HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.25.2025@630 SP Joint CC & PCTuesday, February 25, 2025
6:30 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Housing Standing Committee of the City Council and
Planning Commission
-
MARK ADDIEGO, Vice Mayor
MARK NAGALES, Councilmember
MICHELE EVANS, Commissioner
SAM SHIHADEH, Commissioner
NORMAN FARIA, Chairperson (Alternate)
Special Meeting Agenda
1
February 25, 2025Housing Standing Committee of the
City Council and Planning
Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
American Disability Act:
The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected]. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief
description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the
meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the
City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.
How to submit written Public Comment before the Meeting:
Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the
eComment tab by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Use the eComment 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 the Committee and staff.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/26/2025
2
February 25, 2025Housing Standing Committee of the
City Council and Planning
Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Motion to approve the Minutes of August 8, 2024.1.
Report regarding a proposed Affordable Housing Financing Plan (AHFP) that would
guide the City of South San Francisco’s biannual funding priorities in relation to
existing housing goals, policies, programs, and funding availability. (Pierce
Abrahamson, Management Analyst II)
2.
Report regarding an ordinance establishing a local preference for deed restricted
affordable housing units that gives preference to applicants who live, have lived, or
work within the City of South San Francisco. (Pierce Abrahamson, Management
Analyst II)
3.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/26/2025
3
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-206 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
Motion to approve the Minutes of August 8, 2024.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™4
CALL TO ORDER TIME: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmember Addiego
Councilmember Nagales
Chairperson Faria
Commissioner Shihadeh
AGENDA REVIEW
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of April 18, 2022.
Motion – Chair Faria / Second – Commissioner Shihadeh: to approve the Minutes for the meeting of
April 18, 2022. The motion carried unanimously.
2. Report regarding establishing a conversion process including noticing and relocation
benefits in the event of single room occupancy hotel and mobile home park closures,
redevelopments, or changes of use. (Katie Lan, Management Analyst II)
Katie Lan presented the report on existing Single Resident Occupancy residences and presented the
equity goals, protecting existing lower-income housing, and allowing development that is supportive
of preservation to prevent displacement. She also indicated that the potential for relocation benefits
to be included in the presentation.
Councilmember Addiego inquired about the process of connecting tenants to SROs and the assistance
the County provides to local municipalities in maintaining SROs and various low-income housing.
Department representatives reviewed and discussed their proposed permitting process and responded
to questions from the subcommittee.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
HOUSING STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 2024
6:30 p.m.
City Hall, City Manager’s Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
5
SPECIAL JOINT HOUSING STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING AUGUST 8, 2024
MINUTES PAGE 2
Katie Lan concluded with reviewing a permit process for SRO hotels and mobile home parks
proposed to be converted, demolished, or redeveloped. The department sought out recommendations,
and next steps.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Councilmember Addiego adjourned the meeting at 7:21 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
Jazmine Miranda Mark Addiego
Assistant City Clerk Vice Mayor
Approved by the Housing Standing Committee: / /
6
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-190 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding a proposed Affordable Housing Financing Plan (AHFP)that would guide the City of South
San Francisco’s biannual funding priorities in relation to existing housing goals,policies,programs,and
funding availability.(Pierce Abrahamson, Management Analyst II)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Housing Standing Committee provide feedback on a proposed Affordable Housing
Financing Plan (AHFP)that would guide the City’s annual housing funding priorities in relation to existing
housing goals, policies, programs, and funding availability.
BACKGROUND
In April 2021,City Council held a study session on housing program goals,existing housing policies and
programs,and housing fund balances.This study session set the groundwork for a financial plan for the
City’s affordable housing funds to better align actual spending with housing priorities in the Housing
Element and General Plan.
An additional motivating factor for the creation of the AHFP is a growing need for a financial management
strategy for the Commercial Linkage Fee fund that was created in 2018.While the Commercial Linkage Fee
generates considerable revenue overall,it is prone to “boom or bust”cycle fluctuations tied to the City’s
commercial real estate market performance.For example,during Fiscal Year (FY)2020-2021 the fee’s
annual revenue generation increased from $4,957,461 to $5,375,874,only to fall to just $3,077,684 in FY 21-
22.By FY 22-23,however,the amount more than doubled to $7,499,156.Consequently,strategic financial
planning of the City’s affordable housing funds is necessary to ensure steady delivery of the City’s housing
objectives.
Current State of Housing Programs
The City has adopted numerous policies and programs to advance the above-mentioned housing goals,
including the following:
1.Emergency Rental Assistance
One of the most effective tools the City has in preventing homelessness and displacement is its rental
assistance program.The YMCA Community Resource Center located on Huntington Avenue in South San
Francisco administers the program,which provides rental assistance to low-income South San Francisco
residents experiencing an immediate financial hardship.The program was instrumental in providing
assistance to residents impacted by COVID-19 and the Shelter in Place Order.During the FY 24-25,Council
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™7
File #:25-190 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
appropriated $177,000 for this program.
2.Housing Nonprofits
Through its CDBG and housing funds,the City supports several nonprofit community organizations that
provide critical housing resources,including shelters,home repairs,legal assistance,and referral services.
While CDBG funding to local jurisdictions has been steadily declining over the past two decades,the City
received a total allocation of $443,482 during FY 24-25.
3.Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
For years, the City has had an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring developers of market rate, for-sale
housing to include a set-aside of below market rate units. In 2018, following State legislation allowing it, the
City Council voted to expand the inclusionary housing ordinance to market rate, rental housing
developments. These inclusionary housing policies ensure that a percentage of all housing units constructed
since 2018 in South San Francisco are set aside for households earning under 120% of the area median
income. Eligible applicants can view listings and apply for these below market rate units using the regional
portal known as Doorway <https://housingbayarea.mtc.ca.gov/>.
4.Program Administration
Critical to the success of the City’s housing program is its administration. City staff monitor existing
affordable housing units - reviewing annual rent increases for rental units and ensuring for-sale units are
occupied according to their deed restrictions - and negotiate affordable housing agreements for new
developments. Central to the administration of the housing program is publishing publicly available
guidelines such as the Procedures and Guidelines for Inclusionary Housing Units
<https://www.ssf.net/files/assets/public/v/1/economic-amp-community-development/documents/2024.09.27-
General Plan & Housing Element Policies
The City adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan (GP)in 2022 and received State certification
for its 2023-2031 Housing Element.While the General Plan and the Housing Element each have their
respective goals,the goals are intended to align as a uniform strategy to further the City’s housing priorities.
These housing priorities are generally as follows:
·Prevent displacement and homelessness
·Preserve affordable housing units
·Promote housing production at all income levels
·Source and utilize federal, state, and regional housing resources.
The AHFP incorporates the above-mentioned housing priorities by:
·Citing the corresponding Housing Element policy being furthered for each funding proposal
·Accounting for projects and programs that are either statutorily required or would greatly benefit the
City’s competitiveness for State and Federal grants
·Providing pathways for the expected,limited,and surplus financing scenarios to ensure the City’s
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™8
File #:25-190 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
·Providing pathways for the expected,limited,and surplus financing scenarios to ensure the City’s
overarching housing priorities are met
Benchmarking Research
In developing a strategic plan to guide financial spending of affordable housing funds,staff conducted
research on comparable plans peer jurisdictions have pursued to identify best practices to incorporate.Staff
has discovered that what the City endeavors to create is quite innovative,for there are only a handful of
analogous examples available.Staff found the following examples from the City of Seattle and the City of San
Francisco to be informative in structuring the AHFP.
City of Seattle
The City of Seattle’s Housing Levy Administrative and Financial Plan was established by ordinance in 2023 to
guide spending of the City’s $970 million Housing Levy funded by property tax levies.It is a biannual plan
managing funding commitments to projects that also includes program guidelines for funded projects,
including loans and local grant programs.While Seattle’s plan is not comprehensive of all City housing funds,
it still serves as a benchmarking example for the City of South San Francisco given the focus on aligning
housing fund spending with policy priorities as well as the robustness of programs under the plan’s purview.
Specifically,Seattle’s plan includes financial strategies for housing development on publicly owned sites,
capital funding projects,and non-profit’s programs for services such as minor home repair-all of which are
likewise pursued by the City of South San Francisco.
City of San Francisco
The City of San Francisco’s Affordable Housing Funding and Financing Recommendations Report resulted
from a Mayoral directive to the Housing Leadership Council and Housing Office to develop a funding strategy
to assist the implementation of the City’s 2022 Housing Element Update.It is primarily focused on providing
policy recommendations for sourcing more funding and making existing spending more efficient,though it
also outlines funding availability and funding projections.While the San Francisco plan is a one-time directive
without a commitment for regular updates,it is comprehensive of all City housing funds and programs.Like
the AHFP,it intends to support implementation of existing policy goals rather than to set new policy or
requirements.
DISCUSSION
The AHFP is structured to provide:
·Current and projected funding availability
·Funding and policy parameters
·A comprehensive two-year financing pathway for the expected funding availability scenario,with
annual reviews.
·Surplus and expected scenario financing pathways
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™9
File #:25-190 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
In the funding availability section,the AHFP includes the following table that serves as the basis for the
financing pathways:
Table 1: Balance and Annual Revenue of Affordable Housing Fund Sources
Fund Source Current Balance Encumbered
Balance
Unencumbered
Balance
Annual Revenue
Funds
Commercial
Linkage (823)
$13,384,082 $4,235,408 $9,148,674 $5,655,142
Affordable
Housing Trust
Fund (205)
$550,423 $441,693 $49,423 $208,552
LMI Housing
Asset Fund (241)
$2,550,143 $1,179,113 $1,371,030 $ 463,127
Grants
CDBG $424,978 $424,252 $726 $531,486
PLHA $338,000 $338,000 $0 $309,897
LHTF $2,400,000 $0 $2,400,000 Competitive Grant
IIG $28,817,500 $28,817,500 $0 Competitive Grant
PIP $890,000 $0 $890,000 Competitive Grant
Table 1 above denotes the balances and average annual revenue of each fund and grant source,with the
average annual revenue based on the average revenue from FY19-20 through FY 23-24,except for PHLA,
whose award history only dates three years.While there are multiple conclusions that can be drawn from this
table,the AFHP emphasizes two important caveats.Firstly,while all sources generate revenue,the primary
purpose of Fund 205 and 241 is to hold funds for revenue generated or passing through from other sources.
These funds themselves only generate a small amount of revenue directly from sources such as loan
repayments.Secondly,every funding source carries restrictions,either from its authorizing legislation or grant
agreement.This requires the City to “puzzle piece”projects with corresponding funds in a strategic way,
which is the intent of the financing pathway sections.
The AHFP’s financing pathways are based on funding availability scenarios.Whereas the “expected”plan
takes primacy and thus includes a project level breakdown of financing priorities,the “limited”and “surplus”
scenarios are more express and focus on evaluation criteria for programmatic addition or subtraction for when
and if the scenario arises.In all scenarios,however,the programs and project examples included are largely
those that are either legally required, Council directed, or are already underway.
Staff is bringing forward the AHFP to the Housing Standing Committee (HSC)for consideration to solicit
input on the programmatic strategies the HSC would like to see prioritized in the plan.The AHFP is currently
drafted to provide a structure for Council priorities while also incorporating a range of possible strategies for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™10
File #:25-190 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
drafted to provide a structure for Council priorities while also incorporating a range of possible strategies for
consideration. Specifically, staff highlights the following possible strategies for HSC consideration.
Revolving Loan Fund
Given the fluctuating nature of Commercial Linkage Fee revenue generation as discussed earlier,one
possibility outlined in the AHFP for stabilizing these funds would be to establish a revolving loan fund.A
revolving loan fund is a fund that uses circular debt financing to create a self-sustaining program that
generates consistent and predictable revenue over time from interest rate payments and loan repayments.For
example,the City could set aside seed money from a combination of grant funding and Commercial Linkage
Fees (from surplus years)that would be loaned out to an initial round of affordable housing projects that
could, over time through debt repayment, be used to loan out funds to future rounds of projects.
Community Benefit Fees
One potential funding source that could be leveraged to further housing priorities are community benefits fees
collected as a part of the Community Benefits Program.Community benefit fees are collected from developers
who opt to pay a fee instead of constructing a community benefit to secure a floor area ratio bonus for a
nonresidential project. The City’s zoning code specifies the following eligible uses for the funds:
o Public spaces
o Affordable housing
o Enhanced connectivity
o Public and social services
o Support for local businesses
o District Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures
o Discretionary community benefits in Lindenville
The Community Benefits Program was established in 2022 and has generated roughly $1,000,000 to date.
While forecasting is not yet feasible at this time given the recency of the program and the option for
developers to pursue their own community benefit projects,staff anticipate additional revenue generation over
time.Given the multiple eligible uses allowed for in the zoning code,one possibility for the funds would be to
put out a competitive notice of funding availability (NOFA)that awards funding to housing-centric projects
that incorporate several community benefits in a transformative way.For example,a project that fulfills
affordability threshold requirements set forth in the NOFA would then be competitively ranked against other
eligible projects that incorporate other community benefits such as public space or multimodal improvements.
Preferred Limited Financing Scenario
While the AHFP was drafted to incorporate conservative financing estimates in the expected funding pathway,
it also outlines risk factors that could result in a budgetary shortfall.In this scenario,the City has three
options:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™11
File #:25-190 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
·Establish a new revenue generating stream
·Re-allocate funds from non-housing specific funds
·Scale back housing programs
While AHFP is not intended to create a comprehensive contingency plan with scheduled actions,it is at least
worth reflecting Council priorities if and when such a scenario arises.One vulnerability staff have identified
would be the scenario in which the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)allocation is
significantly reduced by the federal government.CDBG funds are currently used to fund the City’s nonprofit
housing programs such as legal aid for tenants that are vital to the City’s housing preservation priority.
Consequently,staff is soliciting HSC input on the preferred alternative scenario should such a funding cut
arise.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact in adopting the AHFP;the AHFP requires no appropriation of new funding.
However,the AHFP is likely to contribute to more fiscally responsible financial planning of the City’s housing
funds through its recommendations and strategies.This could allow for a more efficient and priorities driven
use of City housing funds over time.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Housing Standing Committee provide feedback for the proposed Affordable Housing
Financing Plan (AHFP)that would guide the City’s biannual housing funding priorities in relation to existing
housing goals, policies, programs, and funding availability.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™12
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINANCING
PLAN (AHFP)
FY2025-202 6 Through FY2027-2028
February 2025 DRAFT
13
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3
III. Current State of Housing ......................................................................................... 3
A. Current Programs and Services .......................................................................... 3
1. Emergency Rental Assistance ........................................................................ 3
2. Housing Nonprofits ....................................................................................... 3
3. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance .................................................................... 4
4. Commercial Linkage Fee ................................................................................ 4
5. Program Administration ................................................................................. 4
B. Funding Needs Assessment .............................................................................. 5
IV. Fund Performance .................................................................................................. 6
A. Funds and Eligible Uses .................................................................................... 6
B. Encumbrances ................................................................................................. 8
C. Fund 823 Anticipated Revenue .......................................................................... 9
D. Other Funding Sources .................................................................................... 10
V. Funding Plan ......................................................................................................... 11
A. Overview ........................................................................................................... 11
1. Production .................................................................................................. 11
2. Preservation ................................................................................................ 12
3. Protection ................................................................................................... 12
VI. Monitoring and Reporting ...................................................................................... 13
VIII. Risk Assessment and Mitigation ........................................................................... 13
A. Limited Financing Pathway ................................................................................. 14
B. Surplus Financing Pathway ................................................................................. 14
14
I. Introduction
The Affordable Housing Financing Plan (AHFP) outlines the City’s biannual housing
funding priorities in relation to existing housing goals, policies, programs, and funding
availability. Most of these goals, policies, and programs are governed by the City’s General
Plan, Housing Element, or municipal code and generally have the following objectives:
• Prevent displacement and homelessness
• Preserve affordable housing units
• Promote housing production at all income levels
• Source and utilize federal, state, and regional housing resources.
Additionally, State and Federal grant programs that the City participates in, such as the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), have policy objectives set by their own
guidelines and governing documents. These programs often narrowly stipulate how funds
may be spent. Consequently, the intent of the AHFP is not to set new policy or budget.
Rather, the AHFP outlines spending priorities that would most effectively further existing
housing goals and policies in the City given funding availability and parameters.
The AHFP is produced biannually by the Housing Division of the Economic and
Community Development Department (ECD), with annual reviews to ensure funding
availabilities and targets are updated appropriately.
III. Current State of Housing
A. Current Programs and Services
The City has adopted numerous policies and programs to advance the above-
mentioned housing goals, including the following:
1. Emergency Rental Assistance
One of the most effective tools the City has in preventing homelessness and
displacement is its rental assistance program. The YMCA Community Resource
Center located on Huntington Avenue in South San Francisco administers the
program, which provides rental assistance to low-income South San Francisco
residents experiencing an immediate financial hardship. The program was
instrumental in providing to assistance to residents impacted by COVID-19 and the
Shelter in Place Order. During the Fiscal Year (FY)24-25, Council appropriated
$177,000 for this program.
2. Housing Nonprofits
Through its CDBG and housing funds, the City supports several nonprofit
community organizations that provide critical housing resources, including
15
shelters, home repairs, legal assistance, and referral services. While CDBG funding
to local jurisdictions has been steadily declining over the past two decades, the
City received a total allocation of $443,482 during FY24-25. Furthermore, not all
CDBG funds go directly to housing nonprofits; the City typically allocates a portion
of its allocation towards economic development activities and administration.
3. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
For years, the City has had an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring developers
of market rate, for-sale housing to include a set-aside of below market rate units. In
2018, following State legislation allowing it, the City Council voted to expand the
inclusionary housing ordinance to market rate, rental housing developments.
These inclusionary housing policies ensure that a percentage of all housing units
constructed since 2018 in South San Francisco are set aside for households
earning under 120% of the area median income. Eligible applicants can view
listings apply for these below market rate units using the regional portal Doorway.
4. Commercial Linkage Fee
Prior to 2012, the City, through the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency,
had a direct and steady source for funding for affordable housing. After the State
dissolved redevelopment agencies in 2012, the City was left without this important
source of funding to support housing organizations and fund new affordable
housing development. To help begin to make up this shortfall, in 2018, the City
Council adopted a commercial linkage fee. This fee is charged on any post 2018
commercial development to help offset the impact it has on the need for
affordable housing.
While the commercial linkage fee is a high performing funding source, its reliability
is notably less than that of the former State redevelopment fund given fluctuating
commercial market conditions. For example, while during FY20-21 the fee’s annual
revenue generation increased from $4,957,461 to $5,375,874, it fell to just
$3,077,684 in FY 21-22. By FY22-23, however, the amount more than doubled to
$7,499,156 in FY22-23. Consequently, financial planning for the City’s affordable
housing funds is necessary to ensure steady delivery of the City’s housing
objectives.
5. Program Administration
Critical to the success of the City’s housing program is its administration. City staff
monitor existing affordable housing units - reviewing annual rent increases for
rental units and ensuring for-sale units are occupied according to their deed
restrictions - and negotiate affordable housing agreements for new developments.
16
Central to the administration of the housing program is publishing publicly
available guidelines such as the Procedures and Guidelines for Inclusionary
Housing Units that assist property owners and residents alike in navigating the
City’s housing programs and policies. City staff also undertake long-range planning
efforts such as preparing the City’s Housing Element and Anti-Displacement
Roadmap to ensure the City’s programs are aligned with State and Federal
regulatory requirements and community needs.
B. Funding Needs Assessment
The most recent 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs (RHNA) Assessment by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) states the City must produce 3,956
new housing units during the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. Of this total, 720 must be
affordable for moderate-income households and 502 for low-income, and 871 to
extremely low-income households. While the City is pursuing a host of zoning and
regulatory changes to accelerate housing production and preserve existing
affordable housing as a part of its General Plan, public subsidy is also necessary to
ensure the housing needs of low and extremely low-income households are met.
According to the City 6th Cycle Housing Element, it costs approximately $732,500
to build a multi-family housing unit and approximately $950/square feet to build a
single-family home in San Mateo County. This high cost is due to rising hard and
soft costs, including construction, labor, and high interest rates. Current market
conditions thus make housing affordable to any income level a challenge to
finance, but most especially for those affordable to low and extremely low-income
households, given the greater gap between the project cost and rents charged. As
a result, units affordable to these households are typically produced in either, or in
combination of, the following ways:
• As a result of an inclusionary housing requirement: market rate developers
off-set the cost of producing the affordable units with the scale of market-
rate units produced as a part of the project
• As a result of complex financing portfolio that includes rental income, Low
Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and/or multiple grants from State,
Federal, Local, and non-profit sources.
The second way is typically where City financing serves a critical role, especially as
a gap funding source between what the housing developer has already secured
and what is needed to make the project pencil financially. It is for this reason the
City continuously applies for multiple State and Federal grant programs such as
the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) to help provide the gap
17
funding necessary to produce affordable units. Notwithstanding, many grant
programs require a local dollar match, demanding local housing funding sources
such as the Commercial Linkage Fee to generate the funds necessary to bring
affordable units online in alignment with the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA requirement.
According to the City’s most recent Annual Progress Report (2023), the City has
constructed, permitted, or entitled 35% (176 units) of its low-income units and
13% (114 units) of its extremely low-income units required for its 2023-2031 RHNA.
IV. Fund Performance
A. Funds and Eligible Uses
Table 1: Balance and Annual Revenue of Affordable Housing Fund Sources 1
1 Excludes non-housing specific sources that have been appropriated for housing use and grants with
awards under $20,000.
2 Based on the average annual revenue from FY2019-20 through FY23-24, except for PLHA, whose grant
award history only dates back three years. PLHA’s revenue calculation is based on the average of these
three years.
3 The annual revenue indicated for CDBG is influenced by the exceptional funding boost received in FY20-21
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Excluding FY20-21 the average would be $475, 921.
4 While the City’s 2021 LHTF NOFA funds are technically committed to a project, the City is actively pursuing
a reversion clause within the regulatory agreement to make these funds available again for more shovel-
ready projects.
Fund Source Current
Balance
Encumbered
Balance
Unencumbere
d Balance
Annual
Revenue 2
Funds
Commercial
Linkage (823)
$13,384,082 $4,235,408 $9,148,674 $5,655,142
Affordable
Housing Trust
Fund (205)
$550,423 $441,693 $49,423 $208,552
LMI Housing
Asset Fund
(241)
$2,550,143 $1,179,113 $1,371,030 $ 463,127
Grants
CDBG $424,978 $424,252 $726 $531,486 3
PLHA $338,000 $338,000 $0 $309,897
LHTF 2,400,000 $0 $2,400,000 4 Competitive
Grant
IIG $28,817,500 28,817,500 $0 Competitive
Grant
18
Table 1 above denotes the balances and average annual revenue of each fund and grant
source. All these sources generate revenue, with the caveat that the primary purpose of
Funds 205 and 241 are to hold funds for revenue generated or passing through from other
sources. These funds do generate rental and loan repayment revenue from the City’s
property and loan portfolio, however, which are indicated in the annual revenue column
for these funds.
Another important factor to consider with Table 1 is that nearly every funding source has
use restrictions. State and Federal grants, such as CDBG and PLHA, tend to have the most
restrictive eligible uses, and are typically accompanied by program guidelines that set the
parameters of eligible uses of funds. Additionally, State and Federal grants typically
function on a reimbursement basis, meaning the City must ensure fund accounts
maintain adequate cash flow to pay for housing program operations until actual grant
funds are received. This is especially true given that the reimbursement process for State
grants can take up to six months. The Funding Plan in Section V incorporates these
accounting considerations and conservatively caps the total housing project expenses to
maintain sound cash flow.
City governed funding sources such as Commercial Linkage and the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund generally have much more flexible eligible uses. Notwithstanding, they do
carry some State law restrictions and policy considerations set by the City. Table 2 to
follow outlines the use restrictions on affordable housing fund sources.
Table 2: Eligible Uses of Affordable Housing Fund Sources
Fund
Source
Fund Type Fund
Originator
Eligible Uses
Commercia
l Linkage
(823)
Fee and Fund City Flexible. Must serve households
making less than 120% Area Median
Income (AMI)
Affordable
Housing
Trust Fund
(205)
Trust Fund City Flexible. Must serve households
making less than 120% AMI
LMI Housing
Asset Fund
(241)
Former
Redevelopmen
t Agency Fund
(RDA)
City Can fund construction,
rehabilitation, or preservation. Must
focus on ELI households and no
households above 80% AMI.
PIP $890,000 $0 $890,000 Competitive
Grant
19
Restrictions set by SB 341 and other
State laws
PLHA Formula Grant California
Department
of Housing
and
Community
Developmen
t (HCD)
Generally flexible. Can be used for
acquisition, rehabilitation, or
development of LMI (Low and
Moderate Income) housing
LHTF Competitive
Grant
HCD Local dollar match required. Can be
used for the creation, rehabilitation,
or preservation of affordable housing
and emergency shelters. Generally
flexible but strict affordability metrics
IIG Competitive
Grant
HCD Grant for qualifying infill projects with
a minimum of 15% affordable units.
Must be used for capital asset related
expenses such as construction,
rehabilitation, utility and street
improvements, etc.
CDBG Formula Grant Housing and
Urban
Developmen
t (HUD)
Wide variety of uses but nuanced
program requirements. Priorities set
in the City’s CDBG Consolidated Plan
PIP Competitive
Grant
HCD SRO Property Acquisition with local
dollar match required. Scope of work
can be proposed for modification at
the discretion of HCD
B. Encumbrances
As indicated in Table 1, a sizeable portion of the City’s affordable housing funds are
encumbered, meaning they are already committed to a project or program. These
encumbrances largely reflect the use restrictions of the funds and grants themselves per
Table 2. For example, when the City receives a grant, the scope of work in the executed
agreement is most often tied to either a specific project or project type. Thus, while the
grant award contributes to the City’s housing balance, the funds typically arrive as entirely
encumbered. Furthermore, if a grant such as PIP has a local dollar match requirement,
the local match amount also must be incorporated into the encumbered balance of a City
fund such as 823.
20
Encumbered balances also reflect Council directed projects and programs such as the
Emergency Rental Assistance program as well as administrative costs such as staff
salaries. While non-exhaustive and excludes administrative costs, Table 3 to follow
provides an overview of the City’s encumbered housing projects.
Table 3: Encumbered Housing Projects FY24-25
Project Type Project Type Funding Source Funding Total
Production Projects
1051 Mission Road Financial
Assistance
IIG: $28,817,500
LHTF: TBD
TBD LHTF
500 Linden Financial
Assistance
PLHA: $556,789,
LHTF: TBD
TBD LHTF
522 Linden Financial
Assistance
241 $1,076,373
2230 Gelert
Boulevard
Property Acquisition 823 $676,781 5
Preservation Projects
Anti-Displacement
Roadmap
Community
engagement and
policy
270 (non-housing):
$200,000
823: $200,000
Partnership for the
Bay’s Future (PBF)
Grant: $15,000
$415,000
Protection Projects
Emergency Rental
Assistance
Direct aid 241 $180,000
Nonprofit
Programs
Legal aid, minor
home repair, etc.
CDBG $285,000
C. Fund 823 Anticipated Revenue
While anticipated revenue from most sources such as 241 and CDBG are expected to
align with the amounts indicated in the annual revenue column from Table 1, Fund 823
has an exceptional variance from year to year. This variance is a result of the Fund’s
reliance on the performance of the City’s commercial real estate market, and
consequently consideration of the anticipated yearly funding availability is prudent. Table
4 to follow provides estimates of Fund 823’s fiscal year performances from FY25-26
through FY27-28:
5 Council authorization approving the resale of $676,781, with proceeds from resale replenishing back into
Fund 823
21
Table 4: Commercial Linkage Fee (Fund 823) Projected Revenue FY25-26 Through
FY27-28
Fiscal Year
Payout
Fund Contributing Projects Anticipated Total Revenue
25-26 Genentech Year 5 $1,500,000
26-27 Genentech Year 6, Trammel
Crow, SanFo
$26,520,460
27-28 Genentech Year 7, Healthpeak
Brittania Point
$8,452,000
Total $36,472,460
As indicated in Table 4, over the next three fiscal years the City’s current projections
indicate roughly $36.5M of revenue into Fund 823. While these numbers are projections
and thus could change according to real estate market performance, there are a few
inferences that could be drawn. For example, whereas 73% of this total is expected to be
paid out during FY26-27, only 23% is expected in FY27-28 and just 4% in FY25-26. Given
the substantial variance between these numbers and that of the annual average shown in
Table 1, financial planning of Fund 823 is critical to ensure sustainable use of the fund
towards the City’s housing objectives. This includes strategizing the timing of property
acquisitions, notice of availabilities (NOFA), and property rehabilitations around the
expected payout dates of commercial linkage fees. Likewise, this could include seeding
funding towards either a revolving loan fund or a rainy-day set-aside during abundant
payout years to stabilize housing fund performance over time.
D. Other Funding Sources
While the AFHP is primarily based on housing-specific funds and grant programs, other
funding sources have and can be used to further housing priorities. Committed
appropriations, such as the Council directed appropriation of $200,000 from the General
Plan Maintenance Reserve (Fund 270) towards the Anti-Displacement Roadmap, are
included in the Funding Plan in section V.
One potential source that could be leveraged to further housing priorities are community
benefits fees collected as a part of the Community Benefits Program. Community benefit
fees are collected from developers who opt to pay a fee instead of constructing a
community benefit to secure a floor area ratio bonus for a nonresidential project. The
City’s zoning code (Section 20.395.004) specifies multiple eligible uses for the funds,
including affordable housing. The Community Benefits Program was established in 2022
and has generated roughly $1,000,000 to date. While forecasting is not yet feasible at this
22
time given the recency of the program and the option for developers to pursue their own
community benefit projects, staff anticipate additional revenue generation over time.
V. Funding Plan
A. Overview
Based on the performance of the City’s housing funds in recent years, the City will
prioritize a strategic programmatic use of funds aligned advancing the City’s Housing
Element goals categorized by the 3Ps.
1. Production
Table 5: City Production Programs Funding Plan
Program Funding
Source
Funding
Target
Target
Population/
Geography
HE Goal /
Program
Projects
City-Led
Acquisition
and/or
Housing
Developme
nt
823, PLHA $450,000 Citywide Program s
CRT 4.1 and
4.6
718 Linden
rehabilitatio
n
City
Financing
For
Developer-
Led
Affordable
Projects
LHTF, PLHA,
IIG, 823, 241
$35,000,000 Citywide Program s
CRT 4.2 and
4.6
1051
Mission,
Road, 500
and 522
Linden,
Regulatory
/ Zoning
Updates to
Accelerate
Housing
Production
Planning
fees
charged to
property
owners /
developers.
HCD also
releases
grants such
as SB2 /
LEAP during
HE planning
cycles to
NA Citywide Goal 2
(Creation /
Facilitation)
and Goal 3
(Remove
Constraints)
Zoning and
policy
updates to
fulfill
General Plan
and Housing
Element
goals and
programs
such as
updating our
density
23
absorb local
costs
bonus
ordinance
2. Preservation
Table 6: City Preservation Programs Funding Plan
Program Funding
Source
Funding
Target
Target
Population/
Geography
HE Goal /
Program
Projects
Acquisition
of existing
affordable
housing
properties,
such as
SROs
PIP, 823 $1,780,000 (E)LI
households,
citywide
with focus in
low and
moderate
opportunity
areas
Program
CRT-9.2 –
Preserve
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing
SRO
Property
Acquisition
with PIP
funds and
823 (local
match)
Anti-
Displaceme
nt Roadmap
270 (non-
housing),
823, PBF
$415,000 Citywide Program EQ -
3.2 –
Conduct a
public
hearing to
consider an
anti-
displaceme
nt plan
Community
Action
Committee
meetings,
SRO /
Mobile
Home
Conversion
Ordinances
3. Protection
Table 7: City Protection Programs Funding Plan
Program Funding
Source
Funding
Target
Target
Population/
Geography
HE Goal /
Program
Projects
Emergency
Rental
Assistance
241 $180,000
annually
(E)LI
households,
citywide
with focus in
low/mod
opportunity
areas
Program EQ -
8.5 –
Continue
the
Rental
Assistance
City-funded
emergency
rental
assistance
administere
d by YMCA
24
Pilot
Program
Nonprofit
Housing
Programs
(legal aid,
minor home
repair, etc.)
CDBG $285,000
annually
Citywide
with
emphasis on
areas of
higher
displaceme
nt risk
Goal 1:
Equity
City funding
to Project
Sentinel (fair
housing
services)
and
Samarian
House
(emergency
shelter). Full
list included
in the SSF
CDBG
Consolidate
d Plan
VI. Monitoring and Reporting
While the Housing Division endeavors to produce a comprehensive plan biannually while
updating funding availability and targets annually, the Plan does not have statutorily
required monitoring or reporting requirements. The AHFP is a supplemental planning
effort to guide the City’s medium term affordable housing project spending into alignment
with existing housing goals. Nearly all funding sources have their own respective reporting
requirements set by either City, State, or Federal law. This is also true for the City’s
primary housing policy documents: the Housing Element and General Plan. Most public-
facing annual reports can be found on the City’s Housing Division webpage.
VIII. Risk Assessment and Mitigation
While AHFP’s funding targets are based on recent performance of the City’s grants and
fees as well as educated guesses on future indicators, market and regulatory conditions
are a constant evolving target. Hypothetical scenarios such as construction cost spike
due to climate disasters or drastic changes in federal trade policy, are difficult to model
and are largely outside the City’s control. What is in the City’s control, however, is having
the best and worst-case funding pathways available to either accelerate or safeguard
housing priorities during funding fluctuations without delay. Whereas the funding plan in
section V corresponds with the most likely economic scenario, the alternate pathways are
described in the following subsections.
25
A . Limited Financing Pathway
While the funding plan outlined in Section V was developed using primarily current
balances and grant commitments, the plan could be impacted by considerable
inflationary spikes or the retraction of committed funds from grantors. Similarly, in the
scenario of an underperforming commercial linkage fee, there would be additional
pressure to maintain adequate cash flow to pay for upfront program costs and local
match requirements for grant programs such as PIP. The AHFP is likely to be resilient to
any one of these scenarios, though a combination may require the City to evaluate
establishing new revenue generating streams, tapping into non-housing specific funds, or
scaling back projects.
If scaling back is necessary, the Housing Division will prioritize programmatic strategies
using the following considerations, in the order indicated:
1) State and Federal Statutory requirements
2) Regulatory and grant agreement obligations
3) Highest impact for disadvantaged and historically underserved communities
4) Project viability and delivery
5) Highest impact on progressing housing priorities in General Plan and Housing
Element
In practical terms, this may entail reducing the number and scale of property acquisitions
and financing agreements that do not have pre-committed grant funding. Likewise, the
City could reduce non-obliged funding commitments to non-profits that provide housing
services, especially in the scenario of reduced federal funding for grant programs such as
CDBG.
B. Surplus Financing Pathway
The surplus pathway would apply in scenarios such as a significant decrease in interest
rates that could reduce the cost of affordable housing financing or if grant funding
markedly increases. While the likelihood of the surplus pathway taking effect is low given
the current stance of the Federal Reserve and the State’s budgetary challenges, it’s
possible for the economic climate to change over the next two years. Additionally, the
City’s Commercial Linkage fee could see a major boost if there’s a substantial expansion
of biotech office space in the City. In the surplus scenario, the Housing Division will
prioritize programmatic strategies using the following criteria in the order indicated:
1) Highest impact for disadvantaged and historically underserved communities
2) Project viability and delivery
26
3) Highest impact on progressing housing priorities in General Plan and Housing
Element
The practical term of the surplus scenario is heavily dependent on how the surplus arises.
For example, if the surplus arises because of declining interest rates, the most logical
programmatic expansion could come City-led financing and property acquisitions. If the
surplus arises due to increased additional grant funding, the City will have more flexibility
to pursue the rehabilitation of 226-246 Grand Avenue to bring those properties online with
affordable units. Alternatively, if the Commercial Linkage Fee exceeds performance
expectations, the City could pursue more policy driven interventions such as providing
additional financial support for tenant legal aid. Lastly, as is prudent in any surplus
scenario, the City could use seed money from surplus years to establish stabilizing
funding mechanisms such as a revolving loan fund or a reserve fund. These mechanisms
could greatly assist the City in maintaining consistent programs and pipeline projects
even during revenue constrained years.
27
Affordable Housing Financing Plan (AHFP)
Housing Standing Committee
February 25, 2025
Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Item Agenda: 02/25/2025 SP HSC Item 2
28
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Housing Standing Committee to
consider and provide feedback for the proposed Affordable
Housing Financing Plan (AHFP) that would:
Guide the City’s biannual housing funding priorities in relation
to existing housing goals, policies, programs, and funding
availability.
29
Plan Goals
•Biannually outline housing funding priorities
•Create three financing pathways: expected (primary), surplus,
and limited based on funding availability scenarios
•Provide structure and implementation support to existing
policies such as the City’s Housing Element
•Provide strategies to stabilize housing fund revenue across fiscal
years
30
Background
•City Council Study Session in 2021 on a housing programs
framework
•Need for financial planning of the City’s affordable housing funds
to strategically align spending with housing priorities
•Growing need for financial strategy following creation of the
Commercial Linkage Fee in 2018
•Commercial Linkage Fee generates considerable but fluctuating revenue;
“Boom or bust” cycles tied to commercial real estate market
•State/Federal regulatory requirements and funding programs are
becoming stricter with funding parameters and local match requirements
31
Housing Element
Alignment
•Every project targeted for funding cites the
Housing Element policy it furthers
•Many programs such as our nonprofit
housing programs are required by our
Housing Element (AFFH requirements)
•Plan provides pathways for various
financial scenarios to meet Housing
Element obligations
32
Plan Structure
33
Research Conducted
•Biannual plan managing funding commitments to projects and programs.
•Established by ordinance in 2023 to guide spending of the City’s $970M Housing Levy funded by property tax levies
•Provides guidelines for administering loans and grants
•Sets administrative policy and includes reporting requirements
Seattle Housing Levy Administrative and Financial Plan
•Directive from the Mayor to the Housing Leadership Council and Housing Office to develop a funding strategy to
assist implementation of the City’s 2022 Housing Element Update
•Primarily focused on providing policy recommendations increase funding or make existing funding more efficient.
•Outlines funding availability and funding projections.
•Does not set policy or include reporting requirements
San Francisco Affordable Housing Funding and Financing Recommendations Report
34
Plan Components
Current and Projected Funding
Funding and Policy Parameters
Two Year Expected Funding Plan
Surplus/Limited Scenario Pathways
35
Balances and Average Revenues
Fund Source Current Balance Encumbered Balance Unencumbered
Balance
Annual Revenue
Funds
Commercial Linkage
(823)
$13,384,082 $4,235,408 $9,148,674 $5,655,142
Affordable Housing
Trust Fund (205)
$550,423 $441,693 $49,423 $208,552
LMI Housing Asset
Fund (241)
$2,550,143 $1,179,113 $1,371,030 $ 463,127
Grants
CDBG $424,978 $424,252 $726 $531,486
PLHA $338,000 $338,000 $0 $309,897
LHTF $2,400,000 $0 $2,400,000 Competitive Grant
IIG $28,817,500 $28,817,500 $0 Competitive Grant
PIP $890,000 $0 $890,000 Competitive Grant
36
Funding and Policy Parameters I
•Must impactfully further Housing Element / General Plan priorities
•Legal obligations take primacy
•State/Federal grants are often prescriptive of fund usage and carry
nuanced policy and administrative requirements
•Examples:
•Local Match Requirement (PIP, LHTF)
•Meeting precise definitions of terms like “Infill” or “National Objective” (IIG, CDBG)
•Expenditure Deadlines (all)
•Local funds generally flexible; Fund 241 (former RDA) must be
primarily used towards ELI and no households above 80% AMI
37
•Incorporates market conditions & risk
factors conservative funding
targets to maintain adequate cash
flow
•Considers year-to-year revenue
fluctuations
•Does NOT set new policy;
implements existing policy
•Does provide recommendations for
limited/surplus scenarios
•Annual review but no monitoring
requirement; relies on pre-existing
requirements set by guiding policies
Funding and Policy Parameters II
38
Funding Plan: Production Targets
Program Funding Source Funding Target Target
Population/Geograp
hy
HE Goal / Program Projects
City-Led Acquisition
and/or Housing
Development
823, PLHA $450,000 Citywide Programs CRT 4.1
and 4.6
718 Linden
rehabilitation
City Financing For
Developer-Led
Affordable Projects
LHTF, PLHA, IIG, 823,
241
$35,000,000 Citywide Programs CRT 4.2
and 4.6
1051 Mission, Road,
500 and 522 Linden
Regulatory / Zoning
Updates to
Accelerate Housing
Production
Planning fees
charged to property
owners / developers.
HCD also releases
grants such as SB2 /
LEAP during HE
planning cycles to
absorb local costs
NA Citywide Goal 2 (Creation /
Facilitation) and Goal
3 (Remove
Constraints)
Zoning and policy
updates to fulfill
General Plan and
Housing Element
goals and programs
such as updating our
density bonus
ordinance
39
Funding Plan: Preservation Targets
Program Funding Source Funding Target Target
Population/Geograp
hy
HE Goal / Program Projects
Acquisition of
existing but at-risk
affordable housing
properties, such as
SROs
PIP, 823 $1,780,000 (E)LI households,
citywide with focus
in low and moderate
opportunity areas
Program CRT-9.2 –
Preserve naturally
occurring affordable
housing
SRO Property
Acquisition with PIP
funds and 823 (local
match)
Anti-Displacement
Roadmap
270 (non-housing),
823, PBF
$415,000 Citywide Program EQ-3.2 –
Conduct a public
hearing to consider
an anti-
displacement plan
Community Action
Committee
meetings, SRO /
Mobile Home
Conversion
Ordinances
40
Funding Plan: Protection Targets
Program Funding Source Funding Target Target
Population/Geogra
phy
HE Goal / Program Projects
Emergency Rental
Assistance
241 $180,000 annually (E)LI households,
citywide with focus
in low/mod
opportunity areas
Program EQ-8.5 –
Continue the
Rental Assistance
Pilot Program
City-funded
emergency rental
assistance
administered by
YMCA
Nonprofit Housing
Programs (legal
aid, minor home
repair, etc.)
CDBG $285,000 annually Citywide with
emphasis on areas
of higher
displacement risk
Goal 1: Equity City funding to
community
partners such as
Project Sentinel
(fair housing
services) and
Samarian House
(emergency
shelter)
41
Alternate 1: Limited Financing Pathway
Evaluation Criteria
1)State and Federal statutory requirements
2)Regulatory and grant agreement
obligations
3)Highest impact for disadvantaged and
historically underserved communities
4)Project viability and delivery
5)Highest impact on progressing housing
priorities in General Plan and Housing
Element
Example Actions
•Reduce property acquisitions and city-led
financing programs
•Reduce non-obliged funding to non-profit
housing services
•Explore the creation of new funding sources
•Evaluate necessity for proposing funding
allocation from non-housing funds (last
resort)
42
Alternate 2: Surplus Financing Pathway
Evaluation Criteria
1)Highest impact for disadvantaged and
historically under-represented
communities
2)Project viability and delivery
3)Highest impact on progressing housing
priorities in General Plan and Housing
Element, with consideration of balancing
funding across the 3Ps
Example Actions
•Pursue rehabilitation of 226-246 Grand
Avenue
•Create a revolving loan and/or reserve fund
that could help stabilize annual funding
availability
•Consider policies of interest to City
Council, such as establishing a tenant right
to council Program
43
Questions for HSC
•Which strategies should be
prioritized?
•Interest in establishing a revolving loan
fund and/or reserve fund to stabilize
the Commercial Linkage Fund?
•Leveraging the Community Benefit Fee
for affordable housing? Putting out a
NOFA that awards multi-benefit
projects?
•Other suggestions or questions?
44
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-189 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding an ordinance establishing a local preference for deed restricted affordable housing units that
gives preference to applicants who live,have lived,or work within the City of South San Francisco.(Pierce
Abrahamson, Management Analyst II)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Housing Standing Committee provide feedback on a proposed Local Preference
Ordinance that gives applicants of deed restricted affordable housing units who live,have lived,or work within
the City of South San Francisco a preference point during the applicant selection process.The intention of this
policy is to prevent the displacement of existing residents and workers in the City while providing opportunities
for prior displaced residents to return.
BACKGROUND
Local preference policies require landlords with deed restricted affordable housing units,such as those required
in inclusionary housing or City-funded fully affordable developments,to prioritize local applicants during the
applicant selection process.Local preference policies are just that -a preference.They do not establish a
requirement to apply for affordable housing lotteries.Even with a local preference policy in place,any income-
eligible person may still apply for deed restricted units.Local preferences are common in peer jurisdictions
such as Redwood City and San Mateo County and are intended to reduce displacement and commute time for
low- and moderate-income residents and workers within the community.
As part of the City’s Procedures and Guidelines for Inclusionary Housing Units (“Guidelines”),the City already
applies a local preference that requires property owners to prioritize City residents or workers in the affordable
housing lottery selection process for deed restricted affordable units.The City has been able to implement this
policy through regulatory agreements of deed restricted units with individual property owners at individual for-
sale below market rate housing units,market rate developments with inclusionary affordable housing units,and
in fully affordable housing developments.
In the current Guidelines,qualifying applicants who either live or perform at least 20 hours of work weekly
within the City receive a preference point during the lottery selection process.Documentation of meeting the
live or work preference is established either through proof of residency or proof of workplace as a part of the
housing application process.The Guidelines do not currently provide a preference point for prior residents of
the City as proposed in the draft ordinance.
While the City’s local preference policy is already implemented through regulatory agreements,staff is
bringing forward a recommendation for a codified ordinance that would both expand the preference point
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™45
File #:25-189 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
bringing forward a recommendation for a codified ordinance that would both expand the preference point
provision to prior residents and better align the City’s policy with the language of State and Federal law.Staff
consider the legal language alignment the primary motivator for bringing forward this proposed ordinance.
Whereas State Law (Government Code Section 7061)provides an allowance for local preference policies for
tax-credit funded housing projects,it specifically mentions this allowance in the context of local adoption,
either by ordinance or resolution.By adopting a local preference policy,the City’s policy would match the
explicit language of State Law and likewise strengthen the City’s position to apply for State grant programs.
In addition to the prior resident eligibility provision,the proposed Local Preference Ordinance also expands the
work preference eligibility to include applicants who have accepted a job offer within the City.Both these
additions are informed by the City’s ongoing anti-displacement roadmap,peer jurisdiction research,and fair
housing law considerations.
Local Preference and Fair Housing Law
When imposing a preference that prioritizes a portion of the population above another,compliance issues with
fair housing law may arise.The City retained the law firm Goldfarb Lipman,which specializes in fair housing
law and has worked on local preference ordinances for neighboring jurisdictions such as Redwood City,to
assist staff in drafting an ordinance that minimizes issues of compliance with fair housing law.The Goldfarb
Lipman attorneys produced a memorandum for the City that outlines the potential risks and their mitigating
factors when adopting a local preference policy.The memorandum highlights that fair housing law violations
typically arise if the policy creates an illegal disparate impact on protected classes (race,religion,sex,gender,
etc.)or will predictably cause a discriminatory effect towards a protected class.However,there are affirmative
defenses available to the City,as disparate impact claims must go through the following three legal tests to
successfully challenge the policy:
1.The complainant must show that the challenged policy caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory
effect.
2.The responding governmental entity must demonstrate that the policy is justifiable regardless of the
discriminatory effect and there is no feasible alternative policy that is equally effective and less
discriminatory.
a.The practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial,legitimate,nondiscriminatory
purposes and the practice effectively carries out the purpose.
b.The purpose is sufficiently compelling to override the discriminatory effect.
3.There is no feasible alternative practice that would equally or better accomplish the purpose with a less
discriminatory effect.
Based on the Goldfarb Lipman memorandum and consultation with the City Attorney’s Office,staff do not
anticipate fair housing law violations given the policy justifiably serves a legitimate and substantial non-
discriminatory purpose that overrides any discriminatory effect.Specifically,the local preference policy is
founded on a legitimate need to prevent resident displacement and expand housing opportunities to commuters.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™46
File #:25-189 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
founded on a legitimate need to prevent resident displacement and expand housing opportunities to commuters.
The City’s Housing Element documents both the increased displacement pressures and the imbalanced jobs to
household ratio.Furthermore,as described by the memo,“any effective anti-displacement policy will
disproportionately benefit the target population,which may disproportionately affect a protected class;thus,
there is not a feasible alternative that would be equally effective and less discriminatory.”Consequently,staff
have reason to the City has affirmative defenses based on the second and third factors listed above reasons.
To provide an affirmative defense for the first factor,the City contracted with Economic and Planning System
(EPS)to conduct a disparate impact analysis of the proposed policy to determine if the policy will predictably
cause a discriminatory effect.In their analysis,EPS utilized the fair housing law best practice advised by
Goldfarb Lipman:the “four-fifths”rule.The four-fifths rule,in summary,assumes that if members of a
protected class are selected at a rate of four-fifths (eighty percent)or less,evidence of disparate impact could be
reasonably assumed.In applying this rule to race and ethnicity groups in the City,EPS found no race or
ethnicity to be selected at a rate of eighty percent or less as a result of a local live or work preference.The
results are indicated in the “weighted average selection rate” rows in figure 1 below:
Figure 1: EPS Disparate Impact Analysis Table
As shown in figure 1 above,no race or ethnicity would be selected at a rate below eighty percent with a
hypothetical live or work preference.While some statistical variations exist between groups,none rise to the
level of disparate impact under the four-fifths standard.Additionally,whereas the analysis assumes a preference
policy eligible only to existing residents and workers in the City,the proposed ordinance includes preference
eligibility for prior residents and applicants with an accepted job offer within the City.As noted in the EPS
memo,expanding preference eligibility to prior residents is likely to further equalize selection rates,based on
patterns observed in peer cities.
General Plan & Housing Element Policies
The City adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan (GP)in 2022 and received State certification for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™47
File #:25-189 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
The City adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan (GP)in 2022 and received State certification for
its 2023-2031 Housing Element.As stated in the General Plan,the City’s housing priorities include new
housing production while preserving affordable housing and protecting vulnerable residents from housing
instability and displacement.The proposed Local Preference Ordinance furthers the goals outlined in the
Housing Element and General Plan.Specifically,the proposed ordinance contributes to the following policy
goals identified in implementing the Fair Housing Plan in the City’s certified Housing Element:
·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)
·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 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.
While the intention of the Local Preference Ordinance is not to prevent new low-income residents from
relocating to the City,this sort of policy can be viewed as an anti-displacement effort that also assists prior
displaced residents who wish to return to South San Francisco.The goal is to lessen the financial,emotional,
and familial impact of displacement from one’s community or the necessity of extended commutes for existing
low-income workers.In this way,the proposed policy is an anti-displacement measure,aimed at addressing the
causes and impacts of residential displacement and an imbalanced job to housing ratio.
Relationship to Anti-Displacement Roadmap
While the City continues to pursue its Commercial and Residential Anti-Displacement Roadmap,City Council
has directed staff to bring forward more urgent policies and not to wait for the conclusion of the multi-year
Roadmap preparation if the policies are warranted in the immediate term.Given that a version of a local
preference policy implemented through regulatory agreements pre-dates the Roadmap,the City is well
positioned to push forward a codified ordinance ahead of the roadmap conclusion to ensure the City is
achieving the maximum regulatory and financial incentives of such a policy.Likewise,the proposed ordinance
would address community feedback regarding the hardship experienced by displaced residents by providing an
immediate benefit to prior residents who wish to return to the City.
According to research conducted by HR&A as a part of the Anti-Displacement Roadmap,there has been a
significant decrease in Hispanic/Latino and Black households earning below $150k in the City between 2012
and 2022.Specifically,there has been a 36%decrease in Hispanic/Latino populations across the City and a
38%decrease in the Old Town area during this time period.The shifting demographics can be attributed to a
lack of affordable housing for the existing workforce,especially for those making under $75,000 annually.
Often the only affordable housing available to these households is a limited supply of older,naturally occurring
affordable units in the downtown area that are prone to health and safety hazards.During the December 2,City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™48
File #:25-189 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
affordable units in the downtown area that are prone to health and safety hazards.During the December 2,
2024,Anti-Displacement advisory meeting the most cited reasons for why people move out of the City were the
high cost of housing,unhealthy conditions of naturally occurring affordable housing,and the lack of resources
to assist residents in obtaining better options.
While the Anti-Displacement Roadmap is an effort to develop a web of policy interventions to address and
redress the multifaceted causes of displacement,many of these interventions will take time to develop in
partnership with community organizations.However,given that displacement has and is being experienced by
members of the community in the past and present tense,staff recommends the Housing Standing Committee to
consider the proposed ordinance that would expand eligibility of the City’s local preference policy to previous
residents and provide feedback prior to staff preparing the ordinance for City Council consideration.This will
provide prior displaced residents priority consideration for safe and affordable deed restricted units in the City.
Benchmarking Research
While the City already has pre-existing policy guidelines and regulatory agreements that have effectively
implemented a version of this policy in practice,staff conducted additional research on existing policies in the
region.In developing policies to address displacement and extended commute times of low-income residents
and workers in South San Francisco,staff consulted with jurisdictions and experts in the field who have
implemented similar measures.These discussions were instrumental in comparing the City’s existing policies
with best practices in the region.
Redwood City
A noteworthy example of a local preference policy is Redwood City’s,which arose as a part of their anti-
displacement roadmap that reached similar findings to our own:a jobs/housing imbalance,displacement
pressures for lower income households,and extended commute times that increase greenhouse gas emissions.
While originally intended to only provide a preference to current residents,the City modified the policy
proposal to include a work preference to reduce disparate impacts in accordance with the DOJ’s disparate
impact formula.Their policy is structured similarly to the one being proposed:The live and work preferences
are equally weighted,have no minimum residency requirement or expiration of residency for the live
preference,and the work preference requires a 20-hour weekly average work schedule within Redwood City to
qualify.The strengths of this policy are that it reduces paperwork burden for applicants and staff alike,likely
increasing policy uptake and reducing the overall time it takes for an applicant to get housed.Because their
policy was only adopted in 2021,meaningful data on policy performance are limited given most projects with
the preference have yet to be constructed.However,their staff have expressed optimism regarding the policy’s
capacity to open a resource for prior displaced residents to return to the City without requiring extensive
documentation that may be burdensome for low income/resource households to supply.The documentation
required for prior presidents to apply for the preference are the same as that for current residents.
City of Berkeley
Staff also reviewed the City of Berkeley’s Affordable Housing Preference Policy.This policy prioritizes
households who are or have experienced displacement as a response to community input provided during the
Adeline Corridor Specific Plan and BART Redevelopment planning processes.The City of Berkeley’s policy isCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™49
File #:25-189 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
Adeline Corridor Specific Plan and BART Redevelopment planning processes.The City of Berkeley’s policy is
unique for two reasons.Firstly,rather than using a points-based preference system that prioritizes preference
eligible waiting list for all units,their policy sets aside 25%of affordable units for non-preference eligible
residents.Thus,the preference system is only in effect for 75%of affordable units.Secondly,their policy
establishes seven targeted preference categories tailored to population subsets.Preference points are awarded
namely to applicants that have either historically experienced or have been identified as uniquely vulnerable to
displacement. The seven preference categories are:
·Displaced due to BART construction
·Displaced due to eviction
·Displaced due to foreclosure
·Applicant ties to redlined neighborhoods
·Applicant generational ties to redlined neighborhoods
·Homeless or at-risk of homelessness
·Families with children
The strength of this policy is that the preferences are uniquely tied to groups identified as vulnerable during the
City’s community engagement and planning processes.However,the documentation required as a part of the
housing lottery application is more extensive than that of Redwood City’s.For example,if an applicant would
like to apply for the BART or foreclosure displacement preferences,they are required to have a certificate
verifying their eligibility for such a displacement.This certificate must be obtained from a separate application
process managed by the City,of which the City currently advises applicants to obtain prior to filling out an
affordable housing lottery application.While performance data of the City of Berkeley’s policy is not yet
attainable due to the policy taking effect in 2024,City staff advises against this approach as a more complicated
and time-consuming application process may discourage or delay application completion from the most at-risk
and low resourced households.
DISCUSSION
At this time,staff recommends adopting the Local Preference Ordinance that amends the City’s Health and
Welfare Ordinance,Chapter 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.The proposed ordinance is intended
to codify the City’s local preference policy that is currently enforced through regulatory agreements while
expanding preference point eligibility to prior residents and workers with an accepted job offer with a city-
based employer. In summary, the ordinance was drafted to:
1.Be compatible with existing Guidelines and regulatory agreements with property owners
2.Apply to any affordable units provided as a part of:
•Inclusionary housing requirements
•Density bonus
•Developments acquired, constructed, or rehabilitated with City financing
3.Provide a preference point for applicants who live,recently lived,or work (or soon to work)in the City
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™50
File #:25-189 Agenda Date:2/25/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
3.Provide a preference point for applicants who live,recently lived,or work (or soon to work)in the City
while still allowing other income eligible applicants to apply.
The ordinance further defines eligible applicants for preference points as follows:
1.At least one member of the applicant household performs at least 20 hours of work weekly for an
employer within the City
2.At least one member of the applicant household currently resides or resided in the City
3.At least one member of the applicant household has accepted a job offer of employment within the City
The necessary documentation to establish live or work preference eligibility will be specified in the City’s
Procedures and Guidelines for Inclusionary Housing Units,which serves as a public-facing resource to
applicants and developers alike for deed restricted affordable housing in the City.
Staff ultimately recommends codifying and expanding upon an existing preference policy into a Local
Preference Ordinance that would better align the City’s policy to community needs and with the language of
State and Federal law and grant programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Local Preference Ordinance should have a minimal fiscal impact.The ordinance does not affect
the financing of deed restricted affordable units.The ordinance simply overlays a preference policy onto a pre-
established affordable housing lottery system for when eligible applicants apply for these units.Furthermore,
much of the administrative groundwork such as establishing guidelines and implementing a preference point
system on Doorway has already been made due to the pre-existing administrative policy.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Housing Standing Committee to consider and provide feedback on the proposed Local
Preference Ordinance for deed restricted affordable units that gives preference to applicants who live,have
lived,or work within the City of South San Francisco.The intention of this policy is to prevent the
displacement of existing residents and workers in the City while providing identical provisions to assist prior
displaced residents who wish to return.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2025Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™51
1
2297\02\3902148.3
..Title
Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code to add Chapter 8.100 (Local
Preferences and Requirements) to Title 8 to define a preference policy requirement for housing
units regulated by the City of South San Francisco in order to prioritize housing applicants who
live and/or work in the City.
..body
WHEREAS the 2023-2031 City of South San Francisco Housing Element documents the increase
in displacement pressures in the City, noting "[n]early the entire city is vulnerable to displacement"
and noting that one of the sources of the pressure is that "the growth in jobs in South San Francisco
has vastly outpaced the growth in the housing stock over recent decades;"
WHEREAS pursuant to Government Code Section 8899.50, cities and counties are tasked with
the mandate of affirmatively furthering fair housing, which includes addressing significant
disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity;
WHEREAS pursuant to Government Code Section 7061, California has recognized residential
preferences as a legitimate anti-displacement policy;
WHEREAS according to the 2019 South San Francisco General Plan Update (Transportation
Element), a person commuting into the City on average spends more than two hours traveling to
and from work;
WHEREAS reducing the jobs-housing imbalance by creating opportunities for people to live near
where they work can reduce commute times and related traffic congestion;
WHEREAS the City's local preference will provide income-eligible households who live or work
within the City a priority when applying to rent or purchase available affordable residential units
provided pursuant to the City's inclusionary housing program or density bonus program or
provided as a condition of financial or other support by the City for the new construction,
substantial rehabilitation, or acquisition of the residential development; and
WHEREAS the City has conducted a fair housing analysis of the local preference policy and
concluded that the local preference is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate governmental
interest to protect existing residents from displacement, offer residents who have previously been
displaced an opportunity to return, and prioritize expanding residential opportunities for
households who must commute to the City for work;
WHEREAS, within 90 days of adoption of this ordinance, the City will create a webpage on its
website containing this ordinance and supporting materials, in compliance with Government Code
Section 7061.1;
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings. The City of South San Francisco City Council hereby finds as follows:
A. General findings.
a. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this Ordinance.
52
2
2297\02\3902148.3
b. Approval of this Ordinance is not a project for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065
because it is not an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the
environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change int eh
environment.
c. The local preference is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate governmental
interest to protect existing residents from displacement, offer residents who have
previously been displaced an opportunity to return, and prioritize expanding
residential opportunities for households who have to commute to the City for work
and there is not a feasible, alternative local policy that would be equally effective
in preventing displacement that has less potential of having a discriminatory impact
under applicable fair housing laws, including the California Fair Housing and
Employment Act.
Section 2. Amendment of Title 8.100 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to Add
Chapter 20.385 (Local Preferences and Requirements).
The City Council hereby adds Title 8, Chapter 8.100 (“Local Preferences and Requirements”) to
the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows.
§ 8.100.001. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is as follows:
A. As established by the 2023-2031 Housing Element, increasing housing costs create
displacement pressures impacting existing lower and moderate-income residents. The
Housing Element documents the increase in displacement pressures, or the involuntary
relocation and/or exclusion of residents from the City. As provided in the Housing Element,
"[n]early the entire city is vulnerable to displacement" and noting that one of the sources
of the pressure is that "the growth in jobs in South San Francisco has vastly outpaced the
growth in the housing stock over recent decades."
B. According to the 2022 5-year data from the American Communities Survey, for South San
Francisco renter households earning less than or equal to $75,000, there was a gap of 1,730
affordable rental housing units and the income required to affordably purchase a median
priced home in South San Francisco was $333,000; the median renter income was $94,000.
C. Increasing housing costs also create barriers to housing for lower and moderate -income
people who work in the City and want to live within the City. There is a job-housing
imbalance in the City that has resulted in insufficient affordable housing, displacement
pressures caused by competition for available housing, long commutes, and traffic
congestion. According to the 2019 South San Francisco General Plan Update
(Transportation Element), a person commuting into the City on average spends more than
two hours traveling to and from work.
53
3
2297\02\3902148.3
D. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7061, California has recognized residential
preferences as a legitimate anti-displacement policy. The local preference will mitigate the
potential displacement impact of development in the City by providing existing City
residents with the opportunity to afford housing within the City and so reducing
displacement of existing residents. The local preference will also mitigate the negative
impacts of the job-housing imbalance by providing the opportunity for people working
within the City to live near their workplaces, mitigating the negative environmental and
traffic impacts of long commutes.
§ 8.100.002. Applicability of Local Preference Requirement.
A. For purposes of this Chapter, "affordable residential unit" is a dwelling unit that is subject to
a deed restriction, regulatory agreement, or other agreement between the City and owner to
satisfy the requirements of Chapter 20.380 (Inclusionary Housing Regulations), Chapter
20.390 (Bonus Residential Density), the terms of City financing, the terms of a City land
disposition agreement, or the terms of other financial support from the City.
B. The preferences described in Section 8.100.003 shall apply to the following residential
unit(s), unless the preferences are demonstrated to violate fair housing laws:
1. Affordable residential units provided to meet the inclusionary housing requirements
of Chapter 20.380 (Inclusionary Housing Regulations);
2. Affordable residential units provided to qualify a project for a density bonus pursuant
to Chapter 20.390 (Bonus Residential Density);
3. Affordable residential units that receive financing, land, or other financial support
from the City for new construction, substantial rehabilitation, or acquisition of the
affordable unit(s).
C. The Economic and Community Development Director may from time to time adopt
guidelines with regard to procedures for qualifying applicants for the local preference,
monitoring, relevant administrative provisions, and means of compliance with the
requirements of this Chapter.
§ 8.100.003. Local Preference
A. When selecting tenants or buyers for affordable residential unit(s) subject to the
requirements of this Chapter, owners of the affordable residential unit(s) shall implement a
54
4
2297\02\3902148.3
preference policy prioritizing the selection of applicants who meet any of the following
requirements:
1. At least one member of the applicant household performs at least 20 hours of work
within each calendar week for an employer within the City;
2. At least one member of the applicant household currently resides within the City;
3. At least one member of the applicant household has previously resided in the City
4. At least one member of the applicant household has received and accepted a bona
fide offer of employment within the City
B. The preference policy shall be included as a term in the regulatory agreement or other
agreement between the City and the owner of the affordable residential unit(s). Prior to
offering the affordable residential unit for sale or for rent, the owner must provide a
marketing plan which describes the project’s procedures for providing preferences as
required and for determining that potential renters and buyers are entitled to the preferences
required by this Chapter.
C. A household shall demonstrate eligibility for the local preference by providing
documentation as required in the guidelines adopted by the Economic and Community
Development Director pursuant to Section 8.100.002(C).
§ 8.100.004. Term of Local Preference Requirement.
During the term of affordability required under Chapter 20.380 (Inclusionary Housing
Regulations), Chapter 20.390 (Bonus Residential Density), or regulatory period imposed as a
condition of the financing, land disposition, or other financial support from the City, as applicable,
the preference shall be implemented whenever an affordable residential unit subject to this Chapter
is made available for rent or sale.
§ 8.100.005. Enforcement.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all owners and their agents, successors and
assigns of affordable residential units governed by this Chapter.
B. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure
compliance with this Chapter. In the event the City must institute legal action to enforce the
provisions of this Chapter, the City shall be entitled to recover its administrative costs,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in addition to any other remedy provided by the court.
Section 3. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
55
5
2297\02\3902148.3
Ordinance, including the application of such section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase to
other persons or circumstances, and the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall continue in
full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council
of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases
be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 4. Publication and Effective Date.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance
shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at
which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary,
and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days
after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post
in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the nam es
of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This
Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
56
Local Preference Ordinance
Housing Standing Committee
February 25, 2025
Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Item Agenda: 02/25/2025 SP HSC Item 3
57
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Housing Standing Committee to
consider and provide feedback for the proposed Local
Preference Ordinance that would, in the context of deed
restricted affordable units:
Give a preference point to applicants who live, have lived, or
work in the City during the housing lottery process.
58
Policy Goals
•Prevent displacement of residents and workers in the City
•Provide opportunities for prior displaced residents to return
•Codify & expand an existing policy implemented through
regulatory agreements to ensure alignment with State/Federal
legal and grant requirements.
59
Background
•Local preference policies prioritize local applicants of deed-
restricted affordable units
•Preference, not a requirement; other income-eligible applicants
are still eligible to apply
•City already has a local preference policy variant implemented
through regulatory agreements with property owners
•Current policy provides a preference point to current residents
and workers who work at least 20 hours weekly within the City
60
Why an Ordinance?
•State Law alignment: local preference policies for tax-credit
funded projects are allowable in the context of local adoption
(GOV Code 7061)
•Adoption = resolution or ordinance
•Full evaluation of compliance with fair housing law
•Incorporate policy adjustments informed by Anti-
Displacement Roadmap
61
Fair Housing Law Considerations
•Fair housing law must be considered when providing a preference to a portion of a population over another
•Staff contracted a law firm that specializes in Fair Housing Law to assist staff in drafting a compliant ordinance
•A local preference policy is legally defensible so long as:
•no current/future discriminatory effect towards a protected class.
•Serves a legitimate need that overrides discriminatory effect
•No feasible alterative practice with less discriminatory effect
•Disparate Impact Analysis conducted by a contracted data analyst => no meaningful discriminatory impacts from policy
62
Displacement & Prior Displaced
•2012-2022: 36% decrease in
Hispanic/Latino households in SSF
making under 150k
•Decrease especially acute for
households making under 75k
•Commonly cited reasons for
relocating from the City
•Proposed policy provides residents,
workers, and displaced residents
greater opportunity to qualify for
safe & affordable homes
Housing
was too
Expensive
My landlord
refused repairs
and I didn’t
know where to
find help
Conditions were
unhealthy and I
couldn’t afford
anything else
Community Input from Anti-Displacement
Roadmap
63
Policy Structure
64
Housing Element
Alignment
•Policy EQ -3: Support residents who are at-
risk of being displaced
•Policy EQ -8: Protect existing residents
from displacement in areas of lower or
moderate opportunity and concentrated
poverty and preserve housing choices and
affordability
•PRSV-5.2 Assist tenants at risk of
displacement
65
Research Conducted
•Originally targeted as a live preference, expanded to work to eliminate disparate
impacts / fair housing concerns
•Point based waitlist system; preference eligible applicants offered units first
•Equally weighted preferences, includes former residents
Redwood City: Local Preference Policy (2021)
•Establishes 7 targeted preferences tailored to vulnerable populations such as
displaced due to BART construction or at-risk of homelessness
•Allocation based waitlist system; 75% units reserved for preference policy
applicants
•Complicated application process; some preferences require applying
separately for a certificate to establish preference eligibility
City of Berkeley: Affordable Housing Preference Policy (2024)
66
Applicable Properties
The proposed policy applies to deed-restricted affordable
properties resulting from:
•Inclusionary housing requirements
•Density bonus
•Developments acquired, constructed, or rehabilitated with City
financing
67
Housing Lottery: How it Works
Current residents
Former residents
Workers: 20+ hours weekly in SSF
Workers: accepted job offer
1 preference
point (max) =
considered first
All other applicants
0 points =
considered once
preference list is
exhausted
68
HSC Action
Staff recommends the Housing Standing Committee to
consider and provide feedback for the proposed Local
Preference Ordinance that would, in the context of deed
restricted affordable units:
Give a preference point to applicants who live, have lived, or
work within the City during the housing lottery process.
69
Questions?
70