HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.12.2025@630 Regular CCWednesday, March 12, 2025
6:30 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA
Library Parks & Recreation Building, Council Chambers
901 Civic Campus Way, South San Francisco, CA
City Council
EDDIE FLORES, Mayor (District 5)
MARK ADDIEGO, Vice Mayor (District 1)
JAMES COLEMAN, Councilmember (District 4)
MARK NAGALES, Councilmember (District 2)
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Councilmember (District 3)
ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk
FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer
SHARON RANALS, City Manager
SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney
Regular Meeting Agenda
1
March 12, 2025City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
How to observe the Meeting (no public comment, including via Zoom):
1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26, Comcast, Channel 27, or AT&T, Channel 99
2) https://www.ssf.net/Government/Video-Streaming-City-and-Council-Meetings/City-Council
3) https://www.youtube.com/@CityofSouthSanFrancisco/streams
4) Zoom meeting (streaming only): https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/81072693726
Webinar ID: 810 7269 3726 Join by Telephone: +1 669 900 6833
How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting:
Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting
via the eComment tab by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date. Use the eComment portal by clicking on the
following link: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by visiting the City Council meeting's
agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and
staff.
How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER
During a meeting, comments can only be made in person: Complete a Digital Speaker Card located at
the entrance to the Council Chambers. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the
topic of your public comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name
and address (optional) for the Minutes.
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 Office of the City Clerk 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 72-hours
before the meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the
Office of the City Clerk by email at [email protected], 72-hours before the meeting.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025
2
March 12, 2025City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURES (SB 1181)
If you have donated $500 or more to the campaign of a South San Francisco elected official in the past
twelve (12) months, please read the following paragraphs carefully:
• The Levine Act (Gov. Code § 84308) requires any Party, Agent, or Participant, as defined in
§84308(a), of a proceeding involving any grants, denials, renewals, restrictions, or modifications to any
licenses and permits, entitlements for use, contracts, or franchises (“Proceeding”), to disclose on the
record any contributions they have made to any elected, appointed, or candidate for City Officer totaling
more than $500 within the preceding 12 months.
• The Levine Act also requires any elected, appointed, alternate, or candidate for City Officer who has
received a contribution totaling $500 within the past 12 months from a Party, Agent, or Participant of a
Proceeding to (1) disclose that fact on the record involving the Proceeding and (2) to recuse themselves
from, and in no way attempt to use their official position to influence any decision involving, the
Proceeding.
• Elected, appointed, alternates, or candidates for City Officer are prohibited from accepting, soliciting,
and directing, and Parties, Participants, and Agents are prohibited from making, campaign contributions
of more than $500 while the Proceeding is pending and for 12 months after the date a final decision is
rendered for the Proceeding.
Violations of the Levine Act may result in a civil action brought by the Fair Political Practice
Commission (FPPC) for an amount up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation. Any person who
knowingly or willfully violates any provision of the Political Reform Act is guilty of a misdemeanor and
subject to a fine of up to the greater of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or three times the amount the
person unlawfully contributed upon conviction for each violation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
PRESENTATIONS
Certificate of Recognition honoring Ray Reyes, Wrestling Coach at El Camino High
School and PAL Director for being named 2024-25 CCS Honor Coach. (Eddie
Flores, Mayor)
1.
Proclamation recognizing March as Women’s History Month. (Eddie Flores, Mayor)2.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025
3
March 12, 2025City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Proclamation celebrating March as Irish Heritage Month. (Eddie Flores, Mayor)3.
Proclamation recognizing March as National Nutrition Month. (Eddie Flores, Mayor)4.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Under the Public Comment section of the agenda, members of the public may speak on any item not listed on the
Agenda and on items listed under the Consent Calendar. Individuals may not share or offer time to another
speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the
agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to
investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting. Written comments on
agenda items received prior to 4:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record
but will not be read aloud.
If there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount
of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3(b)(1).). Speakers that are not in compliance with the City
Council's rules of decorum will be muted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be
enacted by one motion and without discussion. If, however, any Council member(s) wishes to comment on an
item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member
wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of
the Consent Calendar.
Motion to approve the Minutes of February 8, 2025, and February 26, 2025.5.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $127,000 in grant funding
from the County of San Mateo for the Big Lift Little Steps Preschool at the Gene
Mullin Community Learning Center and amending the Parks and Recreation
Department’s Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget pursuant to Budget Amendment
Number 25.044. (Angela Duldulao, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation)
6.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $127,000 in grant funding from the County
of San Mateo for the Big Lift Little Steps Preschool at the Gene Mullin Community
Learning Center and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year
2024-25 Operating Budget pursuant to Budget Amendment Number 25.044.
6a.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025
4
March 12, 2025City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
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)
7.
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.
7a.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 366 Grand Avenue (APN 012-312-310)
Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, ECD Director, and Ernesto Lucero, ECD
Manager
Negotiating party: Stacey S. Dobos Trust
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
8.
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 201 Baden Avenue (APN 012-335-100 and APN 012-335-110)
Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, ECD Director, Tony Rozzi, ECD Deputy
Director, Pierce Abrahamson, Management Analyst II
Negotiating party: Firehouse Live LLC and Firehouse Work, LLC
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
9.
Public Employee Performance Evaluation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957)
Title: City Manager
10.
Conference with Labor Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: Mayor Flores and Vice Mayor Addiego
Unrepresented employee: City Manager
11.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025
5
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-252 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
Certificate of Recognition honoring Ray Reyes, Wrestling Coach at El Camino High School and PAL Director for being
named 2024-25 CCS Honor Coach.(Eddie Flores, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™6
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Certificate of Recognition
RAY REYES
The City Council of South San Francisco does hereby
thank and congratulate you on being named
2024-25 Central Coast Section (CCS) Honor Coach.
We appreciate your dedication to the students of El Camino
High School and the wrestling community.
Presented on this 12th day of March 2025 by the City Council of South San Francisco.
Eddie Flores, Mayor
District 5
Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor
District 1
James Coleman, Councilmember
District 4
Mark Nagales, Councilmember
District 2
Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember
District 3
7
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-224 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
Proclamation recognizing March as Women’s History Month.(Eddie Flores, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
Dated: March 12, 2025
RECOGNIZING MARCH AS WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH
WHEREAS, American women of every race, class, and ethnic background have
made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless
recorded and unrecorded ways and have been celebrated annually in the United States
since 1987; and
WHEREAS, American women have played and continue to play critical
economic, cultural, and social roles in every sphere of the life of the Nation by
constituting a significant portion of the labor force working inside and outside of the
home; and
WHEREAS, Women’s History Month in 2025 has a theme of “Moving Forward
Together! Women Educating & Inspiring Generations” which recognizes women who
have dedicated their lives to education, leadership, and mentorship; and
WHEREAS, American women were particularly important in the establishment
of early charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions in our Nation as well as
public safety and the military; and
WHEREAS, American women have served as early leaders in the forefront of
every major progressive social change movement as well as leading the way in
volunteerism; and
WHEREAS, American women have been trailblazers, not only in securing their
own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the
emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and
other movements, especially the peace movement, which create a more fair and just
society for all.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco does hereby proclaim March 2025 as Women’s History Month, and
thanks Sarah Funes-Ozturk, for her service to the Planning Commission and the
community.
____________________________________
Eddie Flores, Mayor, District 5
____________________________________
Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor, District 1
____________________________________
James Coleman, Councilmember, District 4
____________________________________
Mark Nagales, Councilmember, District 2
____________________________________
Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember, District 3
9
Dated: March 12, 2025
RECOGNIZING MARCH AS WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH
WHEREAS, American women of every race, class, and ethnic background have
made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless
recorded and unrecorded ways and have been celebrated annually in the United States
since 1987; and
WHEREAS, American women have played and continue to play critical
economic, cultural, and social roles in every sphere of the life of the Nation by
constituting a significant portion of the labor force working inside and outside of the
home; and
WHEREAS, Women’s History Month in 2025 has a theme of “Moving Forward
Together! Women Educating & Inspiring Generations” which recognizes women who
have dedicated their lives to education, leadership, and mentorship; and
WHEREAS, American women were particularly important in the establishment
of early charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions in our Nation as well as
public safety and the military; and
WHEREAS, American women have served as early leaders in the forefront of
every major progressive social change movement as well as leading the way in
volunteerism; and
WHEREAS, American women have been trailblazers, not only in securing their
own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the
emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and
other movements, especially the peace movement, which create a more fair and just
society for all.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco does hereby proclaim March 2025 as Women’s History Month, and
thanks Aysha Pamukcu, for her service to the Planning Commission and the community.
____________________________________
Eddie Flores, Mayor, District 5
____________________________________
Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor, District 1
____________________________________
James Coleman, Councilmember, District 4
____________________________________
Mark Nagales, Councilmember, District 2
____________________________________
Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember, District 3
10
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-225 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
Proclamation celebrating March as Irish Heritage Month.(Eddie Flores, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™11
Dated: March 12, 2025
RECOGNITION OF MARCH AS
IRISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
WHEREAS, in March, we celebrate Irish American Heritage Month to recognize
the Irish immigrants who sought a new beginning in the United States; and
WHEREAS, Irish-American Heritage Month was first celebrated by
proclamation of the President in 1991. It seemed natural to choose March since Saint
Patrick Day falls on March 17, for the month-long recognition of the contributions that
Irish immigrants and their descendants have made to U.S. society; and
WHEREAS, it’s important to reflect on the anti-immigrant sentiment that was
often faced by new Irish-Americans, largely a result of their Catholicism, which clashed
with the predominantly Protestant backgrounds of the majority of families whose
members had been among the original colonists; and
WHEREAS, this month we recognize not only the overcoming of those obstacles
by Irish Americans but also the incredible breadth and depth of their contributions to
American society, from the Union’s edge over the Confederacy in the Civil War to the
intellectual contributions that have kept our country on the top tiers of accomplishment;
and
WHEREAS, their pride lives on in business owners, scientists, public safety
workers, and labor leaders who hold dear the Irish belief that everyone deserves to be
treated with dignity; and
WHEREAS, their courage runs deep in so many first responders, public servants,
and brave service members who defend our lives and liberties – the same liberties that so
many Irish immigrants and Irish Americans helped preserve and protect, with that, the
Ireland flag will proudly be flying from the Mayor’s Balcony at City Hall March 14-17,
2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco does hereby proclaim March 2025 as Irish American Heritage
Month, and we thank Frank McAuley for his years of service with the City of S outh San
Francisco and continuous dedication to the SSF Sister City Program, and the community.
____________________________________
Eddie Flores, Mayor, District 5
____________________________________
Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor, District 1
____________________________________
James Coleman, Councilmember, District 4
____________________________________
Mark Nagales, Councilmember, District 2
____________________________________
Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember, District 3
12
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-251 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:4.
Proclamation recognizing March as National Nutrition Month.(Eddie Flores, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™13
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Certificate of Recognition
MARCH AS NATIONAL
NUTRITION MONTH
The City Council of South San Francisco does hereby recognize Robert Chan,
Director of Nutrition Services and Distribution, and the South San Francisco
Unified School District Team for their outstanding dedication and commitment to
ending hunger in our community and providing our students
with sound eating and physical activity habits.
The theme for 2025 is “Food Connects Us.”
Presented on this 12th day of March 2025 by the City Council of South San Francisco.
Eddie Flores, Mayor
Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor James Coleman, Councilmember
Mark Nagales, Councilmember Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember
14
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-250 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:5.
Motion to approve the Minutes of February 8, 2025, and February 26, 2025.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™15
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Flores called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmember Coleman
Councilmember Nagales
Councilmember Nicolas
Vice Mayor Addiego
Mayor Flores City Manager Sharon Ranals
Assistant City Manager Rich Lee
Deputy City Manager Christina Fernandez
Communications Manager Angenette Lau
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer Devin Stenhouse
City Attorney Sky Woodruff
Fire Chief Matt Samson
Economic & Community Development Director Nell Selander
Police Chief Scott Campbell
Director of Parks and Recreation Greg Mediati
Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Angela Duldulao
Information Technology Director Tony Barrera
Human Resources Director Leah Lockhart
Library Director Valerie Sommers
Finance Director Karen Chang
City Treasurer Frank Risso
Deputy Finance Director Jason Wong
Public Works Director/City Engineer Eugene Kim
Principal Engineer Matt Ruble ABSENT: None
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 08, 2025
8:30 a.m.
In-person
Library Parks and Recreation Building
Social Hall
901 Civic Campus Way, South San Francisco, CA
16
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 08, 2025
MINUTES PAGE 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS – Limited to items on the Special Meeting agenda
The following individuals addressed the City Council:
• Mike Swire
• Fionnola Villamejor
The following individuals submitted Public Comments via the eComment portal:
• Jennifer Garstang
• Dolores Piper
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP RETREAT DISCUSSION
1. Conduct a facilitated City Council retreat setting the City Council 2025 Priorities. (Eddie
Flores, Mayor; Nancy Hetrick, Facilitator; Raftelis)
Mayor Flores thanked the community and staff for joining the retreat and introduced Nancy
Hetrick, the Facilitator from Raftelis. Nancy led an ice-breaker event that set a positive tone for
the Council and staff interactions.
Breakout sessions began at 9:45 a.m.
The Council participated in breakout sessions with department heads who shared goals and
objectives for their respective departments.
Breakout sessions concluded at 10:30 a.m.
Meeting Break at 10:35 a.m.
The meeting Resumed at 10:51 a.m.
Facilitator Hetrick engaged in discussions with the Council about their goals and accomplishments,
reiterating their commitment to the city's progress.
Meal break at 12:07 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 12:34 p.m.
Facilitator Nancy Hetrick engaged in discussions with the Council on priority-setting and council
feedback on the 2025 events calendar.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Flores adjourned the City Council meeting at 1:19 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
Rosa Govea Acosta Eddie Flores
City Clerk Mayor
Attachment: City Council Retreat Report by Raftelis
17
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 08, 2025
MINUTES PAGE 3
Approved by the City Council: / /
NOTE: The Meeting Minutes represent actions taken during the meeting of the City Council. These action
minutes are the City’s record of actions that took place at the meeting.
Complete Council member's discussions of meeting items can be viewed in archived video/audio
recordings on the City’s website at https://www.ssf.net/Government/Video-Streaming-City-and-Council-
Meetings/City-Council
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5 all written public comments submitted to the City Council
become public record and will be made available to the public. Public comments submitted via the
eComment portal can be viewed in the City Clerk’s repository at https://ci-ssf-
ca.granicusideas.com/meetings?scope=past
18
Client Name / Report Title 1
City Council Retreat
Held February 8, 2025
City of South San Francisco , CA
19
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 2
The City of South San Francisco, CA, held a City Council Retreat on February 8,
2025. The retreat was planned and facilitated by Raftelis.
Opening and Welcome
After the City Clerk administered the public comment period,
Mayor Eddie Flores opened the retreat by thanking the Council
and staff for their time and dedication (a complete list of City
attendees is included in Appendix A). He encouraged the group to
lead with boldness and intentionality, to pursue a vision that
transcends what the City has done before, and to embrace the work
ahead with joy, leaving a lasting legacy of a vibrant South San
Francisco. Council members were asked to share their expectations
and hopes for the workshop and some responses, summarized at
right, echoed the Mayor’s welcome.
Council’s Legacy
Council members were asked to think about what they hoped would be said about them after their term(s) on
the City Council has concluded. In response, a strong theme emerged that Council members wanted to consider
legacy in the collective, regarding what all of Council and staff can achieve together for the City and
emphasizing a philosophy of “We, not I.” Additional responses are captured below:
• Doing the right thing • Setting a strong foundation to build on
• Compassionate, informed decisions • Working collectively for the City
• Making our City the best for everyone • Functional Council and effective governance
• Being a welcoming, inclusive City • Diverse City, Council, and elected
representatives
Updates and Sharing with Department Heads
To help set the context for identifying priorities,
Council members rotated through table discussions
with department heads on topics of interest,
including current challenges, opportunities, and key
initiatives. Departments were grouped together in
five tables, including:
• Internal Services: Finance, Human Resources,
Information Technology
• Public Safety: Fire, Police
• Community Programs: Economic and
Community Development, Library
• Public Infrastructure: Parks and Recreation,
Public Works
• City Leadership: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk
Expectations and Hopes for the
Council Retreat
Come away with a roadmap of priorities
Collaborate
Look to the future
Focus on the needs of the City
Celebrate and build on
accomplishments
Productive, rich conversations
Appreciation of lasting impact after
each Councilmember’s term
20
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 3
When asked about takeaways from the discussions, Council members highlighted the importance of using staff
knowledge and expertise to inform their decisions. Council members also referred several times to balance: in
budget development, between taking actions and understanding the community impacts, and for staff
workloads. The complete responses are below:
• Time management
- Ensuring requests made to staff are strategic
- Making decisions that are informed by City resource
levels
• Wondering what the ideal budget would be to take care of
all City needs
- Using information and tools to inform decisions
- A budget aligned with priorities and informed by
updated Master Plans
• Balance of moving policy forward and making a present
impact on the growing community
• Valuing of work-life balance for employees
• Gratitude for and pride in City staff and services
• Recognized the alignment of values between Council and
staff
Interview Themes: Accomplishments
Building on the discussions with department heads, the facilitator provided additional context by reviewing
accomplishments that Council members had highlighted during interviews prior to the retreat. When asked for
any additions to the accomplishments listed below, the Council highlighted that the City was recognized for
completing its state Housing Element not only successfully but also on time.
Effective City Operations Inclusive Community
- Passed Measure W
- Revamped website, went live
- South City Shuttle upgrades
- Kicking off the Property Business
Improvement District process
- Expanded Pride Celebration
- Completed Racial and Social
Equity Plan goals
- Established Age-Friendly Task
Force
Expanding Community Spaces Essential Resources
- New Parks/Recreation/Library
Facility
- Centennial Way Park South opened
- Oyster Point Park opened
- Linden Park community
engagement started
- Established Anti-Displacement
Advisory Committee
- Passed Wage Theft Ordinance
- Safeway site construction
underway
21
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 4
True Today, True in 10 Years
To begin the discussion about vision and future focus, the City Council was asked to respond to two
questions:
• What is true about South San Francisco today that you hope will still be true 10 years from now?
• What do you hope WILL be true 10 years from now that is not currently true?
Council members could provide up to three responses to each question, which are listed in the table below.
True Today – Still true in 10 Years Not Yet True – Hope WILL be true in 10 years
• Continue to celebrate our diverse communities
• Inclusive, diverse, believing in the greater good of
the community
• Diverse, inclusive, and equitable community
• South City continues to be a tight knit community
• The need for housing
• Fiscally responsible
• A functional city government, not dysfunctional
• A city that is envied by other communities in the
Bay Area
• A safe city
• Emergency prepared
• Building affordable childcare space
• A successful and vibrant business community
• Continue to lead in economic development and
innovation
• Need for public transportation
• Housing will be affordable
• Best quality of life for everyone
• A city where we continue to have all materials in
various languages
• That we increase population of Black community
living in SSF
• Having the best schools/best place to raise a family
in the county
• Robust public/active transit infrastructure so people
don’t need a car to get around
• Updated infrastructure to support growing
population
• Traffic/congestion reduction
• The city will be made whole regarding its elected
representatives, legislators, and supervisor
• The city’s financial condition will be truly enhanced
by its business community
• Income > expenses, bigger reserve
• That the economic separation of the haves and
have nots is dissolved
The following themes emerged from the activity:
• True Today – what to sustain
- Focus on quality services
- An inclusive community
- Organizational effectiveness
- A safe City
- Vibrant economic development
• Not Yet True – what to make true
- High quality of life for all
- Infrastructure supports transportation needs
- Strengthened relationship with regional elected representatives
- Enhanced fiscal stability
- Economic development benefits all
22
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 5
Council members were asked to share their reactions to seeing each other’s responses and the themes that
emerged. Councilmember Buenaflor Nicolas noted the alignment of many responses, and Councilmember
James Coleman also shared that he didn’t see much disagreement between the responses. Similarly, Mayor
Flores mentioned that inclusivity was commonly valued or noted but that there was also diverse thinking
from each Council member. Councilmember Mark Nagales highlighted the points of fiscal responsibility and
continue to deliver quality services. Mayor Flores had also shared that the fiscal aspect resonated with him,
and Councilmember Mark Addiego noted that there was a lot of hope reflected among all the responses.
Council Goals and Priorities
The group began the goal and priority-setting portion of the day with an added public comment period. The
facilitator provided additional context by reviewing the “Big Rocks” approach from the 7 Habits of Highly
Effective People by Stephen Covey, including the key points to 1) Put the big rocks in first, 2) Don’t fill up the
jar with so many small rocks that there isn’t room for the big ones, and 3) Then keep space for the unplanned,
emergencies, or new requirements.
The facilitator led the group in a review of topics raised by Council members during interviews prior to the
retreat. In reaction to the topics, which are listed in full below, the Mayor highlighted the importance of
childcare.
• Westborough Center Expansion • Park development (Linden)
• Housing (affordable; “missing middle”) • Community events
• Priority-based budgeting • Local hiring preference
• Senior and women’s services • Maximizing City resources
• Downtown business improvement district
• Traffic flow
• Equity plan
• Vacant properties (i.e., MSB)
• Removing barriers for reach codes (e.g., EV
charging stations)
The group next viewed a list of ongoing initiatives and prior Council priorities, which came from the prior
year’s 2024 City Council Priorities as presented in a City Council meeting on January 22, 2025. In
preparation for the retreat, the facilitator collated these ongoing initiatives with the topics raised in Council
interviews and drafted a preliminary framework with proposed groupings of the Council-identified priorities.
The draft preliminary framework was provided as a handout (with the below flow of categories) to allow for
the Council’s review, discussion, and changes. Many of the items identified by Council were specific
Activities and Initiatives, which compose the most detailed level of the framework. These details were
grouped by proposed Major Focus Areas that reflected the common themes, and Key Strategies were
suggested to summarize potential policy direction by the Council that would tie to their identified Activities
and Initiatives.
Major Focus Areas Key Strategies
Activities and Initiatives
23
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 6
The facilitator shared the proposed Focus Areas for the group’s discussion and asked the Council to voice
their reactions and any changes they would make. The Mayor said he thought the buckets were a great
framing of the City’s “why.” Council members identified childcare, resilient infrastructure, and
space/capacity for unplanned emergencies as additional areas they would like to see incorporated.
The group then reviewed the proposed Strategies, and the Council discussed each focus area. The Council’s
discussions to revise the Strategies are captured in Table 1 below, and the updated Strategies are reflected in
Table 2 in the subsequent section.
Table 1: Council Discussion of Initial Focus Areas and Strategies
Major Focus
Areas and Key
Strategies
Discussion Notes
Housing and
Supportive
Services
• Advance
affordable housing
development
• Encourage
housing for the
Missing Middle
• Implement Anti-
Displacement
Policies
• Add creative financing to the Housing area
• Some actions have more detail to them or might even reflect non-City actions
o Foxridge Parcels refers to workforce housing, which would involve partnering with
the community
• Desire to attract development and generate revenue
• Want to encourage a balanced housing supply, including renters and owners, and the
workforce
• The City should be a conduit for information, tools, and resources
• Right to Legal Counsel (activity) is broader than Housing alone
• A strategy or activity should be “Partnership with providers to support people who are
unhoused”
o Partnerships with regional bodies, community organizations
Quality of Life
• Catalyze a thriving
downtown
• Support local
workers and
business owners
• Deliver services
and amenities that
address
community needs
• Promote
community safety
and preparedness
• Hesitance to limit focus to downtown or any one area within the City, especially when
there are other struggling retail areas
o Should the strategy refer to downtown, retail generally, maybe small businesses?
o Want to allocate resources equally, but also like the efficiency of testing a pilot
program, then applying learnings elsewhere
o Downtown has many business owners, while other areas (i.e., Brentwood,
Sunshine) might have a single property owner who is a landlord to multiple
businesses
o Group decided to leave the strategy for downtown but add a strategy for a
“thriving retail environment”
• Cleanliness in the City is a factor both for businesses and Quality of Life broadly
• Many resident communications to Council about people who are unhoused, which ties
to Housing
• Cold weather can add to calls for service to fires at encampments
• Ensure Quality of Life includes mental health and explore making the integrated Mental
Health Clinician a permanent employee
• Resident complaints to the Council about RVs
o Support residents who live in RVs
o Address community concerns about long-term RV parking/presence
Modern and
Sustainable
Organization
• Ensure financial
sustainability
• Conduct long-
• Focus on creating revenue, realize opportunities, and be innovative and creative
• Look at initiatives Council had been hesitant about before
• Potentially check appetite for a ballot measure for new revenue, but some concern
against regressive measures
• Revise “Maximize City resources” to “Optimize City resources”
24
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 7
Priority-Setting
The discussion of Major Focus Areas and Key Strategies informed a revised framework for the Council to
vote on. Each Council member received six star stickers with different colors from each other, and they could
assign one per Strategy, identifying their top
priorities for the next year. The voting activity
is shown at right. Council members and the
facilitator all emphasized that strategies not
receiving stickers remain important for the
City.
Major Focus
Areas and Key
Strategies
Discussion Notes
range planning
• Maximize City
resources
• Communicate
effectively with
residents
Welcoming and
Connected
Community
• Increase access to
childcare
• Foster an Age-
Friendly
Community
• Enact policies that
support public
health
• Empower
underserved
communities
• Good example of a positive event was the Lunar New Year Night Market held by the
City the evening before the retreat, which was a great opportunity to highlight small
businesses
• City’s calendar of events reflects its diverse community
• Additional events reflect the changing community and community requests
• Missing aspect of City events is community partner(s) to help organize and hold the
events
• Peer cities sometimes have commissions that plan events, though serving on a
commission is a volunteer service itself
• Hope to establish Senior’s Commission to uplift and hear more from that community
• Want others inspired by South San Francisco to say, “we should do that for our city”
• Some community initiatives were raised by Communications staff during department
sharing
Infrastructure and
the Environment
• Champion
environmental
protection
• Make sustainable
options easier
• Improve traffic flow
• Attention needed for ‘invisible infrastructure’
• Add a priority for the aging infrastructure underground
• Regional utilities impact this topic but also impact Housing and Quality of Life
• A peer jurisdiction found a way around limits to support sustainability by regulating
building efficiency for electrification
25
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 8
Table 2: Council Votes on the Revised Strategies
Major Focus Areas Key Strategies Sticker
Colors Votes Count
Housing and
Supportive Services
Advance affordable housing development
Pursue creative financing strategies
Gold
Green
Silver
Orange
Addiego,
Coleman,
Nagales,
Nicolas
4
Encourage balanced housing supply
(including rent & own, workforce)
Gold
Green
Blue
Addiego,
Coleman,
Flores
3
Be a conduit for public information and
access to tools
Implement Anti-Displacement policies Green Coleman 1
Quality of Life
Catalyze a thriving downtown Blue Flores 1
Support a sustainable retail environment
Gold
Green
Silver
Addiego,
Nagales,
Coleman
3
Deliver services and amenities that address
community needs
Promote community safety and
preparedness
Silver
Orange
Nagales,
Nicolas 2
Implement a cohesive strategy for a clean
South San Francisco Blue Flores 1
Modern and
Sustainable
Organization
Ensure financial sustainability (including
revenue generation)
Gold
Green
Blue
Silver
Addiego,
Coleman,
Flores,
Nagales
4
Conduct long-range planning
Optimize City resources Gold
Orange
Addiego,
Nicolas 2
Communicate effectively with residents Orange Nicolas 1
Welcoming and
Connected
Community
Increase access to childcare Silver Nagales 1
Foster an Age-Friendly Community Blue Flores 1
Enact policies that support public health
Empower underserved communities
Engage community volunteers (events,
Commissions, partners)
Gold
Green
Blue
Orange
Addiego,
Coleman,
Flores,
Nicolas
4
Infrastructure and the
Environment
Champion environmental protections
Make sustainable options easier
26
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 9
Major Focus Areas Key Strategies Sticker
Colors Votes Count
Improve traffic flow Silver Nagales 1
Plan for aging infrastructure (underground) Orange Nicolas 1
Invest in Resilient and Sustainable solutions
Strategies across all five Focus Areas received votes from Council members. Five strategies received a
majority of Council votes, meaning three or more votes, including:
• Pursue creative financing strategies for housing (4)
• Encourage balanced housing supply, including rent & own, workforce (3)
• Support a sustainable retail environment (3)
• Ensure financial sustainability, pursue creative revenue generation (4)
• Engage community volunteers for events through commissions and partners (4)
Council Input on the Events Calendar
During retreat preparations, the City identified a few additional items for discussion outside the priority-
setting workshop program. One item, the Events Calendar, was discussed during a working lunch. The
following summarizes the discussion:
• The City Manager, Sharon Ranals, discussed the practice of organizing one signature event per year of
the mayor’s choosing. One signature event was budgeted/planned for, but the City Manager had heard
energy around more events and/or continuing past signature events.
• The Council discussed a desire to continue events like the Women’s Conference, though perhaps bi-
annually, and to continue the expanded Pride Event, but they acknowledged limits to staff bandwidth and
budget.
• It was suggested that a follow-up action might be identifying ways to partner for or hand off events.
• Some of the Council and/or staff noted that they could also highlight events outside of South San
Francisco, from the County or other neighboring Cities.
Staying on Track with Priorities
Achieving desired results on the council’s top priorities requires focus and discipline. The facilitator shared
best practices for maintaining priorities and criteria for when Council might consider adding additional
priorities during the year. The first steps are for staff to incorporate the identified priorities into the budget and
department work plans and then to provide regular progress reports. The Council can support successful
implementation by minimizing new requests that would take staff away from the identified priorities or by
determining what priorities might drop off or be delayed if something new is added.
27
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 10
If the Council encounters new projects during the year, the best practice criteria for evaluating them include:
• Emergency (natural disaster, pandemic, civil unrest)
• New outside funding opportunity that is time-sensitive
• New multi-agency opportunity that cannot be delayed
• Community safety issue that must be addressed in the near term
• Changes in laws or mandates
Excitement for the Year Ahead
Reflecting on the priority discussion, Council members shared what excites them most about the upcoming
year. Their thoughts included:
• Strategic budget development
- Enhance financial sustainability
- Support economic development
• Creative financing and revenue generation
• Having a clear roadmap
• Implementing the mooring ordinance
• Optimistic about the opportunities ahead
Working Together
Council members and staff were asked to think about what they need from each other over the next year to
support the pursuit of the identified priorities. Responses included:
• What does staff need from the Council?
- Conscious of a balance of priorities falling on Economic and Community Development or other
departments
- Confidence/trust in the staff-Council partnership
- Conscious of staff roles and Council roles
- Mutual respect
- Strategic priorities and direction
• What do Council members need from each other?
- Clear communication
- Clear direction in meetings
- Incorporating shared norms, like those used for the retreat
Closing
The facilitator reviewed the next steps, including the preparation of this report, and noted that the Council
priorities will inform areas of emphasis for the FY2025-26 budget and that major work plan elements will be
developed by staff to track progress on the priorities. The City Manager thanked the Council for their
direction coming from the priorities and informed them that the staff would be developing the work plans as
discussed. The City Manager and Mayor both thanked the group for their attendance and participation, and
the Mayor closed the retreat.
28
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 11
APPENDIX A:
City Staff Attendees
29
City of South San Francisco / City Council Retreat Report 12
Name Role Department
Eddie Flores Mayor, District 5 Council
Mark Addiego Vice-Mayor, District 1 Council
Buenaflor (Flor) Nicolas Councilmember, District 3 Council
James Coleman Councilmember, District 2 Council
Mark Nagales Councilmember, District 4 Council
Sharon Ranals City Manager City Manager's Office
Rich Lee Assistant City Manager City Manager's Office
Christina Fernandez Deputy City Manager/Chief Sustainability Officer City Manager's Office
Angenette Lau Communications Manager City Manager's Office
Devin Stenhouse Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer City Manager's Office
Marie Patea Executive Assistant to the City Manager City Manager's Office
Sky Woodruff City Attorney City Attorney
Nell Selander
Director of Economic and Community
Development
Economic and
Community Development
Karen Chang Director of Finance Finance
Jason Wong Deputy Finance Director Finance
Matt Samson Fire Chief Fire
Leah Lockhart Human Resources Director Human Resources
Tony Barrera Information Technology Director Information Technology
Valerie Sommer Library Director Library
Rosa Govea Acosta City Clerk Office of the City Clerk
Angela Duldulao Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation
Greg Mediati Director of Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation
Scott Campbell Chief of Police Police
Eunejune Kim Director of Public Works/City Engineer Public Works
Matt Ruble Principal Engineer Public Works
Frank Risso City Treasurer Treasury
30
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Flores called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Councilmember Coleman, present
Councilmember Nagales, present
Councilmember Nicolas, present
Vice Mayor Addiego, present
Mayor Flores, present
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Xavier and Sebastian Camacho led the pledge.
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURES (SB 1181)
Following an inquiry, there were no conflicts of interest stated by the members of the City
Council.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
• Police Chief Campbell presented the City’s Annual Crime Statistics.
• Public Works Director Kim shared the City was awarded a $1.2 million grant from
Peninsula Clean Energy to improve the Downtown lighting.
• Parks and Recreation Director Mediati invited the community to attend the Linden Park
Open House on Saturday, March 1, 2025, and Youth Baseball Celebration on Saturday,
March 8, 2025.
• Management Analyst Donner invited the community to attend the What’s Happening East
of 101 Biotech Speaker Series on Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025
6:30 p.m.
In-person
Library Parks and Recreation Building
Council Chambers
901 Civic Campus Way, South San Francisco, CA
31
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2025
MINUTES PAGE 2
PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation recognizing Women in Construction Week. (Eddie Flores, Mayor)
Councilmember Coleman presented the proclamation to the members of the Nation Association
of Women in Construction. President Julie Salinas, Treasurer Viktoria Swerbensky, and Director
Lourdes Haro accepted the proclamation and thanked the Council for their recognition.
2. Proclamation recognizing Héctor Camacho for his service as a Trustee on the San Mateo
County Office of Education Board. (Eddie Flores, Mayor)
Mayor Flores recognized Hector Camacho for his contributions to the San Mateo County Office
of Education Board and the City of South San Francisco. Hector Camacho thanked staff, the
City, and the Council for their investments and impact on the community.
3. Certificate recognizing Christine Ramirez for representing the City of South San Francisco as
a runner in the Senshu International City Marathon in Japan. (Eddie Flores, Mayor)
Mayor Flores presented Christine Ramirez with a certificate of recognition honoring her
accomplishments. Christine Ramirez thanked the Council and Sister Cities for allowing her to
represent them and shared an overview of her experiences.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
Councilmember Nicolas recognized the library staff and former Mayor Karyl Matsumoto for the
success of the Kintsukuroi film screening. She requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of
John DeNardi, Melanie Mendoza Lara, and Rosalina Oliva Panggat.
Councilmember Coleman requested staff to explore solutions to concerns raised by downtown
businesses regarding short-term parking for delivery services.
Councilmember Nagales invited the community to attend his Town Hall on March 15, 2025, to
discuss topics to include public safety and the new childcare in Westborough. He also said he
enjoyed attending the Finding A Path Art Show and announced he was invited to moderate for the
Housing Leadership Council on May 30, 2025.
Mayor Flores apprised the community of the events attended to include the Kintsukuroi film
screening, Property and Business Improvement District committee meetings, Basque Cultural
Center anniversary event, and Joy Fest Celebration. He also requested the City Manager to explore
concerns from residents surrounding the relocation of senior yoga and Zumba classes from the
Teglia Center to the Westborough Center. City Manager Ranals noted that the relocation was
temporary due to tax services being offered at the Teglia Center.
PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA AND CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
The following individuals addressed the City Council:
• Sam Chetcuti
• Fionnola Villamejor
32
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2025
MINUTES PAGE 3
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Assistant City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar, after which the Council voted.
4. Motion to approve the Minutes of February 11, 2025, and February 12, 2025. (Rosa Govea
Acosta, City Clerk)
5. Report regarding Resolution No. 24-2025 authorizing the acceptance of donations from
various community partners totaling $21,250 for Fiscal Year 2024-25, as well as in-kind
donations of supplies and volunteer support for Parks and Recreation Department programs
and events. (Angela Duldulao, Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation Department)
6. Report regarding Resolution No. 25-2025 authorizing the acceptance of $11,029.28 in grant
funding from the Department of Justice Bullet Proof Vest Partnership for soft armor vests for
the South San Francisco Police Department and approving Budget Amendment Number
25.038. (Scott Campbell, Chief of Police)
7. Report regarding Resolution No. 26-2025 approving the Second Amendment to the
Cooperation Agreement of the San Mateo County HOME Consortium under the Cranston-
Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act. (Alvina Condon, Management Analyst II)
8. Report regarding adoption of Resolution No. 27-2025 accepting $100,000 in SMCTA 2024
ACR/TDM Cycle 2 (Grant) Program Funding; accepting $10,000 in C/CAG Local Match
Funding; accepting $30,000 in C/CAG Construction Management (CM) Funding; approving
associated Budget Amendment Number 25.037; approving contract amendments with C/CAG,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and Zoon Engineering, Inc., for the South San Francisco,
Smart Corridor Expansion Project. (Angel Torres, Senior Civil Engineer)
Motion – Vice Mayor Addiego/Second – Councilmember Nicolas: To approve Consent Calendar
items 4-8 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nagales, Nicolas, Vice Mayor
Addiego, and Mayor Flores; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARING
Public hearing opened: 7:21 p.m.
9. Report regarding holding a Public Hearing for a Community Needs Assessment for the HUD
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Year 2025-2026 Annual Action
Plan. (Alvina Condon, Management Analyst II)
Public hearing closed: 8:02 p.m.
Management Analyst Condon presented the report.
Councilmember Nagales requested clarification between the number of services provided and
referred. Management Analyst Condon and Economic and Community Development Director
Selander provided clarification surrounding the service, potential delays, and charge for services.
33
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2025
MINUTES PAGE 4
The following individuals provided public comments in support of continued funding:
• Carols Reyes, Program Manager at Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center
• Harrison Young, Owner of Harrison’s Pizza
• Melissa Lukin, Executive Director of Rebuilding Together Peninsula
• Miguel Chavez, Program Director at LifeMoves
• Alyssa Canfield, Program Manager with StarVista
• Laura Fanucchi, Director of Programs at HIP Housing
• Lynn Schuette, Director of Quality and Strategic Initiatives at CORA
• Mylene Deano, Register Dental Assistant at Magic Tooth Bus
• Juan Molina, Shelter Manager at Safe Harbor Shelter
• Cecilia Chu, Executive Director of Friends for Youth
The following individual provided a public comment:
• Michael Harris
The following individuals submitted a public comment via the eComment portal:
• David Carducci
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
10. Report regarding Resolution No. 28-2025 approving an agreement with Speridian
Technologies LLC. for the implementation of the Clariti community development permitting
software and Resolution No. 29-2025 approving an agreement with Clariti Cloud Inc. for a
five-year subscription and support contract, totaling $1,808,017 (including a 15%
contingency), authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreements and approving Budget
Amendment Number 25-045 (Tony Barrera, Director of Information Technology)
Information Technology Director Barrera presented the report. The Council engaged in questions
and discussions with responses provided by Director Barrera.
Motion – Councilmember Nicolas/Second – Councilmember Nagales: To approve Resolution No.
28-2025 approving an agreement with Speridian Technologies LLC. for the implementation of the
Clariti community development permitting software and Resolution No. 29-2025 approving an
agreement with Clariti Cloud Inc. for a five-year subscription and support contract, totaling
$1,808,017 (including a 15% contingency), authorizing the City Manager to execute the
agreements and approving Budget Amendment Number 25-045, by roll call vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Coleman, Nagales, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Addiego, and Mayor Flores; NAYS:
None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
11. Report regarding Resolution No. 29-2025 authorizing the submittal of an application for the
San Mateo County Shuttle program funding in a total amount of $1,939,050, and committing
a 25% total matching contribution of $646,350 from South San Francisco Local Measure A
funds, in support of the South City Shuttle program. (Marissa Garren, Public Works
Management Analyst II)
Public Works Deputy Director Bockhaus presented the report. The Council engaged in questions
and discussion surrounding the exploration of alternative methods for routes, time, and efficiency.
34
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2025
MINUTES PAGE 5
Motion – Councilmember Nagales/Second – Councilmember Coleman: To approve Resolution
No. 29-2025 authorizing the submittal of an application for the San Mateo County Shuttle program
funding in a total amount of $1,939,050, and committing a 25% total matching contribution of
$646,350 from South San Francisco Local Measure A funds, in support of the South City Shuttle
program, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, and Nagales; Mayor Flores,
NAYS: Vice Mayor Addiego; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
No reports or announcements.
CLOSED SESSION
Entered into Closed Session: 8:23 p.m.
12. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 366 Grand Avenue (APN 012-312-310)
Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, ECD Director, and Ernesto Lucero, ECD Manager
Negotiating party: Stacey S. Dobos Trust
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Resumed from Closed Session: 8:53 p.m.
Report out of Closed Session by Mayor Flores: Direction given. No reportable actions.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Flores adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:54 p.m.
***
Adjourned in Memory of
John DeNardi, Melanie Mendoza Lara, and Rosalina Oliva Panggat
***
Submitted by: Approved by:
Jazmine Miranda Eddie Flores
Assistant City Clerk Mayor
Approved by the City Council: / /
35
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2025
MINUTES PAGE 6
NOTE: The Meeting Minutes represent actions taken during the meeting of the City Council. These action
minutes are the City’s record of actions that took place at the meeting.
Complete Council member's discussions of meeting items can be viewed in archived video/audio
recordings on the City’s website at https://www.ssf.net/Government/Video-Streaming-City-and-Council-
Meetings/City-Council
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5 all written public comments submitted to the City Council
become public record and will be made available to the public. Public comments submitted via the
eComment portal can be viewed in the City Clerk’s repository at https://ci-ssf-
ca.granicusideas.com/meetings?scope=past
36
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-128 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:6.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $127,000 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo for
the Big Lift Little Steps Preschool at the Gene Mullin Community Learning Center and amending the Parks and
Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget pursuant to Budget Amendment Number 25.044.
(Angela Duldulao, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $127,000 in grant
funding from the County of San Mateo for the Big Lift Little Steps Preschool at the Gene Mullin Community
Learning Center and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget
pursuant to Budget Amendment Number 25.044.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Big Lift is a collective impact collaborative launched in 2012 by three agencies,the County of San Mateo,the San
Mateo County Office of Education,and Silicon Valley Community Foundation.The goal of the initiative is to help San
Mateo County students achieve reading proficiency by the end of third grade.The City of South San Francisco has been
the recipient of Big Lift grant funds since Fiscal Year 2014-15,using these funds to open and operate the Little Steps
Preschool at the Gene Mullin Community Learning Center in April 2016.Little Steps Preschool is administered by the
Parks and Recreation Department (the Department)and has a licensed capacity of 20 students.Families eligible for this
subsidized program must qualify as low-income households pursuant to California Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)income ceilings and are assessed tuition on a sliding scale,not to exceed the City’s adopted
preschool fee based on family size and household income.The program operates Monday through Friday,7:30 a.m.to
6:00 p.m.
While Big Lift grant funds have fluctuated over the years,the grant amount remained steady at $220,000 per year from
Fiscal Years 2019-2020 through 2023-2024.This amount was sufficient to cover roughly 80%of program costs largely
attributed to staffing,and the City’s General Fund subsidized the remaining program expenses.In October 2023,staff met
with Big Lift grant administrators who indicated that the City’s grant could be cut by more than half in Fiscal Year 2024-
25.This significant change in funding was attributed to a reallocation of their funds to transitional kindergarten through
third grade programs in addition to preschools.
Anticipating a funding reduction,in January 2024,staff applied for San Mateo County’s Measure K funding under the
priority area of “Children,Families,and Seniors”in order to fill this looming funding gap.With over $250 million in
requests for the first year and only $35 million in available funding,the application pool for Measure K funds was very
competitive and staff were unsuccessful in obtaining a grant award for Little Steps Preschool.
Since then,Big Lift grant administrators confirmed the City would receive a smaller grant award of $127,000 for Fiscal
Year 2024-25, essentially enough funding to subsidize half of the site’s children.
As a result of reduced funding,staff created plans to maintain at least 10 of the 20 spaces at Little Steps Preschool
available at no cost or on a sliding scale for income-eligible families,consistent with past Big Lift practices.The other 10
spaces would be made available at the adopted preschool fee, consistent with other City operated preschool sites.
Fortunately,no children have been displaced or impacted as vacancies are created by natural attrition that occurs through
the summer and fall months as children graduate into kindergarten and transitional-kindergarten.In short,no families who
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™37
File #:25-128 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:6.
received Big Lift subsidy were or will be faced with unexpected fees.
Staff also continues to work with families to connect them with resources for other subsidies with partner agencies,and
referral agencies like the San Mateo County Child Care Coordinating Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operations of Little Steps Preschool have already commenced into Fiscal Year 2024-25.City Council’s authorization to
receive $127,000 for Fiscal Year 2024-25 will allow for continued operation of the Little Steps Preschool through the end
of the current fiscal year.This amount covers the cost of one teacher,allowing the City to offer up to 10 of the 20
preschool spaces on a sliding scale cost model,with the program being available at no cost for most income-eligible
families.The other 10 spaces are available to full fee-paying families.Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to
ongoing funding.
To date,staff has not yet received information about the potential funding outlook for Fiscal Year 2025-26.If grant
funding becomes unfeasible or is eliminated and alternative grant funding cannot be secured,staff will return to the City
Council with a recommendation to consider alternatives for operating Little Steps Preschool.One such option would be to
convert the Little Steps Preschool to a fee-based program,similar to Siebecker and Westborough Preschools,which is
already subsidized by the City’s General Fund to remain very affordable.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Acceptance of these grant funds will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under the major focus area of creating a
“Welcoming and Connected Community” by increasing access to childcare and supporting underserved communities.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the acceptance of $127,000 in grant funding for Fiscal Year 2024-25,
which will allow the Parks and Recreation Department to continue to operate the Little Steps Preschool at the Community
Learning Center.The Parks and Recreation Department will continue to work collaboratively with our Big Lift partners
and will continue to seek out grant funds to enhance the quality of City and community preschools.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™38
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-129 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:6a.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $127,000 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo for the Big Lift Little
Steps Preschool at the Gene Mullin Community Learning Center and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget pursuant to Budget Amendment Number 25.044.
WHEREAS,the Big Lift initiative,a collaborative launched by the County of San Mateo,the San Mateo County Office
of Education,and Silicon Valley Community Foundation,aims to help San Mateo County students achieve reading
proficiency by the end of third grade; and
WHEREAS,the Department of Parks and Recreation has been the recipient of Big Lift grant funds since Fiscal Year 2014
-2015,using these funds to open the Little Steps Preschool at the Gene Mullin Community Learning Center in April
2016; and
WHEREAS,these grant funds will be utilized to fund the Little Steps Preschool and support reading readiness,parent
engagement,improved attendance,and enhanced preschool teacher trainings,as allowed by the terms of the grant
agreement; and
WHEREAS, acceptance of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding after the close of the grant cycle; and
WHEREAS,receipt of these grant funds enables the Parks and Recreation Department to offer 10 subsidized preschool
spaces at the Little Steps Preschool to low-income households pursuant to California Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)income ceilings,and eligible families would be assessed tuition on a sliding scale,not to exceed the
City’s adopted preschool fee of $714 per month, based on family size and household income; and
WHEREAS,through the Big Lift,the City will work collaboratively with other Big Lift partners to enhance the quality of
City and community preschools.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council
hereby authorizes the acceptance of $127,000 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo for the Big Lift Little Steps
Preschool at the Gene Mullin Community Learning Center and amends the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal
Year 2024-25 Operating Budget pursuant to Budget Amendment Number 25.044.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the documents
necessary to accept the grant funding and take any other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution on
behalf of the City Council, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™39
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:24-1125 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7.
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 that the City Council consider introducing a Local Preference Ordinance that gives
applicants for some 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
provision to prior residents and better align the City’s policy with the language of State and Federal law.Staff
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™40
File #:24-1125 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7.
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,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.
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,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™41
File #:24-1125 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7.
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 believe 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 Systems
(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
Memorandum included as Attachment 1,expanding preference eligibility to prior residents is likely to further
equalize selection rates, based on patterns observed in peer cities.
General Plan and 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.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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™42
File #:24-1125 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7.
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 $150,000 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,
2024,Anti-Displacement Community Advisory Committee (CAC)meeting,the most cited reasons for why
people move out of the City were the high cost of housing,unhealthy conditions of naturally occurring
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™43
File #:24-1125 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7.
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 City Council to consider the
introduction of the proposed ordinance that would expand eligibility of the City’s local preference policy to
previous residents.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 is 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 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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™44
File #:24-1125 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7.
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 proposed Local Preference Ordinance amending 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
while still allowing other income eligible applicants to apply.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™45
File #:24-1125 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7.
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; or
2.At least one member of the applicant household currently resides or resided in the City; or
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 that the City Council introduce 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.
Attachments:
1.EPS Demographic Analysis Memorandum
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™46
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
To: Piece Abrahamson, City of South San Francisco
From: Darin Smith and Kaavya Chhatrapati
Subject: Disparate Impact Analysis for South San Francisco Affordable
Housing Local Preference Policy; EPS #241044
Date: February 18, 2025
The City of South San Francisco is considering a policy that would prioritize households
that already live in the city or in which one or more workers are employed within the city
for the allocation of affordable housing units in the city. This memo summarizes an
analysis conducted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to evaluate the proposed
preference policy, focusing on its compliance with fair housing laws.
The issue is whether prioritizing South San Francisco residents and workers is likely to
result in certain racial or ethnic groups getting proportionately less access to the
affordable housing. If the policy is deemed likely to result in such groups having
materially lower likelihood of accessing affordable units than if the policy were not in
place, it may impose a “disparate impact” on those groups, and should be avoided or
mitigated if possible. As of February 10, 2025, the United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division website1 offers the following explanation of a disparate impact:
“where the members of one race or other protected class are selected at four-fifths (or less)
the rate of another (80% or less), the EEOC, DOJ, and the Department of Labor have
adopted this formula for use in identifying evidence of disparate impact. Some courts have
adopted this four-fifths cutoff as a rule of thumb when determining whether the amount of
differential impact is sufficient.”
Like several other analysts and consultants who have been engaged by other Bay Area
cities to explore live-work preference policies, EPS uses the “4/5 Test” to assess whether
such a policy in South San Francisco may have a disparate impact on identifiable racial
and ethnic groups.
1 Civil Rights Division | Section VII- Proving Discrimination- Disparate Impact | United
States Department of Justice
47
Draft Disparate Impact Analysis for South San Francisco Affordable Housing Local Preference Policy
Page 2
The review concludes that the proposed affordable housing local preference policy for
South San Francisco is not projected to result in a systemic disparate impact on a
particular racial or ethnic group. However, applying the local preference policy to only
a portion of affordable units would reduce the likelihood of such disparate impacts.
Summary of Key Findings
• At least six Bay Area cities have local preference policies for affordable housing.
Across all cities reviewed, affordable housing preference policies aim to balance local
prioritization for residents and workers with equity and fair housing compliance.
Common strategies include prioritizing households that have undergone or are
threatened by displacement, in addition to prioritizing current or recent residency and
employment within the city while using tools like lottery systems and marketing plans
to ensure transparency and accessibility.
• South San Francisco’s residents and worker demographics are sufficiently similar to
those of San Mateo County overall and the three-county Peninsula region that a local
preference policy should not create a disparate impact. This analysis indicates that no
racial or ethnic group’s selection for affordable housing should fall below 80 percent of
what they may expect in the absence of the local preference policy. A policy
prioritizing local residents only might result in advantages or disadvantages for certain
groups, but the inclusion of workers in the prioritization tempers those differences.
• The threat or perception of a disparate impact can be reduced by tailoring the policy
to broaden the cohort of households likely to access the affordable units. To further
mitigate potential concerns about equity, the City could allocate only a certain
percentage of affordable units (e.g., 50 percent) under the local live/work preference,
leaving the remainder open to all applicants. Alternatively or in addition, expanding
eligibility to include individuals with historical ties to South San Francisco, such as
those who lived or worked in the city within the last five years, could broaden access
while maintaining a focus on local connections.
Balancing Housing Preferences with Fairness
and Compliance
The City of South San Francisco is facing a decision on how to allocate affordable
housing units in a way that balances fairness, equity, and compliance with fair housing
laws. The core question is whether to prioritize individuals who live or work in the city,
recognizing the potential benefits of supporting local residents and workers while
avoiding any unintended disparate impacts on protected groups. This memo outlines
EPS’s analysis, methodology, and recommendations to guide the City in crafting a legally
compliant and equitable policy.
48
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page 3
Insights from Neighboring Cities’ Housing
Policies
Affordable housing preference policies from several Bay Area cities were reviewed to
analyze how local prioritization is balanced with equity requirements. The findings
highlight various approaches taken by these cities to address these objectives.
Redwood City
Redwood City’s preference policy was adopted in 2021 and focuses on income-qualified
households that have been displaced by city activities or who currently live, have lived,
work, or have been offered work within the city. The policy does not require a minimum
duration of residency or employment. These preferences apply to all affordable units
under the city’s Affordable Housing Program, including inclusionary housing, standalone
developments, rental, and for-sale units. Developers and property managers are
responsible for implementing the policy through marketing plans and managing separate
waitlists for preference and non-preference applicants. A disparate impact analysis,
conducted by Seifel Consulting, evaluated the policy’s effect on racial demographics
using the "4/5 Test" to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.
San Francisco
San Francisco’s policy, adopted in 2015, prioritizes income-qualified households
displaced by conditions such as redevelopment, eviction, fires, or rising rents, as well as
those living or working in the city. The preferences are applied to all affordable housing
units, with distinct priorities for different groups. Top priority goes to those with a
"Certificate of Preference," primarily for households displaced by redevelopment.
Additional priorities include displaced tenants, residents of the same neighborhood as the
project, and anyone living or working in the city. Veterans receive higher priority within
each category. Applications are submitted via the city’s DAHLIA portal, which
automatically ranks applicants through a lottery system. Compliance is overseen by the
Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD), and fair housing
compliance is integrated into the allocation procedures.
Berkeley
Adopted in 2023, Berkeley’s policy emphasizes historical injustices and displacement.
Preferences include households displaced by BART construction in the 1960s and 1970s,
foreclosure since 2005, no-fault or non-payment evictions within the past seven years,
and those living in formerly redlined neighborhoods or their descendants. Homeless
families and families with children are also prioritized. The policy applies to units created
under the city’s Below Market Rate (BMR) and Housing Trust Fund (HTF) programs.
Seventy-five percent of lottery units are allocated for applicants with preferences, while
the remaining 25 percent are open to all. The Alameda County Housing Portal handles
applications, and applicants are ranked based on preference points. A disparate impact
analysis was conducted by Street Level Advisors to ensure fair housing compliance.
49
Draft Disparate Impact Analysis for South San Francisco Affordable Housing Local Preference Policy
Page 4
Santa Clara
Since adoption of their policy in 2021, Santa Clara prioritizes income-qualified
households that live and/or work in the city. The policy is applied to all affordable
housing units under the city’s programs, including inclusionary and standalone
developments. Preferences are ranked as follows: residents who live and work in the city
for at least six months are prioritized first, followed by those who live in the city, those
who work in the city, and finally, all other applicants. Applications are managed through
the Project HomeKey portal, which incorporates preference policies and ranks applicants
accordingly. A demographic analysis by KMA evaluated the differences between those
eligible for preferences and the general population, ensuring fair housing compliance.
Oakland
Oakland’s preference policy, adopted in 2016, gives top priority to households displaced
by city activities or no-fault evictions within the past eight years, as well as residents
living in the same council district or within a one-mile radius of a project. Broader
preferences are also given to residents and workers in Oakland. These policies apply to
affordable housing projects with five or more units receiving city financial assistance.
Developers and property managers are tasked with implementing the policy through
compliance plans and waitlist management. A maximum of 30 percent of affordable units
is reserved for residents of the same district or nearby neighborhoods. A fair housing
analysis using the "4/5 Test" and Standard Deviation Analysis ensures that the policy
does not result in discriminatory outcomes.
San Jose
San Jose’s policy, adopted in 2024, prioritizes income-qualified households in high-
displacement census tracts or those living near affordable housing projects. The policy
applies to city-funded affordable developments, state-funded affordable units, and
developments negotiated through agreements. A maximum of 35 percent of affordable
units are subject to preference policies, with 15 percent reserved for lower-income
applicants residing in the same council district or neighborhood and 20 percent for those
in high-displacement census tracts. Applications are managed through the city’s housing
portal, Doorway, which determines preference eligibility and informs property managers
of compliance. A disparate impact analysis, conducted by Charles MacNulty, evaluates
potential discriminatory effects using statistical methodologies.
50
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page 5
Summary of Other Cities’ Policies
As noted above, several Bay Area communities have adopted preference policies for their
affordable housing supply, with priority frequently given to households already living in
the city (or an even smaller area thereof) or people who work in the city. However,
several communities’ prioritization extends beyond those basic parameters, incorporating
factors such as the households’ specific housing history, veteran status, etc. Several also
deliberately apply the preference policy to only a portion of the housing units, leaving the
remainder of units available to the general population of income-qualified households.
Analysis of South San Francisco Household and
Worker Demographics
The analysis evaluates the potential impacts of an affordable housing local preference
policy for South San Francisco. The objective is to determine the proportion of
affordable housing units that various racial and ethnic groups would likely have been able
to access, based on the size and income distribution of their group within the broader
population of potential affordable housing applicants in the general geographic area from
which most applicants are likely to be drawn. For this study, EPS has assumed two
different “general geographic areas” – the whole of San Mateo County, and the combined
area of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara Counties, under the logic that the
majority of applicants for affordable housing will already be in the applicable job market
and community rather than, say, in another region, state, or country. Then, EPS estimates
the proportion of affordable units likely to be accessed by these same groups if all of the
units are subject to the local preference policy prioritizing people who live and work in
South San Francisco.
To the extent that the resident population or workforce of South San Francisco is
materially different from those other general geographic areas, one might expect that the
local preference policy may create advantages or disadvantages for certain groups. For
example, if Group A represents 50 percent of all income-eligible households in the
County, but only 10 percent of the income-eligible households in the City, it may be that
Group A will have access to many fewer affordable units under the local preference
policy than if the policy were not in place. The opposite may also be true for some
groups, if they represent a larger proportion of the local income-eligible population.
EPS has applied the same general methodology to both workers and residents, examining
racial, ethnic, and income-qualifying breakdowns to ensure consistency between the two
groups. Then, given that the results may differ between the analysis of households and
the analysis of workers, EPS has applied a weighted average approach designed to
balance preferences for residents and workers.
51
Draft Disparate Impact Analysis for South San Francisco Affordable Housing Local Preference Policy
Page 6
Methodology and Findings for Local Households
1. Total Households by Race and Ethnicity (A):
Using the most recently available Census data, the number and percentage of total
households belonging to each racial group was determined for South San Francisco
(SSF), San Mateo County, and the three-county Peninsula (San Francisco, San Mateo,
and Santa Clara counties combined). This establishes the baseline racial composition
of households in each subject area. For example, Table 1 demonstrates that White
and Asian households are by far the two largest groups in all three areas, but that
South San Francisco has a higher proportion of Asian households than the other two
areas, and a lower proportion of White households.
EPS took a similar approach regarding ethnicity – specifically Hispanic or Latino –
which is counted separately from race by the Census. For example, people may
identify as both Hispanic and White or both Hispanic and Black. The data indicate
that SSF has a higher proportion of Hispanic or Latino households than the larger
geographies.
2. Income-Qualified Households by Race and Ethnicity (B):
Census data also informs the percentage of households within each racial and ethnic
group that meet the income qualifications for affordable housing. The California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) indicates that the income
limit for a low-income household in San Mateo County is roughly $150,000 for a
“standard” household of four people.2 EPS has identified the number of households in
each group that earn up to this amount as an estimate of how many households of each
racial and ethnic group would qualify for affordable housing in SSF, the county, or the
Peninsula. Among other findings, the data indicate that a much higher proportion of
White households in SSF earn less than $150,000 than in the two larger areas and thus
would qualify for affordable housing, while a much higher proportion of American Indian
or Native Alaskan households in SSF are likely to be above this income threshold than in
the larger areas. Overall, SSF households that are Black or African American, Hispanic or
Latino, or identify as “another race” are most likely to earn less than $150,000.
2 HCD Income Limits currently indicate that a four-person household in San Mateo County
earning up to $156,650 would be considered “low income” for purposes of qualifying for
affordable housing. While HCD published different income standards based on the sizes of
households, EPS uses this four-person household income standard because Census data is
provided in general household income categories by race, such as “Asian households earning
$125,000 to $149,999” or “Asian households earning $150,000 to $199,999” rather than a finer
level such as “Two-person Asian households earning up to $125,350.”
52
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page 7
3. Income-Qualified Households by Group as a Percentage of Total (C = A * B):
To identify the share of all households that are both represented in the population
and eligible for affordable housing, we calculated the product of the total household
percentage by race and ethnicity (A) and the income-qualification rate (B). For
example, for White households in SSF, the calculation is:
34.9% of all SSF households are White
X 63.9% of White SSF households earn less than $150,000
= 22.3% of all SSF households are income-qualified White households
These calculations indicate that there are more White income-qualified households in
SSF than any other group, and the same is true of the County and Peninsula.
4. Total Proportion of Population That Is Income-Qualified (D):
The sum of the results of Item C represents the overall proportion of all households
that would qualify for affordable housing based on their incomes. As shown, EPS
estimates that roughly 58 percent of households in SSF would qualify for affordable
housing because they earn below $150,000 annually. By comparison, roughly 50
percent of all households in the two larger areas earn below $150,000, indicating that
SSF has a higher proportion of households that would be designated as income-
qualified for affordable housing.
5. Proportions of Income-Qualified Households by Race and Ethnicity (E = C / D):
For a given supply of affordable housing units, EPS has estimated the proportion that
would likely be provided to households from each racial or ethnic group based solely on
their representation among income-qualified households in each area. For instance,
White households in SSF are estimated to make up 38.7 percent of all income-qualified
households, while Asian households represent 32.5 percent of income-qualified
households. In the county more broadly, White households represent a higher proportion
of income-qualified households while Asian households represent a lower proportion.
The results vary by each racial group and by whether the SSF figures are being compared
to the county or the larger three-county Peninsula region. The results suggest that
White, American Indian or Native Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
households would likely be selected for fewer affordable units as a result of the local
preference policy. Black or African American households may be selected for a higher
proportion by comparison to county rates, but lower in comparison to the overall
Peninsula. Asian and Hispanic or Latino households would appear to be the greatest
beneficiaries of the local preference policy, largely because they represent higher
proportions of SSF households generally than they represent in the larger geographies.
6. Impact of Preference Policy on Selection Rates by Race and Ethnicity (F = E(SSF) /
E(County) or E(Peninsula)):
Finally, to conduct the “4/5 Test,” we divided the expected selection rate for each
group’s households under a preference policy focusing on SSF residents by their
expected selection rate without such a policy, based on county or Peninsula data.
53
Draft Disparate Impact Analysis for South San Francisco Affordable Housing Local Preference Policy
Page 8
This step determines whether any group is likely to have access to fewer than 80
percent of the affordable units that they would likely get in the absence of the local
preference policy. Again, the results vary depending on whether the SSF-based
selection rate is being compared to the selection rates for the county or the
Peninsula.
The results suggest that the local preference policy, if applied only on the basis of
who currently lives in SSF (rather than works there) may fall short of the “4/5 Test”
standard (80 percent) and thus represent a disparate impact for White, American
Indian or Native Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander households when
compared to the county more broadly. Using the Peninsula as the comparative
standard, a disparate impact could be projected for Black or African American
households as well as American Indian or Native Alaskan households, but White and
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander households would not necessarily be subject to a
disparate impact based on the “4/5 Test.”
The selection rate analysis for households shows that some racial groups fall below the
4/5 threshold when evaluated independently, and might be subject to a disparate impact
as a result of the policy if it is applied only to households by their place of residence.
However, the proposed local preference policy would apply to workers in SSF as well as
households, so the following section addresses these workers.
54
Draft Disparate Impact Analysis for South San Francisco Affordable Housing Local Preference Policy
Page 9
Table 1: Household Selection Rate Analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS) 2022; Economic & Planning Systems.
White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Two or
more
races
Another
Race
Total Qualifying
Households
Not Hispanic
or Latino
Hispanic or
Latino
Total Qualifying
Households
(A) % of Total Households by Race or Ethnicity
South San Francisco 7,696 515 183 9,128 93 1,910 2,511 22,036 16,603 5,433 22,036
San Mateo County 136,293 5,623 1,734 77,007 1,894 20,884 19,902 263,337 215,246 48,091 263,337
Peninsula 594,845 38,941 7,141 440,224 4,993 101,038 88,335 1,275,517 1,062,151 213,366 1,275,517
South San Francisco 34.9% 2.3% 0.8% 41.4% 0.4% 8.7% 11.4% 100.0% 75.3% 24.7% 100.0%
San Mateo County 51.8% 2.1% 0.7% 29.2% 0.7% 7.9% 7.6% 100.0% 81.7% 18.3% 100.0%
Peninsula 46.6% 3.1% 0.6% 34.5% 0.4% 7.9% 6.9% 100.0% 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
(B) % of Income Qualified HH by Race or Ethnicity
South San Francisco 4,918 387 66 4,130 62 1,221 1,940 12,724 8,715 4,009 12,724
San Mateo County 65,162 3,657 1,281 33,707 1,140 11,630 14,641 131,218 98,197 33,021 131,218
Peninsula 283,279 28,702 5,342 198,312 3,242 59,004 65,987 643,868 495,993 147,875 643,868
South San Francisco 63.9% 75.1% 36.1% 45.2% 66.7% 63.9% 77.3%52.5% 73.8%
San Mateo County 47.8% 65.0% 73.9% 43.8% 60.2% 55.7% 73.6%45.6% 68.7%
Peninsula 47.6% 73.7% 74.8% 45.0% 64.9% 58.4% 74.7%46.7% 69.3%
(C) % of Total Households that are Income Qualified by Race or Ethnicity (A × B)(D)(D)
South San Francisco 22.3% 1.8% 0.3% 18.7% 0.3% 5.5% 8.8% 57.7% 39.5% 18.2% 57.7%
San Mateo County 24.7% 1.4% 0.5% 12.8% 0.4% 4.4% 5.6% 49.8% 37.3% 12.5% 49.8%
Peninsula 22.2% 2.3% 0.4% 15.5% 0.3% 4.6% 5.2% 50.5% 38.9% 11.6% 50.5%
(E) % of Total Qualifying Households by Race or Ethnicity (C / D)
South San Francisco 38.7% 3.0% 0.5% 32.5% 0.5% 9.6% 15.2% 100.0% 68.5% 31.5%100.0%
San Mateo County 49.7% 2.8% 1.0% 25.7% 0.9% 8.9% 11.2% 100.0% 74.8% 25.2%100.0%
Peninsula 44.0% 4.5% 0.8% 30.8% 0.5% 9.2% 10.2% 100.0% 77.0% 23.0%100.0%
(F) = E(SSF)/ E(SMC or Peninsula): Selection Rate with Preference Policy vs. Without
San Mateo County 77.8% 109.1% 53.1% 126.4% 56.1% 108.3% 136.6%91.5% 125.2%
Peninsula 87.9% 68.2% 62.5% 105.4% 96.8% 104.7% 148.8%88.9% 137.2%
ETHNICITY
HOUSEHOLDS
RACE
55
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page 10
Methodology and Findings for Local Workers
1. Total Workers by Race or Ethnicity (A):
Using the most recently available Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
(LEHD)3 data from the United States Census, the number and percentage of total
workers in each racial and ethnic group were determined for South San Francisco
(SSF), San Mateo County, and the three-county Peninsula (San Francisco, San Mateo,
and Santa Clara counties combined). This establishes the baseline racial and ethnic
composition of workers in each area. For example, Table 2 shows that White and
Asian workers are by far the two largest groups in all three areas. However, South
San Francisco has a slightly higher proportion of Asian workers than the other two
areas and a slightly lower proportion of White workers. Hispanic or Latino workers
represent roughly 20 percent of all workers in all three geographies.
2. Lower-Wage Workers by Race or Ethnicity (B):
Unfortunately, standard Census publications do not provide extensive data regarding
the incomes of individuals based on their place of work, only by their place of
residence. The Census provides detailed income by race or ethnicity by place of
work only down to the county level, not the city level, so comparisons among the
three geographies cannot be as aligned with affordable housing income standards as
they were for households.
The best available data for worker income by place of work comes from LEHD,
which categorizes worker earnings into broad income bands. The highest of these
broad income bands is for individuals earning over $40,000 per year, so the closest
available approximation to the low-income threshold is workers earning under
$40,000 per year (or $3,333 per month, the metric that LEHD uses). While this does
not directly align with HCD's household-based income standards, it serves as a
useful proxy for identifying lower-wage workers who may qualify for affordable
housing in SSF, the county, or the broader Peninsula.
The data indicate that the proportion of SSF workers earning under $40,000 in
several categories – White, Two or More Races, and Latino – is lower than in the
broader areas. Conversely, a higher proportion of Black or African American and
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander workers earn less than $40,000 in SSF than in
the broader areas. For other groups, the results are mixed relative to the broader
geographies. For each racial or ethnic group, the results are relatively similar across
geographies, with no more than single-digit percentage point differences in the
overall proportions of workers earning these lower wages.
3 For consistency, EPS used data for “all primary jobs” across all racial and ethnic groups
and across all geographies. Unlike the standard population census used for the households
analysis, LEHD does not provide data for “Another Race,” so this category is omitted from
the analysis of workers.
56
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page 11
3. Lower-Wage Workers by Group as a Percentage of Total (C = A * B):
To identify the share of all workers who are both represented in the population and
likely to be eligible for affordable housing, we calculated the product of the total
worker percentage by race or ethnicity (A) and the income-qualification rate (B). For
example, for Asian workers in SSF, the calculation is:
36.9% of all SSF workers are Asian
× 16.9% of Asian SSF workers earn less than $40,000
= 6.2% of all SSF workers are lower-wage Asian workers
These calculations indicate that there are more lower-wage White workers in SSF
than any other group, and the same holds true for the County and Peninsula.
4. Total Proportion of Workers That Earn Lower Wages (D):
The sum of the results for Item C indicates that approximately 18.9 percent of
workers in SSF earn below $40,000 annually. By comparison, slightly higher
proportions of all workers in San Mateo County and in the Peninsula earn below
$40,000, indicating that SSF has a similar but slightly lower proportion of lower-
wage workers who may be designated as income-qualified for affordable housing.
5. Proportions of Lower-Wage Workers by Race or Ethnicity (E = C / D):
For a given supply of affordable housing units, EPS has estimated the proportion
likely to be allocated to workers from each racial or ethnic group based solely on
their representation among lower-wage workers in each area. For instance, White
workers in SSF are estimated to make up 52.8 percent of all lower-wage workers,
while Asian workers represent 33.0 percent. In the county and Peninsula more
broadly, White workers account for a higher proportion of lower-wage workers,
while Asian workers make up a lower proportion. The results vary by group and by
the geography to which the SSF figures are compared. These findings suggest that
White and Hispanic or Latino workers would likely be selected for slightly fewer
affordable units as a result of the local preference policy. Asian, Black or African
American, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander workers would likely be selected
for more affordable units as a result of the policy, primarily because they constitute a
higher proportion of SSF workers than they do in the larger geographies.
6. Impact of Preference Policy on Selection Rates by Race or Ethnicity (F = E(SSF) /
E(County) or E(Peninsula)):
To conduct the “4/5 Test,” we calculated the ratio of each group's expected
selection rate under a local preference policy favoring SSF workers to their expected
selection rate without the policy, using county and Peninsula data as benchmarks.
This analysis helps determine whether any group would receive access to fewer than
80 percent of the affordable units they would otherwise qualify for in the absence of
the preference policy. The findings indicate that all groups pass the 4/5 test across
both geographies. This suggests that a preference policy that only prioritized local
workers would be unlikely to create a disparate impact on any protected group.
57
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page 12
Table 2: Worker Selection Rate Analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics; Economic & Planning Systems
White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Two or more
races
Total
Qualifying
Workers
Not Hispanic
or Latino
Hispanic or
Latino
Total
Qualifying
Workers
(A) % Total Workers by Race or Ethnicity
South San Francisco 28,897 2,789 412 20,265 585 1,952 54,900 44,107 10,793 54,900
San Mateo County 220,503 18,631 3,038 131,617 3,540 13,850 391,179 312,823 78,356 391,179
Peninsula 1,169,397 109,360 18,247 731,366 12,601 74,831 2,115,802 1,697,560 418,242 2,115,802
South San Francisco 52.6% 5.1% 0.8% 36.9% 1.1% 3.6% 100.0% 80.3% 19.7% 100.0%
San Mateo County 56.4% 4.8% 0.8% 33.6% 0.9% 3.5% 100.0% 80.0% 20.0% 100.0%
Peninsula 55.3% 5.2% 0.9% 34.6% 0.6% 3.5% 100.0% 80.2% 19.8% 100.0%
(B) % Workers Making Under $40,000 by Race or Ethnicity
South San Francisco 5,490 802 123 3,430 185 365 10,395 7,506 2,889 10,395
San Mateo County 49,429 5,122 925 21,735 941 3,177 81,329 58,043 23,286 81,329
Peninsula 251,334 30,529 5,404 124,402 2,996 17,107 431,772 308,279 123,493 431,772
South San Francisco 19.0% 28.8% 29.9% 16.9% 31.6% 18.7%17.0% 26.8%
San Mateo County 22.4% 27.5% 30.4% 16.5% 26.6% 22.9%18.6% 29.7%
Peninsula 21.5% 27.9% 29.6% 17.0% 23.8% 22.9%18.2% 29.5%
(C) = (A X B) % of Total Workers that make under $40,000 by Race or Ethnicity (D)(D)
South San Francisco 10.0% 1.5% 0.2% 6.2% 0.3% 0.7% 18.9% 13.7% 5.3% 18.9%
San Mateo County 12.6% 1.3% 0.2% 5.6% 0.2% 0.8% 20.8% 14.8% 6.0% 20.8%
Peninsula 11.9% 1.4% 0.3% 5.9% 0.1% 0.8% 20.4% 14.6% 5.8% 20.4%
(E) % of Total Workers making below $40,000 by Race or Ethnicity (C / D)
South San Francisco 52.8% 7.7% 1.2% 33.0% 1.8% 3.5% 100.0% 72.2% 27.8% 100.0%
San Mateo County 60.8% 6.3% 1.1% 26.7% 1.2% 3.9% 100.0% 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%
Peninsula 58.2% 7.1% 1.3% 28.8% 0.7% 4.0% 100.0% 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%
(F) = E(SSF)/ E(SMC or Peninsula): Selection Rate with Preference Policy vs. Without
San Mateo County 86.9% 122.5% 104.0% 123.5% 153.8% 89.9%101.2% 97.1%
Peninsula 90.7% 109.1% 94.5% 114.5% 256.5% 88.6%101.1% 97.2%
WORKERS
ETHNICITYRACE
58
Draft Disparate Impact Analysis for South San Francisco Affordable Housing Local Preference Policy
Page 13
Worker and Household Combined
The local preference policy being considered by the City of South San Francisco would
prioritize both local residents and local workers. South San Francisco is an employment-
rich community, with LEHD data indicating that the city has more than twice as many
workers commuting into the city as commuting out of the city. Moreover, only about
seven percent of people who work in the city also live in the city. As a result, the local
preference policy would prioritize many more individuals through the “workers” part of
the policy than through the “households” component.
To account for this difference, EPS has constructed a weighted average calculation for
the likely selection rate for each group. This approach accounts not only for the fact that
there are many more jobs than households in the city, but also that the ratios of workers
to households varies significantly by race. As shown on Table 3, there are roughly 2.5
local jobs per local household overall, but there were more than five Black or African
American workers for every Black or African American household in SSF, but only 2.0
local Hispanic or Latino workers for every local Hispanic or Latino household. As such,
the incorporation of the “workers” component of the preference policy is likely to benefit
Black or African American home seekers significantly, relative to a policy that only
prioritizes local households.
The weighted average selection rates all pass the “4/5 Test,” as no racial or ethnic group
is likely to be selected for fewer than 80 percent of the affordable units they might have
expected in the absence of the local preference policy. By integrating both household
and worker selection rates, the policy ensures that no protected group falls below the
threshold, mitigating disparities observed when evaluating households alone.
59
Draft Disparate Impact Analysis for South San Francisco Affordable Housing Local Preference Policy
Page 14
Table 3: Weighted Average Selection Rate Analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS) 2022; U.S. Census Bureau OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics; Economic & Planning Systems
.
White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Two or more
races / Other
Race
Total Not Hispanic
or Latino
Hispanic or
Latino Total
SSF Workers by Group 28,897 2,789 412 20,265 585 1,952 54,900 44,107 10,793 54,900
SSF Households by Group 7,696 515 183 9,128 93 4,421 22,036 16,603 5,433 22,036
Ratio of Workers to Households by Group 3.8 5.4 2.3 2.2 6.3 0.4 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.5
SSF vs. San Mateo County
Selection Rate of Workers 86.9% 122.5% 104.0% 123.5% 153.8% 89.9%101.2% 97.1%
Selection Rate of Households 77.8%109.1%53.1%126.4%56.1%108.3%91.5%125.2%
Weighted Average Selection Rate 85.0% 120.4% 88.4% 124.4% 140.4% 102.6%98.5% 106.5%
SSF vs. Peninsula
Selection Rate of Workers 90.7% 109.1% 94.5% 114.5% 256.5% 88.6%101.1% 97.2%
Selection Rate of Households 87.9%68.2%62.5%105.4%96.8%104.7%88.9%137.2%
Weighted Average Selection Rate 90.1% 102.7% 84.7% 111.7% 234.6% 99.8%97.8% 110.6%
WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF WORKERS AND RESIDENTS
ETHNICITYRACE
60
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page 15
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on this analysis, EPS concludes that the City of South San Francisco is well-
positioned to implement a preference policy that prioritizes local residents and workers
without creating disparate impacts on specific racial or ethnic groups. The inclusion of
local workers in the prioritization is particularly important to achieving this result.
However, it is clear from the analysis that certain groups will likely receive more than
their “fair share” of affordable units, while others may receive less, despite not appearing
to violate the “4/5 Test.”
To further guard against the potential for disparate impacts on certain groups, the City
may consider applying the local preference policy to only a portion of the affordable
units. For example, creating a prioritization system that applies local preferences to half
of the affordable units while offering the other half through a general lottery that does
not include special priorities for local residents and workers may result in more equitable
outcomes for the broader population not currently able to live or work in the city.
Alternatively or in addition, expanding eligibility to include individuals with historical ties
to South San Francisco, such as those who lived or worked in the city within the last five
years, could broaden access while maintaining a focus on local connections. Our research
also suggests that these approaches align with practices in several neighboring cities.
61
Local Preference Ordinance
City Council
March 12, 2025
62
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 more limited policy 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
63
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
64
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council to consider the
introduction of 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.
65
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.
66
Fair Housing Law Considerations
•Fair housing law must be
considered when providing a
preference
•Fair housing law provides a three-
step legal defense process
•Must fail all three subsequent
defenses to be successfully
challenged
•Disparate Impact Analysis found
no meaningful discriminatory
impacts
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
Most defensible
Least defensible
1
2
3
67
Disparate Impact Analysis
1.No selection rate below 80% policy aligns with legal best practice
2.Prior households not analyzed = proposed policy will likely equalize rates
(SSF vs.
Peninsula)White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian /
Pacific
Islander
Two or
more /
Other
Hispanic
or Latino
Worker
Selection Rate
90.7%109.1%94.5%114.5%256.5%88.6%97.2%
Household
Selection Rate
87.9%68.2%62.5%105.4%96.8%104.7%137.2%
Weighted
Average
Selection Rate
[current policy]
90.1%102.7%84.7%111.7%234.6%99.8%110.6%
68
Displacement & Prior Displaced
•2012-2022: 36% decrease in
Hispanic/Latino households in
SSF making under $150,000
•Decrease especially acute for
households making under
$75,000
•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
69
Policy Structure
70
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
71
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)
72
Applicable Properties
The proposed policy applies to deed-restricted affordable
properties resulting from:
•City inclusionary housing requirements
•State Density Bonus units
•Developments acquired, constructed, or rehabilitated with City
financing
• Including 100% affordable projects
73
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
74
Council Action
Staff recommends the City Council to consider the
introduction of 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.
75
Questions?
76
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:24-1126 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7a.
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.
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 have to 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.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™77
File #:24-1126 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7a.
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 in the 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.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™78
File #:24-1126 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7a.
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 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), or the terms of City financing, City land disposition
agreement, or 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 regards 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 homebuyers for affordable residential unit(s) subject to the requirements of this Chapter, owners
of the affordable residential unit(s) shall implement a 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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™79
File #:24-1126 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:7a.
that potential renters and homebuyers 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 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 names 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.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/13/2025Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™80
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-248 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:8.
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 366 Grand Avenue (APN 012-312-310)
Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, ECD Director, and Ernesto Lucero, ECD Manager
Negotiating party: Stacey S. Dobos Trust
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™81
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-254 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:9.
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 201 Baden Avenue (APN 012-335-100 and APN 012-335-110)
Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, ECD Director, Tony Rozzi, ECD Deputy Director, Pierce Abrahamson, Management
Analyst II
Negotiating party: Firehouse Live LLC and Firehouse Work, LLC
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™82
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-253 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:10.
Public Employee Performance Evaluation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957)
Title: City Manager
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™83
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-230 Agenda Date:3/12/2025
Version:1 Item #:11.
Conference with Labor Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: Mayor Flores and Vice Mayor Addiego
Unrepresented employee: City Manager
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/7/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™84
NEIGHBORHOOD
TOWN HALL MEETING
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
District 2 Councilmember Mark Nagales
invites you to
Alice Bulos Community Center
at Westborough Park
2380 Galway Drive
South San Francisco, CA 94080
See reverse side for more information.
Wednesday, March 19, 2025
6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
City of South San Francisco
Post Office Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
(see reverse side)
Scan QR code or visit:
https://D2TownHall2025.eventbrite.com
Childcare is available if
RSVP is provided.
Questions? Call (650) 829-6520.
RSVP Today
Join Us on March 19
Indy is the City’s new tool to quickly address inquiries, provide information on a wide range of
city services, and allow you to submit service requests or communicate directly with city staff.
Text “Hello” to (844) 771-INDY (4639) or visit www.ssf.net.
Ask Indy
Public Safety Update from Police Chief
Scott Campbell
Traffic Update from Public Works
Deputy Director Dave Bockhaus
Westborough Childcare Expansion
Update from Capital Projects Director
Jake Gilchrist
Q&A with Councilmember Mark
Nagales
Refreshments will be provided
ID Start time Name / Nombre
Provide your comment(s) during:
Presentar sus comentarios durante:
Enter Agenda # below, if applicable.
Agregue el número de agenda, si
corresponde.
1 3/12/25 16:59:48 Sam Chetcuti
Public Comments & Consent Calendar (Comentarios Públicos &
Calendario de Consentimiento);
2 3/12/25 18:44:28 Olga Perez
Public Comments & Consent Calendar (Comentarios Públicos &
Calendario de Consentimiento);
3 3/12/25 18:45:31 Patricia Althaus
Public Comments & Consent Calendar (Comentarios Públicos &
Calendario de Consentimiento);
4 3/12/25 0:00:00 Fionnola Villamejor Item #7