Landscaping and Open Space Min. Private Open Space ― 150 sf/unit 80 sf/unit 80 sf/unit 80 sf/unit ― Min. Private Open Space Dimension 8 ft when located on the ground level; 6 ft. when located above the ground level Min. Common Open Space ― ― 100 sf/unit 100 sf/unit 100 sf/unit 150 sf/unit Min. Common Open Space Dimension 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Min. Landscaping ― ― 10% 10% 10% 10% 265 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 57 Table 4-3 Development Standards – Downtown Residential Zoning Districts Zoning Table and Companion Notes available on full document here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28492/638060225599270000 Standard DRL DRM DRH Min. Density 15 du/ac 25 du/ac 40 du/ac Max. Density 22 du/ac (A) 37.5 du/ac (A) 50 du/ac (A) Lot Size Min. Lot Area 2,750 sf (B) 2,500 sf (B) 2,250 sf (B) Min. Lot Area, Corner 3,250 sf (B) 3,000 sf (B) 2,750 sf (B) Min. Lot Width 40 ft 36 ft 36 ft Min. Lot Width, Corner 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft Min. Lot Depth 60 ft 60 ft 60 ft Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.70 or 2,000 sf, whichever is greater (B) 1.25 ― Max. Lot Coverage 80% 90% 90% Building Height Max. Main Building (ft/stories) 2It/2 stories (C) 35 ft/3 stories (D) 50 ft/4 stories Max. Accessory Building 12 ft if a floor slab is used; 15 ft is floor joist construction is used Setbacks Front Setback, Street-Facing Min. 15 ft; Min. 40 ft for above-ground parking (B) (F) Min. 15 ft; Min. 40 ft for above-ground parking (B) (F) Min. 15 ft; Min. 40 ft for above-ground parking (B) (F) Front Setback, Lane-Facing Min. 5 ft; Max. 20 ft Min. 5 ft; Max. 20 ft Min. 5 ft; Max. 20 ft Min. Interior Side Setback 5 ft; 10 ft for a minimum 50% of side façade for all upper stories (G) 5 ft; 10 ft for a minimum 50% of side façade for all upper stories (E) (G) 5 ft; 10 ft for a minimum 50% of side façade for all upper stories (E) (G) Min. Street Side Setback 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft Min. Rear Setback 20 ft (B) (H) 20 ft (B) (E) (H) 10 ft for the first two stories; 15 ft thereafter (B) (E) (H) Accessory Structures See Section 20.300.002 (“Accessory Buildings and Structures”) Landscaping and Open Space Min. Usable Open Space (may be private, common, or both) 100 sf/unit 100 sf/unit 100 sf/unit Min. Dimension for Common Open Space 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Min. Dimension for Private Open Space 8 ft when located on the ground level; 6 ft when located above the ground level Min. Landscaping 20% 10% 10% 266 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 58 Table 4-4 Development Standards – Downtown Station Area Zoning Districts Zoning Table and Companion Notes available on full document here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28492/638060225599270000 Standard DRC LNC GAC DTC ETC Min. Density 80 du/ac 40 du/ac 60 du/ac 100 du/ac 120 du/ac Max. Density 125 du/ac (A) 80 du/ac (A) 100 du/ac (A) 180 du/ac (A) 200 du/ac (A) Lot Size Min. Lot Area 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 5,000 sf 10,000 sf Min. Lot Width 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft Min. Lot Depth 80 ft ― ― ― ― Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5 (B) 3.0 (B) 4.0(B) 8.0(B) 1.0; 8.0 with community benefits (C) Max. Lot Coverage 90% 90% 100% 100% 85% Building Height Max. Main Building (ft) 65 ft (D) 50 ft (D) 65 ft (D) 85 ft (D) FAA Allowed Min. Ground Floor Height for Nonresidential Uses 15 ft; 12 ft min. clearance (D) 15 ft; 12 ft min. clearance (D) 15 ft; 12 ft min. clearance (D) 15 ft; 12 ft min. clearance (D) 15 ft; 12 ft min. clearance (D) Max. Finished Floor Height (Residential) 5 ft (D) 5 ft (D) ― 5 ft (D) 5 ft (D) Setbacks Street Frontages At the property line or 10 ft from curb, whichever is greater (E) (G) At property line or 9 ft from curb, whichever is greater; within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, at property line or 15 ft from curb, whichever is greater (E) (F) (G) No setbacks allowed (E) (G) At property line or 10 ft from curb (whichever is greater) (D) (E) (G) At property line or 10 ft from curb (whichever is greater) (D) (E) (G) Min. Interior Side Setback 0 ft; 10 ft when abutting residential district (E) 0 ft (E) 0 ft (E) 0 ft; 10I when abutting residential district (E) 0 ft (E) 267 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 59 Table 4-4 Development Standards – Downtown Station Area Zoning Districts Zoning Table and Companion Notes available on full document here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28492/638060225599270000 Standard DRC LNC GAC DTC ETC Min. Rear Setback 20 ft (E) 0 ft; 10 ft when abutting an R district (E) 0 ft (E) 0 ft; 10 ft when abutting residential district (E) 0 ft (E) Landscaping and Open Space Min. Usable Open Space (may be private, common, or both) 100 sf/unit 100 sf/unit 100 sf/unit 100 sf/unit 100 sf/unit Min. Dimension for Common Open Space 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Min. Dimension for Private Open Space 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft Min. Landscaping ― 10% ― ― ― Table 4-5 Development Standards – Form Based Zoning Districts Zoning Table and Companion Notes available on full document here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28428/638055901479800000 The Development Standards – Form-Based Zoning Districts table is included as Appendix 4.1 due to size and complexity. 268 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 60 PARKING STANDARDS South San Francisco adopted companion Zoning Ordinance to the General Plan Update creates parking minimums and maximums applicable to each land use, including residential and mixed-use development. The City is in compliance with AB 2097, however, and adopted the following code provision in SSFMC 20.330.004 (F): Transit Station Areas. In accordance with AB 2097, no off-street parking is required for any use located within a Transit Station Area as defined in Chapter 20.621, Definitions of Terms. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a Transit Station Area or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor. A digital map showing the application of AB 2097 illustrates that the vast majority of South San Francisco is now exempt from parking minimums and will be subject to market-based parking as deemed appropriate by project applicants. A map can be viewed here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/27970/638016868849130000. In this case, as long as projects are within appropriate distance of a Transit Station Area or transit corridor, parking standards (and the cost burden for providing parking) will not hinder residential development. FEES AND EXACTIONS Developers of new residential projects pay a combination of entitlement, impact, and building permit fees, summarized and analyzed in the following section. ▪ Entitlement fees for a new residential project include a Design Review Permit and associated environmental document processing fees, which will vary depending on the type of project and underlying environmental clearance. The General Plan and Zoning are already in place to permit housing to meet RHNA obligations so no zone changes, general plan amendments, variances, or specific plans are typically required. A listing of all entitlement fees is available here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28173/638035828937770000. ▪ various iImpact fees to finance improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve new housing in the city. The most notable impact fees for a Multi-Unit Project are the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee ($17,000/unit), Childcare Impact Fee ($3,000/unit) and the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee ($4,600/unit). In total, all impact fees for a typical multi-unit residential project result in a per unit impact fee cost of approximately $27,300 per unit. A listing of all development fees is available here: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/27868/638005564700430000. 269 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 61 ▪ Building permit fees, averaging 2-5% of the total reported construction cost of the project. Jurisdiction fees (entitlement fees, building permits, impact fees) contribute to the overall cost of development. To determine fees charged by the City of South San Francisco and other jurisdiction in San Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all jurisdictions in the County, asking that each provide fee information for various types of residential developments detailing average entitlement, building permits and impact fees (see Tables 4-5 and 4-6). Table 4-5 Total Fees (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees) per Unit Single-Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit Atherton $15,941 No Data No Data Brisbane $24,940 $11,678 No Data Burlingame $69,425 $30,345 $23,229 Colma $6,760 $167,210 $16,795 Daly City $24,202 $32,558 $12,271 East Palo Alto $104,241 No Data $28,699 Foster City $67,886 $47,179 $11,288 Half Moon Bay $52,569 $16,974 No Data Hillsborough $71,092 No Data No Data Millbrae $97,756 $6,824 $55,186 Pacifica $33,725 $40,151 No Data Portola Valley $52,923 No Data No Data Redwood City $20,795 $18,537 $62,696 San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412 San Mateo $99,003 $133,658 $44,907 South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471 Unincorporated San Mateo $36,429 $27,978 $10,012 Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No Data 270 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 62 Table 4-6 Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs Single-Family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family Atherton 0% No Data No Data Brisbane 1% 1% No Data Burlingame 3% 4% 3% Colma 0% 17% 2% Daly City 1% 4% 2% East Palo Alto 4% No Data 4% Foster City 3% 6% 2% Half Moon Bay 2% 2% No Data Hillsborough 3% No Data No Data Millbrae 2% 8% 7% Pacifica 1% 5% No Data Portola Valley 1% No Data No Data Redwood City 1% 2% 8% San Bruno 2% 8% 5% San Mateo 4% 14% 6% South San Francisco 3% 9% 4% Unincorporated San Mateo 1% 3% 1% Woodside 2% 9% No Data Note: The above table is calculated using average soft costs (including an average of jurisdiction charged fees) and average land costs for the county. A more precise determination of fees as a percentage of total development costs can be calculat ed using jurisdiction specific land costs and fees. Jurisdiction-imposed fees represent a small percentage of the overall cost to develop new housing. However, there are situations in which fees or permitting processes may pose a constraint on housing production. If a jurisdiction’s fees are significantly higher than neighboring or peer jurisdictions, the fees could have the impact of discouraging projects within the jurisdiction. With construction costs high, it is difficult (near impossible) for moderate- or low-income housing to be profitable. High fees can be a constraint to housing development. This is particularly challenging for deed restricted affordable housing developers. Out of the jurisdictions that provided data, South San Francisco fees are fourth highest for single-family development (out of 18 jurisdictions), fourth highest for small multi-family development (out of 14 jurisdictions) and fifth highest for large multi-family development (out of 11 jurisdictions). Out of 18 San Mateo jurisdictions surveyed, South San Francisco has similar or lower fees than five jurisdictions and higher fees than 12 jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s fees are within 1% of 9 San Mateo County jurisdictions and more than 1% higher than eight jurisdictions. This is intentional—unlike many other jurisdictions in San Mateo 271 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 63 County, South San Francisco has less open space and fewer community amenities. Exaction fees are the primary tool to create equitable access to parks, community facilities, and improved transportation networks citywide for all residents. If fees (per dwelling unit) are higher for multi-family construction than for single-family construction within a jurisdiction, this could be seen as a constraint on naturally affordable multi-family housing and also a fair housing issue. This is not the case in South San Francisco. Fees for large multi-family construction are lower than for single-family development. Similarly, a permitting process that is more onerous or uncertain for multi- family units than for single-family may present a fair housing concern and could be considered a constraint on multi-family housing. In South San Francisco, permitting time for multi-family project are not significantly longer than for single-family projects when accounting for the size and scope of the project. Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, South San Francisco’s fees were found to be comparable, and they do not to pose a significant constraint to housing development in the city. ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS The element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. The City does require on-site and off-site improvements for new development related to utilities, stormwater retention and management, trash management, public safety needs, safe vehicle circulation vis-à-vis street widths, multi-modal design, open space and transportation demand management programming. These requirements may limit the overall development capacity of certain constrained sites but have been evaluated as a critical requirement to promote livability for new and existing residents. When calculating the potential unit yield for new identified opportunity sites in this Housing Element, the minimum density is always used to account for on- and off-site improvements and a potential reduction in development capacity. The on-site requirements in most cases can also be considered for relief or waiver under the City’s Waivers and Modification permitting or through the State Density Bonus Law if the project meets the inclusionary requirements of the State. This directly results in the preservation of affordability goals and mandates by the State and local jurisdiction. For these reasons, there is an acceptable balance of required improvements and density capacity for residential or mixed-use zoned sites. CODE ENFORCEMENT South San Francisco operates a Code Enforcement Division out of the Public Works Department and is responsible for the enforcement of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The primary impact of Code Enforcement activities related to housing stem from violation reports filed by members of the public. The Code Enforcement Division is a reactive, complaint-based group that does not proactively identify housing violations given they are not readily apparent from the public right-of-way. Some residential violations are reported to 272 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 64 the Code Enforcement Division by South San Francisco staff completing unrelated building, fire, or police code inspections. Common violations that affect housing supply include (1) an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) or (2) unpermitted short-term vacation rental (“STVR”). If either of these cases are reported to the Code Enforcement Division, the typical process is as follows: ▪ Case is referred to the Planning Division for consultation; ▪ Planning staff implement the appropriate ordinance to approve over the counter, conditionally permit wherever possible, or recommend abatement; ▪ Planning Staff refer the case to the Building Division for building code compliance; and ▪ Code Enforcement Division staff monitor and close out the case when complete. Broadly, almost all unpermitted ADUs can now be legalized using the adopted ordinance consistent with State Law, however, these unpermitted ADUs will require some remedial building code repairs. Unpermitted STVR units are also a simple permitted use and follow the same referral process as above. An STVR in operation must meet the time limit, hosting requirement, and transient occupancy tax requirements of South San Francisco. Current code enforcement activity supports safe ADU and STVR construction or legalization and with the addition of newly legalized ADUs, additional housing is available to the community. The operation of a STVR under the current permitting requirements does not remove significant amounts of housing from the long-term rental market and is discussed in more detail in the sub-section below. The third most common housing violation is for substandard rental housing where the owner offers non-traditional enclosed space for housing (shed, unoccupied garage or basement, converted living room space, etc) that is not ventilated, heated, or otherwise safe under California Building Code. These units typically cannot be legalized and abated through Code Enforcement procedures and penalties. While this removes some housing units that are otherwise serving a very low-income population in South San Francisco, affected tenants are also referred to case workers and social services for housing resources. Where possible, these tenants are prioritized for social programs operated by South San Francisco and this is reflected in the recommended housing programs for adoption. LOCAL ORDINANCES - INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS Inclusionary Housing: The Zoning Ordinance details the City’s inclusionary housing regulations but generally, 15% of all proposed units must be affordable. For-sale projects provide 7.5% of the affordable units at low-income and 7.5% at moderate-income while Rental units provide 5% very-low- and 10% low-income units (prior to any application of State 273 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 65 Density Bonus Law). The City’s objective is to ensure that all residential development provides a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including low- and moderate-income households. Development projects must generally provide affordable units on-site, although under certain conditions, alternatives are provided to this requirement as a means of providing affordable units in the city. Housing developments can pay an in-lieu fee as an alternative to the requirement of constructing inclusionary units. The current in-lieu fee is approximately $425,000 and structured to encourage the provision of on-site housing instead of paying the fee. These requirements apply to all residential market-rate dwelling units that are newly constructed for-sale, for-rent, or for the conversion of apartments to condominiums that will be for sale. Accessory Dwelling Units: Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) are regulated in the Zoning Ordinance adopted as part of the General Plan Update in October 2022. This Zoning Ordinance reflects the current State Laws regarding ADUs. Single-family and multi-family buildings can construct Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units with State mandated minimum floor areas, heights, and bedroom counts. No ADU or JADU requires parking in South San Francisco, which was typically the primary barrier to property owners, and a quiet tool of many cities to discourage ADU construction. South San Francisco has a four-year average (2019-2022) of 38 ADUs per year and State Law has encouraged this increase from precious years when 10 or less were typically permitted under old regulations. Short-Term Vacation Rentals: Short-Term Vacation Rentals are regulated in the Zoning Ordinance adopted at the request of the City Council to ensure compliance with residential zoning and limit the loss of residential rental units to the short-term vacation market. An application is required and any permitted STVR must pay the locally adopted transit- occupancy tax akin to hotel operators, must lease for fewer than 30 days, and cannot use an ADU as a STVR. For STVR units that have the property owner on-site as a host, there is no duration cap for temporary renters. It is assumed that the owner enjoys the company, additional income, and experience and their presence ensures adherence to local noise and quality of life municipal codes. For STVR units that do not have a property owner on-site and are un-hosted, there is a 90- day duration cap for temporary renters. The cap makes it unlikely that a home can be rented on the short-term market and still cover carrying costs (mortgage, property tax, etc). South San Francisco’s priority is to ensure that housing units are available for long-term occupancy and not used as short-term units in perpetuity or become party homes that are unmonitored. It also prevents a home from operating like a hotel in a residential district, thus preserving quality of life goals. PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of development applications adding to financing costs. The City has worked to establish 274 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 66 transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development applications per the General Plan Update and companion Zoning Ordinance Update. Explained below are the typical processing and permit procedures for a single-family housing development in a single-family district and for a multi-family housing development in a multi-family district. Single-Family Residential Procedure For single-family homes proposed in a residential district, steps in the permit and approvals process are as listed below: ▪ Pre-application meeting with staff (required). ▪ Application submittal. ▪ Review of application by City staff. ▪ Design Review Board (DRB) review/recommendation. ▪ Decision by Chief Planner. ▪ Appeal to Planning Commission (if applicable). ▪ Building permit issuance. As listed above, approvals for single-family development in a single-family district do not generally require action by the Planning Commission or City Council. The process does, however, require review by the DRB, which makes a recommendation to the Chief Planner to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application. Design review is required of all new construction in South San Francisco, including single- family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial development. For residential development of three or fewer units, design review is limited to height, bulk, lot coverage, and compatibility with objective standards. If the DRB recommends approval of a project and the Chief Planner approves the project, it may proceed without requiring any action by the Planning Commission or City Council. Design review applications submitted before the submittal deadline at the end of a given month are generally heard during the Design Review meeting scheduled for the following month. Depending on the outcome of the DRB meeting and the specific timing when an application is submitted (whether toward the beginning or end of a month), the typical timeframe for approval of a single-family residential unit and issuance of building permits varies between eight and 18 weeks. Multi-Family Residential Procedure For a typical multi-family housing development, steps in the permit and approvals process are as listed below: ▪ Pre-application meeting with staff. ▪ Application submittal. 275 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 67 ▪ Review of application by City staff. ▪ Design Review Board (DRB) review/recommendation. ▪ Other Boards or Commissions, if necessary (Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, Housing Standing Committee, Airport Land Use Commission). ▪ Planning Commission Hearing as Final Approval authority. ▪ City Council Hearing (if applicable for a Development Agreement or other legislative action only). ▪ Building permit submittal and issuance. As listed above, approval of multi-family housing requires action by the DRB Design Review Board to recommend the project to the Planning Commission for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Design review is typically completed within four weeks for simple projects and can take up to twelve weeks if plans require revision or resubmittal. The submittal requirements are clearly delineated in an application check list, with some latitude given to the Planning Division to waive certain requirements for small projects or to add additional requirements, such as a shadow study where taller development will be located adjacent to lower density residential uses. Following the Design Review process, the Planning Commission reviews the project. For smaller projects not involving a development agreement or legislative action, the Planning Commission is the final decision-making body for the development. Some larger projects in South San Francisco may request a development agreement, requiring legislative action by the City Council. Otherwise, the Planning Commission will be the typical review authority for virtually all multi-family housing projects. In total, the typical approval time for a multi-family development application from the time the application is submitted to the Planning Division until issuance of building permits is between six to nine months depending on the complexity of the project and the outcome of the design review process, Planning Commission hearing, and City Council consideration. Streamlining Provisions for Entitlements and Environmental Clearance As mentioned in an earlier section, The General Plan Update does implement changes to ensure compliance with SB 330 requirements for streamlining and ensure certainty for residential developments. A handout is available on the City’s website detailing all submittal requirements: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28169/638035101544270000. Important details include a limit of five (5) public meetings with mandatory meetings including: ▪ One Design Review Board Hearing ▪ One Community Meeting, hosted by the applicant ▪ One Planning Commission hearing for approval ▪ Two meetings held for City Council call for review, as needed; ▪ A codified land use permitting density for residential development; and 276 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 68 ▪ Adopted objective design standards. With the adoption of the General Plan Update and certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), South San Francisco has created a streamlined California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for any residential project that complies with General Plan land use, zoning, and objective design standards. The typical CEQA process for a multi-unit project will be an Environmental Compliance Analysis showing conformance with the General Plan Update EIR and self-mitigating measures. This is a checklist form completed by the applicant with relatively minimal expense by an environmental consultant or other qualified professional. South San Francisco staff review this document as part of preparation for a public hearing. Combined, these items eliminate South San Francisco’s delay of any housing project that meets the General Plan designation, zoning requirements, and objective standards and require compliance with all State Law streamlining tools. Processing and Permit Procedures Comparison with Other Jurisdictions Long permitting processing times or permit processes that have a high degree of uncertainty (i.e., discretionary reviews or processes with multiple public meetings) increase the cost of housing development for developers, either by increasing their carrying costs as they wait for permits, or by increasing the chance that a project will be rejected after a long weight. In either case, a developer working in a jurisdiction with an onerous permitting process will demand higher profits to account for the increased risk, thereby increasing the overall development cost. South San Francisco has fast processing times compared to other jurisdictions in the region and is comparable or faster than smaller towns such as Colma, Millbrae, or Atherton although the City is at least three times larger in population and processes more housing applications than those three cities combined (see Table 4-7). The City has worked to establish transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development applications. Table 4-7 Permit Processing Times (In Months) Jurisdiction ADU Process Ministerial By-Right Discretionary By-Right Discretionary Zoning Administrator Discretionary Planning Commission Discretionary City Council Atherton 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 N/A 2 to 4 2 to 6 Brisbane 1 to 2 2 to 6 N/A N/A 4 to 12 6 to 14 Burlingame 1 to 2 2 to 3 2 to 3 N/A 3-4 standard projects; 12 major projects 13 months Colma 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 N/A 4 to 8 Daly City 1 to 2 2 to 4 N/A N/A 4 to 8 8 to 12 East Palo Alto 1 to 3 8 to 12 6 to 14 20 to 40 20 to 40 20 to 40 Foster City 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2 3 to 6 6 to 12 277 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 69 Half Moon Bay 1 to 2 2 to 4 3 to 6 4 to 12 6 to 15 Hillsborough – – – – – – Millbrae 0 to 2 3 to 6 1 to 3 3 to 8 3 to 8 4 to 9 Pacifica 1 to 2 2 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 6 5 to 6 7 to 8 Redwood City 2 to 3 3 to 4 N/A 8 to 10 12 to 18 18 to 24 San Bruno 2 3 to 6 N/A 3 to 6 9 to 24 9 to 24 San Mateo 4 to 8 1 to 2 4 to 7 N/A 9 to 12 9 to 13 South San Francisco 1 1 2 to 3 2 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 9 Unincorporated San Mateo 1 to 3 3 to 6 4 to 9 6 to 12 6 to 18 9 to 24 Woodside 1 to 2 1 to 2 N/A N/A 2 to 6 3 to 8 The permit process only increases in complexity and duration when the circumstances of individual projects warrant extra consideration on the part of local staff and officials. This is especially true of the environmental review component of the process. However, the City has little flexibility to change this, since CEQA specifies procedures that local jurisdictions must observe in reviewing the impacts of development projects. To extent possible, categorical exemptions or other statutory exemptions and streamlining are prioritized. EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS As described above, current regulations, standards, and procedures in the city reflect several efforts to accommodate all housing types and promote housing production, including the following: ▪ Diverse housing and development types and uses allowed in the General Plan Update and companion Zoning Ordinance; ▪ Parking Maximums and parking reduction provisions; ▪ Inclusionary housing regulations to provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population; ▪ Transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development applications; and ▪ No extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect housing production in South San Francisco. HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Consistent with State Law, the following section analyzes governmental constraints to housing for persons with disabilities and describes ongoing and needed future actions to remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for such housing. 278 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 70 STANDARDS AND PROCESSES The City’s standards and processes are analyzed below, within several categories identified by HCD as potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable Accommodations. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or reductions to parking requirements. Per HCD guidance, the element should also describe the process and decision-making criteria such as approval findings and analyze any potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. Chapter 20.510 provides the Waiver and Modifications process to establish an alternate means of granting relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when so doing would be consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and it is not possible or practical to approve a variance. This procedure is intended, but is not limited to facilitating compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by providing reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through modification of the application of the City’s zoning regulations. This chapter authorizes the Chief Planner to grant relief from this Ordinance’s dimensional requirements when necessary to provide access to housing and to also approve limited waivers of dimensional standards for applicants who are not entitled to reasonable accommodation under these statutes. A decision to grant a waiver or modification shall be based on the following findings: A. The waiver or modification is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance. B. There are no alternatives to the requested waiver or modification that could provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public. C. The granting of the requested waiver or modification would not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this title. D. If the waiver or modification requested is to provide reasonable accommodation pursuant to State or Federal law, in addition to any other findings that this chapter requires, the decision-maker must also make the following findings: 279 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 71 1. That the housing or other property which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation will be used by an individual or organization entitled to protection; 2. If the request for accommodation is to provide fair access to housing, that the request for accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual protected under State or Federal law; 3. That the conditions imposed, if any, are necessary to further a compelling public interest and represent the least restrictive means of furthering that interest; and 4. That denial of the requested waiver or modification would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise or would conflict with any State or Federal statute requiring reasonable accommodation to provide access to housing. (Ord. 1432 § 2, 2010) In addition, the element must describe and analyze how group homes for six or fewer and seven or more are allowed within South San Francisco. South San Francisco has adopted a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, population types and licenses. Family. One or more persons living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members of a family need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house. These housing types are currently permitted in multiple residential only zoning districts with approval of a minor use permit to support the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities. Under HCD best practice guidance, however, requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses. Therefore, staff is recommending New Program CST-5.1 to be introduced to consider allowing a group home by right in all residential zoning districts. ZONING AND LAND USE The Zoning Ordinance continues to utilize the Waivers and Modifications process, to facilitate compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It provides reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through modification of the application of the City’s Zoning Ordinances. Provisions allow the Chief Planner to grant relief from the Zoning Ordinance’s dimensional requirements when necessary to provide access to housing. It also allows the Planning Commission to grant exceptions and waivers when necessary to accommodate religious uses protected by the Federal Religious Land Use and 280 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 72 Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Below is a discussion of existing zoning and land use policies in the city affecting the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Provision for Group Homes. Consistent with State law, the City allows for Limited Residential Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning districts, without a special use permit and not subject to any special restrictions. These facilities are also conditionally permitted in most mixed-use zoning districts. These are not subject to any minimum distance requirements in relationship to other special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use requirements. Broad Definition of Family. Consistent with State Law, the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for a broad definition of family as “one or more persons living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members of a ‘family’ need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house.” This definition of family does not limit the number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related. Reasonable Accommodation. The City’s Zoning Ordinance facilitates the development of housing and residential parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities by allowing waivers and modifications to required dimensional requirements, such as encroachments into front, side, and rear yards for wheelchair access structures. There are procedures for private residential handicap parking and established the rules and procedures for requests for reasonable accommodation to ensure access to housing. BUILDING CODE AND PERMITTING California Building Code. On January 1st, 2020, the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2019 California Administrative Code and the 2019 California Building Code published by the International Code Council, Inc. In addition, the City has adopted and implemented the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, which provides requirements for the conservation and rehabilitation of housing. The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the California Administrative Code, California Building Code, or Uniform Housing Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities. As of January 1, 2023, the City intends to adopt the latest 2022 Building Codes. Site and Building Accessibility. The City complies with all State and federal standards and laws pertaining to the accessibility of sites and buildings for disabled persons. Permitting. The City does not require special permitting that could impede the development of group homes for six people or fewer. As discussed above, Residential Care Facilities are permitted uses in all residential zoning districts. Furthermore, there are no siting requirements or minimum distances between facilities that apply to Residential Care Facilities or Group Care Facilities. 281 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 73 EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS As described above, current regulation standards and procedures in the city reflect several efforts to accommodate housing for persons with disabilities, including the following: ▪ Provision for small group homes in all residential zones by right; ▪ Use of a broad definition of family; ▪ Provisions to allow encroachment into required setbacks for wheelchair access structures and waivers and modifications to other dimensional requirements when necessary to provide reasonable accommodation; ▪ Provision of alternative parking requirements for special needs housing; and ▪ Implementation of the California Building Code. NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors that may constrain the production of new housing. For the Bay Area, market-related conditions such as land and construction costs are significant factors influencing housing production. Given this Housing Element’s focus on producing housing, Century Urban provided an evaluation of the land and construction costs in San Mateo County as reference. Appendix 4-2 includes the full report but a summary of relevant factors is included in the following section. CONSTRUCTION AND LAND COSTS Land costs in San Mateo County are high, due in part to the desirability of housing in the county and because available land is in short supply. These costs vary both between and within jurisdictions based on factors like the desirability of the location and the permitted density. The following land costs are based on survey data of San Mateo County. For a typical multi- family construction project in San Mateo County, land costs add approximately $100,000 per unit. Land for a single-family home often costs $1,030,000 or more per lot. Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such as architectural and engineering services, development fees and insurance. For multi-family homes in San Mateo County, these costs average $732,500 per unit produced for buildings with 100 units or more. For the least expensive production single-family homes, the cost of preparing the vacant land and the cost of construction is approximately $950/square feet and results in an average overall development cost of $2,500,000. 282 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY 74 AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING AND REQUEST TO DEVELOP BELOW SPECIFIED DENSITIES As of the writing of this document, the financing market for housing has gotten increasingly constrained as Federal benchmark rates have increased to reduce inflationary pressure on market prices across all economic sectors. Discussions with developers suggest that this has increased competition for financing and reduced availability. As a market trend, however, housing demand is expected to remain strong given the current rate of non-residential construction and job growth. To date, no projects proposed within the boundaries of South San Francisco have proposed densities below any minimum densities stated in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Minimum densities are included in the General Plan Update and companion zoning and staff does not plan to review or approve projects that do not meet minimum density standards. PUBLIC OPINION In some communities, public opinion is a significant constraint to the production of higher density and affordable housing. To date, housing developers, City staff, and elected officials do not report significant public opposition to recent multi-family housing developments. As key to this success, elected officials stress the need to continue to work with neighbors to address concerns and the importance of the City’s policies to protect single-family neighborhoods from significant change, while finding opportunities for multi-family housing development along key transit corridors and in the downtown area. In addition, City officials and developers can work to assuage these concerns by requiring design review, emphasizing management of new developments, and engaging in public education to address myths about high density, low-income, and supportive housing. 283 4 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 75 This page intentionally blank 284 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 76 Chapter 5 – Housing Resources in Our City AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING OVERVIEW – PIPELINE PROJECT ANALYSIS The General Plan Update completed the major planning for analyzing and zoning for new housing for this Housing Element RHNA cycle. The adoption of that community input, rezoning, and development standards recommendations have informed the opportunity site breakdown. The volume of pipeline projects has given the City a very good sense of development feasibility and a pathway to meet our overall RHNA obligation. Updated information on our known pipeline projects shows entitlement approvals that are now under construction and not just dormant. This is exciting news and continues to be the norm – new housing is coming to South San Francisco! Evaluating our known pipeline projects, which include projects with submitted applications that are currently under Planning review; projects with approved Planning entitlements; and projects with issued Building Permits currently under construction, we’ve calculated the following path to provide over 50% of our assigned lower- income RHNA, based on our total RHNA Summary. Table 5-1 Total RHNA Summary Very- Low Units Low Units Moderate Units Above- Moderate Units Total Units RHNA 871 502 720 1,863 3,956 RHNA w/20% Buffer 1,045 602 864 2,236 4,747 Type Pipeline Projects 225 408 50 2,898 3,581 ADUs (Based on High Projection) 102 101 101 - 304 Opportunity Sites 546 1,319 580 10,663 13,108 Total to Comply with RHNA 873 1,828 731 13,561 16,993 Let’s do some RHNA math: ▪ 871 very-low units + 502 low units = 1,373 lower-income RHNA units. ▪ 1373 / 2 = 687 units as a target number.for 50% of our known lower-income RHNA ▪ Pipeline = 225 very-low units + 408 low units = 633 lower-income units. ▪ Lower-income ADUs expected based on a 43-year average (2019-2022) = 226 203 lower-income ADUs. ▪ 633 Pipeline units + 203 lower-income ADUs = 859 836 total lower income units in pipeline > 687 units (50% lower income units target). 285 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 77 Based on this analysis of pipeline projects, South San Francisco is evaluating opportunity sites under the standard burden of proof rather than substantial evidence. The analysis will still adhere to conservative expectations, utilizing the lowest permissible densities for a capacity analysis and selecting sites that have a meaningful chance to redevelop based on proximity to a transit corridor or a governing specific plan that facilitates redevelopment. But South San Francisco will not make overly complicated value judgements on the likelihood of non-vacant parcels redeveloping. This type of development is a known fact in South San Francisco, an entirely built out community with no surrounding green space. Furthermore, this type of development is evident across the city as shown during slideshow presentations to HCD and during the local tour coordinated by 21 Elements and Baird and Driskell as lead San Mateo County consultant. Rezoning works in South San Francisco. The adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan has resulted in nearly 1,400 new residential units in six years, or the equivalent of 25% of capacity assumed under a 20-year master plan. The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan has entitled almost 1,000 new residential units since its inception. With the Lindenville Specific Plan underway and covering over 5,000 expected new units during the upcoming RHNA Cycle 6, we are confident that we craft meaningful and effective specific plans to facilitate new development and deliver low- income AND market rate units. And there are companion Programs to ensure we make such progress with specific plan guidance. We are also taking the lessons learned from the General Plan Update and evaluating equitable development. Demonstrating an adequate supply of vacant or underutilized land is only part of the task of the adequate sites analysis, however. The City must also show that this supply is capable of supporting housing demand from all economic segments of the community and for various housing types. High land costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing on sites that are designated for low densities. The State has generally held that the most appropriate way to demonstrate adequate capacity for low- and very-low-income units is to provide land zoned for multiple-family housing with an allowed density of 30 du/ac or more. Hence this analysis focuses on the identification of sites that could accommodate appropriate density for lower-income housing units. For the purposes of this analysis, housing opportunity sites in South San Francisco have been grouped into four geographic corridors: 1. Lindenville 2. El Camino Real – North 3. El Camino Real – South 4. South Airport Boulevard Each of these areas is described below, with accompanying maps and tables to identify sites and quantify development potential. The following analysis of sites in South San Francisco indicates the potential to develop over 17,000 units of new housing under adoption of the General Plan Update. This number is particularly high because the General Plan Update anticipates three RHNA cycles over the 20-year horizon. This potential development capacity, a nearly 75% increase in existing units, was also entirely unacknowledged by HCD 286 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 78 during the first review comment letter dated December 7, 2022, which is rather disappointing given the overall housing shortage across the Bay Area and State of California. This comment letter seems to miss the forest for the trees, or rather, the future city for the single pipeline project and its unsettled future. NEW ANALYSIS AS REQUESTED BY HCD’S FIRST REVIEW COMMENT LETTER HCD comments are in italics with South San Francisco response below each comment. Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions for the realistic residentialcapacity on identified sites in the inventory, it must also provide support for theseassumptions. The element must clarify whether the number of units estimated for each site is adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level. For example, the element could list recent and pending developments by zone, allowable densities, number of units and built density. In addition, the element must account for the likelihood of residential development inzones that allow for 100 percent nonresidential development. For example, the elementcould discuss which zones allow 100 percent nonresidential development, evaluate all(residential and nonresidential) recent trends in the zones, discuss how often thesedevelopments include a residential component and account for that likelihood in thecalculation of residential capacity. Lastly, the element heavily relies on sites where specific plans are not complete. The element must describe the timing of when the specific plans will be completed and clarify whether appropriate zoning is in place priorto implementing the specific plans. Nearly all opportunity sites would support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater, providing favorable prospects for affordable units. The estimated number of units for each opportunity site is broken down into four affordability levels, Very-Low (VL), Low (L), Moderate (M), and Above-Moderate (AM), corresponding with RHNA income levels. Affordability is calculated using the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. All for-sale and rental residential developments of five or more units must provide 15% of the base units at income levels below market rate. The income level and split of units are based on type of unit, for-sale or rental. For estimation purposes to assign affordability levels, the total number of opportunity sites located within each corridor have been split 60/40, with an assumption that future residential projects will tend to favor rental residential developments slightly over time. The previous RHNA Cycle 5 has been predominantly rental housing with an 80/20 split but taking a more conservative view gives us the best long-term outlook without prejudging future development. If more rental housing is created in the future, the CitySouth San Francisco can expect more very-low-income units created through the adopted inclusionary ordinance—rental housing is required to provide 5% very--—low and 10% low-income units while for-sale housing provides 7.5% low- and 7.5% moderate-income units instead. With that said, every new residential development during RHNA Cycle 5 utilized maximum density and often also the State Density Bonus Law. Requirements for on-site amenities such as parking or open space have zoning provisions to relax these standards, as necessary, to allow maximum density projects. All zoning to allow the proposed opportunity sites has 287 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 79 been adopted since November 2022 and is now effective – programs to implement appropriate specific plans have already been included in the Draft Housing Element to ensure timely delivery. Form based zoning is in place for the El Camino Real, Lindenville, and South Airport Boulevard corridors, where all the expected development to meet RHNA Cycle 6 will occur. Small Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the element describes other evidence to HCD that the site issuitable and appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov.Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).) The element lists small sites but must also evaluate whether the sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income householdsand, add or modify programs as appropriate. For example, the element could list past consolidations by the number of parcels, number of owners, zone, number of units,affordability and circumstances leading to consolidation and relate those trends to the identified sites or could explain the potential for consolidation on a site-by-site basis. South San Francisco is relying on sites larger than 0.5 acres, wherever possible, to meet housing needs at all affordability levels. Only a handful of sites smaller than .5 acres are include in each of the opportunity corridors. When smaller sites are included, it is for their promise of graduated density with site aggregation. This has occurred throughout South San Francisco in the previous RHNA Cycle 5 with some highlights below: ▪ Sares Regis Cadence Phase 1 – 260 units on multiple aggregated parcels ▪ Sares Regis Cadence Phase 2 – 195 units on multiple aggregated parcels ▪ ROEM 100% Affordable Project on 201-219 Grand Avenue – 476 Units on .45 acre site ▪ 455-463 Baden Ave Project – 27 units with inclusionary on .32 acre site ▪ For the Future Housing 100% Affordable Project on 428-432 Baden Ave – 36 units on .32 acre site Based on recent evidence, South San Francisco is confident that the selected opportunity sites can be developed independently or with aggregation to meet housing at all affordability levels based on the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, competitive tax credit applications, and history of affordable housins on sites < 0.5 acres. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element describes in general the existing use of each nonvacant site for example “commercial” or “industrial”. This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period. In addition, the element needs to also analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. For example, the element includes sites identified as warehouse, parking lot, civic, residential, and religious, but no analysis was provided to demonstrate whether these existing uses would impede development of these sites within the planning period. The element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis 288 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 80 of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional resi dential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified. The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure, expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors. Nearly all South San Francisco sites are nonvacant given the built out conditons of the city. Given the evidence presented above and in previous Annual Progress Reports, development of nonvacant sites is possible and likely. Virtually every identified opportunity site consists of industrial or commercial sites with buildings nearing the end of their useful life. Any identified commercial center on El Camino Real represents sites with high vacancy rates, or known replacement businesses under construction in other locations. Industrial operations in the Lindenville Corridor are in similar condition – most are used for storage or operations that can be adapted to most new locations (vehicle repair, contractor storage, small scale business to business distribution). With that said, the City is actually seeking a middle way to both reinvent properties into residential if interested, and retain industrial maker space as well. The Lindenville Specific Plan will answer all these questions in more detail and is included as a Program for adoption. Replacement Housing Requirements: Absent a replacement housing program, sites with existing residential uses are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. If utilizing sites with existing residential uses, the element must include a program or remove the sites. The replac ement housing program must have the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). Comment noted. Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites: Nonvacant sites identified in the prior planning period or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless the site is available at appropriate densities and the element includes a program to make sites available by right in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) The element should denote any sites identified in prior planning periods and add or modify programs, if necessary. No carryover nonvacant or vacant sites from RHNA Cycle 5 are included in Cycle 6. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): he element projects 336 ADUs over the planning period or approximately 47 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning period. These trends are inconsistent with HCD records (3 reported in 2018, 4 in 2019, 47 in 2020, and 41 in 2021) and do not support an assumption of 47 ADUs per year. To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and 289 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 81 specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if number and affordability assumptions are not met. ADU assuptions have been updated and based on a four year cycle (2019 through 2022) with available data and revisions after errors were found. 2018 2019 2019 Rev 2020 2021 2022 4 Year Average (2019-2022) Issued 3 5 23 47 33 48 38 Finaled 12 10 37 19 0 17 Assuming the average of 38 ADUs per year, which represents .001 of existing residential units in South San Francisco adding an accessory dwelling unit, the City can conservatively assume 304 ADUs over the eight year RHNA Cycle 6 period. These units are divided among very low, low and moderate income levels based on local knowledge that most ADUs and JADUs are constructed for family, disabled adult children, or rented at relatively moderate market rates due to their size, lack of privacy, and location. This is consistent with past practice of reporting any issued ADU or JADU as a moderate, non-deed restricted unit in each Annual Progress Report. Appropriate programs to continue administering ADU support programs have been included in the Draft Housing Element and the RHNA expectations for ADU contribution to Cycle 6 are minimal. Availability of Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply capacity, including the availability and access to distribution facilities to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period. For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The element should demonstrate compliance with these requirements and add or modify programs, if necessary. The recently adopted General Plan Update and companion zoning were submitted and discussed with local water and sewer service. Additionally, all expected wet and dry utilities were broadly evaluated by the General Plan Update to ensure all development types could be accommodated. Background information on that analysis is available at www.ShapeSSF.com. A draft Program to require the Lindenville Specific Plan will further analyze parcel data for appropriate infrastructure and will be delivered by the end of 2023 to help guide the RHNA Cycle 6 development for at least 5,000 possible units in Lindenville. Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City, it must describe any other known environmental constraints or conditions within the 290 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 82 City that could preclude development on identified sites in the planning period (e.g., airport compatibility and related land use controls, shape, contamination, easements, overlays). The two known constraints are impacts from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and sea level rise. No sites were identified witin the SFO noise contours that preclude housing development, therefore there is no impact to the proposed sites inventory. Sea Level Rise presents a risk for parcels in the South Airport Boulevard and Lindenville Opportunity Corridors. The General Plan Update and companion Climate Action Plan, however, account for this impact with required mitigations reviewed and recommended by OneShoreline, the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise coordinating agency. While maximum density may not always be possible for sites within the sea level rise overlay, development capacity assumptions are always based on minimum density for this exact reason – sometimes infrastructure is necessary to make new housing possible. Funding for these types of mitigation projects are planned to be funded area wide to minimize impacts to direct new development, where possible. Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance. Updated sites inventory will be submitted with the adopted Draft Housing Element to HCD. 291 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 83 Table 5-2 Pipeline Projects Site Address APN Existing Use Acres Min du/ac Max du/ac Proposed du/ac Program No. of Units by Affordability Level Status (As of June December 2022) VL L M AM Total 201 Baden Ave 199 Airport Blvd 012-335-120 012-335-110 Commercial 0.49 80 100 167 State Density Bonus 25 57 – – 82 Preliminary ApplicationAppr oved and Building Permits submitted 180 El Camino Real 014-183-110 Commercial N/A 80 – 9 19 – 156 184 Under ReviewApprove d and Building Permits submitted 1477 Huntington Ave 014-184-999 Commercial 1.98 N/A N/A 132 – 13 26 – 223 262 Under Review – hearings planned for March 2023 40 Airport Blvd 015-126-010 Commercial 1.63 100 180 City Incentive Program 15 29 – 248 292 Approved and seeking financing 421 Cypress Ave 209-213 Lux Ave 012-314-070 012-314-080 012-314-090 Commercial Parking Lot 0.58 40-80 80-100 170 City Incentive Program State Density Bonus 5 10 – 84 99 Under ReviewApprove d and seeking financing 455-463 Grand Ave 012-305-060 012-305-070 Commercial Parking Lot 0.32 14 60 84 State Density Bonus 3 – – 24 27 Under Review 7 S Linden Ave 014-074-010 Industrial 4.22 80 140 135 – 29 59 481 569 Under Review – hearings planned for March 2023 1051 Mission Rd 093-312-050 093-312-060 Vacant 5.9 – 80 136 State Density Bonus 55 103 – 642 800 ApprovedUnder Construction 124 Airport Blvd 100 Produce Ave 015-113-180 015-113-380 Commercial 4.12 100 120 City Incentive Program State Density Bonus – 40 20 420 480 Approved and Building Permits submitted 292 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 84 Site Address APN Existing Use Acres Min du/ac Max du/ac Proposed du/ac Program No. of Units by Affordability Level Status (As of June December 2022) VL L M AM Total 423 Commercial Ave 012-323-200 Residential 0.14 15.1 30 30 – – – – 4 4 Approved and Building Permits submitted 428-432 Baden Ave 012-321-160 012-321-170 Residential Vacant 0.32 40 80 113 State Density Bonus 28 7 – 1 36 Under ConstructionApp roved 200-214 Airport Blvd 012-338-010 012-338-020 012-338-030 012-338-040 012-338-050 Commercial Industrial Vacant 0.55 80 100 171 City Incentive Program – – 9 85 94 Under Construction – completion expected in 2023 201-219 Grand Ave (255 Cypress Ave) 012-316-080 012-316-090 012-316-100 012-316-110 Vacant 0.46 14 60 102 State Density Bonus 24 22 – 1 47 Under Construction – completion expected in 2023 405 Cypress Ave 204-216 Miller Ave 012-314-100 012-314-110 012-314-180 012-314-190 012-314-220 Commercial Parking Lot 1.09 80 100 180 City Incentive Program – – – 195 195 Under Construction – completion expected in 2024 410 Noor Ave 014-183-220 014-183-230 014-183-270 Commercial 4.74 – 60 71 City Incentive Program - 17 17 304 338 Under Construction 418 Linden Ave (488 Linden Ave) 012-314-010 Commercial 0.32 80 100 116 State Density Bonus 19 17 - 1 37 Under Construction – completion expected in 2023 645 Baden Ave 012-232-140 Residential 0.24 15.1 25 33 State Density Bonus – – 2 6 8 Under Construction – completion expected in 2023 818 Linden Ave 012-143-370 Residential 0.17 40 60 41 – – – – 7 7 Under Construction 293 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 85 Site Address APN Existing Use Acres Min du/ac Max du/ac Proposed du/ac Program No. of Units by Affordability Level Status (As of June December 2022) VL L M AM Total 889 McLellan Dr/ 1309 Mission Rd 010-213-070 Vacant 0.4 – 50 50 – – 2 2 16 20 Under Construction Total 225 408 50 2,898 3,581 294 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 86 Table 5-3 City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements Type Very-Low Low Moderate Total For Sale - 7.5% 7.5% 15% Rental 5% 10% - 15% As discussed before, the City has a determined need of 3,956 units during the planning period. Compared against the RHNA, the City’s pipeline projects and housing opportunity sites offer a development capacity that exceeds the needs determination significantly. Table 5-4 Opportunity Sites Development Capacity Under Adopted Zoning Corridor Area Acreage Unit Capacity % of Total Lindenville 73.46 5,393 41% El Camino Real 26.62 2,130 16% South Airport Blvd 66.74 5,586 43% Total Capacity 166.82 13,109 100% RHNA Target | + 20% Buffer 3,956 | 4,747 Excess Capacity 9,153 230% + The available sites inventory conducted for the Housing Element focuses on sites with both near-, mid- and long-term development potential, where the site is currently vacant, highly underutilized, or where developers have come forward with plans to redevelop existing uses. Some areas will require a specific plan process, such as Lindenville and the South Airport Boulevard corridors to ensure equitable access and well-paced development; objective development standards are already in place, however. Approximately 85% of the city’s residential development potential is in either the Lindenville or South Airport Boulevard Corridors, which the General Plan Update rezoned to permit high density mixed-use development (minimum 40 du/ac up to 200 du/ac). These properties are less developed and much larger than typical residentially zoned land. The remaining potential development is in the El Camino Real Corridor, where sites are somewhat smaller and slightly more constrained with commercial development. 295 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 87 FIGURE 5-1 OPPORTUNITY CORRIDORS Lindenville ECR - South ECR - North South Airport 296 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 88 LINDENVILLE OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR The General Plan Update proposes to create a new vibrant residential neighborhood in Lindenville, ensuring appropriate city services, amenities and retail to support new residential growth. Lindenville is in the central southern portion of the city, adjacent to the Downtown. It is in between Highway 101 and South Spruce Avenue. The area stretches over 400 acres and is largely comprised of manufacturing, food processing, warehousing, and other industrial uses, including some of the city’s historic “legacy” businesses, such as See’s Candies, The Golden Gate Produce Terminal and Bimbo Bakeries. As of 2021, Lindenville does not have residential units or park acreage. Therefore, much of the census level data is reflecting residential communities outside of the Lindenville Corridor. The General Plan Update allows Lindenville to strengthen its economic base, which includes many small businesses and a high share of jobs in industry sectors and thoughtfully introduce housing and live/work into the area. These nonresidential areas may also provide opportunities for arts and the creative economy to continue growing and expanding in South San Francisco. The General Plan also creates a new residential neighborhood in the northern part of Lindenville, north of Victory Avenue. At the present, this area is primarily occupied by warehousing and other industrial uses. Providing opportunities to live in Lindenville will support a sustainable and thriving Downtown and advance city goals to add a broad range of new housing for different income levels close to mass transit service. The General Plan supports the well-being of new Lindenville residents by providing convenient access to new parks and gathering spaces, neighborhood-serving retail and amenities, and public services. There are 82 opportunity sites in the Lindenville Corridor totaling more than 5,000 units and is expected to include 626 very-low-income and low-income units, 183 moderate-income units and significant opportunities for above-moderate-income residential development. Lindenville Corridor has one pipeline project which will result in 569 total units and 88 very- low- and low-income units to help meet the City’s RHNA. CAPACITY ANALYSIS This section contains analysis of the realistic development capacity of the Lindenville Corridor opportunity sites. This analysis considers factors including vacant and underutilized site status, recent regulatory changes and development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure. 297 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 89 FIGURE 5-2 LINDENVILLE KEY OPPORTUNITY SITES The General Plan Update includes the introduction of residential uses at medium to high densities within portions of the Lindenville area. The opportunity sites identified for this corridor fall within the areas of Lindenville that will be rezoned to medium and high-density mixed use with a strong emphasis on residential development as directed by updated regulations and development standards. Centered along Colma Creek, the opportunity sites are also located directly south of the DSASP boundaries and in between two identified Priority Development Areas (PDA): the Downtown PDA to the north, and the El Camino Real PDA to the south. Identified as PDAs by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) because of their proximity to high- quality transit service, employment centers, shopping, and neighborhood services, the Downtown PDA and El Camino Real PDA have been ripe for growth. Based on Lindenville’s proximity to the two PDAs, as well as falling within identified Transit Priority Areas, residential development of the opportunity sites within the Lindenville Corridor are a natural progression for a growing city with substantial access to infrastructure and services. Lindenville Corridor Up to 140 du/ac Pipeline Projects 7 S. Linden Ave Under Review 4.22 acres Proposed # of Units: 569 7 S Linden Ave 298 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 90 FIGURE 5-3 LINDENVILLE CORRIDOR MAP OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES Source: Hess Tool – ABAG, FIGURE 5-4 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS ADJACENT TO LINDENVILLE Downtown PDA ECR PDA Transit Priority Area 299 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 91 Table 5-5 Lindenville Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites Site Address APN Existing Use General Plan Designation Zoning Minimum du/ac Acres Estimated # of Units by Affordability VL L M AM Total 599 Railroad Ave 014-051-010 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.49 – 9 9 101 119 551 Railroad Ave 014-051-020 Industrial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.49 – 9 9 101 119 539 Railroad Ave 014-051-030 Industrial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.93 – 6 6 63 74 535 Railroad Ave 014-051-040 Industrial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.50 – 3 3 34 40 525 Railroad Ave 014-051-050 Industrial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.09 – 7 7 74 87 517 Railroad Ave 014-051-060 Industrial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.50 – 3 3 34 40 513 Railroad Ave 014-051-070 Industrial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.46 – 3 3 31 36 505 Railroad Ave 014-051-080 Warehouse Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.99 – 6 6 67 79 – 014-051-130 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.08 – 0 0 5 6 – 014-051-140 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.17 – 1 1 12 14 – 014-051-150 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.08 – 0 0 5 6 – 014-051-160 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.08 – 0 0 5 6 – 014-051-170 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.14 – 1 1 10 11 – 014-051-180 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.23 – 1 1 16 18 – 014-051-190 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.23 – 1 1 16 18 – 014-051-200 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.14 – 1 1 10 11 475 Railroad Ave 014-061-150 Industrial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 2.46 – 15 15 168 197 – 014-061-160 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.28 – 2 2 19 22 26 S Linden Ave 014-072-040 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.83 – 5 5 56 66 1 S Linden Ave 014-073-050 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.68 – 10 10 114 135 5 S Linden Ave 014-073-060 Vacant High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.36 – 2 2 24 29 5 S Linden Ave 014-073-070 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.16 – 7 7 79 93 467 S Canal St 014-080-070 Commercial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.44 – 3 3 30 35 300 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 92 Site Address APN Existing Use General Plan Designation Zoning Minimum du/ac Acres Estimated # of Units by Affordability VL L M AM Total 132 Starlite St 014-080-130 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.20 – 1 1 13 16 138 Starlite St 014-080-140 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.20 – 1 1 13 16 150 Starlite St 014-080-150 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.27 – 2 2 18 21 118 Starlite St 014-080-230 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.30 – 2 2 20 24 126 Starlite St 014-080-240 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.21 – 1 1 14 17 128 Starlite St 014-080-250 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.21 – 1 1 14 17 178 Starlite St 014-080-280 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.75 3 6 - 51 60 172 Starlite St 014-080-290 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.37 1 3 - 25 29 116 Starlite St 014-080-300 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.27 1 2 - 18 22 457 S Canal St 014-080-310 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.28 1 2 - 19 22 135 S Spruce Ave 014-080-320 Commercial High Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.14 1 1 - 10 11 – 014-080-340 Vacant High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.36 1 3 - 24 29 151 S Spruce Ave 014-080-360 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.60 2 5 - 41 48 475 S Canal St 014-080-370 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.81 7 14 - 123 145 437 S Canal St 014-081-010 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.96 4 8 - 65 77 129 Starlite St 014-081-040 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.23 1 2 - 15 18 149 Starlite St 014-081-090 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.22 1 2 - 15 18 153 Starlite St 014-081-100 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.22 1 2 - 15 18 145 Starlite St 014-081-210 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.45 2 4 - 31 36 125 Starlite St 014-081-290 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.45 2 4 - 31 36 171 S Spruce Ave 014-081-300 Warehouse Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.66 3 5 - 45 53 133 Starlite St 014-081-310 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.45 2 4 - 31 36 161 S Spruce Ave 014-081-320 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.51 2 4 - 35 41 114 S Maple Ave 014-091-020 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 2.05 8 16 - 140 164 301 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 93 Site Address APN Existing Use General Plan Designation Zoning Minimum du/ac Acres Estimated # of Units by Affordability VL L M AM Total 120 S Maple Ave 014-091-030 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.99 4 8 - 68 79 132 S Maple Ave 014-091-090 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.39 6 11 - 94 111 124 S Maple Ave 014-091-100 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.49 6 12 - 101 119 101 S Maple Ave 014-092-090 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.65 3 5 - 44 52 323 S Canal St 014-092-110 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.11 4 9 - 76 89 111 S Maple St 014-092-120 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.14 5 9 - 77 91 131 S Maple St 014-092-170 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.35 5 11 - 92 108 34 S Linden Ave 014-102-010 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.54 2 4 - 37 43 40 S Linden Ave 014-102-020 Commercial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.26 1 2 - 18 21 42 S Linden Ave 014-102-030 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.48 2 4 - 33 39 62 S Linden Ave 014-102-070 Commercial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.98 4 8 - 67 79 – 014-102-130 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.17 1 1 - 12 14 58 S Linden Ave 014-102-160 Commercial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.56 2 4 - 38 45 – 014-125-020 Vacant Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 0.34 1 1 - 12 14 519 Mayfair Ave 014-125-030 Industrial Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 0.86 2 3 - 29 34 513 Mayfair Ave 014-125-040 Industrial Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 0.45 1 2 - 15 18 160 S Spruce Ave 014-125-060 Vacant Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 3.03 6 12 - 103 121 118 S Spruce Ave 014-125-160 Commercial Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 0.28 1 1 - 10 11 509 Mayfair Ave 014-125-170 Warehouse Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 1.11 2 4 - 38 44 – 014-134-010 Vacant Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 1.00 2 4 - 34 40 170 S Spruce Ave 014-134-170 Warehouse Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 1.98 4 8 - 67 79 200 S Spruce Ave 014-134-180 Warehouse Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 0.97 2 4 - 33 39 220 S Spruce Ave 014-134-190 Commercial Low Density Mixed Use T3C 40 2.08 4 8 - 71 83 490 Victory Ave 014-191-010 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.49 2 4 - 33 39 302 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 94 Site Address APN Existing Use General Plan Designation Zoning Minimum du/ac Acres Estimated # of Units by Affordability VL L M AM Total 221 S Spruce Ave 014-192-230 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.46 2 4 - 31 37 – 014-192-240 Parking Lot Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.34 1 3 - 23 27 201 S Spruce Ave 014-192-250 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.41 2 3 - 28 33 50 S Linden Ave 100-970-100 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 0.98 4 8 - 67 78 6 S Linden Ave 100-980-999 Industrial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.25 5 10 - 85 100 338 N Canal St 100-990-280 Warehouse Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 3.14 13 25 - 213 251 121 S Maple Ave 101-300-160 Warehouse High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.86 7 15 - 126 148 20 S Linden Ave 101-341-100 Warehouse Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.71 – 10 10 116 137 434 N Canal St 102-271-150 Warehouse Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 4.50 – 27 27 306 360 432 N Canal St 102-890-400 Warehouse Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 5.73 – 34 34 390 458 401 S Canal St 104-740-060 Industrial High Density Mixed Use T5C 80 1.40 – 8 8 95 112 Total 148 478 183 4,584 5,393 303 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 95 SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR To date, no residential zoning exists East of Highway 101 along South Airport Boulevard and there are no housing units or residents. As a part of the General Plan update, there is opportunity to introduce residential uses to East of Highway 101 to create more complete neighborhoods with options for living, working, and recreation. The General Plan creates these new mixed-use neighborhoods along South Airport Boulevard with densities up to 200 du/ac. Providing opportunities for living in East of Highway 101 supports a long-term vision for an innovation district, places more housing near jobs and high-quality transit, and creates opportunity for a range of new housing for different income levels. Along South Airport Boulevard, residents will benefit from streetscape improvements and urban design that create a high-quality public realm along this currently commercial and industrial corridor. The area currently contains employment generating land uses. Most life science uses are located north of East Grand Avenue, with the Genentech campus being the largest corporate campus in East of Highway 101. The General Plan advances the community vision of maintaining districts for R&D and industrial growth, while creating new neighborhoods that allow residential and supportive amenities and services. Life science companies may intensify development north of East Grand Avenue, closer to key transportation corridors in exchange for community benefits and district improvements. By allowing the life sciences area to grow through intensification rather than expanding its geographic area, the General Plan enables transportation, trade, and industrial uses to retain land area and continue to thrive in East of 101 while supporting the City’s goal of creating a new residential neighborhood south of East Grand Avenue. The 41 sites that make up the South Airport opportunity sites may result in more than 5,000 units including 645 very-low-income and low-income units. There are no pipeline projects in this corridor. CAPACITY ANALYSIS This section contains analysis of the realistic development capacity of the South Airport Boulevard Corridor opportunity sites. This analysis considers factors including vacant and underutilized site status, recent regulatory changes and development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure. The General Plan Update includes the introduction of residential uses at medium to high densities within portions of the East of Highway 101 Area adjacent to transit. The opportunity sites identified for this corridor fall within the areas of East of Highway 101 that will be rezoned to medium and high-density mixed use with a strong emphasis on residential development as directed by updated regulations and development standards. Life sciences will not be permitted within this corridor to further promote housing development. 304 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 96 FIGURE 5-5 SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD KEY OPPORTUNITY SITES Centered in proximity to the Caltrain Station and along South Airport Boulevard, the opportunity sites are located within and just south of an identified Transit Priority Area. New connections to the west of Highway 101 will promote mobility and amenity access, connecting the corridor to the Downtown PDA, Lindenville, and an additional Transit Priority Area. The corridor’s proximity to Colma Creek may pose some environmental constraints as periodic flooding occurs in certain areas along the creek; however, improvement projects in this area have greatly reduced the concern of flooding, such that it is not an issue that would limit development in this area. Furthermore, any residential development would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and, as is common practice in the city, developers may be required to implement mitigation measures that include infrastructure improvements to further offset any potential environmental constraints in relation to Colma Creek. SOUTH AIRPORT CORRIDOR Up to 200 du/ac – No Life Sciences permitted within this corridor to preserve housing and hotel mixed-use opportunities – New connections to W101 area of the City to promote mobility and amenity access 245 S. AIRPORT BOULEVARD Private 6.1-acre site w/a low-quality hotel Estimated # of Units: 480 100 UTAH AVENUE Private 4.3-acre site Estimated # of Units: 154 100 Utah Avenue 245 S. Airport Boulevard 305 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 97 FIGURE 5-6 SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD CORRIDOR MAP OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES 306 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 98 FIGURE 5-7 TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ADJACENT TO S. AIRPORT Transit Priority Area Potential Environmental Constraint 307 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 99 Table 5-6 South Airport Boulevard Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites Site Address APN Existing Use General Plan Designation Zoning Min. du/ac Acres Estimated # of Units by Affordability VL L M AM Total 222 S Airport Blvd 015-122-030 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.73 – 4 4 50 58 180 S Airport Blvd 015-122-050 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.96 – 6 6 65 77 264 S Airport Blvd 015-122-060 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.75 – 5 5 51 60 248 S Airport Blvd 015-122-070 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.59 – 4 4 40 47 177 S Airport Blvd 015-123-730 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Transit Core T6UC 120 6.02 – 54 54 614 722 245 S Airport Blvd 015-124-010 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 6.00 – 36 36 408 480 280 Wattis Way 015-124-070 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.03 – 6 6 70 83 274 Wattis Way 015-124-080 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.98 – 12 12 135 158 267 Wattis Way 015-124-090 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 2.90 – 17 17 197 232 283 Wattis Way 015-124-100 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.10 – 7 7 75 88 153 Utah Ave 015-124-110 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.61 – 4 4 41 49 145 Utah Ave 015-124-120 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.47 – 3 3 32 37 255 S Airport Blvd 015-124-160 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.60 6 13 – 109 128 – 015-124-999 Vacant East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 4.19 17 34 – 285 335 326 S Airport Blvd 015-141-030 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 3.93 16 31 – 267 314 410 S Airport Blvd 015-141-150 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.55 2 4 – 37 44 400 S Airport Blvd 015-141-160 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.47 2 4 – 32 38 139 Marco Way 015-141-200 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.37 5 11 – 93 110 380 S Airport Blvd 015-141-222 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 2.51 10 20 – 171 201 168 Marco Way 015-141-240 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.62 2 5 – 42 50 316 S Airport Blvd 015-141-260 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.76 3 6 – 52 61 300 S Airport Blvd 015-141-270 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.44 2 4 – 30 35 – 015-141-280 Vacant East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.15 1 1 – 10 12 308 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 100 Site Address APN Existing Use General Plan Designation Zoning Min. du/ac Acres Estimated # of Units by Affordability VL L M AM Total – 015-141-290 Vacant East of Hwy 101 Transit Core T6UC 120 0.16 1 2 – 16 19 – 015-141-999 Vacant East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 2.92 12 23 – 198 233 152 Utah Ave 015-142-010 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.98 4 8 – 67 78 301 Corey Way 015-142-020 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.47 2 4 – 32 38 313 Corey Way 015-142-030 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.43 2 3 – 29 34 325 Corey Way 015-142-040 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.25 5 10 – 85 100 333 Corey Way 015-142-050 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 2.37 9 19 – 161 190 320 Corey 015-142-070 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.30 5 10 – 88 104 100 Utah Ave 015-142-080 Industrial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 4.35 17 35 – 296 348 373 S Airport Blvd 015-142-090 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.99 4 8 – 67 79 405 S Airport Blvd 015-142-130 Industrial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 3.17 13 25 – 215 253 330 Corey Way 015-142-160 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.22 5 10 – 83 98 - 015-142-170 Parking Lot East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.17 1 1 – 11 13 381 S Airport Blvd 015-142-180 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.22 5 10 – 83 98 137 Utah Ave 015-145-020 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.72 – 10 10 117 138 275 S Airport Blvd 015-145-030 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.58 – 9 9 107 126 275 S Airport Blvd 015-145-040 Commercial East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 0.79 – 5 5 54 63 101 Utah Ave 015-145-050 Warehouse East of Hwy 101 Mixed Use T5C 80 1.93 – 12 12 131 154 Total 151 494 193 4,748 5,586 309 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 101 EL CAMINO REAL – NORTH OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR The General Plan Update identifies strategic locations to support increased housing density and mixed uses along El Camino Real. These activity centers are the South San Francisco BART station, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area, and the South Spruce Avenue area. The activity centers are imagined as complete neighborhoods and will include spaces for social gathering, shopping, and entertainment to enable residents, employees, and visitors to meet their daily needs. The three activity centers already have many of these complete neighborhood components, including anchored institutional uses, and the potential for intensification of office, retail, and residential uses. The South San Francisco BART station area has potential for more housing production and increased daily services to serve new and existing residents. The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area will be anchored by the South San Francisco Community Civic Campus. The Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Orange Memorial Park, the Centennial Way Trail, and retail along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue are other major attractions in this area. El Camino Real North opportunity sites include 16 sites located north of Orange Ave on El Camino Real and surrounding the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Ave. The sites have the potential to develop 1,440 units which includes 38% of the city’s low- and very- low RHNA requirement (521 low-income and very-low-income units). El Camino North also has a significant number of above-moderate-income units (745 units). The El Camino Real North Corridor has one major pipeline project – 800 units with approximately 20% affordable (158 units) at very-low- and low-income levels. One additional pipeline project will provide an additional 20 units, two of which will be affordable at the low-income level. CAPACITY ANALYSIS This section contains analysis of the realistic development capacity of the El Camino Real – North Corridor opportunity sites. This analysis considers factors including vacant and underutilized site status, recent regulatory changes and development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure. The General Plan Update includes increasing the allowed density of residential uses along El Camino Real. The opportunity sites identified for this corridor fall within areas that will be rezoned to higher density mixed use with a strong emphasis on residential development as directed by updated regulations and development standards. 310 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 102 FIGURE 5-8 EL CAMINO REAL – NORTH KEY OPPORTUNITY SITES The opportunity sites are directly located within the identified El Camino Real PDA. Identified as a PDA by the MTC because of its proximity to high-quality transit service, employment centers, shopping, and neighborhood services, the El Camino Real PDA has experienced recent growth over the last RHNA cycle and is positioned to continue that growth. ECR – North Corridor Up to 120 du/ac 33 Arroyo Drive Current City facility being replaced w/relocated building 1.87-acre site Will leverage City site for 100% affordable housing project w/in next 3 years Estimated # of Units: 150 1015 El Camino Real Private 2.75-acre site Estimated # of Units: 220 10 Chestnut Avenue Private 3.99-acre site w/shopping center intended to close New owners intend to partner for affordable housing and community services Estimated # of Units: 319 Pipeline Projects 1051 Mission Road Approved: 5.9 acres Approved # of Units: 800 1051 Mission Road 10 Chestnut Avenue 33 Arroyo Drive 1015 ECR 311 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 103 FIGURE 5-9 EL CAMINO REAL – NORTH CORRIDOR MAP OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES FIGURE 5-10 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS ADJACENT TO ECR – NORTH Transit Priority Area ECR PDA 312 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 104 Table 5-7 El Camino Real – North Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites Site Address APN Existing Use General Plan Designation Zoning Min du/ac Acres Estimated # of Units by Affordability VL L M AM Total 81 Arroyo Dr 010-400-100 Vacant Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.27 8 8 6 - 22 74 Camaritas Ave 010-400-110 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.71 21 21 14 - 57 1015 El Camino Real 010-400-240 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 2.75 83 83 55 - 220 1057 El Camino Real 010-400-250 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.10 33 33 22 - 88 33 Arroyo Dr 010-400-270 Civic Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.87 56 56 37 - 150 1 Camaritas Ave 010-401-260 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.33 10 10 7 - 27 975 El Camino Real 010-401-270 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.00 - 6 6 68 80 609 Southwood Dr 013-025-040 Religious Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.41 - 2 2 28 33 943 El Camino Real 013-260-040 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.54 - 3 3 37 43 945-953 El Camino Real 013-260-050 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.84 - 5 5 57 67 955 El Camino Real 013-260-060 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.20 - 7 7 81 96 972 El Camino Real 014-011-320 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.86 - 5 5 58 69 932 El Camino Real 014-011-330 Parking Lot Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.66 - 4 4 45 52 840 El Camino Real 014-012-290 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.48 2 4 - 33 38 10 Chestnut Ave 014-300-630 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 3.99 16 32 - 271 319 885 El Camino Real 093-300-070 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 0.99 4 8 - 68 79 Total 233 288 174 745 1,440 313 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 105 EL CAMINO REAL – SOUTH OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR El Camino Real South includes many auto-oriented commercial centers, including the Brentwood shopping center and the shopping center at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue with the currently vacant anchor tenant space (formerly occupied by Safeway). It also includes the See’s Candy factory, a legacy industrial use in South San Francisco. Due to its proximity to the San Bruno BART station and the SamTrans bus corridor along El Camino Real, this area also has potential for more housing production in areas that comply with San Francisco International Airport land use compatibility regulations. El Camino Real South has 13 opportunity sites located primarily on El Camino Real, south of Orange Ave and totaling 690 units (17% of the overall RHNA), including 82 low-income and very-low-income units which make up 6% of the required lower-income RHNA sites. El Camino Real South also includes three Pipeline Projects totaling 784 units, which will include 101 affordable units (22 very-low-income, 62 low-income, and 17 moderate-income). FIGURE 5-11 EL CAMINO REAL – SOUTH KEY OPPORTUNITY SITES 1477 Huntington Avenue 180 El Camino Real 410 Noor Avenue ECR – South Corridor up to 140 du/ac Pipeline Projects 180 El Camino Real Under Review: 15 acres for entire mixed-use site Proposed # of Units: 184 410 Noor Avenue Under Construction: 4.74 acres Approved # of Units: 338 1477 Huntington Avenue Under Review: 1.98 acres Proposed # of Units: 262 314 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 106 CAPACITY ANALYSIS This section contains analysis of the realistic development capacity of the El Camino Real – North Corridor opportunity sites. This analysis considers factors including vacant and underutilized site status, recent regulatory changes and development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure. The General Plan Update includes increasing the allowed density of residential uses along El Camino Real. The opportunity sites identified for this corridor fall within areas that will be rezoned to higher density mixed use with a strong emphasis on residential development as directed by updated regulations and development standards. The opportunity sites are directly located within the identified El Camino Real PDA. Identified as a PDA by the MTC because of its proximity to high-quality transit service, employment centers, shopping, and neighborhood services, the El Camino Real PDA has experienced recent growth over the last RHNA cycle and is positioned to continue that growth. FIGURE 5-12 EL CAMINO REAL – SOUTH CORRIDOR MAP OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES 315 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 107 FIGURE 5-13 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS ADJACENT TO ECR – SOUTH Transit Priority Area ECR PDA 316 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 108 Table 5-8 El Camino Real – South Corridor Housing Opportunity Sites Site Address APN Existing Use General Plan Designation Zoning Min. du/ac Acres Est. # of Units by Affordability VL L M AM Total 133 Southwood Ctr 013-045-100 Commercial Medium Density Mixed Use T4C 80 1.42 – 9 9 96 113 415 El Camino Real 013-241-100 Commercial Urban Residential RH-140 80 0.77 – 5 5 53 62 465 El Camino Real 013-241-142 Commercial Urban Residential RH-140 80 0.53 – 3 3 36 42 435 El Camino Real 013-241-170 Commercial Urban Residential RH-140 80 0.41 – 2 2 28 32 587 El Camino Real 013-241-200 Commercial Urban Residential RH-140 80 0.43 – 3 3 29 34 587 El Camino Real 013-241-210 Commercial Urban Residential RH-140 80 0.31 1 2 – 21 24 551 El Camino Real 013-241-250 Commercial Urban Residential RH-140 80 0.58 2 5 – 39 46 55El Camino Real 013-241-290 Commercial Urban Residential RH-140 80 1.42 6 11 – 97 114 – 013-241-300 Vacant Urban Residential RH-140 80 0.08 0 1 – 5 6 375 S Spruce Ave 014-184-010 Commercial Urban Residential T5C 80 0.51 3 6 – 48 57 365 S Spruce Ave 014-184-020 Commercial Urban Residential T5C 80 0.36 2 4 – 35 41 1487 Huntington Ave 014-184-110 Commercial Urban Residential T5C 80 1.10 1 3 – 24 29 455 El Camino Real 101-620-070 Residential Urban Residential RH-140 80 0.71 4 9 – 75 88 Total 20 62 21 586 690 317 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 109 ANALYSIS OF ABILITY ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES As described, housing opportunity corridors can accommodate a range of housing types. Clarification of South San Francisco’s approval process for specific housing types was requested by HCD’s Review Comment Letter, and edits are included in the following section. Housing types are either permitted by-right, with approval of a Minor Use Permit, or with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The required findings for a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permitted are listed below to show the requirements for approval. The Use Permit process is intended to apply to uses that are generally consistent with the purposes of the district where they are proposed but require special consideration to ensure that they can be designed, located, and operated in a manner that will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. The process for review of all Use Permit applications is designed to evaluate possible adverse impacts and to minimize them where possible through the imposition of specific conditions or requirements. Approval of a Use Permit requires careful review of the location, design, configuration, and s pecial impacts of a proposed use with respect to applicable policies, standards, and criteria to determine the desirability of permitting its establishment on a particular site. Conditional Use Permits. Unless otherwise specified in the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for Conditional Use Permits based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter. Minor Use Permits. The Chief Planner shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for Minor Use Permits based on consideration of the requirements of this chapter. The Chief Planner may, at their discretion, refer any application for a Minor Use Permit for a project that may generate substantial public controversy or involve significant land use policy decisions to the Planning Commission for a decision rather than acting on it. In that case, the application shall be processed as a Conditional Use Permit. The review authority must make all of the following findings in the affirmative in order to approve or conditionally approve a Conditional Use Permit or a Minor Use Permit application. The inability to make one or more of the findings in the affirmative is grounds to deny an application. 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; Division VI: 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 318 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 110 3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; 4. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question as may be adopted by a resolution of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council; 5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity; 6. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints; 7. An environmental determination has been prepared in accordance with CEQA; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarification of South San Francisco’s approval process for specific housing types was requested by HCD’s Review Comment Letter, dated December 7, 2022 and include: ▪ Emergency Shelters: The element should list and evaluate the development standards of the MI zone that allows emergency shelters and clarify whether emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary action. The element should provide an analysis of proximity to transportation and services for these sites, hazardous conditions, and any conditions in appropriate for human habitability. In addition, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement. In accordance with the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City already has satisfied requirements regarding emergency shelters by providing an existing emergency shelter facility within its jurisdiction that can accommodate more than the city’s individual need for emergency shelter space (see Government Code, Section 65583(a)(4)(C)). South San Francisco’s existing emergency shelter provides 90 beds, accounting for more than half of emergency shelter capacity countywide. Additionally, it is adjacent to a regional bus stop and SamTrans facility that links to mass transit stations and other transit corridors. Development standards are in place in line with Government Code Section 65583 as part of SSFMC 20.350.017 listed below: Number of Residents. The number of adult residents, not including staff, who may be housed on a lot that is smaller than one acre shall not exceed the number of persons that may be accommodated in any hospital, convalescent home, residential, transient occupancy, or similar facility allowed in the same district. 319 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 111 Limitation On Time of Occupancy. Occupancy by an individual or family may not exceed 180 consecutive days unless the management plan provides for longer residency by those enrolled and regularly participating in a training or rehabilitation program. Outdoor Activities. All functions associated with the shelter, except for children’s play areas, outdoor recreation areas, parking, and outdoor waiting must take place within the building proposed to house the shelter. Outdoor waiting for clients, if any, may not be in the public right-of-way, must be physically separated from the public right-of-way, and must be large enough to accommodate the expected number of clients. Hours of Operation. To limit outdoor waiting, the facility must be open for at least eight hours every day between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Supervision. On-site supervision must be provided at all times. Toilets. At least one toilet must be provided for every 15 shelter beds. Management Plan. The operator of the shelter must submit a management plan for approval by the Chief Planner. The Plan must address issues identified by the Chief Planner, including transportation, client supervision, security, client services, staffing, and good neighbor issues. Previously, the City identified the Mixed Industrial (MI) district as a zone in the city where an emergency shelter would be permitted as an allowed use, subject only to the same development standards applicable to other uses in the zone. Emergency shelter facilities are also permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the Business Commercial district. Zoning development standards in the General Plan Update and companion zoning, however, seem to have failed to properly transfer Emergency Shelter as a permitted use in any of the zoning districts, particularly the Mixed Industrial Zoning District where it will be a permitted by-right use. This was an oversight but requires Program CST-5.2 to resolve by the end of 2023 or as soon as possible. The MI district is large and provides numerous sites that are underutilized and could potentially accommodate an additional emergency shelter. Conversations with commercial brokers in South San Francisco indicate that there are several industrial properties for sale in the district, many of which are marketed as “redevelopment opportunities.” This finding was confirmed through a search of the LoopNet.com website, a commercial listing service for properties for sale, which showed multiple properties for sale with substantial additional built out potential or potential to replace warehouse buildings with different uses. A more detailed capacity analysis of sites in the MI district reveals that there are numerous vacant and underutilized sites that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency shelter. According to the 2019 countywide homeless survey, there are 1,512 people experiencing homeless on a single night in San Mateo County. Of those, more than 900 320 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 112 were unsheltered and a significant number lived in RVs. The existing emergency shelter in South San Francisco has 90 beds and is in a single-story building that is estimated to be about 8,600 square feet in size. Under current development standards in the MI district, an additional emergency shelter that is the same size as the city’s existing shelter would fit comfortably on a parcel that is about a half-acre in size, of which there are many in the city. ▪ Supportive Housing: Supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) The element must describe and analyze the City’s supportive housing standards and codes and demonstrate consistency with Section 65583(c)(3) or add or revise programs to comply with the statutory requirements. Senior Citizen residential housing, Domestic Violence Shelters, Group Residential facilities, and Residential Care Facilities are all permitted by-right or conditionally permitted in all residential or mixed-use zoning districts. Zoning standards are applied to each of these housing types identical to any other residential or mixed-use project and accessibility provisions are available via the Waiver and Modification process. Land use tables and definitions have been updated as part of the General Plan Update and companion zoning in October 2022 and Chapter 20.070, 20.080, 20.090 are available here showing compliance: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28492/638060225599270000. ▪ Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Low Barrier Navigation Centers shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate. "Low Barrier Navigation Center" means a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. "Low Barrier" means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth. 2. Pets. 3. The storage of possessions. 321 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 113 4. Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms. Low Barrier Navigation Center, defined in the SSFMC as Domestic Violence Shelter, is allowed by-right in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts with the following size and concentration limitation: Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter. Land use tables and definitions have been updated as part of the General Plan Update and companion zoning in October 2022 and Chapter 20.070, 20.080, 20.090 are available here showing compliance: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28492/638060225599270000. ▪ By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by- right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate. This requirement seems in conflict with the Supportive Housing requirement under Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) South San Francisco permits Supportive Housing in all residential and mixed-use residential zoning districts since it states that these uses should also be “BY-RIGHT” without discretionary review. This housing type is currently permitted in multiple residential only zoning districts with approval of a minor use permit to support the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities or recovery needs. Under HCD best practice guidance, however, requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities or recovery needs to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses. Therefore, staff is recommending that new program CST-5.1 be introduced to consider allowing permanent supportive housing by right in all residential zoning districts to comply with State law. ▪ Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The element must describe where SROs are allowed and how (development standards and permit procedures) or add a program as appropriate. SRO units are no longer permitted in South San Francisco and existing SRO units are managed under the City’s legal non-conforming ordinance. Group Residential uses ARE permitted, however, and meet the general goal of previous SRO developments. Group 322 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 114 Residential uses are allowed in the Downtown Mixed Use zoning districts and medium residential density zoning districts with approval of a Minor Use Permit. Land use tables and definitions have been updated as part of the General Plan Update and companion zoning in October 2022 and Chapter 20.070, 20.080, 20.090 are available here showing compliance: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28492/638060225599270000. ▪ Manufactured Housing: The element must clarify whether manufactured homes on -a permanent foundation are treated similar to single-family uses pursuant to Government Code section 65852.3 or add a program if necessary. Prefabricated, manufactured housing on a permanent foundation is treated as residential construction and fully in conformance with a permitted residential structure in a residential zoning district. This applies to both single family residential and multi-unit residential construction. The California Building Code applies to this housing type. ▪ Lower-Income Multi-Family Residential. Nearly all opportunity sites identified can realistically accommodate densities of 30 du/ac or greater, which is a level of density that the State acknowledges is consistent with providing lower-income multi-family housing. Thirty du/ac is the “default density” assigned by HCD to jurisdictions with more than 25,000 people in San Mateo County. Housing sites that are zoned for a minimum of 30 du/ac are assumed to be able to accommodate lower-income housing. FINANCIAL RESOURCES The City of South San Francisco has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources available for affordable housing activities, including programs from federal, State, local and private resources. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE IMPACT FEE The City adopted a Commercial Linkage Fee in 2018 that assesses a per square foot fee to all new commercial development. These accrued fees can then be used to support new affordable housing starts in the city, including pre-development costs, financing, land acquisition, local matching funds for state and federal grants, and construction. Commercial Use: Cost / Square Foot ▪ Retail / Restaurant / Services $2.76 per square foot ▪ Office / R&D $16.55 per square foot ▪ Hotel $5.52 per square foot 323 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 115 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, (HUD provides funds to local governments for a wide range of housing and community development activities for low-income persons. Based on previous allocations, South San Francisco expects to receive approximately $500,000 in CDBG funds each year – we estimate receipt of $4m in funds for this Housing Element eight-year cycle. In accordance with the policies established by the City Council, South San Francisco is committed to increasing and maintaining affordable housing in the city. CDBG funds can be used for site acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, emergency and transitional shelters, and fair housing/housing counseling activities. Additionally, funds can be used for activities that support the new construction of affordable housing such as site clearance and the financing of related infrastructure and public facility improvements. HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ACT FUNDS The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National Affordable Housing Act provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the Consortium’s annual grant allocation. Funds are distributed on a competitive basis through a request for proposals process administered by San Mateo County. HOME funds may be used by the City for direct expenditure or may be issued as low-interest loans to a private or not-for-profit developer to jointly undertake the production of housing units that will be affordable to low-income residents. Under the program, 30-year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded with the property to ensure future affordability. HEART South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART), which raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County. Formed in 2003 as a public/private partnership among the cities, the County, and the business, nonprofit, education, and labor communities, to date, HEART has received over $12 million in funding gifts and pledges to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County. LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a 10-year period, provided that the 324 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY 116 housing meets the following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20% of the units must be affordable to households at 50% of AMI, or 40% of the units must be affordable to those at 60% of AMI. The total credit over the ten-year period has a present value equal to 70% of the qualified construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value. SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low- income persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g., 30% of their gross income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment standard but the tenant must pay the extra cost. This program is administered by the San Mateo County Housing Authority. SUMMARY Consistent with the City’s long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing production. These include primarily sites for housing development, and a variety of funding sources, as summarized below: ▪ South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need in the planning period. The City has no carryover obligation because it was able to identify adequate sites to meet its RHNA for the 2015-2023 Housing Element. There is sufficient land to support the production of 3,956 new housing units for RHNA Cycle 6. ▪ Nearly all of the City’s development capacity consists of higher density housing sites (densities exceeding 30 units per acre), and all are located within developed areas already served with needed infrastructure, including sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation facilities. 325 5 | HOUSING RESOURCES IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 117 This page intentionally blank 326 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 118 Chapter 6 – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Our City ASSEMBLY BILL 686 “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity. These actions aim to replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) into areas of opportunity, and foster compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The State of California’s 2018 AB 686 requires that all public agencies affirmatively further fair housing and “to take no action inconsistent with this obligation.” The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development (Government Code Section 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).) AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law requiring housing elements to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices. AB 686 also requires that the Housing Element include an evaluation of a city’s site inventory relative to its impact on fair housing. The purpose of the site inventory is to identify and analyze specific land that is available and suitable to accommodate the regional housing need. The site inventory analysis included in this chapter evaluates whether the identified sitesdistribution of the site inventory housing units proposed will exacerbate existing patterns of segregation among protected classes or vulnerable populations at the local level. serve the purpose of affirmatively furthering fair housing. The site inventory analysis evaluates the site inventory relative to the full scope of the assessment of fair housing including segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty ( R/ECAP), and racially and ethnically concentrated areas of affluence (R/ECAA), access to opportunity and disproportionate housing needs and displacement risk. 21 ELEMENTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT As a part of the 21 Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions, Root Policy provided a Fair Housing Assessment for the City of South San Francisco. The assessment includes a history of segregation in the region, an assessment of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, an analysis of segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs and contributing factors. The report also included a resident needs survey and a Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) outlining proposing policies and actions to address the disparities in access to housing 327 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 119 identified by this analysis. The programs in the Fair Housing Action Plan were incorporated into Chapter 7, Housing Plan. Chapter 6This chapter includes the report’s primary findings and analyzes implications for future housing development in South San Francisco. The appendices include the following information prepared by Root Policy for 21 Elements jurisdictions: ▪ Appendix 6.1: South San Francisco Fair Housing Assessment ▪ Appendix 6.2: South San Francisco AFFH Map and Data Packet ▪ Appendix 6.3: South San Francisco AFFH Segregation Report (UC Merced) ▪ Appendix 6.4: AFFH Resident Survey Analysis ▪ Appendix 6.5: Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities ▪ Appendix 6.6: State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations South San Francisco is an economically, racially and ethnically diverse community with demand for housing for many lower-income and racially and ethnically diverse residents and workers. While ensuring an adequate supply of housing is developed is a critical goal of this Housing Element, a key objective is to develop housing for the city’s diverse residents in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing across the city. The City’s FHAPpolicies and programs in Chapter 7 wereas developed to help achieve the City’s fair housing objectives. The first goal included in Chapter 7 supports the city’s equity related priorities: Create equitable opportunity for people of all ages, races/ethnicities, abilities, socio-economic status, genders, and family types regardless of income level. The City’s programs and policies outlined in this Housing ElementFair Housing Action encourages new housing choices in high resource areas; encourages preservation of existing affordable housing, conserves and improves assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty; and helps protects existing residents from displacement. The programs and policies in this Housing Element will help more residents access opportunities in higher resource areas and enhance opportunities in lower resource areas as well as prevent displacement of residents and will help drive a further decline in racial, ethnic, and economic segregation in the city and ensure that local housing policy will address residents with disproportionate housing needs. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO’S FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT PRIMARY FINDINGS This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for the City of South San Francisco including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, and disparate housing needs. 328 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 120 PRIMARY FINDINGS FOR FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with HUD. Seven percent (four complaints) were filed in the City of South San Francisco (the City accounts for 9% of the County’s population). The most common issues cited in the City were refusal to rent, refusal to rent and negotiate for a rental, and failure to make a reasonable accommodation. Two complaints were based on disability status and two complaints on the basis of national origin. Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement of 22 complaints. Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to five, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached six by mid-2021. Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%). Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county. Fair housing complaints are investigated by the California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) which receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation. San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County. The City of South San Francisco has not been a party to fair housing complaints or legal action in the past nor has the City been required to operate under a state or federal consent decree related to fair housing. The City provides accessible fair housing information and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination online on the City’s website. The website includes contact information for local fair housing organizations, legal assistance, and AFFH information. Currently, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing linked on the City’s website is from 2012. As a part of this Housing Element’s implementation, the City will update the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and AFFH information on the City’s website, add information about the Fair Housing Act and discrimination, provide a link to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing approved by HUD in 2017, and add information about South San Francisco’s AFFH goals and analysis. The City of South San Francisco is compliant with the following state laws that promote fair and affordable housing. The City has not been alleged or found in violation of the following laws: 329 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 121 ▪ State Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Law (Gov. Code. Title 7. Division 1. Chapter 4.3 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives, amended and effective January 1, 2021). ▪ Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations. ▪ No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations, including among income levels. ▪ Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov Code Section 65913.1). ▪ Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov Code Section 65913.2). ▪ Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov Code Section 65589.5). HOUSING POLICIES ENACTED LOCALLY The City of South San Francisco identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city. The following local policies are in place to encourage housing development: Table 6-1 Local Policies to Encourage Housing Reduced Parking Requirements Reduced Fees or Waivers Streamlined Permitting Process Acquisition/Rehabilitation/Conversion program Mixed-Use Zoning Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fees Density Bonus Ordinance Housing Development Impact Fee Inclusionary/Below Market Rate Housing Policy Commercial Development Impact Fee Condominium Conversion Ordinance Locally Funded Homebuyer Assistance Programs SRO Preservation Ordinances Home Sharing Programs Homeowner Rehabilitation program Public Housing, Group Homes, Emergency Shelters, and Affordable Housing Complexes Second Unit Ordinance Source: 21 Elements Survey of San Mateo County Jurisdictionsxx. The following local policies are in place to mitigate or prevent displacement of low- income households: Table 6-2 Local Policies to Mitigate Displacement Affordable Housing Impact/Linkage Fee on New Residential and Commercial Development Promoting Streamlined Processing of ADUs Inclusionary Zoning Fair Housing Legal Services Source: 21 Elements Survey of San Mateo County Jurisdictionsxx. 330 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 122 The following local policies are not in place but would provide the best outcomes in addressing housing stability: Table 6-3 Local Policies Not in Place to Address Housing Stabilization Rent Stabilization Just Cause Eviction Source: 21 Elements Survey of San Mateo County Jurisdictionsxx. The following local policies are not in place, but have potential interest for further exploration: Table 6-4 Local Policies for Further Study Rent review board and/or mediation Acquisition of unsubsidized properties with affordable rents Community land trust Dedicating surplus land for affordable housing Acquisition of affordable units with expiring subsidies Public Housing and Housing Vouchers Source: 21 Elements Survey of San Mateo County Jurisdictionsxx. HOUSING VOUCHERS According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data Viewer, the South San Francisco Public Housing Authority has 80 units of public housing situated on C Street off of W. Orange Avenue. In addition to physical assisted housing units, the City has one census tract with a sizable share of households using housing vouchers (15% to 30%), five tracts with a moderate share (5% to 15%), and most other areas of the city have some (5% or less) housing voucher utilization (Appendix 6.2, Figure I-7). Compared to nearby Brisbane, Millbrae, and Burlingame, the City of South San Francisco appears accommodating to renters with housing vouchers because the City has a greater share of voucher holders compared to the surrounding communities. The presence of housing voucher users indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a lack of exclusionary behavior from landlords in the city. PRIMARY FINDINGS FOR INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the University of California at Merced completed an analysis of segregation in South San Francisco. Several indices were used to assess segregation in the city and determine how the city differs from patterns of segregation and integration in the region overall. The report is attached as Appendix 6.3Appendix 6.3: South San Francisco AFFH Segregation Report and the primary findings for South San Francisco are summarized below. 331 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 123 Table 6-5 Isolation and Dissimilarity Indices: Income Local Findings Regional Findings Very-low-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in South San Francisco. Very-low-Income residents make up 33% of South San Francisco’s overall population (the 21st highest out of 109 jurisdictions in the Bay Area). Low-income residents make up 22% of South San Francisco’s overall population (4th out of 109 jurisdictions in the Bay Area). Conversely, South San Francisco has a lower proportion of above- moderate-income residents (25% of South San Francisco residents are above-moderate-income – 105th out of 109 jurisdictions). Most Bay Area jurisdictions have a larger proportion of above- moderate-income residents than South San Francisco. Among all income groups, the very-low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015. For low-income and very-low-income residents, South San Francisco has one of the highest isolation index measures among the Bay Area jurisdictions, meaning that these residents in South San Francisco live in neighborhoods that are more segregated than other Bay Area jurisdictions. According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has increased between 2010 and 2015. In South San Francisco, the isolation index for above-moderate-income is well below the above-moderate-income average isolation index among Bay Area jurisdictions. This indicates South San Francisco’s above-moderate-income residents are more integrated than above- moderate-income residents in other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Source: UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC xx. Table 6-6 Isolation and Dissimilarity: Races and Ethnicity Local Findings Regional Findings As of 2020, Asian residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in South San Francisco, as measured by the isolation index. Asian residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter other racial groups. Hispanic residents are most segregated from White residents, but overall neighborhood racial segregation in South San Francisco has declined over the last decade. On average across the Bay Area, South San Francisco has a lower proportion of Black residents as the (2% versus 6% in the Bay Area in 2020), a higher proportion of Latinx residents (33% versus 24% in 2020), a higher proportion of Asian residents (42% versus 28%), and a lower proportion of White residents (18% versus 36%). Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. Regionally, Bay Area average isolation index is lower for Asian and Latinx residents, but higher for White and Black residents (compared to South San Francisco), indicating that Hispanics and Latinx residents are more segregated in South San Francisco than in the Bay Area. White residents 332 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 124 are more integrated in South San Francisco than in other Bay Area jurisdictions. According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in South San Francisco declined between 2010 and 2020. Compared to other Bay Area jurisdictions, the Thiel’s index for racial segregation in South San Francisco is above average, indicating that South San Francisco neighborhoods are more segregated on average compared to other Bay Area jurisdictions. Source: UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC xx. Isolation and Dissimilarity Indices Conclusions South San Francisco’s residents are more racially and ethnically diverse than residents in the County and the Bay Area overall because South San Francisco has a higher share of residents who are Asian and Hispanic. The isolation and dissimilarity indices show that segregation exists in South San Francisco, in particular in the Latinx and Asian communities as well as in lower-income communities. While racial segregation patterns appear to be declining over time, income segregation appears to be increasing for lower- income groups. Some groups, such as higher-income residents or White residents, are less segregated in South San Francisco when compared to the same groups across other Bay Area jurisdictions. RACIALLY/ CONCENTRATED AREA OF POVERTY OR AN ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREA OF POVERTY (R/ECAP) The HUD poverty threshold used to qualify a census tract as a R/ECAP is three times the average census tract poverty rate countywide—or 19.1%. In addition to R/ECAPs that meet the threshold, the Root Policy Housing Assessment for San Mateo County jurisdictions includes edge or emerging R/ECAPs which meet two thirds of the HUD defined threshold for poverty—two times the average tract poverty rate for San Mateo County (12.8%). In San Mateo County there were two census tracts that qualified as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) and 14 that qualified as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate) in 2019. None of the R/ECAPs were in the City of South San Francisco in 2019. However, one of the 2019 Edge R/ECAPs is in the City of South San Francisco—which means it is majority minority and has a poverty rate two times higher than the countywide census tract average. This tract is located along Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay and has a concen tration of Hispanic households. Poverty rates are highest—between 10% and 20%— in census tracts along the San Francisco Bay and south of Colma and San Bruno Mountain State Park (Appendix 6.2, Figure II-28). 333 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 125 PRIMARY FINDINGS FOR ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY The primary findings are summarized from Appendix 6.1: South San Francisco Fair Housing Assessment and Appendix 6.2: South San Francisco AFFH Map and Data Packet. The data was provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data Viewer. ▪ Hispanic residents are more likely to live in low resource areas compared to high resource areas. Conversely, Asian residents are much more likely to live in high resource areas compared to low resource areas (Appendix 6.2, Figure III-12). ▪ Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty (Figure II-5) and lower household incomes (Appendix 6.2, Figure II-4) compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of South San Francisco. ▪ Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. However, South San Francisco Unified has the lowest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 41%. Hispanic students in the district were less likely to meet the admission standards. South San Francisco Unified had one of the highest dropout rates in the county at 9% with White (12%) and Hispanic (11%) students accounting for the highest rates (Appendix 6.5). ▪ According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, most Census tracts in the City of South San Francisco score between 0.25 and 0.5—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-1). However, there are a few Census tracts adjacent to Sign Hill Park that have scores of less than 0.25—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the city. This area also has lower economic opportunity scores and a greater share of minority households compared to the rest of the city. ▪ Generally, the City of South San Francisco scores poorly on environmental outcomes. Census tracts surrounding Highway 101 have the lowest environmental scores in the city—primarily due to groundwater threats, hazardous waste, traffic noise and cleanups (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-9 and Figure III-10). However, the city scores moderately well on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-11). Census tracts west of El Camino Real have the highest scores in the city while the two census tracts with the lowest scores are situated west of Highway 101 and north of 1st Lane. Geospatially, the areas in the city adjacent to Highway 101 are disproportionately impacted by high poverty, low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low 334 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 126 environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, and low resource scores. These areas have: ▪ Higher poverty rates between 10% and 20% (Appendix 6. 2, Figure II-28). ▪ Education opportunity scores less than 0.25 and between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the city (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-1). ▪ Low economic opportunity scores between 0.25 and 0.5 (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III- 7). ▪ Low environmental scores—which account for PM2.5, diesel PM, drinking water, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-9). ▪ The composite opportunity score for the City of South San Francisco shows census tracts adjacent to Highway 101 fall within low resource areas while the rest of the city is within moderate or high resource areas (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-14). ▪ The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster. The areas adjacent to Highway 101 are most vulnerable according to the SVI (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-15). ▪ Areas in the southern portion of the city adjacent to Highway 101 fall within Special Flood Hazard Areas (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-31) PRIMARY FINDINGS FOR DISPARATE HOUSING NEEDS ▪ Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of South San Francisco. ▪ American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic households have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019 (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-33). ▪ Overcrowded households in the city are concentrated west of Highway 101 (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-19). ▪ Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-17). Households making between 31% to 50% AMI are also more likely to be overcrowded (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-18). ▪ Over half of all renter households in the City of South San Francisco are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and approximately one in five are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-9). There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of South San Francisco by race and ethnicity (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-11). 335 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 127 ▪ People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black, White, and Hispanic are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-22). ▪ The City of South San Francisco has a slightly greater proportion of residents with a disability than the county (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-17). Residents living with a disability in the city are more likely to be unemployed and are largely concentrated in areas around Highway 101. Finally, the aging population is putting a strain on paratransit access countywide. Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 13% compared to 3% for residents without a disability in the City of South San Francisco—particularly when compared to the county (Appendix 6. 2, Figure III-20). In the City of South San Francisco 12% of income-assisted rental units are at high or very high risk for displacement, a total of 74 out of 614 total units in the city. ▪ Nearly the entire city is vulnerable to displacement (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-28). Despite policies and programs, the Downtown, Sign Hill, El Camino Real, and Sunshine Gardens sub-areas are at heightened risk of future gentrification and displacement. These areas are at heightened risk because of their proximity to desirable transit and neighborhood amenities, high percentage of low-income residents and people of color, high number of cost-burdened renters, and high concentration of naturally occurring affordable housing units that are vulnerable to price or rent increases. This housing displacement risk has led to overcrowding, long-term residents leaving the city, illegal conversions of accessory dwelling units, and may lead residents to homelessness. Housing instability has a profound impact on health in that high stress negatively impacts mental health, and cost burdened households are less able to afford healthy foods, healthcare visits, and prescription medicines. ▪ While there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community, Census Data American Community Survey (ACS)— which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys, indicates 1.3% of renters in South San Francisco reported lacking a kitchen and 0.9% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.4% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.2% of owners who lack plumbing. In South San Francisco, owner households are more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to renter households and this is consistent across San Mateo County. This may be partially attributed to South San Francisco’s history of naturally affordable units, with median rents lower than the San Mateo County average. The most common location for these naturally affordable units is located in the Downtown Lindenville community, as evaluated in the General Plan Update. 336 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 128 CONCENTRATIONS OF FAIR HOUSING FACTORS Jurisdictions are required to analyze all the components of fair housing (segregation and integration, access to opportunity and disproportionate housing need) including comparing areas geographically across the city and assessing concentrations of fair housing factors. The data in the following section was provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data Viewer. FAIR HOUSING FACTORS FOR INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION Maps 1-6 show South San Francisco census tracts and the geographic distribution of households by income, poverty, race, disability status and familial status as well as the distribution of the city’s opportunity sites. Map 1 Predominant Race shows the predominant race in three of the city’s eastern census tracts are Hispanic. The census tract that covers the downtown area has a sizeable gap of more than 50% Hispanic. West of El Camino Real there are two predominant White census tracts and five predominant Asian census tracts. There is a sizeable concentration of Asian households west of Highway 280. South San Francisco is a highly diverse city with more than 58% of residents of whom speak another language than English. Map 2 shows Low to Moderate Income population. Census tracts east of El Camino Real have a Low to Moderate Income population of more than 50% and more than 75% in the downtown census tract. This contrasts with the lack of lower income population in the neighborhoods west of El Camino Real. Map 3 shows Household Median Income by Block Group. This map shows that the downtown census tract and the census tract directly north of downtown have the lowest Household Median Income in the city (less than $55,0000 annually), below the State Median Income of $87,100 and far below the San Mateo County median income of $128,000. The rest of the city has a Median Household Income between $87,100 and $125,000 except for a few neighborhoods west of El Camino Real and west of Highway 280 along Westborough Blvd. Map 4 shows Poverty Status of South San Francisco households. The city’s largest census tract east and south of the downtown has a household poverty rate of 10%-20% of households. This area encompasses both the Lindenville and South Airport opportunity corridors but as previously mentioned, there are no residential households in these opportunity areas so the census data may be limited. South San Francisco has a larger proportion of persons living with a disability than its neighbors. South San Francisco is home to 967 residents with developmental disabilities. 337 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 129 As a share of the total number of people living with developmental disabilities in San Mateo County, 25% percent live in South San Francisco compared to 5% percent in Pacifica or 8% percent in San Bruno. Map 5 shows a wide distribution of residents living with a disability in several areas across the city, including east and west of El Camino Real and in the Lindenville and South Airport opportunity areas. Map 6 shows Percent of Children in Female Headed Households and concentrations of this population (between 20%-40% of households) that are in the eastern and central areas of the city. These areas also largely overlap with the distribution of the population with disabilities in Map 5. Concentrations of overlapping fair housing factors and their relation to the city’s opportunity sites are discussed below on page 148. FAIR HOUSING FACTORS FOR ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents. Maps 7-11 show TCAC’s index for economic opportunity (Map 8), educational outcomes (Map 9), environmental outcomes, (Map 10) proximity to jobs (Map 11), as well as a composite score of all TCAC factors (Map 7). The maps include the distribution of the city’s opportunity sites. The Composite Score (Map 7) shows that the eastern half of the city, including the downtown as well as the area east of El Camino Real and south of Sign Hill Park, are designated Low Resource Areas. Low Resource Areas are areas that have a lower composite score of economic opportunities, educational outcomes and environmental outcomes. Map 8, Economic Outcomes, includes variables measuring poverty, adult educational outcome, employment, proximity to jobs and median home value. The value of the city’s scores for this index are moderate between 0.25 and 0.75 citywide with a moderately higher score in the western half of the city. The lower income areas east of El Camino Real score moderately well on this index because of the concentration of jobs and employment opportunities in the city’s historically commercial and industrial areas. Map 9, Educational Outcomes, includes variables such as math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. Unlike some jurisdictions in the region such as Pacifica, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Carlos and others, South San Francisco does not have any areas scoring above 0.75 on the index. Except for the neighborhoods west of I-280, the rest of the city scores below 0.5 on the educational outcomes index, indicating lower educational outcomes in South San Francisco especially when compared to jurisdictions in southern San Mateo County. Map 10, Environmental Outcomes, includes variables used by the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution indicators (exposures and environmental effect indicators such as ozone, PM2.5, Diesel PM, drinking water, pesticides, tox. release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous 338 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 130 waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites). The Environmental Index reflect the same geographic distribution as the Composite Score - the eastern half of the city, including the downtown as well as the area east of El Camino Real and south of Sign Hill Park, are designated lower resource on the Composite Score as well as on the Environmental Outcomes index. Map 11 shows proximity to job opportunities. The the eastern census tracts score high on the index corresponding with the city’s commercial and industrial areas as well as the city’s regional hub of biotech employers (Map 11). TRANSIT ACCESS AND AFFH South San Francisco’s transit network revolves around its major regional transit stations (South San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations, South San Francisco Caltrain Station, and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal) and three frequent SamTrans bus corridors: Route ECR (El Camino Real) and Route 292 (Airport Boulevard) running north-south, and Route 130 (Grand Avenue/Hickey Boulevard) running east-west. Additional local SamTrans bus routes, commuter shuttle routes, and community shuttle routes fill gaps in first/last mile and community connections. As the city grows, South San Francisco is expected to see a substantial increase in Caltrain service in the coming years as the agency implements its Business Plan service vision, while ferry, bus, and shuttle service is also expected to grow to meet the city’s needs. The city’s 2022 General Plan update projects transportation needs and proposes various major transportation investments. The total anticipated that the city will need is roughly $1 -1.2 billion in transportation upgrades over the next two decades to support buildout of the General Plan. The General Plan describes how the city can support increased regional transit service. Some examples include pursuing access improvements to its stations and orienting employer transportation demand management programs around these services. The city can also support fast and reliable bus and shuttle operations by implementing improvements such as transit signal priority, bulbouts and in-lane bus stops, and bus- only lanes, particularly on its transit priority corridors. In San Mateo County, 52% of SamTrans riders on the county’s bus system are lower income and 81% are minorities (SamTrans Way2Go Pass Study, 2021). In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused many counties, including San Mateo County, to issue Shelter in Place (SIP) orders to prevent the spread of the COVID-19, and many riders to cease their use of public transportation. These changes reduced ridership on SamTrans by over 75% percent. SamTrans has led the way in increasing ridership and has regained more riders than other transit modes. Access to transit has an immense value to disadvantaged communities, providing access to job opportunities and helping greater numbers of workers connect more efficiently with a wider array of jobs, which increases wages and economic activity. South San Francisco’s site inventory facilitates development of new housing in transit-oriented locations with excellent train and bus transit service. Over ##% of Nearly all the sites identified in the site inventory are in areas identified as a transit 339 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 131 corridor and ## of sites areor within a ¼ mile of a transit stop based on analysis of the implications of AB 2097. To affirmatively further fair housing, the city’s policies and programs encourage mixed- use, multifamily, and affordable housing on transit corridors and require no minimum parking to further support transit use. The City will coordinate with San Mateo County Transit District to ensure that transit needs of low income and special needs residents are met. As part of the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Annual City Budget process, the city will continue to rank proposed projects and city investments to support vulnerable communities. This includes prioritizing public investments in transit, road, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in lower opportunity/resource areas to facilitate revitalization and help reduce potential barriers to access to opportunity related to transportation infrastructure. FAIR HOUSING FACTORS FOR DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEED Maps 12 –17 show the geographic distribution of housing needs in the city, including Overpayment (household spending more than 30% of household income on housing- Maps 12 and 13), concentrations of Renter Households (Map 14), and Overcrowded Households (Map 15). Maps 16 and 17 show areas sensitive to displacement pressures according to the Urban Displacement Project (UDP). Maps 12, 13 and 14 show concentrations of cost burdened homeowners, cost burdened renters and concentrations of all renters in the city. In South San Francisco, there are fewer concentrations of cost burdened owner-occupied households than in surrounding communities (Map 12). Map 14 shows there are concentrations of renter households in the 340 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 132 downtown and north of downtown when compared to the rest of the city. Map 13 shows that the majority of the city has cost burdened renters, with at least 40% of renters in most census tracts considered cost burdened. Fewer residents rent than own their homes: 39% versus 61%. This trend is similar in the overall region and has remained stable over the last two decades. Map 15 shows overcrowded households. In South San Francisco, 5% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 1% of households that own. In South San Francisco, 8% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 5% for those that own. People in lower income households are more likely to be in overcrowded accommodations than those in higher income households. They are also more likely to be in an overcrowded household with an adult aged over 75 or someone with a health condition. Living in an overcrowded household is associated with worse health outcomes, which was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic because of increased risk of transmission of infection. The neighborhoods encompassing the downtown and north of the downtown have concentrations of overcrowded households (more than 15%) compared to the rest of the city. Map 16 shows estimated risk of displacement according to a methodology developed by the Urban Displacement Project (UDP) (www.urbandisplacement.org). The Overall Displacement Risk (Map 16) identifies the downtown census tract and census tract just north of downtown as the only areas in the city with an “elevated risk of displacement” for very-low income and low-income groups (dark red tracts labeled “2 income groups”). UDP’s Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model identifies varying levels of displacement risk for low-income renter households in all census tracts in the state. Displacement risk means that in 2019—the most recent year with reliable census data—a census tract had characteristics which are strongly correlated with more low-income renter population loss than gain. This risk assessment does not identify the causes of displacement, which may occur because of either investment or disinvestment. The light orange tracts categorized as “Probable”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “Probable Displacement.” Map 17 shows Sensitive Communities, another UDP developed measure of displacement vulnerability. Large portions of South San Francisco and its neighboring communities (San Francisco, Daly City, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Redwood City and East Palo Alto are considered Sensitive Communities. Sensitive Communities included neighborhoods with a high proportion of residents vulnerable to displacement in the case of rising housing costs, and market-based displacement pressures present in and/or near the community. Vulnerability includes metrics for the share of very low- income residents, share of renters, share of people of color, and share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened (spending 50% of income on rent). Market-based displacement pressures include percent change in rent between 341 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 133 2012-2017 above county median rent increases, and/or a rent gap (meaning rent is substantially lower than rent in surrounding areas). The Urban Displacement Project identified 27% of census tracts in the state of California as sensitive (See https://www.urbandisplacement.org/). Map 17 shows that almost the entire City of South San Francisco is designated as a Sensitive Community. CONCENTRATIONS OF FAIR HOUSING FACTORS SUMMARY The Ciy'sCity’s most vulnerable lower income households are primarily clustered in and around the downtown and just north of the downtown. Latino residents primarily reside near downtown in lower-income census tract neighborhoods. This area is more than 66% Hispanic, has the lowest median income in the city, is considered a low resource area on the TCAC index with lower educational outcomes and has the highest jobs proximity score. It also has the largest concentration of renter households in the city, the largest concentration of overcrowded households, and lower income households have an elevated risk of displacement compared to the rest of the city. This area does not have a concentration of households with a member with a disability or a concentration of female – headed household with children. The area mirrors the rest of the city when it comes to overpayment by homeowners and renters but has a concentration of renters located there. The largest census tract in the city encompasses the areas outside of the downtown to the east including Lindenville, South Airport and Oyster Point but also includes a large portion of the El Canino Real South corridor up to Westborough Blvd. The majority of this land area is used for commercial, industrial and office. The demographic data associated with this census tract may not be reflective of the neighborhoods in the census tract because of its size and land uses. The indicators show that this area shares many of the characteristics of the downtown, but the characteristics are generally less pronounced. Some of the predominant characteristics of the area that are less pronounced than the downtown are the large Hispanic majority, low to moderate income households, lower median incomes, low resource area (including lower educational, environmental, and economic outcomes), and closer proximity to job opportunities. This area is unique from the downtown in a few ways, including the presence of a concentration of a population with a disability and a presence of a concentration of female headed households with children which is not apparent in the downtown. Because this area includes Lindenville, South Airport and El Camino Real South, most the city’s opportunity sites are located here. There are also opportunity sites on the west side of El Camino Real South and on El Camino Real North which encompass census tracts with different characteristics such as predominantly White and Asian, fewer percentage of lower income households, concentration of households with a member with a disability, concentration of female headed households with children, and moderate resource areas. This area does not have 342 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 134 concentrations of overcrowded households and has fewer cost burdened renters than the rest of the city. Several census tracts west of I-280 near Winston-Serra or Westborough have a predominant Asian population. These neighborhoods have the lowest proportions of lower income residents, lower poverty rates, fewer female headed households with children, and have the only three census tracts designated high resource areas in the city. The area also has more positive educational, environmental and economic outcomes and fewer overcrowded households than the rest of the city. There is one census tract with households with residents with a disability. This area is the furthest away from job opportunities. The area shares the same characteristics as the rest of the city when it comes to cost burden for both renters and homeowners. There are some characteristics that are prevalent across the city as a whole, except for in a couple of areas west of I-280. These common characteristics include designation by the UDP as a community sensitive to displacement, prevalence of cost burdened households for both renters and homeowners, moderate economic score on the TCAC index which includes both job opportunity as well as income and poverty data. SITE INVENTORY AFFH ANALYSIS AB 686 requires that the Housing Element evaluate sites relative to their effect on fair housing. This Site Inventory Analysis evaluates South San Francisco’s opportunity sites and explores whether the proposed development of these sites will help replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns and provide housing opportunities for residents of all income levels across the city transform R/ECAP into areas of opportunity. The analysis summarizes the distribution of units of the city’s opportunity sites by income target in relation to factors of segregation including income, predominant race/ethnicity, households with a disability, single parent households with children, access to opportunity, R/ECAPs, disparate housing needs and environmental factors. The potential for more than 10,000 new units near the city’s Downtown in Lindenville and East of Highway 101, is a key element of South San Francisco’s’ long-term strategy and provides the largest increase in housing in the city’s history. South San Francisco will need to allow for 3,956 new homes between 2023 and 2031 to comply with state housing element law (the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA). Of the total required RHNA, South San Francisco projects that 304 units will be 376 are projected to be ADUs. The city also currently has and 3,581 are units that are a part of existing pPipeline pProjects. ADUs and Pipeline Projects are not included in the following analysis (See Section ## of this Housing Element for description of ADUs and Pipeline Projects).There are 19 pipeline projects in the site inventory that have submitted planning approval applications and are under review, entitled projects, and projects under 343 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 135 construction. These projects are expected to produce 3,581 total units, including 225 very- low-income units and 408 low-income units (See Chapter 5, Table 5-2). Fourteen of these projects are located downtown, two are in the El Camino Real North corridor, three in the El Camino Real South corridor and one is in Lindenville. Downtown has 301 lower- income units in the pipeline. ADUs and Pipeline Projects are not included in the following analysis (See Chapter 5 of this Housing Element for description of ADUs and Pipeline Projects). Chapter 5 includes describes South San Francisco’s opportunity sites separated by four major corridors, El Camino Real North, El Camino Real South, Lindenville and South Airport. The following table includes the income distribution of the expected RHNA units (very-low, low, moderate, and above-moderate). These corridors include future opportunity sites which are vacant and non-vacant and total 13,109 potential housing units. Table 6-7 Income Distribution of Opportunity Sites Corridor Very-Low- Income Units Low- Income Units Moderate- Income Units Above- Moderate- Income Units Total Units El Camino Real North 233 288 174 746 1,440 El Camino Real South 20 62 21 586 690 Lindenville 148 478 183 4584 5,393 South Airport 151 494 193 4748 5,586 Total 552 1,322 571 10,663 13,109 Source: City of South San Franciscoxx. Tables 6-8, 6-9, 6-10 and 6-11 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 include key demographic indicators (household income and percent of population by race/ethnicity) for census block groups that overlap with each of the four opportunity corridors as well asand compares it to citywide data. The table also includes the number of opportunity sites and RHNA units located in each corridor. The city as a whole has three predominant racial/ethnic groups, 33% Hispanic, 20% White – Non-Hispanic, and 41% Asian/API Non-Hispanic. Citywide, the percent of households earning less than $75,000 is 46%. Census block group data is compared to citywide data to assess how future development might impact existing patterns of segregation in the city. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: EL CAMINO REAL NORTH The General Plan identifies strategic locations to support increased housing density and mixed uses along El Camino Real. These activity centers are the South San Francisco BART station, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area, and the South Spruce Avenue area. The activity centers are imagined as complete neighborhoods, will include spaces for 344 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 136 social gathering, shopping, and entertainment to enable residents, employees, and visitors to meet their daily needs. The three activity centers already have many of these complete neighborhood components, including anchored institutional uses, and the potential for intensification of office, retail, and residential uses. The South San Francisco BART station area has potential for more housing production and increased daily services to serve new and existing residents. The El Camino Real North includes the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area activity center and will be anchored by the South San Francisco Community Civic Campus. The Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Orange Memorial Park, the Centennial Way Trail, and retail along El Camino Real are other major attractions in this area. Maximum allowed building heights for new buildings in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area would have beenbe reduced from presently allowed maximums under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in order to create harmonious height transitions from adjacent residential uses. Previously, the taller height limits did not result in larger, taller, and more dense residential proposals – construction remains constrained by costs and feasibility so the maximum heights above 85’-0 remain unattainable. Table 6-8 El Camino Real North Census Block Group Demographic Data and Site Inventory Census Block Group % Earning <$75,000 % Asian % White % Hispanic 6023.001 42% 35% 17% 43% 6019.23 43% 41% 14% 38% 6024.003 56% 43% 28% 24% 6018.002 25% 36% 32% 27% Citywide 46%. 41% 20% 33% Opportunity Sites: 18 sites / 1,560 total units including 175 lower-income units which make up 13% of the city’s low- and very- low-income RHNA. Pipeline: 1 project / 20 total units including 2 lower-income units. Source: City of South San Franciscoxx. El Camino Real North opportunity sites include 16 sites located north of Orange Ave on El Camino Real and surrounding the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Ave. The sites have the potential to develop 1,440 units which includes 38% of the city’s low- and very-low-RHNA requirement (521 low-income and very-low-income units). El Camino Real North also has a significant number of above-moderate-income units (745 units). The El Camino Real North Corridor has one major pipeline project—800 units with approximately 20% affordable (158 units) at very-low- and low-income levels. One additional pipeline project will include 20 condo units as a part of a mixed-use project near the intersection of El Camino Real and Lawndale Boulevard. 345 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 137 The opportunity sites overlap with four census block groups (CBG) which have a diverse population. Census block group 6023.001 is predominantly Hispanic (43%) to the southeast of the intersection., CBG 6019.23 (south of Chestnut Ave) is almost equally Hispanic and Asian (38% and 41%, respectively). Census block group 6024.003 on the southwest of the intersection and CBG 6018.002 on the northwest of the intersection are both predominantly Asian (43% and 36%, respectively), but also have a large Hispanic (24% and 27%) and White populations (28% and 32%). This demographic diversity in the El Camino Real North area reflects the diversity of the city as a whole. El Camino Real North has a significant number of households earning below $75,000 annually, CBG 6024.003 (56%), followed by CBG 6019.023 (43%) and CBG 6023.001 (42%) of households earning less than $75,000 annually. Overall, El Camino North has a similar proportion of households earning less than $75,000 annually as the citywide average of 46%. Because of the proportion of lower-income residents in this area (42% to 56% in the surrounding CBGs), it is critical to provide more affordable units to serve existing residents but also to provide units for a mix of incomes to not exacerbate concentrations of low-income units in the area. The sites are expected to produce a mix of units at all income levels (including 521 lower-income units); therefore, the development of these sites is not expected to exacerbate concentrations of low-income residents. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH El Camino Real South includes many auto-oriented commercial centers, including the Brentwood shopping center and the shopping center at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue with the currently vacant anchor tenant space (formerly occupied by Safeway). It also includes the See’s Candy factory, a legacy industrial use in South San Francisco. Due to its proximity to the San Bruno BART station and the SamTrans bus corridor along El Camino Real, this area also has potential for more housing production in areas that comply with San Francisco International Airport land use compatibility regulations. Table 6-9 El Camino Real South Census Block Group Demographic Data and Site Inventory Census Block Group % Earning < $75,000 % Asian % White % Hispanic 6023.001 42% 35% 17% 43% 6024.003 56% 43% 28% 24% 6024.002 42% 36% 46% 27% 6024.001 52% 34% 30% 29% 6024.004 52% 40% 32% 21% Citywide 46%. 41% 20% 33% Opportunity Sites: 11 sites / 570 total units including 67 lower-income units which make up 5% of the city’s low- and very- low-RHNA. 346 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 138 Pipeline: Two projects / 600 total units including 56 lower-income units. Source: City of South San Franciscoxx. El Camino Real South has 13 opportunity sites located primarily on El Camino Real, south of Orange Ave and totaling 690 units (17% of the overall RHNA), including 82 low-income and very-low-income units which make up 6% of the required lower-income RHNA. El Camino Real South also includes 3 Pipeline Projects totaling 784 units, which will include 84 low- and very-low-income units. This area also overlaps with five diverse census block groups which reflect the demographics of the city, including three predominant racial groups, Asian/API, Hispanic and White. The CBGs on the west of El Camino Real are predominantly Asian (34% Asian in CBG 6024.001, 43% Asian in CBG 6024.003, and 40% Asian 6024.004). The southernmost CBG (6024.002) on the west side (near El Camino and Spruce Ave) is predominantly White (46%) and the sites located East of El Camino Real towards Huntington Ave are predominantly Hispanic (43% Hispanic in CBG 6023.001). El Camino Real South has a large proportion of households earning below $75,000 annually (between 42% and 56% in various CBGs). This also reflects citywide trends for household earnings. The addition of 166 lower-income units (pipeline and opportunity sites) to this area where income and race demographics reflect citywide trends, will not exacerbate existing patters of segregation across the city. Providing lower-income units will provide needed housing to lower-income groups that reside there. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: LINDENVILLE The General Plan Update proposes to create new vibrant residential neighborhood in Lindenville, ensuring appropriate City services, amenities and retail to support new residential growth. Lindenville is centrally located just south of Downtown, between Highway 101 and South Spruce Ave. The area stretches over 400 acres and is largely comprised of manufacturing, food processing, warehousing, and other industrial uses, including some of the city’s historic “legacy” businesses, such as Produce Terminal and Bimbo Bakeries. As of 2021, Lindenville does not have residential units or park acreage and is also completely within one large census block group, therefore the demographic census data for the area may be limited.. The General Plan allows Lindenville to strengthen its economic base, which includes many small businesses and a high share of jobs in industry sectors, by retaining a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses. These nonresidential areas may also provide opportunities for arts and the creative economy to continue growing and expanding in South San Francisco. The General Plan also creates a new residential neighborhood in the northern part of Lindenville, north of Victory Avenue. At the present, this area is primarily occupied by warehousing and other 347 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 139 industrial uses. Providing opportunities to live in Lindenville will support a sustainable and thriving Downtown and advance City goals to add a broad range of new housing for different income levels. The General Plan supports the well-being of new Lindenville residents by providing convenient access to new parks and gathering spaces, neighborhood-serving retail and amenities, and public services. This Housing Element includes 82 opportunity sites in Lindenville totaling more than 5,000 units and expected to include 626 very-low-income and low-income units, 183 moderate-income units and a significant opportunity for above-moderate-income residential development. Lindenville also currently has one pipeline project which will result in 587 total units and 88 very-low- and low-income units. 348 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 140 Table 6-10 Lindenville Census Block Group Demographic Data and Site Inventory Census Block Group % Earning < $75,000 % Asian % White % Hispanic 6023.001 42% 35% 17% 43% Citywide 46%. 41% 20% 33% Opportunity Sites: 82 sites / ~5,393 total units including 669 lower-income units which make up 49% of the city’s low- and very-low-RHNA. Pipeline: One project / 587 total units including 88 lower-income units. Source: City of South San Franciscoxx. Lindenville is fully within one predominantly Hispanic Census block group (43% Hispanic) and 42% of households are earning below $75,000 annually which roughly reflects citywide demographics of 38% Hispanic and 46% earning below $75,000 annually. Just North of Lindenville is the city’s downtown and also one of the city’s Hispanic lower- income neighborhoods which is more than 60% Hispanic with the highest levels of lower- income residents and housing needs in the city. While there is a concentration of opportunity sites units in Lindenville, development in Lindenville will provide a mix of lower-income units (714 lower-income units) that serve lower-income residents in the downtown area and nearby neighborhoods. Adding additional low-income options nearby will not exacerbate the concentration of poverty in the area, but provide much needed affordable housing units, and create a new mixed-income neighborhood just south of Downtown and in close proximity to amenities and the existing public transit network. The General Plan provides for appropriate City services, amenities and retail to support this new residential growth. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD As of 2021, no residential zoning exists East of Highway 101 along South Airport Boulevard and there are no housing units or residents. As a part of the 2022 General Plan update and related zoning amendments effective November 2022, there is opportunity to introduce residential uses to were introduced East of Highway 101 to create more complete neighborhoods with options for living, working, and recreation. The General Plan creates new mixed-use neighborhoods along South Airport Boulevard. Providing opportunities for living in East of Highway 101 supports a long-term vision for an innovation district, places more housing near jobs and high-quality transit, and creates opportunity for a range of new housing for different income levels. Along South Airport Boulevard, residents will benefit from streetscape improvements and urban design that create a high-quality public realm along this currently commercial and industrial corridor. The area currently primarily contains employment generating land uses. Most life science uses are located north of East Grand Avenue, with the Genentech campus being the largest corporate campus in East of Highway 101. The General Plan advances the 349 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 141 community vision of maintaining districts for R&D and industrial growth, while creating new neighborhoods that allow residential and supportive amenities and services. Life science companies may intensify development north of East Grand Avenue, closer to key transportation corridors in exchange for community benefits and district improvements. By allowing the life sciences area to grow through intensification rather than expanding its geographic area, the General Plan enables transportation, trade, and industrial uses to retain land area and continue to thrive in East of Highway 101 while supporting the City’s goal of creating a new residential neighborhood. Table 6-11 South Airport Census Block Group Demographic Data and Site Inventory Census Block Group % Earning < $75,000 % Asian % White % Hispanic 6023.001 42% 35% 17% 43% Citywide 46%. 41% 20% 33% Opportunity Sites: 41 sites / ~5,586 total units including 585 lower-income units which make up 43% of the city’s low- and very-low-RHNA. Pipeline Units: None. Source: xx.City of South San Francisco The 41 sites that make up the South Airport opportunity sites area may result in more than 5,000 residential units including 645 very-low-income and low-income units. The South Airport area is also wholly within census block group 6023.001 (the same CBG as Lindenville). Because there are no existing residential neighborhoods in this area and the area is in the same census block group as Lindenville, the race and income demographics of this area reflect demographics of Lindenville which also reflect the demographics of the city. This is a limitation of census data for these areas. Also similar to Lindenville, once developed, this will be a new residential neighborhood as envisioned in the General Plan. These two new neighborhoods (South Airport and Lindenville) are in close proximity to the predominantly Hispanic, lower-income neighborhoods downtown and surrounding area. As such, new housing development has the potential to provide additional affordable housing to existing residents living nearby as well as provide housing in close proximity to employment opportunities. Combined with the City’s commitment to affordable housing development, robust fair housing policies and programs included in its Housing Plan (Chapter 7), and implementation of its AFFH FHAP, these new neighborhoods can provide much needed housing to existing residents and provide housing options to people with disproportionate housing needs. There are 19 pipeline projects in the Site Inventory that have submitted planning approval applications and are under review, entitled projects, and projects under construction. These projects are expected to produce 3,581 total units, including 225 very-low-income units and 408 low-income units (Table 5-2). Fourteen of these projects are located Downtown, two are in the El Camino Real North corridor, three in the El Camino Real 350 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 142 South corridor and one is in Lindenville. Downtown has 301 lower-income units in the pipeline. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY The share of the population living with at least one disability is 9% in the City of South San Francisco compared to 8% in San Mateo County. There are a handful of census tracts dispersed throughout the city that have a higher share of the population living with a disability than the citywide rate. The four census tracts include 1602.300 with 11% (East), census tract 1602.400 with 12% (Southwest), census tract 1602.000 with 10.5% (North) and census tract 1601.700 with 10% (West). These census tracts are distributed across the city and not concentrated in any one area. Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate increased access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population. Almost all South San Francisco’s opportunity sites are in a census tract with a higher rate of disability than the citywide rate. Housing development along the El Camino Real, Lindenville, and South Airport corridors will provide opportunities to develop much needed housing next to services and transit for people with disabilities. South San Francisco has a responsibility not simply to assess the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities but also to create and implement policies and programs and other changes that make it more feasible for affordable housing developers to include people with developmental disabilities in their housing plans. Since its last Housing Element, South San Francisco facilitated land acquisition and provided City funding for one affordable housing project with a commitment to make 18 of the 36 apartments subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities (Baden Station Apartments). Additional housing of this type is needed to prevent the displacement of South San Francisco’s growing population of adults with developmental disabilities out of the County when their family members become unable to provide housing and care. The City’s General Plan outlines how the City can add disability to the existing live-work preference policy to prioritize providing housing to people with disabilities. This Housing Element also discusses how the City can facilitate housing for seniors, special needs groups, including the developmentally disabled, and policies that encourage a diverse range of housing configurations that are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant and flexible. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN Families with a female head of household are more than twice as likely to live in poverty compared to families with a male head of household. Twenty-three percent of female- headed households live in poverty compared to 11.4% of male-headed households, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 351 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 143 Compared to the county, the City of South San Francisco has a greater proportion of family households and smaller proportion of single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing stock in the city. Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. South San Francisco has 1,269 female-headed, single-parent households. Thirteen percent of households in South San Francisco are female-headed family households and of those, 16% fall below the federal poverty line. There are four census tracts where the percent of female-headed households with children is higher than the citywide rate. The large census tract East of Highway 101 (20%), south of Westborough and West of El Camino Real (23%), and two census tract East of Chestnut Avenue to the north (25% and 33%). These areas overlap with most opportunity sites in El Camino Real South, Lindenville, and South Airport opportunity site corridors. The General Plan supports the wellbeing of new East of Highway 101 residents by providing convenient access to new parks and gathering spaces, neighborhood-serving retail and amenities, and public services. New housing opportunities will create complete neighborhoods with access to parks, schools, and services for families. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY AND AFFLUENCE There are no R/ECAP or R/ECAAs in the City of South San Francisco. One of the 2019 edge R/ECAPs is located in the City of South San Francisco (census tract 6023) —which means it is majority minority and has a poverty rate two times higher than the countywide census tract average. This tract is located along Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay. This Edge R/ECAP contains the majority of RHNA units including Lindenville, South Airport, and portions of El Camino Real South. Because the majority of the city’s units are in areas where there are no existing residential neighborhoods, the development of these areas with new housing will significantly change the demographics of the city. This makes the goals, objectives, policies and programs of this Housing Element even more critical to developing neighborhoods that provide opportunities to existing residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and prevent displacement. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY Most units are in lower resources areas because the most opportunity for future development is in the Lindenville and South Airport corridors which historically have not included residential neighborhoods but have the potential to produce the most housing in the future. While there are no existing neighborhoods in some of these arears, Hispanic households tend to be concentrated in nearby areas of the city as well as in Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. According to HCD and the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) opportunity maps, the eastern most Census Tract which includes 352 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 144 Lindenville and East of Highway 101 has the highest concentration of low- to moderate- income populations who face poor opportunity outcomes. In order to help address the opportunity outcomes of lower resource areas of the city, the General Plan vision includes new residential neighborhoods that are served by new parks, schools and services for residents, introducing public and private resources into these historically lower resource areas. Combined with the City’s Housing Element policies and programs and FHAP, the General Plan will help create new neighborhoods where existing residents will have additional access to quality residential opportunities. Because these new neighborhoods are in close proximity to existing lower resource areas, investing in these new neighborhoods provides additional housing options and more affordable opportunities for residents living nearby. While the majority of the city’s opportunity sites are located in lower resource areas, along the El Camino Real corridor, most units are in moderate resource areas. In addition, the majority of the city’s pipeline projects are located in and surrounding Downtown, some of which is considered to be in a moderate resource area (north of Miller Ave and west of Maple Ave). There is only one area in the city designated as high resource (northwest of the city west of Chestnut Avenue and north of El Camino Real and there are no highest resource areas in the City of South San Francisco. There are few opportunity sites in high resource areas in South San Francisco due to the lack of available land, built out urban landscape, and the predominance of single-family homes in these areas. Even with these constraints to building housing in higher resource areas, the City has made progress in facilitating the development of ADU production as well as the implementation of SB 9 which will allow an additional dwelling unit on each parcel zones for single-family. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS Over half of all renter households in the City of South San Francisco are cost burdened— spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and approximately 1 in 5 are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs. Most of the RHNA units are proposed in areas of the city with a higher-than-average rate of housing cost burden (higher than the citywide rate of 36%). Renter households are more likely to be overcrowded with 13% of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 5% of owner households. Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. All of the proposed units are in areas that have lower than average rates of overcrowding (lower citywide rate of 8%). The majority of South San Francisco (all but one census tract) is considered vulnerable to displacement risk, according to the Urban Displacement Project. The only census tract not vulnerable is located in the far northwest area of the city, just east of Interstate (I-) 280 and 353 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 145 does not include any proposed housing units. According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria: They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost holds are concentrated in areas west of Highway 101, south of Miller Avenue and east of Maple Avenue—the same areas designated as low resource and more likely to experience high social vulnerability. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: HOMELESSNESS The San Mateo County Human Services Agency (HSA), in collaboration with community partners, conducts the bi-annual One Day Homeless Count and Survey. The purpose of the One Day Homeless Count and Survey is to gather information to help the community understand homelessness in San Mateo County. This is one data set, among others, that provides information for effective planning of services to assist people experiencing homelessness and people at risk of homelessness. According to the 2022 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Count and Survey, 42 people experienced unsheltered homelessness in South San Francisco in 2022. This is remained relatively stable since 2017 when the count was 33 and a decrease from previous counts: 55 in 2015, 172 in 2013 and 122 in 2011. The 42 unsheltered homeless persons in 2022 make up 4 percent of the 1,092 homeless unsheltered in the San Mateo County as a whole. This is a small proportion since South San Francisco makes up nine percent of the county’s population. In 2006, San Mateo County developed a 10-Year Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness (HOPE Plan). Key accomplishments of the HOPE Plan included the creation and expansion of Homeless Outreach Teams (HOT), new funding sources for homelessness prevention, Homeless Connect events, the creation of 994 new affordable housing units and 96 new units of permanent supportive housing. The HOPE Plan focused on the creation of new housing inventory as a key strategy to reduce homelessness, but these goals have had limited success given the challenges of the local housing market, including the high cost for existing housing and high construction costs. In 2016 the county adopted a new San Mateo Homelessness Strategic Plan, Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County. The 2016 plan draws on best practices to reduce homelessness given the existing supply of housing and focusing on short- and long-term housing assistance prioritized for people who are unsheltered. Expansion of the affordable housing supply remains a key priority for the community, but this work is being spearheaded by the Department of Housing along with other stakeholders and workgroups, including the Jobs/Housing Gap Task Force, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, HEART of San Mateo and other efforts. The County and its partners have expanded homeless services in recent years, including new shelters, increased homeless outreach services, rapid rehousing services, and 354 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 146 enhanced connections between health services and homeless services. The County is also working on additional non-congregate shelters that will open later this year. The Navigation Center and Stone Villa Shelter will provide additional shelter capacity to provide safe shelter along with intensive support services to help residents move into permanent housing. The County has also recently launched its Working Together to End Homelessness initiative, bringing together a wide array of stakeholders to collaborate on innovative strategies to provide housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. More information on Working Together to End Homelessness is available at SMCEndingHomelessness.org. In San Mateo County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 66.6% percent of the homeless population, while making up 50.6% percent of the overall population (see Figure C-42). In San Mateo, Latinx residents represent 38.1% percent of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 24.7% percent of the general population Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues—including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence—that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In San Mateo County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 305 reporting this condition. Of those, some 62% percent are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue. The city participates in a comprehensive planning and coordination of services initiative for the homeless through the 45-member San Mateo Countywide Homeless Continuum of Care Council. Established to coordinate local efforts to address homelessness, the Continuum of Care has been integral in the development of the San Mateo County Homeless Plan to End Homelessness. The City of South San Francisco used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) resources to fund several programs designed to provide services for those who are currently homeless or at risk for becoming homeless. In partnership with local non-profit agencies and community and faith-based organizations, the city also provides programs to address homelessness. The following resource are available to people experiencing homelessness in South San Francisco: ▪ XYZCORA receives funding to operate the XYZundisclosed location sShelter for San Mateo County residents, which serves homeless women and children. ▪ The XYZ Food Bank Peninsula Volunteers Meals on Wheels probram providesdistributes no-cost food services for low-income families who otherwise would be forced to make difficult choices between food and rent, and th e XYZ 355 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 147 LawLegal Aid Society and Project Sentinel Center supports victims of domestic violence who face complex housing security issues. ▪ Warming Shelter- describe any support provided by the CitySamaritan House provides Safe Harbor, a homeless shelter with wraparound services. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS According to California’s Health and Safety Code (Section 39711) a disadvantaged community is defined as “a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.” The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) is a screening methodology that can be used to identify disadvantaged communities burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Geospatially, the areas in the city adjacent to Highway 101 are disproportionately impacted low environmental scores and high social vulnerability scores and fall within flood hazard zones. The census tracts East of Highway 101, east of El Camino Real South and in Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods (census tracts 6023.00, 6022.00, and 6021.00) are designated as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities and have poor scores on the CalEnviroScreen index. SB 535 defined a disadvantaged community as one that “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.” The total population in this area is 15,452 (HCD AFFH Data Viewer). These census tracts have low environmental scores which account for PM2.5, diesel PM, drinking water, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites. There is a significant amount of regionally significant transportation infrastructure East of Highway 101, including Caltrain, the Union Pacific railway, and highways (Highway 101, I-280, I-380, State Route (SR) 82 and SR 35). Production, distribution, and repair uses may be associated with more diesel trucks, hazardous material storage, and/ or contaminated land. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster. The areas adjacent to Highway 101 are most vulnerable according to the SVI. Areas in the southern portion of the city adjacent to Highway 101 fall within Special Flood Hazard Areas. The Housing Element and General Plan prioritizes the needs of disadvantaged communities affected disproportionately by hazards and disasters. Examples include providing energy resilience via backup energy systems, microgrids, and other measures that serve the community during emergency events, particularly supporting disadvantaged communities, including considering creating a financial incentive program for existing and new solar/battery backup system installations. The businesses located along the flood hazard zone, primarily to the south of East Grand Avenue, are 356 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 148 supported in the General Plan and by the City in efforts to adjust to build long-term resilience to sea level rise and flooding. According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Jobs Proximity Index analysis by block group, the census tracts East of El Camino Real consistently have the closest proximity to jobs sites in the city. In the General Plan, most employment and residential growth is anticipated in East of Highway 101. The City is undertaking a workforce development plan which outlines policies and programs that encourage partnerships with private sector companies to support local hiring, training residents, and the expansion of smaller homegrown businesses which have the most potential to benefit existing residents. These policies are also supported in the General Plan. In addition, the area has access to transit serving the region. South San Francisco’s recently updated Caltrain station provides daily connections south to San Jose and north to San Francisco and is directly accessible to Downtown and to the East of Highway 101 areas. Caltrain is seeking to expand services to keep up with increased ridership. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to SFO passes through South San Francisco. The BART route is underground before it reaches the South San Francisco Station and remains underground through the San Bruno Station. The new neighborhoods in Lindenville and South Airport will support equitable transit-oriented communities near transit centers, including SamTrans stops and Caltrain and BART stations, that mix high quality development, affordable housing, community services, and improved mobility options. The area also scores relatively well on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) (75%) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC). While most Census Tracts in the city score between 80% and 100% (the higher the percentage, the lower healthy conditions), the tracts East of Highway 101 scores better at 75% and the tracts located downtown just north of Lindenville score even better at 45% and 57% on the index. The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare. Senate Bill 1000 (Environmental Justice) bill requires cities and counties with “disadvantaged communities” to develop an Environmental Justice element, or related environmental justice goals and policies, as part of their general plans. The goal of SB 1000 is to help identify and reduce risks in communities disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO’S SITES INVENTORY IMPACT ON FAIR HOUSING The majority of the city’s opportunity sites are located in Lindenville, South Airport and El Camino Real South, which are all contained within the city’s largest eastern census tract 357 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 149 which contains its historic commercial and industrial areas east of Highway 101. There are also opportunity sites on the west side of El Camino Real and on El Camino Real North which encompass census tracts with different characteristics such as predominantly White and Asian, fewer percentage of lower income households, As demonstrated in the site inventory, new housing is concentrated around four corridors, along three major activity centers on El Camino Real and in two new residential neighborhoods in Lindenville and South Airport. Overall, the Site Inventory in South San Francisco provides housing to accommodate a mix of incomes across several distinct areas of the city. El Camino Real, Lindenville and South Airport have the most potential to attract public and private infrastructure and other investments to support high density residential development and affordable housing with access to local and regional transit and employment opportunities. In addition, the corridors are near existing neighborhoods with residents with disproportionate housing needs. The opportunity sites provide a mix of housing for different income levels and provide much needed affordable housing (more than 2,400 units for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income levels). South San Francisco opportunity sites are in a relatively diverse census block groups with predominantly Hispanic or Asian populations which reflect the existing demographics of the city as a whole. These sites are also located in a census block groups that have a similar proportion of low-income residents as the citywide rate. The housing needs assessment shows that the Hispanic population face the most barriers and access to housing, the most housing challenges and also make up a large demographic group in South San Francisco Lindenville and South Airport are near neighborhoods with concentrations of Hispanic and low-income residents who have the most housing needs. While there is a concentration of units in two new residential areas that previously were reserved for commercial uses, these areas are in close proximity to the Hispanic lower-income neighborhoods and will provide a mix of units that can serve lower-income residents. Adding additional low-income options in close proximity will not exacerbate the concentration of low-income units in the area but will add needed affordable housing and create a more mixed-income neighborhood. The new neighborhoods in Lindenville and South Airport must be developed in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing and does not displace residents of the surrounding areas but instead provides more housing options. The City’s workforce development strategies help ensure that employment growth throughout the commercial and industrial sectors of the city include linkages to hiring local residents, including training and other partnerships and programs that provide access to opportunities for existing residents. When developed in alignment with the policies and programs of this Housing Element, General Plan, FHAP, Workforce Development Plan and Environmental Justice Element, 358 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 150 South San Francisco’s opportunity sites are not anticipated to increase segregation in the city but will provide much needed mix of housing new residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, the opportunity sites are the best options in the city for high-density residential development based on factors such as land availability, land use, transit, and infrastructure. The South San Francisco sites inventory includes housing developments that combined with the fair housing action plan and the programs and place-based actions discussed above and in Chapter 7, Housing Plan – Goals and Policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by: ▪ Increase housing choice and access to housing by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability (Enhance housing mobility strategies). ▪ Promote the development of housing units in South San Francisco located in areas with access to services, employment opportunities, infrastructure and transit. ▪ Increase access to neighborhoods and create new neighborhoods nearby greater availability of jobs and convenient access to transit and service for people within protected classes. ▪ Promoting land-use and funding policies to increase affordable housing across the city. ▪ Bring additional resources to traditionally under-resourced neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock. ▪ Improve place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing. ▪ Protect existing residents from displacement. ▪ Provide people with a disability affordable housing with access to services and transit. Table 6-12 summarizes the number of Very-Low and Low-Income Units by corridor in the City of South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco projects significant housing development over the next planning cycle, facilitated by its recent General Plan and Zoning Code update which allows for housing in areas that were previously reserved for commercial as well as higher densities of up to 200 ### dwelling units per acre. In addition, the City of South San Francisco has a proven housing market. Through the implementation of its Downtown Specific Plan over the last eight# years, ##1,200 housing units were entitled or constructed in the downtown area. Furthermore, the city has more than 3,500 units in the pipeline, the majority of which are approved or under construction (See Table 5-2). Table 6-12 is a conservative estimate of future development based on the city’s inclusionary zoning policy which provides for the development of lower-income units. The city’s site inventory identifies development opportunities outside of the downtown area in nearby neighborhoods that have not yet developed housing but are 359 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 151 close to existing amenities. The city also has a long-term plan and vision for creating new amenities in these new neighborhoods in its General Plan. Ensuring economic pressure brought by the region's jobs growth and housing development does not result in substantial displacement in these neighborhoods is a particular concern for the City of South San Francisco. Combined with the City’s commitment to affordable housing development, robust fair housing policies and programs included in its Housing Plan (Chapter 7), these new neighborhoods can provide much needed housing to existing residents and provide housing options to people with disproportionate housing needs. Table 6-12 Summary of Very-Low- and Low-Income Units by Corridor Corridor Pipeline Opportunity Sites Total ECR North 160 521 681 ECR South 84 82 166 Lindenville 88 626 714 South Airport 0 645 645 Downtown 301 0 301 Citywide 633 1,874 2,507 Source: City of South San Francisco Table 6-12 summarizes the number of Very-Low and Low-Income Units by corridor in the City of South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco projects significant housing development over the next planning cycle, facilitated by its recent General Plan and Zoning Code update which allows for housing in areas that were previously reserved for commercial as well as higher densities of up to ### dwelling units per acre. In addition, the City of South San Francisco has a proven housing market. Through the implementation of its Downtown Specific Plan over the last # years, ## housing units were constructed in the downtown area. Furthermore, the city has more than 3,500 units in the pipeline, the majority of which are approved or under construction (See Table 5-2). Table 6-12 is a conservative estimate of future development based on the city’s inclusionary zoning policy which provide for the development of lower-income units. The city’s strategy identifies development opportunities outside of the downtown area in nearby neighborhoods that have not yet developed housing but are close enough to existing amenities. The city also has a long-term plan and vision for creating new amenities in these new neighborhoods. 360 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 152 RESIDENT NEEDS LOCAL SURVEY Appendix 6.4 includes a summary of the responses from a San Mateo County resident survey conducted by Root Policy to support the Housing Element AFFH analysis. It explores residents’ housing, affordability, and neighborhood challenges and experiences with displacement and housing discrimination. The survey also asks about residents’ access to economic opportunity, captured through residents’ reported challenges with transportation, employment, and K-12 education. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENT NEEDS LOCAL SURVEY FINDINGS Among City of South San Francisco residents, there were 832 survey responses. Of the 832 responses, 409 were homeowners, 324 were renters, and 87 were precariously housed. The racial make-up of respondents included 105 White, 249 Asian, and 149 Hispanic. For income, there were 251 respondents earning over $100,000/year, 206 earning $50,000- $99,999/year, 97 earning between $25,000-$49,000/year and 61 earning less than $25,000/year. Two hundred and eighty-seven households that responded had children under the age of 18, 210 households had a household member with a disability, 248 households had an older adult (over age 65+), and 49 households were single parent households. Housing and Neighborhood Challenges The survey asked about different housing challenges experienced by residents. While some jurisdictions reported certain housing challenges at a higher rate than the Countywide average, South San Francisco respondents did not. When identifying housing challenges, South San Francisco respondents tended to report similar challenges as the County as a whole or report challenges less frequently than the County as a whole. ▪ Both the County average (31%) and South San Francisco (35%) most frequent challenge was “I would like to move but can’t afford anything that is available/my income is too low.” ▪ The second most frequent challenge was “My house or apartment isn’t big enough for my family” (20% countywide and 21% for South San Francisco). ▪ In four of the 11 challenges included in the survey, South San Francisco respondents experienced challenges at a lower rate than the County as a whole. ▪ There are a handful of jurisdictions who experienced specific neighborhood challenges at a higher rate compared to the County. For South San Francisco respondents expressed that “Schools in my neighborhood are poor quality” at a higher rate than the County as a whole (20% of South San Francisco respondents). In other areas, South San Francisco respondents report challenges less frequently 361 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 153 than the County as a whole, especially in the areas of accessing transit easily and transit options meeting their needs. ▪ There were also specific groups who experienced specific challenges at a higher rate compared to the County. Single-parent households, racial and/or ethnic minority households, and respondents experiencing a disabilityexperienced certain challenges more frequently than the respondents as a whole, some examples included: ▪ About 21% of residents said their house or apartment is too small for their family (35% for single parent households) ▪ 13% of renters said they worry that if they request a repair they will experience rent increase or get evicted (27% for single parent households) ▪ 13% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for housing in San Mateo County; (23% for respondents experiencing a disability and 24% for single parent households) ▪ 7% of renters are often late on rent and 9% can’t keep up with utilities (18% for single parent households—late on rent and 16% for single parent households— can’t keep up with utilities). Reasons for Being Denied Housing Some respondents were denied housing to rent or buy. The survey looked at the proportion of those who looked for and were denied housing to rent or buy for the County and jurisdictions. Of the 832 City of South San Francisco respondents to the resident survey, 344 residents have looked for housing seriously. Residents in South San Francisco, reported the following issues at a higher rate than other jurisdictions: ▪ A bank or other lender charged a high interest rate on home loan as a reason for denial. ▪ Bad credit is another barrier for accessing housing, particularly for Hispanic and Other Race households, households with income between $50,000 to $100,000. ▪ Income too low was a major reason for denial for all groups except homeowners and households with incomes above $100,000 (58% of South San Francisco respondents). ▪ Landlord did not return calls and/or emails asking about a unit was also a major reason for denial in South San Francisco. ▪ Similarly, of the 27 voucher holders responding to the survey, 89% indicated that finding an affordable unit is somewhat or very difficult. Seventeen of them indicated this is due to “Landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders.” 362 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 154 Displacement Respondents that had experienced displacement were asked to identify which city they moved from and which city they moved to. The most common moves to and from cities included: ▪ Moved within South San Francisco (28 respondents). ▪ Moved from San Bruno to South San Francisco (nine respondents). ▪ Moved from Daly City to South San Francisco (nine respondents). Improving Quality of Life Residents were asked a series of questions related to what help they need to improve their living situation. The following were the respondent's top priorities to help with housing security, improving their neighborhood, improving health, improving job situation, and improving their children’s education: ▪ Increase wages (41%). ▪ Help with a down payment/purchase (31%). ▪ Help me get a loan to buy a house (23%). ▪ Better lighting (38%). ▪ Reduce crime (29%), ▪ Improve street crossings (24%). ▪ Make it easier to exercise (41%). ▪ More healthy food (35%). ▪ More playgrounds for children (23%). ▪ Have more activities after school (29%). ▪ Better school facilities (25%), ▪ Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school (25%). Persons with Disabilities Overall, 30% of respondents’ households include a member experiencing a disability. Of these households, 26% said their housing does not meet their accessibility needs; 68% report that their current housing situation meets their needs. The three top greatest housing needs expressed by respondents included: ▪ Grab bars in bathroom or bench in shower (35%). ▪ Supportive services to help maintain housing (28%). ▪ Ramps (32%). 363 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 155 COUNTYWIDE SURVEY FINDINGS A total of 2,382 residents participated in the County-wide survey. Overall, 19% of survey respondents Countywide felt they were discriminated against when they looked for housing in the area. African American respondents (62%), single-parent households (44%) and precariously housed respondents (39%) are most likely to say they experienced housing discrimination. Residents with income above $100,000 and homeowners are least likely (11%). ▪ Respondents who believed they experienced discrimination when looking for housing in the County were asked to describe the actions they took in response to the discrimination. Overall, the most common responses to discrimination experienced by survey respondents were: Nothing/I wasn’t sure what to do (42%), Moved/found another place to live (30%), and Nothing/I was afraid of being evicted or harassed (20%). Nearly 4 in 10 county respondents who looked for housing experienced denial of housing. African American/Black respondents, precariously housed respondents, households with income below $50,000, and single parent respondents have denial rates of 60% or higher. African American (79%) and single parent (74%) respondents report the highest rates of denial. ▪ Overall, 21% of County-wide survey respondents experienced displacement in the past five years. Among all survey respondents, the main reason for displacement was “rent increased more than I could pay” (29%). For households with children that were displaced in the past five years, 60% of children in those households have changed schools. The most common outcomes identified by households with children who have changed schools include: “school is more challenging, they feel less safe at the new school, and they are in a worse school.” ▪ The limited supply of housing that accommodates voucher holders presents several challenges. Specifically, eight out of 10 voucher holders represented by the survey find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher to be “difficult” or “very difficult.” According to the survey data, vouchers not being enough to cover the places residents want to live is a top impediment for residents who want to move in San Mateo County, as well as for African American, Asian, and Hispanic residents, households with children under 18, single parents, older adults, and households with a member experiencing a disability. ▪ Over 80% of respondents indicated the type of transportation used most often is driving a personal vehicle. This share was relatively similar across most jurisdictions and was the number one type of transportation used across all jurisdictions and demographic characteristics. On average respondents are fairly satisfied with their transportation situation. 364 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 156 RESIDENT SURVEY CONCLUSIONS South San Francisco survey data generally tends to mirror the County-wide averages overall. The survey shows that in both the County and South San Francisco, being low- income is a barrier to accessing housing. The impacts are highest for Hispanic households and single parent households. Hispanic households are also more likely to experience overcrowding and to be cost burdened. The survey data as well as the demographic data show that the large proportion of Hispanic households in South San Francisco has a significant housing need and are at high risk of displacement. Because most of the City of South San Francisco is vulnerable to displacement, the survey data identify the biggest housing challenges for residents and areas of focus for the City’s policies and programs. The City’s Housing Element policies and programs include support for single parent households, support for down payment assistance, and policies to help prevent displacement. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors that limit employment and income growth, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited resources to respond to needs. Jurisdictions are required to prioritize contributing factors to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing in the city. The city prioritized the following contributing factors as either “high priority” or “medium priority.” Fair Housing Issue: Hispanic households have disproportionate housing needs. These needs are evident in mortgage denial gaps, cost burden, and overcrowding. Contributing Factors: ▪ High Priority: Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic household’s stem from decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership. ▪ High Priority: As discussed below, Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated where there is a high concentration of housing choice vouchers and most affordable homes in South San Francisco. As such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty. ▪ High Priority: Hispanic residents are more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not support the city or region housing prices, resulting in higher rates of cost burden and overcrowding. Although, it is customary for Hispanic households to live in multigenerational settings, which may account for higher 365 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 157 rates of perceived overcrowding, overcrowding is also an indicator of lack of access to affordable and right-sized housing. Fair Housing Issue: Hispanic residents are concentrated in census tracts with higher poverty, low economic and environmental opportunity, high rates of overcrowding, and high rental cost burden compared to the rest of the City of South San Francisco. Contributing Factors: ▪ High Priority: Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the central area of the City (from Sign Hill to Orange Park) where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps. ▪ Medium Priority: Some census tracts within this area are designated as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities. ▪ Medium Priority: The census tract that spans from Oyster Point in the east to Orange Park in the west of the City is designated as an edge Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP). ▪ Medium Priority: Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 5% or more (majority-minority) and the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (12.8% in 2019). ▪ High Priority: Hispanic households are five times as likely to live in a low resource area compared to a high resource area in South San Francisco. ▪ High Priority: Areas of Hispanic concentration overlap with high shares of Housing Choice Vouchers and affordable housing. Concentration of affordable rental housing opportunities in further concentrates poverty, cost burden, and overcrowding in areas with low environmental and economic outcomes. ▪ High Priority: There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the City, as well as the county overall. Because South San Francisco has more affordable housing opportunities than other parts of the county—as evidenced by Location Affordability Index maps (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-29)—the residents who live in South San Francisco often have higher housing needs. Those needs are not being met in other parts of the county. Fair Housing Issue: Single parent households struggle to find housing that is large enough for their families and that is affordable. Single parent households are concentrated in lower opportunity areas where the most affordable housing exists. Contributing Factors: ▪ Medium Priority: In the resident survey conducted for this study, single parent households were more likely than other demographic groups to say that the housing they live in is too small for their families. 366 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 158 ▪ High Priority: Single parent households also report very high rates of discrimination in housing choice (24%). As such, they are more reluctant than other demographic groups to ask landlords for repairs for fear of losing their housing (27% said they are afraid if they request repairs they will experience rent increases or get evicted). ▪ High Priority: There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the City, as well as the county overall. Because South San Francisco has more affordable housing opportunities than other parts of the county—as evidenced by Location Affordability Index maps (Appendix 6. 2, Figure IV-29)—the residents who live in South San Francisco often have higher housing needs. Those needs are not being met in other parts of the county. Fair Housing Issue: Persons with disabilities have higher housing needs due to challenges accessing employment and housing discrimination and are concentrated in areas with high rates of cost burden, poverty, and social vulnerability and low resource opportunity scores. Contributing Factors: ▪ High Priority: The unemployment rate for South San Francisco’s residents with a disability is more than four times that of persons without a disability. The exact reasons for this disparity are unclear and are likely related to limited job opportunities, access to employment, and market discrimination. ▪ High Priority: The undersupply of accessible housing units creates a scarcity of units for residents living with a disability. ▪ Medium Priority: There were two complaints—out of four total complaints in the City—filed with HUD in South San Francisco from 2017 to 2020 where the issues cited included a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property owners are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living with a disability upon request. ▪ High Priority: There are concentrations of the population living with a disability in four census tracts which are located across the city (west, north, east and south). South San Francisco has a larger share of population living with a disability than the county. west of Highway 101 in the census tract that includes Orange Park neighborhood. This census tract has a higher poverty rate relative to the City, has low TCAC environment and economic opportunity scores, and is designated as a low resource opportunity area. Fair Housing Issue: Nearly one in nine income-assisted rental units in South San Francisco are at high risk of converting to market rate housing. 367 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 159 Contributing Factors: ▪ High Priority: In South San Francisco, 12% of income-assisted rental units are at high risk for converting to market rate housing and displacing residents, a total of 74 out of 614 total units in the City. This is higher than in the county overall, where 8% of units are at high or very-high risk, and the Bay Area overall, where 2% are at risk of converting. Fair Housing Issue: Students attending South San Francisco Unified schools have lower probability of meeting college standards and higher dropout rates. Contributing Factors: ▪ High Priority: South San Francisco Unified had the lowest rate of graduates who met CU or CSU admission standards at 41%. Hispanic students in the district were less likely to meet the admission standards than other students. ▪ High Priority: South San Francisco Unified has one of the highest dropout rates in the county at 9% with White (12%) and Hispanic (11%) students accounting for the highest rates. FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS The city’s Housing Element (Chapter 7 – Housing Plan – Goals and Policies, under the heading Equity to Implement the Fair Housing Action Plan)FHAP below details how the City of South San Francisco proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis. By expanding and investing in the city's housing policy tools, residents who are at most risk of displacement will have a higher likelihood of stable housing and have better economic and quality of life outcomes for their families. All recommendations have been incorporated into the Chapter 7, Housing Plan – Goals and Policies, under the heading goal Equity to Implement the Fair Housing Action Plan to ensure reporting on AFFH progress during each Annual Progress Report for this Housing Element cycle. Community partners assisted in the development of the policies and programs included in the Housing Plan by engaging with underrepresented populations and providing the city with input and best practices. The Housing Plan incorporates many of the recommended policies from the Housing Leadership Council, Housing Choices, and the Equity Advisory Group (EAG) consisting of 15 organizations or leaders across the county that are advancing equity and affordable housing (See pp. 19 for a full list). These partners are important to building community consensus regarding the implementation of policies and programs. The policies and programs will help the City diversify its current housing 368 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 160 strategies. All of these programs underscore the importance of effective community engagement through strategies like targeted outreach, partnering with local organizations, and connecting people to services. The goals and policies included in this Housing Element are aligned with the city’s existing equity work, which has been developed by the South San Francisco Commission on Racial and Social Equity. The Commission developed and the City Council adopted an Action Plan that explores strategies to improve housing security and availability of housing for low-income and communities of color. These include renter assistance, legal help, home repair programs, and expanding City housing funds, among other initiatives. They also involve leveraging available land assets to expand affordable housing, particularly to people of color and disenfranchised community members. These equity priorities were incorporated into the city’s Housing Element and General Plan. 369 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 161 Table 6-13Fair Housing Action Plan Recommendations 370 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY 162 371 6 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING IN OUR CITY South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 163 372 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 164 Chapter 7 – Housing Plan – Goals and Policies Based on the General Plan Update goals and policies (ShapeSSF 2040), evaluated needs, constraints, resources, community input, and AFFH analysis identified in previous sections, this section of the Housing Element sets forth South San Francisco’s housing plan for the 2023 to 2031 planning period. The City has established this plan in consideration of its own local needs and priorities, as well as its obligations under State Housing Element law. The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related implementing policies. Accompanying each implementing policy are one or more programs that the City will implement over the 2023 to 2031 planning period. These programs are summarized in an eight-year Action Plan, which presents the programs together with implementing agencies, funding sources and time frames for implementation. Finally, the Housing Plan sets forth quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and conservation for the Housing Element planning period. While very few of these programs are critical to producing raw units to meet the RHNA requirement, they are extremely important to ensure equity, affirmatively further fair housing, reduce constraints, and adapt to climate change. Highlights proposed in the RHNA 6 Cycle program include: ▪ Capturing the General Plan equity guidance and embedding within the Housing Element to study displacement solutions – these Goals or Programs are marked with a GP; ▪ Learning from the new AFFH analysis requirement and creating a Goal to implement suggested programs – these Goals or Programs are marked with an FHAP to recognize the Fair Housing Action Plan; and ▪ Updating programs to capture sustainability goals consistent with the new Climate Action Plan. The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element. ▪ Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature. ▪ Implementing Policies: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. ▪ Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy. Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated time frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the calendar year in which the activity is scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary considerations. 373 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 165 Table 7-1 Updated Goals informed by ShapeSSF and Housing Element Update City of South San Francisco Housing Program Goals Goal 1 EQUITY – Create equitable opportunity for people of all ages, races/ethnicities, abilities, socio-economic status, genders, and family types regardless of income level. Goal 2 CREATION/FACILITATION – Promote the provision and/or access of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community. Goal 3 REMOVE CONSTRAINTS – Support housing development by eliminating unnecessary and/or costly barriers in the housing development process and facilitating collaboration with private and public partners to develop housing options affordable to everyone. Goal 4 PRESERVE – Strive to maintain and preserve existing housing resources, including both affordable and market-rate units. Goal 5 QUALITY OF LIFE – Promote residential neighborhoods designed for a high quality of life for neighborhood residents and visitors. Goal 6 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS – Enhance the quality of existing affordable housing and expand housing opportunities and services for special needs populations and residents experiencing housing insecurity. Goal 7 CLIMATE RESILIENCY – Green buildings are the standard for new construction and major renovations and the performance of existing buildings is improved. EQUITY TO IMPLEMENT THE FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN GOAL 1 EQUITY – Create equitable opportunity for people of all ages, races/ethnicities, abilities, socio-economic status, genders, and family types regardless of income level. (GP) (FHAP) These programs are a direct implementation of the Fair Housing Action Plan shown in Table 6-13. Implementing Policies Policy EQ-1 The City will eliminate on a Citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing. Program EQ-1.1 – Enforce equal housing opportunity laws. The City shall require that all recipients of locally administered housing assistance funds and other means of support from the City acknowledge their understanding of fair housing law and affirm their commitment to the law. The City shall proactively provide materials to help with the understanding of and compliance with fair housing law by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division 374 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 166 Time Frame: Ongoing – Annual reporting as part of CDBG Funding and Annual Progress Report Funding Source: Staff time Program EQ-1.2 – Regional cooperation. The City shall participate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to bi-annually update the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County, a report that helps jurisdictions identify impediments to fair housing and develop solutions. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing and bi-annual update Funding Source: CDBG Policy EQ-2 The City shall provide fair housing information and referrals regarding fair housing complaints, tenant-landlord conflicts, habitability, and other general housing assistance. Program EQ-2.1 – Legal counsel and advocacy assistance. The City shall support non-profits providing legal counseling and advocacy assistance concerning fair housing laws, rights, and remedies to those who believe they have been discriminated against. Persons requesting information or assistance related to housing discrimination are referred to one or more fair housing groups for legal services. Consistent with existing practice, brochures providing information on fair housing and tenants’ rights are proactively available at City Hall, public libraries and on the City’s website. The brochures are also available at nonprofit organizations serving low- income residents. The brochures are available and translated intoin multiple languages. As funding allows, the City shall provide annual funding assistance to organizations that provide fair housing, tenant/landlord, and habitability counseling and other general housing assistance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing and annually evaluated Funding Source: CDBG or HOME administrative funds, as available Policy EQ-3 Support residents who are at-risk of being displaced. Reduce the rate of evictions and support low-income residents who are at-risk of being displaced. (GP) Program EQ-3.1 – Provide renter education and assistance. Continue to connect low-income residents to city, county, state, and non-profit resources that provide technical, legal, and financial assistance for renters facing eviction in multiple languages. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, 375 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 167 distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to tenants. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Offered daily from City staff and North County’s Core Services Provider YMCA Funding Source: CDBG or HOME administrative funds, as available, staff time Program EQ-3.2 – Conduct a public hearing to consider an anti- displacement plan. Explore Conduct a public hearing to understand options for an anti-displacement plan to halt displacement in the city, particularly in Downtown, Sign Hill, El Camino, and Sunshine Gardens, which may include a rent stabilization policy, just cause-eviction and harassment protections, tenant and landlord mediation programs, right of first refusal, rental assistance, tenant legal counseling, and a rent board to implement the program. As policies are developed and /adopted, develop objectives by which to measure the success of each program area based on best practices and professional guidance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: 2023-2025 Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program EQ-3.3 – Create a rental task force. The task force will bring together South San Francisco renters, housing advocates, landlords, and property owners’ representatives to discuss renter protection alternatives and recommend specific measures to the South San Francisco City Council. These measures shall be designed to reduce displacement of residents and create additional certainty for both landlords and tenants. The Task Force will discuss, examine, and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the following renter protection policies: ▪ Rental Registry operational guidelines and implementation details. ▪ Rental Housing Mediation Program guidelines. ▪ Rental Assistance programs, especially to households unserved by current programs. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Convene task force and make recommendations in 2023 and implement the recommendations of the task force in 2024-2025. Recommendations may include creation of a rental registry to track rentals and evictions, new mediation programs, and procedural changes to rental assistance programs, Annual Updates thereafter. Funding Source: City funds, staff time 376 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 168 Program EQ-3.4. Evaluate and develop a local just cause for eviction ordinance to go above California’s Tenant Protection Act (TPA), the state’s just cause for eviction law adopted in 2019. The State law explicitly authorizes cities to pass stronger local ordinances, because the state legislature intended the state law to be a floor, not a ceiling, on tenant protections. As part of developing the local ordinance, the City will: ▪ Evaluate exclusions to the state law; ▪ Seek to regulate existing loopholes related to substantial remodels, bad faith Ellis Act evictions, and owner move-in evictions; ▪ Evaluate relocation payment requirements; ▪ Provide transparency in local procedures; and ▪ Provide tenants with recourse for violations of the law. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Research and development of ordinance 2023 and potential adoption in 2024. Funding Source: City funds, staff time Policy EQ-4 Enforce fair housing laws. Strictly enforce fair housing laws to protect residents from housing discrimination. Program EQ-.4.1 – Provide resident housing rights education. Provide education, outreach, and referral services for residents regarding their rights as tenants and buyers. The City utilizes CDBG funds to support Project Sentinel, a local fair housing nonprofit, to provide counseling, dispute resolution, and other services to residents. Project Sentinel assists both renters and homeowners with issues related to discrimination, landlord issues, housing privacy, reverse mortgages, eviction, foreclosure, and numerous other housing issues. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to tenants. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Daily ad hoc support and Annual Training Funding Source: City funds, staff time, CDBG Program EQ-4.2 – Provide landlord housing rights education. Provide education and outreach to landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and others on their obligations as they make or manage properties available for housing. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division 377 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 169 Time Frame: Annual Training once Rental Registry is created (expected 2023-2025) Funding Source: City funds, staff time Policy EQ-5 Enhance housing mobility strategies by removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access. (FHAP) Program EQ-5.1 – Conduct a robust evaluation of the inclusionary housing program. Evaluate the effectiveness of delivering units for residents with the greatest housing needs (e.g., single parent families, child-friendly housing, accessible/visitable units for persons with disabilities). Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Bi-annually Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program EQ-5.2 – Participate in a regional down payment assistance program. Include affirmative marketing to households with disproportionate housing needs including Hispanic households, persons with disabilities, and single parents (e.g., Spanish and English, targeted to neighborhoods west of Highway 101). Responsibility: Regional Partnership with HEART (San Mateo County has program with them) Time Frame: Meet quantified objective by the end of the Housing Element period in 2029; Conduct homebuyer education quarterly in partnership with HEART Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program EQ-5.3 – Increase employment rate for all populations with focus on persons with disabilities. Work with area employers and interested jurisdictions to develop a coordinated apprenticeship program to increase the employment rate of all underemployed persons with a focus on persons with disabilities. This program will expand upon existing programs provided at the City’s Economic Advancement Center (EAC) which is a collaboration between the City, San Mateo County, and local nonprofits JobTrain and the Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center. JobTrain assists clients with career training, connections to employers, and preparation to join growing fields and industries. Renaissance works with new and would- be entrepreneurs to translate their skills and vision into a successful business. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Develop program 2023-2025 and Evaluate progress Bi- Annually thereafter Funding Source: City funds, staff time 378 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 170 Policy EQ-6 Encourage new housing choices and affordability in high resource areas by promoting housing supply, choices and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty. (FHAP) Program EQ-6.1 – Increase affordable units. Increase the number of affordable rental and homeownership units in moderate and higher resource areas of South San Francisco through targeted redevelopment and gentle infill. Prioritize the development of the existing Municipal Services Building at 33 Arroyo Drive and any other jurisdiction owned assets for 100% affordable housing development partnership or jurisdiction-led project. The City shall proactively provide promotional materials on development opportunities by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list to potential development partners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Evaluate annually as part of Annual Progress Report Funding Source: Staff time Program EQ-6.2 – Incentivize accessibility development. Incentivize developers through direct subsidies from commercial linkage fees, fee waivers, and/or density bonuses, to increase accessibility unit requirements beyond the federal requirement of 5% for subsidized developments. This program links to EQ-6.3, which requires the City to develop an affordable housing fund policy. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Evaluate annually as part of Annual Progress Report Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program EQ-6.3 – Affordable housing fund policy., The City anticipates significant income from its Commercial Linkage Fee over the next five years. City staff will prioritize fund use for the development of new affordable housing once enough funds are received. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Policy development by end of 2024 Funding Source: Staff time, Commercial Linkage Fees Policy EQ-7 Improve place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization by preserving existing affordable housing; involves approaches that are focused on conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty. (FHAP) 379 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 171 Program EQ-7.1 – Prioritize Capital Improvement Program for vulnerable populations. Prioritize City capital improvement investments to address the challenges of Orange Park neighborhood, which is disproportionately occupied by Hispanic residents, persons with disabilities, and single female parent households. Improve landscaping and tree cover and parks, reduce pollutants, and create more walkability and pedestrian safety. Work with City’s CDBG fund recipients, Rebuilding Together Peninsula and Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities, to advertise programs to homeowners in the Orange Park neighborhood, including Spanish-language outreach. Additionally, prioritize an AFFH analysis or similar equity analysis for each capital improvement project to ensure vulnerable populations are supported. Responsibility: Department of Public Works – Engineering, Department of Capital Improvement Projects, Department of Public Works Time Frame: Annually during CIP budgeting process Funding Source: CIP funds, staff time Program EQ-7.2 – Fund home repair for low-income residents. Continue to fund minor home repairs and implement a preference for projects in low opportunity census tracts identified in the AFFH analysis. Expand the program to assist renters. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to tenants. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annually during CDBG Funding Public Hearings Funding Source: CDBG funds, as available Policy EQ-8 Protect existing residents from displacement in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserve housing choices and affordability. (FHAP) Program EQ-8.1 – Create Preservation Plan. Begin a plan to preserve the City's deed restricted affordable units with restrictions that will expire in the next 5-10 years and develop a plan for preservation of the units to keep them affordable long term. Prevent low-income residents from displacement or housing-cost burden due to expiration of covenants. This will include proposing the use of Commercial Linkage Fees to work with affordable housing developers to acquire properties and keep deed restrictions for the long-term. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: 2023-2025 380 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 172 Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program EQ-8.2 – Provide fair housing training: Partner with local fair housing organizations to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants, in addition to enforcing fair housing laws, with a focus on disability violations. Responsibility: Project Sentinel, Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Bi-annually once Rental Registry created, if program implemented Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program EQ-8.3 – Advertise accessibility requirements. When residential buildings are inspected for occupancy, check for posters that explain the right to request reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Make this information available and clearly transparent on the City's website and fund landlord training and outreach on reasonable accommodations. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program EQ-8.4 – Continue the Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program. As grant funding or City funds permit, continue the operation of the Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program to support South San Francisco families in poverty to secure housing and economic stability. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division; City Manager Time Frame: 2023 for continuation of program with this program annually evaluated Funding Source: City funds, state and federal grants, staff time Program EQ-8.5 – Continue the Rental Assistance Pilot Program. As grant funding or City funds permit, continue the operation of the Rental Assistance Pilot Program to provide short-term and mid-term support for South San Francisco families in poverty to prevent displacement. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division; City Manager Time Frame: 2023 for continuation of program with this program annually evaluated Funding Source: City funds, state and federal grants, staff time 381 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 173 CREATION AND FACILITATION TO PROMOTE NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GOAL 2 CREATION/FACILITATION – Promote the provision and/or access of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community. Implementing Policies Policy CRT-1 The City shall implement zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of land to meet its 2023 to 2031 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 871 very-low-income units, 502 low-income units, 720 moderate- income units, and 1,863 above-moderate-income units. Program CRT-1.1 – Vacant land inventory. The City shall periodically update its inventory of vacant parcels identified in this Housing Element. The City shall also conduct a periodic review of the composition of the housing stock, the types of dwelling units under construction or expected to be constructed during the following year, and the anticipated mix, based on development proposals approved or under review by the City, of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the period covered by the Housing Element. This analysis will be compared to the City’s remaining 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any changes in land use policy are warranted. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Annually as part of the Annual Progress Report submitted to HCD Funding Source: Staff time Policy CRT-2 The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Program CRT-2.1 – Implement Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with State law, requiring new rental and for sale residential development over four units to provide a minimum of 15% low- and moderate-income housing. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: Staff time Program CRT-2.2 – Regularly review Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City shall review the success of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, not more frequently than bi-annually, to determine if the objectives of the ordinance are being met. Consideration shall be made to revising provisions 382 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 174 of the ordinance to ensure that a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including households of low and moderate incomes, and those persons with developmental disabilities, are provided. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division and Planning Division Time Frame: Evaluate bi-annually as part of Annual Progress Report Funding Source: Staff time Policy CRT-3 The City will investigate and apply for new sources of funding for the City’s affordable housing programs. Program CRT-3.1 – Review Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee. The City shall continue to implement the Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee, reviewing not more frequently than bi-annually, to determine if the fee is appropriate and keeping pace with affordable housing production needs. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division; City Council Time Frame: Evaluate annually as part of Annual Progress Report Funding Source: City funds Policy CRT-4 The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers to promote the development of housing for extremely low-, very-low-, and lower-income households. Program CRT-4.1 – Site acquisition for affordable housing. The City shall work with for-profit and nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or developed with underutilized, blighted, and/or nonconforming uses for the development of affordable housing. As neededAnnually, the City will meet with developers to discuss and identify development opportunities and potential funding sources and work with residential and commercial brokers to identify opportunities. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division and Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Time Frame: Annual Reports to City Council via Public Hearing, Closed Session, or Memorandum update on potential site acquisition with annual program planning Funding Source: Various Program CRT-4.2 – Support and pursue funding applications for affordable housing. Consistent with existing practice, the City shall continue to support funding applications for federal and state funds to promote the development of affordable housing. 383 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 175 Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annually and Ongoing as dictated by affordable housing development needs Funding Sources: Various; directory of funding provided in the HCD Financial Assistance Program Directory Program CRT-4.3 – Allow waivers or deferrals of planning, building and impact fees for affordable housing development under State Density Bonus Law. The City shall continue to consider the waiver of application and development fees for affordable housing development in order to support the financial viability of affordable housing development, as applicable. Waiver of such fees will be on a case-by-case basis at the City Council’s discretion and will only be considered if a project meeting the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance shows that without fee waivers the project is infeasible. This program must balance the goal of affordable housing production with the need to collect fee revenues to support other City goalsimpacts on local infrastructure. City shall conduct a public hearing to discuss fee waiver policy related to affordable housing development and render a decision consistent with State Density Bonus Law. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division; Planning Division; City Manager; City Council Time Frame: 2023-2025 Funding Sources: N/A Program CRT-4.4 – Review new development requirements for condominiums, SSFMC 19.36. The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires a minimum of five units to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031 Funding Source: Staff time Program CRT-4.5 – Implement the State Density Bonus Law: The City shall continue to implement the State Density Bonus Law and its applicability to qualifying projects requesting a concession and/or waiver of development standards. The City commits to reviewing and amending the City’s current density bonus ordinance for compliance with current state law and monitor compliance and update as necessary per HCD request. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division; Time Frame: Ongoing consideration as requested 384 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 176 Funding Sources: N/A Program CRT-4.6 – City led acquisition and/or development of new mixed- income affordable housing. The City shall pursue site acquisition and/or development of parcels to construct a goal of up to 300 units of mixed-income affordable housing for very-low, low-, and moderate-income housing. The City has traditionally undertaken this work via providing land and/or loan funds to affordable housing developers when land or funds are available. With the implementation of the City’s Commercial Linkage Fee in 2019 this RHNA Cycle provides the City a dedicated income stream to pro- actively develop new affordable units. Staff are committed to spending some of the anticipated fees on both land acquisition and financial support to nonprofit affordable housing developers. Additionally, South San Francisco The City Council has placed on the approved a November 2022 ballot to an Article 34 authorization to allow authorize the City to acquire/develop, own, and operate the equivalent of 1% of the existing housing stock per year for the next 10 years. This would allows the City to produce approximately 225 units in the first year, with modest increases in following years based on the current total number of housing units. If this initiative is successful, Staff will work with Council to determine if and how they would like to utilize the authority. While Commerical Linkage Fees would provide some funding, Council would need to determine a number of things to self-develop, own, and operate housing. These include but are not limited to: 1) the legal structure under which the City will undertake this work; 2) the target populations for City-owned housing; 3) how the City becomes an experienced affordable housing developer eligible for County and State funds. Staff are committed to moving forward with development of new affordable housing units via whichever method (or a combination) makes sense for the Community and which Council provides direction regarding. the City will seek opportunities to utilize the authorization alongside Commercial Linkage Fee and other housing funds. If this measure does not pass the City will work alongside affordable housing developers to support their development of affordable housing. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division; Planning Division Time Frame: Identified site and lead developer by end of 2024 Funding Sources: Commercial Linkage Fee, fee waivers, state and federal grants Policy CRT-5 The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses in the areas designated as PDAs, properties located in proximity to BART and 385 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 177 Caltrain stations and along El Camino Real, consistent with the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Program CRT-5.1 – Implement Grand Boulevard Initiative polices. Continue to support the guiding principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which encourages the provision of medium- and high-density housing along El Camino Real in Peninsula communities, to create an environment that is supportive of transit, walkable, and mixed-use. The City shall reference this policy direction when considering future land use and zoning changes along El Camino Real and assess the opportunity for housing development along this key corridor as development proposals arise. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division, Department of Public Works – Engineering Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: N/A Policy CRT-6 The City shall support and facilitate the development of housing consistent with State Law related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on single- and multi-family designated and zoned parcels and small subdivisions (SB 9) on single-family designated and zoned parcels. Program CRT-6.1 – Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units and educate the community about this program. City will continue to allow permissive design standards for ADUs with no parking required in most instances, reduced setbacks, larger units and ADUs allowed on both single- and multi-family zoned parcels. Actively promote community education on ADUs by posting information regarding ADUs on the City’s website and providing brochures at the public counter in the Centralized Permit Center. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division; Planning Commission Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: Staff time to promote program; ADUs developed by private property owners Program CRT-6.2 – Continue to implement SB 9 units and subdivision allowances. SB 9 requires cities and counties to ministerially allow, in single- family zoning districts, either or both of the following: A housing development of no more than two units at least up to 800 square feet each; and/or The subdivision of a parcel to create two approximately equal parcels (i.e., 40/60 or 50/50 split) with a minimum lot size of 1,200 sf for each new lot. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division; Planning Commission Time Frame: Ongoing 386 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 178 Funding Source: Staff time to review applications Policy CRT-7 Actively facilitate adding affordable and workforce housing in all South San Francisco neighborhoods equitably. Program CRT-7.1 – Coordinate with SSFUSD regarding housing on closed school sites. Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) to evaluate the potential of developing housing and community services, such as childcare, on closed school sites, including the former Foxridge school site. These sites are at discretion of SSFUSD only, but City will assist if requested and support the effort. None of these sites are included in the inventory of opportunity sites identified to meet and surpass RHNA requirements for South San Francisco. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Will be considered annually during liaison meetings with SSFUSD Funding Source: Staff time to ensure zoning consistency with this General Plan goal Program CRT-7.2 – Allow housing on sites with institutional uses. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow housing development on sites used for institutional purposes, such as educational facilities and churches. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: 2023-25 Funding Source: Staff time to ensure zoning consistency with this General Plan goal Program CRT-7.3 – Develop workforce housing program. Link employment growth with residential development through partnerships with large employers by using density bonuses, height bonuses, transfer of development rights, and other similar incentives to create workforce housing. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Housing Division; Planning Division Time Frame: 2023-2025 Funding Source: Staff time to ensure zoning consistency with this General Plan goal Policy CRT-8 Encourage a variety of housing types to be developed at a range of densities to equitably serve varying household types, including, but not limited to, single-family attached and detached, accessory dwelling units, multi-family apartments, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and condominiums. 387 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 179 Program CRT-8.1 – Facilitate live/work housing in Lindenville. Provide opportunities for live/work options to support a creative economy and meet the changing needs of workspaces. Focus on the Lindenville Area in particular as a location for live/work opportunities. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Lindenville Specific Plan Adoption estimated in 2023 Funding Source: Staff time to ensure zoning consistency with this General Plan goal Program CRT-8.2 – Adopt updated Zoning Ordinance as companion to General Plan 2040. Adopt companion zoning to implement the General Plan 2040 Update and implement up zoning to create and facilitate new housing and opportunity sites. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: End of 2022 consistent with General Plan 2040 Update scheduleCompleted as of November 2022 prior to RHNA planning period beginning January 1, 2023. Funding Source: Staff time and existing contracts for General Plan 2040 Update Policy CRT-9 Develop regulatory mechanisms via the Zoning Ordinance, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and community benefits agreements to incentivize development of affordable housing, including workforce housing, and develop programming to preserve affordable housing and expand homeownership. Program CRT-9.1 – Create affordable housing overlay zone. Evaluate Implement an affordable housing overlay zone consistent with AB 2011 and SB 6 that permits increased heights and densities for 100% affordable housing developments in as many appropriate zoning districts as possible. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Assumed Adoption of AB 2011 and SB 6 will set in motion an update to the Zoning Ordinance to comply with State requirementsUpdated zoning ordinance to reflect AB 2011 and SB 6 by end of 2023. Funding Source: Staff time to ensure zoning consistency with this General Plan goal Program CRT-9.2 – Preserve naturally-occurring affordable housing. Study and implement programming and regulations to encourage preservation 388 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 180 and upkeep of existing naturally-occurring affordable housing (NOAH), such as rental protections for residents in NOAH units. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031 or as part of Rental Task Force and no later than the end of 2024. Funding Source: Staff time, consultant time through the Commercial Linkage Fee Program CRT-9.3 – Explore shared equity homeownership models. Explore expanded use of shared equity homeownership models, including a community land trust, to increase home ownership and how to implement these models. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031 Funding Source: Staff time, Consultant time through the Commercial Linkage Fee Program CRT-9.4 – Explore adoption of a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act Policy. Explore feasibility of a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) in the city, including study of existing rental housing stock, coordination with nonprofit partners who may be interested in acquisitions, study of best practices, and development of policy. A COPA policy could provide a requirement that multi-family residential property owners who are looking to sell be required to notify the City and/or qualified nonprofits of their intention to sell and provide a timeframe for either to make a purchase offer. Acquired units would become deed restricted affordable housing in perpetuity. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Council Study Session in Q2 2023, potential staff recommendation in Q4 2023. Funding Source: Staff time, Partnership for the Bay’s Future Fellowship Policy CRT-10 Encourage small-scale residential infill development in existing residential neighborhoods. Program CRT-10.1 – Maintain and update preapproved accessory dwelling unit (ADU) plans. Preapprove additional ADU plans from ADU vendors to expedite ADU permit processing if State law changes and current plan designs need adjustment. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing 389 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 181 at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing – current plans meeting all local and state codes are approved and available to residents Funding Source: Staff time, consultant time for plan updates through the Commercial Linkage Fee Program CRT-10.2 – Continue ADU construction management program with Hello Housing or similar to promote privately funded ADU construction. Continue operation of construction management program for ADU design, permitting and construction through Genentech grant of One Million dollars. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing while funding permits Funding Source: Staff time, consultant time for program administration using Genentech grant funding Policy CRT-11 Support low-income residents in securing homeownership and establishing generational wealth in South San Francisco as a pathway to prevent displacement. Program CRT-11.1 – Connect residents to mortgage assistance resources. Provide mortgage assistance to help low-income homeowners at risk of foreclosure with financial or counseling support. Provide residents with resources and connections to HEART of San Mateo County, a countywide homeowner assistance program, and other non-profit homeowner assistance programs. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: Staff time, City funding to Core Social Service Agencies Policy CRT-12 Encourage resident controlled limited-equity ownership, such as limited- equity condominiums, limited-equity cooperatives, and community land trusts. 390 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 182 Program CRT-12.1 – Encourage resident controlled limited-equity housing. Conduct a consultant led analysis of limited-equity tools that can be considered for adoption into the inclusionary housing regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023- 2031Request for proposal and contracting with a housing consultant shall occur no later than the end of 2025. Funding Source: Staff time, consultant time funded through the Commercial Linkage Fee REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GOAL 3 REMOVE CONSTRAINTS – Support housing development by eliminating unnecessary and/or costly barriers in the housing development process and facilitating collaboration with private and public partners to develop housing options affordable to everyone. Implementing Policies Policy CST-1 The City shall continue to operate the centralized “Permit Center” in order to provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate housing development consistent with local needs. Program CST-1.1 – Expedite permit review. To support affordable and market rate housing construction, the City shall work with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; promote housing design and projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; provide timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval. The updated General Plan and companion zoning allow most multi-family projects to be reviewed against objective standards only and approved by Planning Commission only. Reviews will be consistent with adopted AB 2234, effective January 1, 2023. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division, Building Division, and Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each application and meeting requirements of AB 2234 by January 1, 2031. Funding Source: City funds for staff review 391 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 183 Policy CST-2 The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewer, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the City. Residential development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements are already committed or planned. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public rights-of-way. Program CST-2.1 – Ensure development review coordination among departments. Early in the development application process, the Planning Division shall work with the applicant and consult with other departments and divisions to ensure that necessary infrastructure is planned or is in place to support the proposed project. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division, Building Division, and Economic Development and Housing Division; Public Works Department Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Policy CST-3 Continually update the Zoning Ordinance to comply with State housing law and best practices. Program CST-3.1 – Ensure zoning consistency with all State laws. Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect recent State Law changes to permit Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) creation and SB 9 units, for instance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Annually and consistent with State implementation requirements Funding Source: Staff time Program CST-3.2 – Reduce parking requirements for new housing construction. Update the Zoning Ordinance to reduce eliminate minimums for affordable housing, special needs housing, and housingresidential and non-residential development adjacent to transit corridors and create parking maximums consistent with the General Plan Update vision. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Upon adoption of the General Plan Update and companion zoning, estimated for Fall, 2022.Completed as part of General Plan Update and companion zoning and will be updated as needed on an annual basis. Funding Source: Staff time Policy CST-4 As appropriate, develop design guidelines for residential neighborhoods in South San Francisco to promote high-quality design. 392 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 184 Program CST-4.1 – Implement adopted objective design standards. Implement the updated Zoning Ordinance with objective standards for single-family and multi-family residential development. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: OngoingCompleted as part of General Plan Update and companion zoning. Funding Source: Staff time Policy CST-5 Modify the Zoning Ordinance to remove barriers to the construction of supportive housing types in South San Francisco. Program CST-5.1 – Permanent Supportive Housing. Group home housing is currently permitted in multiple residential only zoning districts with approval of a minor use permit to support the availability of housing choices for persons with special needs. Under HCD best practice guidance, however, requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for special needs populations to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses. Update Zoning Ordinance to allow by-right in residential zoning districts. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: 2023 Funding Source: Staff time Program CST-5.2 – Emergency Shelter. Previously, the City identified the Mixed Industrial (MI) district as a zone in the City where an emergency shelter would be permitted as an allowed use, subject only to the same development standards applicable to other uses in the zone. Emergency shelter facilities were also permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the Business Commercial district. Zoning development standards in the General Plan Update and companion zoning, however, seem to have failed to properly transfer Emergency Shelter as a permitted use in any of the zoning districts, particularly the Mixed Industrial Zoning District where it will be a permitted by-right use. Update Zoning Ordinance to allow by-right in Mixed- Industrial zoning district and consider additional locations, where appropriate. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: 2023 Funding Source: Staff time 393 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 185 PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS GOAL 4 PRESERVE – Strive to maintain and preserve existing housing resources, including both affordable and market-rate units. Implementing Policies Policy PRSV-1 Encourage reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and rehabilitation of housing, especially housing for very-low-, low- and moderate-income households. As appropriate, the City shall use local, State, and Federal funding assistance to the fullest extent these subsidies exist to facilitate housing rehabilitation. Program PRSV-1.1 – Minor home repair. The City will provide a portion of CDBG funds to non-profit organizations providing free minor home repairs to assist extremely low- to low-income homeowners to bring houses into a good state of repair and maintain them as viable units in the local housing stock. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annually through the CDBG funding process Funding Source: CDBG Program PRSV-1.2 – Prioritize funding for housing rehabilitation. The City shall continue to give housing rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Funds shall be targeted towards older housing stock and to families earning less than 80% of AMI. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annually through the CDBG funding process Funding Source: CDBG Program PRSV-1.3 – Provide low interest loans for housing rehabilitation. The City shall provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing by supporting the City’s Housing Rehabilitation 394 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 186 Program with continued CDBG funding. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annually through the CDBG funding process Funding Source: CDBG Policy PRSV-2 The City shall maintain and improve neighborhoods using systematic code enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs and other available incentives. Program PRSV-2.1 – Enforce housing, building and safety codes. The City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes as well as eliminate incompatible uses or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures. Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department; Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Policy PRSV-3 The City shall continue to maintain residential neighborhoods by keeping streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in good repair. The City shall continue to work cooperatively with other agencies and utilities concerning the maintenance of their properties and equipment in South San Francisco. Program PRSV-3.1 – Direct CIP funding for infrastructure equitably. The City shall maintain its capital improvement program to upgrade infrastructure in residential neighborhoods and ensure targeted investment in census tracts identified as disadvantaged communities. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development; Public Works Department Time Frame: Ongoing and reported on annually as part of Annual Progress Report Funding Source: City funds Policy PRSV-4 The City shall support the preservation of public affordable housing stock. Program PRSV-4.1 – Support the South San Francisco Public Housing Authority (PHA) with staff expertise and planning to pursue state and federal grant programs: The City shall support the South San Francisco PHA by assisting in finding and applying for state and federal grants to update and modernize their public housing units. 395 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 187 Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority; Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: Annual review of HUD programming and funding opportunities, at discretion of PHA Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents; City funds Policy PRSV-5 The City shall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing units at risk of converting to market rate housing. Program PRSV-5.1 – Monitor at-risk units. The City shall monitor annually its supply of subsidized affordable housing to know of possible conversions to market rate, including taking the following actions: ▪ Post on City website all existing State and federal notice requirements to nonprofit developers and property owners of at-risk housing. ▪ Respond to any federal and/or State notices including Notice of Intent to Pre-Pay, owner Plans of Action, or Opt-Out Notices filed on local projects. ▪ The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners of at-risk units and existing tenants. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annual monitoring Funding Source: N/A, staff time Program PRSV-5.2 – Assist tenants at risk of displacement. The City shall assist tenants displaced by the conversion of at-risk units by providing information about tenants’ rights, providing referrals to relevant social service providers, endeavoring to establish a funding source to assist nonprofit organizations that support tenants, and facilitating other support as appropriate. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annual monitoring Funding Source: N/A, staff time Policy PRSV-6 No net loss in housing. Require no net loss in the number of residential units during reconstruction or renovation. (GP) Program PRSV-6.1 – Update Zoning Code to require no net loss. The City shall update the Zoning Ordinance to require that there is no net loss in the number of residential units during reconstruction or renovation. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division 396 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 188 Time Frame: 2023 Funding Source: N/A, staff time Policy PRSV-7 Strengthen programs to maintain a safe and sanitary supply of affordable housing. (GP) Program PRSV-7.1 – Continue working with San Mateo Fall Prevention Task Force. Continue working with San Mateo Fall Prevention Task Force in creating safer homes for older adults. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: Staff time Program PRSV-7.2 – Establish lead and asbestos removal program. In cooperation with San Mateo County and other regional agencies, establish a lead-based paint and asbestos removal program for affordable housing units built before 1980. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031 Funding Source: Staff time Program PRSV-7.3 – Expand maintenance and abatement assistance programs for single (including mobile homes) and multi-family properties of low-income households. Support programs designed to rehabilitate deteriorated units through weatherization, modernization, and elimination of common home pollutants. The City shall proactively provide educational materials by including these on the Housing Division website, distributing at all hosted housing events, and an annual communication via distribution mailing list, water bill, or similar, to property owners. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: N/A, staff time MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE GOAL 5 QUALITY OF LIFE – Promote residential neighborhoods designed for a high quality of life for neighborhood residents and visitors. (GP) 397 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 189 Implementing Policies Policy QOL-1 The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property-related crimes. Program QOL-1.1 – Administer Minimum Building Security Standards. The City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security Standards, of the Municipal Code by continuing to route all new development applications and additions to both the Police and Fire Departments to ensure compliance with the code and to ensure that security measures are considered during the design process. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division; Police Department; Fire Department Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Policy QOL-2 The City shall not prioritize new residential or noise sensitive development in the 70 dB+ CNEL areas impacted by the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) operations and shall require aviation easements for new residential development in the area between 65 and 69 dB CNEL SFO noise contours. Program QOL-2.1 – Ensure that applications for new residential land uses proposed within the 65 to 69 or 70 db+ CNEL aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study: The City shall require that the acoustical study be prepared by a professional acoustic engineer and specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of the new units, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on measured aircraft noise events at the land use location. Any project proposed within a 70 dB+ CNEL aircraft noise contour shall also require an override of the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: N/A Policy QOL-3 Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in residential neighborhoods. Link existing residential neighborhoods by providing convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to nearby destinations, such as parks, public facilities, and shopping centers. (GP) Program QOL-3.1 – Implement the Active South City Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Require all new development to conform with the 398 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 190 recommendations and requirements of the Active South City Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan at time of entitlement or building permit issuance. Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: N/A Policy QOL-4 Encourage walkable connections in multi-family development. Encourage new multi-family developers to provide convenient, walkable connections to nearby trails, transit, and open space to promote active lifestyles. (GP) Program QOL-4.1 – Implement the Active South City Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Require all new development to conform with the recommendations and requirements of the Active South City Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan at time of entitlement or building permit issuance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: N/A Policy QOL-5 Encourage amenity space for physical activity/healthy living in multi-family development. Encourage new multi-family development to provide amenity space (gyms, active spaces, outdoor open space, flex working spaces, etc.) which promote physical activity and healthy living options. (GP) Program QOL-5.1 – Implement the Zoning Ordinance to require amenity, active, outdoor and flex working spaces in new development. Require all new development to conform with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and objective standards at time of entitlement or building permit issuance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each entitlement application Funding Source: N/A Policy QOL-6 Encourage neighborhood compatible uses like schools, parks, recreation and community centers, childcare facilities, and residential neighborhoods. (GP) Program QOL-6.1 – Implement the Zoning Ordinance to require neighborhood Amenity uses in new development. Require all new development to conform with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and objective standards at time of entitlement or building permit issuance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each entitlement application 399 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 191 Funding Source: N/A SUPPORT SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS GOAL 6 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS – Enhance the quality of existing affordable housing and expand housing opportunities and services for special needs populations and residents experiencing housing insecurity. (GP) Implementing Policies Senior Housing Policy SNP-1 The City shall encourage developers and non-profits to provide housing for the elderly citizens of South San Francisco. The City should encourage the development of senior housing in higher density areas close to shopping and transportation. Program SNP-1.1 – Density bonus for senior housing. The City shall continue to implement the codified density bonus incentives specifically targeted for senior housing projects and permit reduced parking standards for these projects. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division and Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: N/A Program SNP-1.2 – Reduced parking requirement for board and care facilities. Encourage development of residential board and care facilities for seniors by continuing to allow reduced parking requirements consistent with State law for these types of facilities. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: N/A, staff time Program SNP-1.3 – Facilitate multi-generational housing. Encourage development of housing types that support multi-generational households and opportunities to age in place such as multi-bedroom units, and attached ADUs or Junior ADUs. New housing should include bedrooms at ground level and rehabilitated housing should prioritize low-conflict access to all essential amenities such as bathroom, kitchen and sleeping quarters. (GP) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division, Building Division 400 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 192 Time Frame: Ongoing for RHNA period of 2023-2031 since this is not a discrete deliverable and instead is an ongoing development goal. Funding Source: Staff time Housing for the Disabled Policy SNP-2 Facilitate housing for all needs. Facilitate housing for seniors, special needs groups, including the developmentally disabled, and non-traditional family groups by requiring a diverse range of housing configurations that are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant and flexible. (GP) Program SNP-2.1 – Facilitate housing for all needs. Encourage development of housing types that support senior, special need or non- traditional households by recommending ADA compliant and flexible floor plans. New housing should include bedrooms at ground level and rehabilitated housing should prioritize low-conflict access to all essential amenities such as bathroom, kitchen and sleeping quarters. (GP) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division and Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing for RHNA period of 2023-2031 since this is not a discrete deliverable and instead is an ongoing development goal. Funding Source: Staff time Policy SNP-3 Consistent with State law, the City shall require the inclusion of handicapped accessible units in all housing projects. In all new apartment projects with five or more units, State law requires that 5% of the units constructed be fully accessible to the physically disabled. Program SNP-3.1 – Ensure consistency with State accessibility laws: The City shall review development plans to ensure consistency with state handicap and accessibility laws and require modifications for accessibility as needed. Responsibility: Fire Department – Fire Prevention Division; Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each building permit application Funding Source: N/A Program SNP-3.2 – Promote disabled housing resources and programs. The City shall ensure that its website and handout materials regarding housing resources, requirements, and services for the disabled are updated/revised annually after each Annual Progress Report filing period (April 1st or beyond) and made available to the public. 401 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 193 Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division and Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each building permit application Funding Source: City funds, staff time Policy SNP-4 The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the needs of disabled residents. Program SNP-4.1 – Accessibility Modification Programs. The City shall continue to provide annual grant funding to the Center of Independent of Individual with Disabilities (CID). The CID has a Housing Accessibly Modification (HAM) Program that provides financial assistance to people that need to make modifications to their home to allow for disabled access. In addition, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Chief Planner will continue to grant reasonable accommodations to zoning requirements to allow for accessible residential units or alternative designs to promote accessibility. Responsibility: Department Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annually as part of the CDBG funding process Funding Source: CDBG and City funds Program SNP-4.2 – Resources for the developmentally disabled. The City shall annually support the Golden Gate Regional Center with CDBG funding, as available, in its mission to serve those with developmental disabilities, disseminate information about the Center and its services, and make referrals as appropriate. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annually as part of the CDBG funding process Funding Source: Staff time and CDBG annual funding allocation Policy SNP-5 The City of South San Francisco shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 150 new extremely low- and acutely low-income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by Golden Gate Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing. Program SNP-5.1 – Prioritize extremely low-income unit production, when possible. In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any City- owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the City’s inclusionary ordinance or City housing funds, the City of South San Francisco shall grant additional points to proposals that address the City’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a 402 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 194 greater number of extremely low-income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Golden Gate Regional Center. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing; when issuing RFPs, RFQs or NOFAs Funding Source: Staff time Program SNP-5.2 – Codify flexibility into the Inclusionary Ordinance. The City shall consider revisingrevise its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to be more responsive to local needs by offering, for example only, developers a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units if priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units if priced for extremely low-income, an income group not currently served by the existing ordinance. Such flexibility would address a broader range of South San Francisco housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Will be evaluated bi-annually with Inclusionary Ordinance review Funding Source: Staff time Program SNP-5.3 – Local density bonus priorities. In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City may provide additional local density bonus, incentives, or concessions for housing projects that include a percentage of the units for people at the extremely low-income affordability level and/or target special needs populations, such as people with disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Will be evaluated bi-annually with Inclusionary Ordinance review Funding Source: Staff time Program SNP-5.4 – Reduce or abolish parking requirements for developmentally disabled populations. The City of South San Francisco shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence and establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for 403 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 195 affordable housing. South San Francisco should revise its ordinances to provide Chief Planner flexibility to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to 0 spaces for each affordable studio or 1-bedroom unit and 0.5 spaces for an affordable 2-bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction is recommended for affordable, physically accessible units. Additionally, any residential unit located within ½ mile of a transit station or transit corridor is exempt from minimum parking requirements under current zoning and Assembly Bill 2097. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division Time Frame: 2023-2025Completed as part of the General Plan Update and companion zoning Funding Source: Staff time Program SNP-5.5 – Create ADU rent restriction incentives. Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at extremely low-income rent levels and/or target special needs populations, such as people with disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031by end of 2026. Funding Source: Staff time Program SNP-5.6 – Marketing Plan for accessible units: As a condition of the disposition of any City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the City’s inclusionary ordinance, the award of City financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City shall require that the housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for physically accessible units which, among other measures, provides disability-serving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each entitlement application Funding Source: Staff time 404 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 196 Housing for Large Families Policy SNP-6 The City shall encourage provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large families. Program SNP-6.1 – Support a variety of housing unit designs, including larger housing units that can accommodate large families. The City shall seek to broaden the diversity of its housing stock that is affordable to extremely low-, very-low-, and low-income households to include more units that are suitable to large families. Currently, much of South San Francisco’s affordable housing consists of single-room occupancy units and one- and two-bedroom units. The City shall work with housing developers during the entitlement process and encourage them to provide a unit mix with at least 10% of units having three or more bedrooms. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each entitlement application Funding Source: Staff time Housing and Emergency Shelter for the Homeless Policy SNP-7 The City shall assist the homeless and those at risk of being homeless by being an active participant in the County of San Mateo Continuum of Care, the county-wide planning body that coordinates the federal funding for emergency shelters, temporary housing, transitional programs, and general housing assistance and services for the homeless. Program SNP-7.1 – Support Continuum of Care planning: The City shall continue to be an active participant in the Continuum of Care planning process and support its efforts to address the needs of South San Francisco residents in need of emergency shelter or temporary housing by attending at least ¾ of all meetings during a calendar year. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing annual action and evaluation Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program SNP-7.2 – Support non-profits that offer housing solutions and services for homeless. The City shall continue to support with staff expertise and funding, as available, for non-profit organizations that offer solutions to solving homelessness and/or provide housing related services for the homeless or at-risk homeless. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annual review through CDBG funding process 405 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 197 Funding Source: CDBG annual funding, as available Program SNP-7.3 – Facilitate the ongoing operation of 90-bed emergency shelter in South San Francisco. The City shall continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year-round homeless shelter within the city limits. Support includes providing funding to the Samaritan House and CORA (Communities Overcoming Relationship Abuse), as funds are available. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: CDBG funding, as available Program SNP-7.4 – Social services for housing and homeless prevention: The City shall continue to provide referrals to the YMCA Community Resource Center (San Mateo County Core Services Agency) helping families with social services for housing and homeless prevention. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Annual review through CDBG funding process and Council objective planning Funding Source: City funds, staff time Policy SNP-8 Strengthen programs to provide housing and services for unhoused residents. Strengthen programs to provide housing opportunities and services for unhoused residents, including safe restrooms, permanent supportive housing, and services. (GP) Program SNP-8.1 – Provide safe restroom facilities. Provide mobile shower, bathroom, and needle exchange sites and facilities for unhoused residents. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031 Funding Source: Staff time to coordinate with service providers Program SNP-8.2 – Implement permanent supportive housing: Implement the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing First program for permanent supportive housing constructed within the city. California Assembly Bill No. 2162 (AB-2162) was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on September 26, 2018 and will be effective January 1, 2019. AB-2162 applies statewide and requires that supportive housing be a use that is permitted by right in zones where multifamily and mixed-use development is permitted. AB-2162 amends Government Code Section 65583 and adds Code Section 65650 to require local entities to streamline the approval of housing projects containing a minimum amount of Supportive Housing by providing a ministerial approval process, removing the requirement for 406 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 198 CEQA analysis and removing the requirement for Conditional Use Authorization or other similar discretionary entitlements granted by the jurisdiction. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing DivisionPlanning Division Time Frame: Will be implemented as needed during period 2023-20312023. Funding Source: Staff time Program SNP-8.3 – Provide services for unhoused families. Work with homeless service providers to prioritize legal help, housing assistance, and other social services for unhoused families in South San Francisco. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: Staff time Program SNP-8.4 – Provide referrals to Veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Resources for referrals include the Veteran’s Administration (VA) National Call Center of Homeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint effort between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into permanent housing through a voucher program that allows homeless Veterans to rent privately owned housing. Responsibility: Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds, staff time Program SNP-8.5 – Partner with the local shelters. Continue to partner with the local shelter to provide cots for emergency shelter situations, including extreme heat and cold days. (GP) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: Staff time Home Sharing Policy SNP-9 The City shall support Home Sharing as part of a collection of policies, programs and practices for addressing the housing needs of those at the lowest income levels including seniors, those living with disabilities, those at risk of homelessness and female head of households. 407 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 199 Program SNP-9.1 – Continue to promote Home Sharing: The City shall publicize efforts and services of the HIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternative housing solution for extremely low- and very-low-income individuals and families; female-headed households; those at risk of homelessness; and others in need. The Economic Development and Housing Division will provide proactive information online and in person at hosted events about the HIP program, provide referrals, and support residents of South San Francisco who are interested in participating. Partnership with the Economic Advancement Center (EAC) and core services provider YMCA with resources will further disseminate the Home Sharing program. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and Housing Division Time Frame: Updated/revised after each Annual Progress Report filing period (April 1st or beyond)Ongoing Funding Source: City funds, staff time BUILD CLIMATE RESILIENCY GOAL 7 CLIMATE RESILIENCY – Green buildings are the standard for new construction and major renovations and the performance of existing buildings is improved - Create sustainable high-performance buildings that operate using carbon-free electricity and consume fewer resources (GP). Implementing Policies Policy CLMT-1 When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to respond to climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shadow patterns. Program CLMT-1.1 – Continue to implement energy-efficient standards for residential buildings. The City shall require the preparation for passive and active solar systems in new and substantially remodeled existing residential buildings. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each entitlement application as this is building code related and ongoing rather than a discrete goal. Funding Source: City funds Policy CLMT-2 Enhance Sustainability requirements through the Building Code for new and major renovations. Program CLMT-2.1 – Require non-residential all-electric new construction. Implement ordinance requiring all new nonresidential buildings to be all-electric and prohibit new gas infrastructure for new 408 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 200 buildings. Exempt occupancies must install electric building systems (e.g., space and water heating equipment) where feasible. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing with each building permit applicationEnd of 2030 or sooner, consistent with California stated climate goal Funding Source: Staff time Program CLMT-2.2 – Retrofit all-electric in existing non-residential buildings during major renovations. Require residential major renovations to retrofit to all-electric at a certain threshold to be determined by Building Division and City Council adopted ordinance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031as a City Council objectiveEnd of 2030 or sooner, consistent with California stated climate goal Funding Source: Staff time Program CLMT-2.3 – Require installation of photovoltaic panels. Require installation of photovoltaic panels on multi-family and nonresidential new construction at a certain threshold to be determined by Building Division and City Council adopted ordinance. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031End of 2030 or sooner, consistent with California stated climate goal Funding Source: Staff time Program CLMT-2.4 – Regularly update the City’s building codes to improve the water efficiency of new construction and major renovation. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing as State law dictates Funding Source: Staff time Program CLMT-2.5 – Require high-efficiency indoor water fixture. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new construction, like CALGreen Tier 1 or 2. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031End of 2030 or sooner, consistent with California stated climate goal Funding Source: Staff time 409 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 201 Program CLMT-2.6 – Continue to implement Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance requirements. Require all new landscaping to use low-water plants and efficient irrigation, planting native and non-native species that provide valuable resources for native wildlife. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division, Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: Staff time Policy CLMT-3 Encourage the addition of battery storage. Program CLMT-3.1 – Establish a streamlined approval process for battery storage systems and reduce or eliminate permitting fees to encourage the addition of battery storage. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division, Planning Division, City Manager’s Department of Sustainability Time Frame: Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031End of 2030 or sooner, consistent with California stated climate goal Funding Source: Staff time Policy CLMT-4 Adopt Electric Vehicle charging reach code. Program CLMT-4.1 – Adopt higher electric vehicle charging requirements than CALGreen for multi-family and nonresidential new construction. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Building Division, Planning Division Time Frame: End of 2030 or sooner, consistent with California stated climate goalWill be considered at some time during period 2023-2031 Funding Source: Staff time Policy CLMT-5 Prepare a Building Electrification Plan. Develop a date certain, phased-in Existing Building Electrification Plan to retrofit existing homes and businesses to all electric. Program CLMT-5.1 – Require electric panel upgrade at point of sale. Adopt an ordinance that requires electric panel upgrades upon sale and/or rental turnover, to be determined by City Council adopted ordinance. Responsibility: City Manager’s Department of Sustainability Time Frame: End of 2030 or sooner, consistent with California stated climate goalWill be considered at some time during period 2023-2031 Funding Source: Staff time 410 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES 202 Program CLMT-5.2 – Adopt Burnout Ordinance: Adopt a Burnout Ordinance that requires a gas appliance (e.g., stove or furnace) be replaced with an electric version when it stops working. Responsibility: City Manager’s Department of Sustainability Time Frame: End of 2030 or sooner, consistent with California stated climate goalWill be considered at some time during period 2023-2031 Funding Source: Staff time QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES The following table summarizes quantified objectives for the construction, rehabilitation, and conservation of housing in the City of South San Francisco for this Housing Element. 411 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 203 Table 7-2 Summary of Quantified Objectives, 2023-2031 Income Category RHNA 2023-2031 New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/ Preservation Totala Extremely Low (Less than 30% of AMI)b 435 (50% of 871 Very-Low) 445436 025 030 445491 Very-Low (30-50% of AMI) 436 (50% of 871 Very-Low) 445437 025 030 445492 Low (50-80% of AMI) 502 1,8431,828 025 030 1,8431, 883 Moderate (80-120% of AMI) 720 734731 025 030 734786 Above-Moderate (Greater than 120% of AMI) 1,863 1359913,5 61 025 030 13,599 13,616 Total 3,956 17,06516,9 93 0125 0150 17,066 17,268 a Totals in each category are estimated based on site inventory, income category of existing units to be conserved, past performance in rehabilitation, and current and projected funding availability in the absence of redevelopment funding. b The “extremely low-income” category is not formally included in the RHNA. However, cities are charged with addressing the housing needs of this population in the Housing Element. The extremely low-income totals are based on an estimated average of 50% of all very-low-income households, per HCD direction. 412 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 204 Chapter 8 – Appendices Organized and labeled by Chapter 413 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 205 414 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 1.1 SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER LISTENING SESSIONS 415 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 207 416 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 1.2 COMMENT LETTERS 417 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 209 418 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 1.3 SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 419 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 211 420 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 2.1 PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS 421 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 213 422 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 3.1 ABAG HOUSING NEEDS REPORT 423 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 215 424 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 4.1 ZONING ORDINANCE FORM-BASED DISTRICTS 425 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 217 426 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 4.2 CENTURY URBAN EVALUATION OF LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS 427 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 219 428 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 6.1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 429 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 221 430 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 6.2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AFFH MAP AND DATA PACKET 431 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 223 432 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 6.3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT (UC MERCED) 433 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 225 434 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 6.4 AFFH RESIDENT SURVEY ANALYSIS 435 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 227 436 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 6.5 DISPARATE ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 437 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 229 438 South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 APPENDIX 6.6 STATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS AND REGULATIONS 439 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 231 440 City Council Study Session January 11, 2023 1 Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 01/11/2023 Reg CC Item # 9 441 2 Introduction to the Housing Element (HE) Local Review and Adoption Process HCD Review and Revisions CEQA Clearance Next Steps 442 3 State required update to the General Plan: ◦Reviews prior Housing Element (2015-2023); ◦Analyzes current and future housing needs; ◦Considers constraints to housing production; ◦Inventories housing resources and programs; ◦Conducts a capacity analysis to identify zoning to meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); ◦Evaluates Fair Housing Access (AFFH); & ◦Establishes a plan with revised/new programs to satisfy State, local, and advocate requests. 443 4 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ◦State estimated number of needed housing units ◦3,956 units for this housing cycle Previous RHNA Cycle 5 (2015-2013) ◦1,864 units required (~1,200 issued permits) ◦City receives credit for building permits issued during a reporting year ◦3,859 units issued building permits OR entitled 3,223 market rate units 636 affordable units 444 5 Very- Low Units Low Units Moderate Units Above- Moderate Units Total Units RHNA 871 502 720 1,863 3,956 RHNA w/20% Buffer 1,045 602 864 2,236 4,747 Type Pipeline Projects 225 408 50 2,898 3,581 ADUs (Based on High Projection)102 101 101 -304 Opportunity Sites 546 1,319 580 10,663 13,108 Total to Comply with RHNA 873 1,828 731 13,561 16,993 New HE proposes zoning capacity to allow up to 13,000 new units ◦Pipeline projects would add 3,500 more units ◦304 new ADUs also projected 445 6 Lindenville ECR -South ECR -North South Airport 446 7 Corridor Area Acreage Unit Capacity % of Total Lindenville 73.46 5,393 41% El Camino Real 26.62 2,130 16% South Airport Blvd 66.74 5,586 43% Total Capacity 166.82 13,109 100% RHNA Target | + 20% Buffer 3,956 | 4,747 Excess Capacity 9,153 230% + 447 8 Airport Land Use Commission ◦Reviewed on August 25, 2022 ◦Approved for compatibility with SFO land use plan PC Consideration ◦Scheduled for public hearing on January 19, 2023 CC Consideration ◦Scheduled for public hearing on January 25, 2023 448 9 Target for Adoption is January 31, 2023 ◦Draft Housing Element is now in substantial compliance with State Housing Law ◦City avoids Builder’s Remedy with adoption by January 31, 2023 ◦Council adoption could also permit Staff to continue certification process with HCD and make minor edits, as requested, until draft HE is certified 449 10 Sent to HCD on July 5th for first review Comments provided December 7, 2022 City revised draft HE to respond to comments Study Session tonight for input on revised draft before Adoption hearings 450 11 Requested additional analysis for: ◦Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) ◦Clarification on ADU calculations ◦Additional descriptions for opportunity sites ◦Verifying adopted zoning for a variety of housing types ◦Updates to proposed programs to ensure proactive outreach and clear deliverables 451 12 Covered by General Plan Update EIR that evaluated zoning and capacity changes CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3) for policy document without land use changes 452 City Council provides feedback on the Draft HE edits and HCD revisions Staff will prepare the Draft Housing Element for Adoption Hearings in January 2023 13453