HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 144-2018 (18-647)City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Council
Resolution: RES 144 -2018
File Number: 18 -647 Enactment Number: RES 144 -2018
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROGRAM YEAR (PY) 2017 -18
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION
REPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL TO
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( "HUD ") requires communities
receiving Community Development Block Grant ( "CDBG ") funds to submit a year -end Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report ( "CAPER "); and
WHEREAS, as required by federal law, the CAPER has been available for public review in the
Economic and Community Development Department office, the City's public libraries, and on the City's
website since August 28, 2018; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published in the San Mateo County Times on August 28,
2018; and
WHEREAS, in PY 2017 -18 the City expended $925,181 in CDBG funding and $11,437 in HOME
administrative funding received from the San Mateo County HOME Consortium to carry out a broad
range of community development activities; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2018, the City held a duly noticed public hearing on the FY 2017 -2018
CAPER for the CDBG Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve the PY 2017 -18 CAPER and authorize its submittal to
HUD.
NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does
hereby approves the PY 2017 -18 CAPER.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to submit the PY
2017 -18 CAPER to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to take any other
actions as necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
City of South San Francisco Page 1
File Number: 18 -647
Enactment Number: RES 144 -2018
At a meeting of the City Council on 9/12/2018, a motion was made by Pradeep Gupta, seconded by Liza
Normandy, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 4 Mayor Normandy, Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto, Councilmember Gupta, and
Councilmember A.ddie2o
Absent: 1 CouucilmejxKer Garbarino
by
li
City of South San Francisco Page 2
City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 400 Grand Ave. South San Francisco, CA,
PY 2017 CDBG
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
REPORT (CAPER)
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 1
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
CR‐05 ‐ Goals and Outcomes
Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan.
91.520(a)
This could be an overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that were proposed and executed
throughout the program year.
The City made significant progress against the goals in the Program Year 2017 (PY 2017) Annual Action
Plan. Below is a brief overview of the programs and projects supported through the PY 2017 CDBG
program. PY 2017 is the last program year on the City’s 2013‐2017 Consolidated Plan, and the below
programs were evaluated for both their performance during PY 2017 as well as progress against the five
year goals established in the Consolidated Plan. The complete table of service goals and outcomes is
below as Table 1.
City Sponsored Housing Rehab Program
The City issued 1 Emergency Repair Voucher, and continues to revamp the housing rehabilitation loan
program and the Debris Box and Emergency Home Repair Voucher program to promote more
participation.
Minor Home Repair Programs
Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID). The City used CDBG funds to support CID’s
Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program which provided accessibility modifications to six
households;
Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP). The City used CDBG funds to support two RTP programs, National
Rebuilding Day, which provided repairs for three households, and Safe at Home which served sixteen
households in total;
El Concilio. The City used CDBG funds to support El Concilio’s Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program
with a total of four households.
Public Services
Public service providers provided services to 690 youth, seniors, persons with disabilities, and low‐
income persons and families.
Housing and homeless services providers provided services to 309 persons either experiencing
homelessness or at risk of homelessness.
Public Infrastructure Improvements
The City resurfaced the Alta Loma Park play area, which provided fully accessible and flood resistant play
space for children in low‐ and moderate‐income neighborhoods.
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 2
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
The City improved the HVAC system at the Magnolia Senior Center to improve health and safety for
seniors, and to improve energy efficiency and facility sustainability.
The City installed beacons at W. Orange Avenue and Grand Avenue to improve bicycle and pedestrian
safety in the downtown area.
The City resurfaced and restriped the Magnolia Senior Center and Siebecker Preschool parking lots,
which improved ADA accessibility for both the seniors that use the facility and families with young
children that use the preschool facility, and addressed long‐standing drainage issues.
Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted
with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward
meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g)
Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators,
units of measure, targets, actual outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the
grantee’s program year goals.
The table below provides detailed review of the programs and projects funded through the CDBG
program and includes progress against the 2013‐2018 Consolidated and Strategic Plans.
Table 1 ‐ Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
Dr
a
f
t
8/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
CA
P
E
R
3
OM
B
Co
n
t
r
o
l
No
:
25
0
6
‐01
1
7
(e
x
p
.
06
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
Ag
e
n
c
y
or
Op
e
r
a
t
o
r
Go
a
l
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
CD
B
G
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
In
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
Un
i
t
of
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Ex
p
.
5
yr
St
r
a
t
Pl
a
n
Ac
t
.
5
yr
St
r
a
t
Pl
a
n
%
Co
m
p
Ex
p
.
Pr
o
g
.
Yr
.
Actual Prog. Yr. % Comp
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
Ad
m
i
n
.
Ci
t
y
St
a
f
f
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Ad
m
i
n
.
an
d
Ov
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Ad
m
i
n
.
an
d
Ov
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
$9
2
,
1
2
3
An
n
u
a
l
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 100%
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Se
n
t
i
n
e
l
Fa
i
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Su
i
t
a
b
l
e
li
v
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
No
n
‐
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
HO
M
E
$1
1
,
4
3
7
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
50
60
12
0
%
16 13 81%
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
h
a
b
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
TO
T
A
L
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
$1
8
3
,
2
5
0
Ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
12
5
14
6
11
7
%
49 30 61%
CI
D
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
$1
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
NA
NA
NA
6 6 100%
El
Co
n
c
i
l
i
o
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
$3
7
,
5
0
0
Ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
NA
NA
NA
10 4 40%
Re
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
To
g
e
t
h
e
r
Re
b
u
i
l
d
Da
y
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
$1
5
,
7
5
0
Ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
NA
NA
NA
3 3 100%
Re
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
To
g
e
t
h
e
r
Sa
f
e
at
Ho
m
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
$7
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
NA
NA
NA
20 16 80%
Ci
t
y
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
Re
h
a
b
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
$5
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Un
i
t
NA
NA
NA
10 1 10%
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
Dr
a
f
t
8/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
CA
P
E
R
4
OM
B
Co
n
t
r
o
l
No
:
25
0
6
‐01
1
7
(e
x
p
.
06
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
TO
T
A
L
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
Su
i
t
a
b
l
e
li
v
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
No
n
‐
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
$5
6
,
4
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
50
0
0
43
3
6
87
%
878 999 132%
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ov
e
r
c
o
m
i
n
g
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
Ab
u
s
e
(C
O
R
A
)
Su
i
t
a
b
l
e
li
v
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
No
n
‐
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
$1
0
,
8
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
3 4 133%
He
a
l
t
h
Mo
b
i
l
e
De
n
t
a
l
Ca
r
e
fo
r
Ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
Su
i
t
a
b
l
e
li
v
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
No
n
‐
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
$9
,
0
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
115 117 102%
Jo
h
n
Pa
p
a
n
Me
m
o
r
i
a
l
Jo
h
n
'
s
Cl
o
s
e
t
Su
i
t
a
b
l
e
li
v
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
No
n
‐
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
$5
,
4
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
80 61 76%
Le
g
a
l
Ai
d
So
c
i
e
t
y
of
Sa
n
Ma
t
e
o
Su
i
t
a
b
l
e
li
v
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
No
n
‐
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
$1
0
,
8
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
190 309 163%
Om
b
u
d
s
m
a
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
of
Sa
n
Ma
t
e
o
Su
i
t
a
b
l
e
li
v
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
No
n
‐
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
$1
0
,
0
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
90 154 171%
Ra
p
e
Tr
a
u
m
a
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Su
i
t
a
b
l
e
li
v
i
n
g
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
No
n
‐
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
$1
0
,
8
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
44 45 102%
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
Dr
a
f
t
8/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
CA
P
E
R
5
OM
B
Co
n
t
r
o
l
No
:
25
0
6
‐01
1
7
(e
x
p
.
06
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
Su
p
p
o
r
t
TO
T
A
L
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
$3
3
,
8
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
fo
r
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
In
c
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
In
c
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
In
c
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
In
c
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Inc. Public Services Inc. Public Services
HI
P
Ho
m
e
Sh
a
r
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
,
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
$1
0
,
8
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Se
n
i
o
r
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
11 17 155%
Sa
m
a
r
i
t
a
n
Ho
u
s
e
Sa
f
e
Ha
r
b
o
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
$1
5
,
5
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
fo
r
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
325 278 86%
St
a
r
Vi
s
t
a
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
$7
,
5
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
fo
r
Lo
w
/
M
o
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
e
d
NA
NA
NA
20 14 70%
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
v
i
e
w
Dr
a
f
t
8/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
CA
P
E
R
6
OM
B
Co
n
t
r
o
l
No
:
25
0
6
‐01
1
7
(e
x
p
.
06
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
c
t
.
Ci
t
y
St
a
f
f
,
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
No
n
‐Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$6
3
7
,
3
8
1
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
5
11
22
0
%
3 4 133%
HV
A
C
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s at
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
Se
n
i
o
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
No
n
‐Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$3
3
,
5
9
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
wi
t
h
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
NA
NA
NA
79
8
5
7985 100%
We
s
t
Or
a
n
g
e
an
d
Gr
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
No
n
‐Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$3
4
1
,
1
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
wi
t
h
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
NA
NA
NA
96
4
0
9640 100%
Al
t
a
Lo
m
a
Pa
r
k
Re
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
No
n
‐Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$7
2
,
2
9
7
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
wi
t
h
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
NA
NA
NA
65
8
5
6585 100%
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
Se
n
i
o
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
an
d
SI
e
b
e
c
k
e
r
Pr
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
Re
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
No
n
‐Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$1
9
0
,
6
9
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
wi
t
h
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
NA
NA
NA
11
7
8
5
11785 100%
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
.
*
Ci
t
y
St
a
f
f
,
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$0
Fa
ç
a
d
e
Tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
/
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
5
8
16
0
%
0 0 0%
*P
r
o
g
r
a
m
wa
s
no
t
in
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
in
PY
20
1
7
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 7
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and
specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority
activities identified.
Need. Affordable Housing.
Goal. Increase, maintain, and improve the supply of affordable housing for low to moderate income
individuals and families.
Activities Implemented. The City supported the rehabilitation and repair of 30 homes occupied by low‐
and moderate‐income households, and helped preserve the available supply of housing.
Need. Public Service.
Goal. Provide public services to improve the quality of life for low‐income individuals and families,
including those at risk of being homeless and special needs populations.
Activities Implemented. The City supported public services providers to provide services for 690 low‐
and moderate‐income persons, including youth, seniors, persons with a disability, and persons
experiencing domestic violence (not including homeless services).
Need. Homeless services and housing.
Goal. Provide service‐enriched shelter and housing for homeless families and individuals.
Activities Implemented. Funding for homeless services and housing was implemented under the
public service category to support services for 309 persons.
Need. Public Improvements.
Goal. Preserve and improve public facilities that serve a high percentage of low‐income
or special needs residents
Activities Implemented. During PY 2017 the City completed 4 public improvements projects: 1)
resurfacing of Alta Loma Park play area, which provided fully accessible and flood resistant play space
for children in adjacent low‐ and moderate‐income neighborhoods, 2) HVAC improvements at the
Magnolia Senior Center to improve health and safety for seniors and improve site sustainability and
energy efficiency, 3) installation of beacons at W. Orange Avenue and Grand Avenue to improve
bicycle and pedestrian safety in the downtown area, and 4) resurfacing of the Magnolia Senior Center
and Siebecker Preschool parking lots, which improved ADA accessibility, parking lot safety, and site
drainage.
Need. Economic Development.
Goal. Sustain and/or increase the level of business and economic activity in areas that serve or have a
high percentage of low‐income residents.
Activities Implemented. During the development of the 2013‐2018 Consolidated Plan, the City
identified a strategic goal of 5 façade rehabilitations in the downtown area for the planning period.
During the first three years of the Consolidated Plan, the City completed 8 façade improvements, at
160% of goal. The City did not operate the Façade Improvement Program during PY 2017, and instead
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 8
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
focused on other public infrastructure improvements, such as pedestrian beacons, that would also
help to support economic development.
CR‐10 ‐ Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted
Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted).
91.520(a)
Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds
Race or Ethnicity CDBG
White 609
Black or African American 140
Asian 105
American Indian or American Native 23
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 46
American Indian or American Native and White 10
Asian and White 3
Black or African American and White 29
American Indian or American Native and Black 0
Other 77
Total 1042
Hispanic 349
Not Hispanic 693
Narrative
Table 2 above shows the race and ethnic distribution of services across households and persons. The
above numbers do not include the public infrastructure and facilities programs, which are tabulated by
census block group. According to the 2015 American Community Survey provided through the U.S.
Census Bureau, the race and ethnic distribution across the City of South San Francisco as below:
Race or Ethnicity Percent of Total
Population
White 36.7%
Black or African American 2.4%
Asian 38.1%
American Indian or American Native .2%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2.5%
American Indian or American Native and White .9%
Asian and White 1.5%
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 9
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Black or African American and White .4%
American Indian or American Native and Black .01%
Other 14.9%
Hispanic 34.5%
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 10
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
CR‐15 ‐ Resources and Investments 91.520(a)
Identify the resources made available
Table 3 ‐ Resources Made Available
Source of Funds Source Resources Made
Available
Amount Expended
During Program Year
CDBG CDBG $1,074,271 $835,595
Other Other $11,437 $11,437
Narrative
PY 2017 was exceptionally challenging for the City in terms of resources. A reconciliation of prior year
program funding roll‐over and unreliable Program Income receipts resulted in far more resources being
available than the City had originally programmed. Additionally, in PY 2016 the City significantly
underestimated the amount of Program Income, which resulted in a failure to meet HUD’s timeliness
requirements. To meet HUD’s May timeliness requirements for PY 2017, the City prepared a workout
plan with HUD’s direction, which assisted with getting spending back on schedule. As a result, the City
was able to spend exceess funding ahead of HUD’s May timeliness deadline in PY 2017. The City will
continue to focus on funding shovel ready projects that provide maximum benefit to the community in
PY 2018, and will prioritize funding for projects that will help meet timeliness.
Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments
Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments
Target Area Planned
Percentage
of Allocation
Actual
Percentage
of Allocation
Narrative Description
Downtown, Uptown,
Orange/Lindenville,
Camino/Sunshine &
Westborough 33% 68%
Increased expenditures in the
public infrastructure program
increased the percentage of funding
spent in the CDBG target areas.
Narrative
The City designates these areas as target areas for funding services because a majority of those who
reside and/or receive services in this area are low‐ and moderate‐income. Therefore, improvements
made to this area, through activities like public right of way accessibility improvements and public
facility improvements that provide additional access to residents and neighborhoods are supported
through the CDBG program.
Leveraging
Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds),
including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any
publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the
needs identified in the plan.
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 11
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
The non‐profit organizations that received CDBG funding leveraged their CDBG grants with their own
funding from foundations, state and county grants, private donors, corporations, in‐kind donors, and/or
fees for service. The City also leveraged CDBG funds with local funds in the public infrastructure
projects.
CR‐20 ‐ Affordable Housing 91.520(b)
Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the
number and types of families served, the number of extremely low‐income, low‐income,
moderate‐income, and middle‐income persons served.
Table 5 – Number of Households
One‐Year Goal Actual
Number of homeless households to be
provided affordable housing units
0 0
Number of non‐homeless households
to be provided affordable housing
units
0 0
Number of special‐needs households
to be provided affordable housing
units
0 0
Total 0 0
Table 6 – Number of Households Supported
One‐Year Goal Actual
Number of households supported
through rental assistance
0 0
Number of households supported
through the production of new units
0 0
Number of households supported
through the rehab of existing units
49 30
Number of households supported
through the acquisition of existing
units
0 0
Total 49 30
Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting
these goals.
This year, the City served 30 households through the following housing rehabilitation
programs/projects: Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID) Housing Accessibility
Modification (HAM) Program, El Concilio’s Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program, the City‐Sponsored
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 12
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Housing Rehabilitation Program, and both the Rebuilding Together Peninsula’s (RTP) Safe at Home and
National Rebuilding Day programs.
CID ‐ HAM Program: CID was able to meet its goal and provided accessibility modifications to 6 low‐
income households.
El Concilio’s Peninsula Minor Home Repair Program: Under Peninsula Minor Home Repair, El Concilio
interviewed, enrolled and assessed four households in the City of South San Francisco. El Concilio
struggled with meeting rehabilitation goals in PY 2017 due to consuming costs associated with
administering the program. City staff met with El Concilio to discuss how to best address obstacles that
have been preventing the organization from meeting goals. As a result, El Concilio will be modifying their
program budget and operations during PY 2018 to help address both increased construction and
increased administration costs.
City‐Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program: The City issued no loans, and no Debris Box Vouchers,
and one Emergency Repair Vouchers. The City is revamping the housing rehabilitation program to
improve resident participation, including adding marketing and revising program guidelines. The City is
also looking at ways to partner with other agencies, both in the City and in neighborhing jurisdictions to
find more effective ways to operate onging rehabilitation programs. Future partnering efforting include
working with Code Enforcement and neighborhood associations to improve participation in the Debris
Box Voucher and Emergency Repair Voucher programs, and working with other members of the
Consortium to see if it is possible to develop a regional home repair loan program.
RTP – Safe at Home Program: RTP served 16 clients, three of whom were female led households. This
year, RTP’s biggest challenge was being short a service technician, thus unable to meet its goal. RTP also
met with City staff to discuss budget and program adjustments to help them meet goals and improve
overall program performance in PY 2018.
RTP ‐ National Rebuilding Day: National Rebuilding Day is completed annually in April where
approximately 3,000 volunteers give their time and skills to help neighbors live more independently in
safer, cleaner, and healthier environments. RTP met its goals and served three South San Francisco
households as part of National Rebuilding Day.
Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans.
Both El Concilio and RTP failed to meet their annual goals during PY 2017. Both expressed that the
primary challenge was the absence of an administrative funding budget. Because of this, El Concilio and
RTP had to consume the increasing administration costs, resulting in fewer total projects being
completed. A budget for administrative funding would greatly assist El Concilio and RTP with activity
delivery, outreach, and other program costs, and consequently rise to meet their goals.
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 13
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
With recommendations from HUD, in order to help service providers increase the number of households
that they are able to serve, the City worked with each service provider to determine a fair administrative
and project delivery cost for implementing their respective overall program’s scope of work.
All of the rehabilitation programs received slight increases in funding with expected increases in goals
for PY 2018, and the City will be monitoring closely to evaluate the impact that the increase funds have
on performance.
Include the number of extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income persons
served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine
the eligibility of the activity.
Table 7 – Number of Households Served
Number of Households Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual
Extremely Low‐income 845
Low‐income 98 8
Moderate‐income 92 5
Above Moderate‐income (seniors) 7
Total 1042 13
Narrative Information
99.3% of households served met the CDBG income requirements of either being extremely low income
(30% or less of AMI*), low income (31‐50% of AMI*), or moderate income (51‐80% of AMI*). Only .07%
of program participants were above moderate‐income.
The City uses HOME funding through the San Mateo Consortium to fund Project Sentinel’s Fair Housing
efforts. Those clients are reported under the HOME column.
*AMI = Area Median Income
CR‐25 ‐ Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c)
Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending
homelessness through:
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their
individual needs
The Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) a multi‐disciplinary, bilingual program that was created in South
San Francisco three years ago, continued their work this year. The HOT Program has a full‐time case
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 14
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
manager that works, in collaboration with the City’s police, to identify and serve the most difficult, long
term homeless individuals by placing them in emergency shelters and connecting them with County
medical and rehabilitation services. So far, the HOT Program has been very successful and has provided
many HOT clients with needed medical care and identification cards, signed HOT clients up for
assistance programs such as Supplement Security Income (SSI), and placed HOT clients into emergency
shelter or other housing programs such as the Veterans Affairs (VA) Housing Vouchers.
Additionally, on a monthly basis the HOT Program holds a Case Managers Meeting that brings together
homeless providers, other social service providers, County staff, City staff, City Police and the HOT case
manager to discuss current issues with HOT clients and to identify potential solutions. Additionally,
there is a HOT Steering Committee comprised of elected officials, program managers, and City staff who
work to make larger program‐wide and policy level changes to improve the homeless outreach, services
and prevention efforts in South San Francisco and County‐wide.
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
Samaritan House – Safe Harbor
This year, the City has provided Samaritan House CDBG funding to operate the Safe Harbor Shelter. Safe
Harbor provides emergency (less than 30 days) and transitional (30 days to six months) shelter, for
single homeless adults over age 18 in South San Francisco.
Safe Harbor provided shelter to 278 South San Francisco residents missing their goal by 14%.
This year, Safe Harbor underwent renovations. The interior of the shelter was repainted and the carpet
was removed and replaced with tile, which is more sanitary and easier to clean and maintain. These
updates also support the eventual policy change regarding animals. Currently, Safe Harbor clients are
able to have service animals, including emotional support animals. Safe Harbor took the first steps toward
allowing non-service animals by meeting with the San Mateo County Human Services Agency and Animal
Control & Licensing to tour the premises and prepare for kennels. This effort supports Samaritan House’s
commitment to reducing barriers to entry for those most in need. These improvements will provide long
term benefits for future clients, however they did cause a small disruption in PY 2017 overall
performance.
Samaritan House also employs a Housing Placement Specialist that provides housing placement services
for homeless clients addressing their transitional housing needs.
CORA
CORA assisted four South San Francisco clients in 2017, exceeding their goal by 34%. Four years ago,
CORA was able to re‐organize their programmatic departments. This process resulted in the creation of
the Crisis Intervention Department which is comprised of CORA’s 24‐hour hotline, Emergency Response
Program collaboration with law enforcement, and the two emergency shelters. CORA also combined its
Mental Health program, Children’s Program, and Supportive Housing Programs under the newly formed
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 15
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Family Support Services Department. The other departments (Legal, Community Education,
Administration, and Development) remain unchanged. As these changes have evolved and settled in,
staff has reported being better supported and services more enriched. This new structure also is poising
the agency for growth.
In addition to the funding provided to these two non‐profits, the City was able to make non‐monetary
efforts to address the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons by
continuing to actively participate in the Continuum of Care (CoC) Steering Committee and Project
Performance Subcommittee. This year, the CoC focused on creating ways to better evaluate and
improve the effectiveness of the County’s homeless programs to align with objectives set forth in the
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Action (HEARTH), and the federal
strategic plan, Opening Doors. The CoC continue to work towards set standards. These are:
1. Percentage of exits to permanent housing;
2. Housing retention rate;
3. Participants obtaining employment income during program participation;
4. Participants increasing total income during program participation;
5. Program occupancy levels;
6. CoC/Emergency Solution Grant (ESG) spending rates; and
7. Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data quality.
These performance measures will allow the CoC to identify areas of improvement and better address
the needs of homeless persons.
Helping low‐income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely
low‐income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after
being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care
facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections
programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that
address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs
Legal Aid conducted legal services clinics between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, where tenants
received assistance with evictions, rent increases, repairs, housing discrimination, security deposits, and
other legal questions pertaining to housing stability. A total of 88 South San Francisco households were
served, at 163% of goal.
Project Sentinel provides comprehensive fair housing services including complaint investigation,
community outreach, and education to San Mateo County residents. Project Sentinel assisted a total of
13 South San Francisco residents this year through their various services (case investigations,
consultations, and referrals).
HIP Housing’s Home Sharing program interviews and screens clients for housing, provides housemate,
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 16
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
alternative housing, and community resources to clients with the potential of matching persons in
affordable home sharing arrangements. 17 persons were matched with households and provided
housing during PY 2017.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families
with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that
individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals
and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again
As mentioned previously, the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) has been very successful in placing HOT
clients in housing and connecting them with needed services. Samaritan House provided services to 278
persons in need of transitional housing. StarVista works with emancipated foster youth to stabilize their
housing situation and served 14 clients during PY 2017. The Life Moves (formerly InnVision Shelter
Network), and family homeless shelter in Daly City, Family Crossroads, underwent major rehabilitation
and seismic retrofitting in 2015, is now open and serving clients.
The City continues to work with the CoC to address homeless needs in the community.
CR‐30 ‐ Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j)
Actions taken to address the needs of public housing
The South San Francisco Public Housing Authority (SSFPHA) operates as a separate entity and submits its
own action plans and performance reports to HUD separately from the City of South San Francisco. The
SSFPHA manages 80 units of affordable public housing. Information about the needs and strategy of the
SSFPHA can be found in the SSFPHA’s AAP.
Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in
management and participate in homeownership
Not applicable
Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs
The PHA is not troubled.
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 17
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
CR‐35 ‐ Other Actions 91.220(j)‐(k); 91.320(i)‐(j)
Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as
barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning
ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the
return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i)
The City took the following actions to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that
serve as barriers to affordable housing:
The City’s municipal code provides SSFMC section 20.390 provides incentives to developers for
the production of housing that is affordable to lower and moderate‐income residents.
Continued to implement the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; this requires that a
percentage of new “for sale” residential units are made available as Below Market Rate (BMR)
units for low income residents. The City will also continue to support its existing BMR units.
The City’s General Plan, and specifically the Housing Element, includes policies that support the
development of affordable housing. Two years ago, the 2015‐2023 Housing Element was
adopted by State Housing and Community Development.
The City continued to support the rehabilitation of existing housing stock by using CDBG funding
to support home repair programs, including El Concilio, the Center of Independence of
Individuals with Disabilities’ (CID) Housing Accessibility Modification Program, Rebuilding
Together Peninsula, and the City‐Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program.
The City continued to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an active interest in
seeking solutions to area‐wide housing problems.
Continued to investigate new sources of funding for the City's affordable housing programs and
working with non‐profit developers to promote the development of housing affordable to lower
income households. Three years ago, the City accepted the Rotary Housing Development
application which will provide 81 affordable senior housing units downtown. This project is
currently under construction.
Continued to consider a process to allow fee waivers or deferrals of planning, building, and
impact fees for affordable housing developments.
Reduced government and public infrastructure constraints to affordable housing development
through administrative support, inter‐governmental cooperation, public‐private partnerships,
and permit streamlining.
Implementing zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of land to meet its Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) regional housing needs allocation by adopting the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan which includes community benefits.
The City included in the Housing Element to consider a reduction in the minimum lot size for
downtown development properties to encourage affordable, small housing development and
Also included in the Housing Element is the option to reduce minimum development standards
for condominium construction from five to two units to encourage affordable housing
production.
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 18
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
Given the limited funds available, the City prioritized activities which provide maximum benefits to the
community. Many local service providers are also experiencing declines in both private and public
funding, which further hinder their capability to meet needs. The City addressed this obstacle by
continuing to look for new funding sources and find creative ways to leverage and utilize existing
funding. Additionally, the City encouraged collaboration amongst itself, other jurisdictions, and non‐
profits. The majority of the City’s CDBG funds were allocated to supporting housing rehabilitation and
public right of way improvement projects because they are not restricted by spending limitations and
are highly impactful. A major funding obstacle continued to be sufficiently supporting the wide variety of
crucial public services needed in the City due to federal spending limits specific to public services. While
this need far exceeded the funds available to provide those services, this year, the City selected those
activities which would be most effective.
Actions taken to reduce lead‐based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
The City continued to incorporate lead testing and lead safe work practices into all rehabilitation
projects it funds. Additionally, the City continued to provide lead‐based paint information available on
its website, to all the local non‐profit agencies, to homeowners and renters. The City also provided loans
and grants to homeowners and public facilities to abate lead‐based paint hazards.
Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty‐level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
Housing
Safe and affordable housing is an essential component in the efforts to reduce poverty. With the loss of
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funding, the City was unable to contribute to the development of new
affordable housing. However, the City did make efforts to maintain the existing supply of affordable
housing by funding multiple home rehabilitation activities (See Section CR‐20 ‐ Affordable Housing). The
City also continued to operate its 16 affordable housing units and oversee the Below Market Rate (BMR)
Program. In addition City staff fielded numerous phone calls and in person inquiries regarding
information on affordable housing. These resource packets, along with the City’s website, are updated
on a regular basis with affordable housing information.
Public Services
As mentioned, the City funds and/or supports a variety of non‐profit organizations that provide housing
assistance, food, child care, clothing, health services, legal services, and other emergency services to
low‐income residents. The City also promotes communication and collaboration among the nonprofits
to avoid duplication of efforts and to be able to provide more comprehensive/”wrap around” services
for low‐income residents. Additionally, the City has in‐house programs that also helped residents
improve their economic opportunities. For example, the City’s Community Learning Center offered
classes in English, computers, native language literacy, job training, and citizenship along with providing
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 19
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
activities for children.
Economic Development
The City also takes on various economic development efforts to attract and retain businesses and jobs in
South San Francisco. The City continues to operate the Business Cooperation Program (BCP) which seeks
to lower the cost of doing business in the City. This program consists of three elements:
1. Contacting the major businesses and developers to assess how the City’s economic
development efforts can be altered to meet their needs, and let them know the City is
supportive of their business efforts;
2. Providing information on the City’s commercial (Property Assessed Clean Energy) PACE program
to assist in financing improvements that will save energy for the businesses and achieve the
City’s Climate Action Goals, and providing information on other business support programs such
as Employment Training Panel (ETP) assistance, and the Governor’s Office of Business and
Economic Development (Go‐Biz) financial programs; and
3. Ask for participation in the City’s proposed Sales and Use Tax Program that will retain these
taxes locally instead of them being allocated to the County sales Tax pool.
The City has also partnered with several regional agencies and organizations that focus on job growth.
For example, City staff works closely with Skyline College’s Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) program that assists high school students, the Bay Area Entrepreneur Center
(BAEC), a business incubator/accelerator and resource center for start‐up companies, and early stage
companies, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, and ChinaSF.
Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
The City made the following efforts to improve and/or develop institutional structure:
Continued to work with the other local jurisdiction as part of the CDBG "Work Group" to
increase collaboration and make administrative and monitoring processes standardized and
electronic/automated. For example, the CDBG Work Group moved the environmental review
and project approval process for minor home repair programs into an online format.
Continued to serve on the Continuum of Care (CoC) Steering Committee and is involved in all
CoC decision‐making. The CoC Steering Committee is the organized group that guides the
implementation of San Mateo County's homeless services system. The CoC undertakes a wide
range of efforts to meet the needs of homeless persons and those at risk of homelessness.
Continued to build and improve relationships with local service providers.
The City has had challenges with meeting timeliness in spending, resulting from unpredictable program
income receipts and changes in program and project subscription. The City is actively reviewing and
improving under‐served programs, and reprogramming funds from programs that have met set goals
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 20
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
and are no longer in high demand. The City met timeliness in PY 2017 and completed the HUD
requiremed workout plan. However, to improve overall project management, staff will continue to
utilize a simplified workout plan to help meet HUD’s timeliness requirement. The City will also continue
to employ staff dedicated to the CDBG program to help continue improvement in program operations
and project management.
Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service
agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)
The City took following actions to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social
service agencies:
Continued to collaborate with the County of San Mateo, private housing developers, lenders,
and non‐profit housing developers in order to create more affordable housing.
Continued to participate in the CDBG "Work Group" and to improve CDBG administrative
processes for both sub‐recipients and City staff.
Continued to fund non‐profit agencies serving low‐income residents
Encouraged collaboration and cooperation among local service providers.
Continued to participate in the CoC Steering Committee.
Continued to work with HOT which brings together the HOT case manager, City police and staff,
homeless providers, and other social service providers.
Continued to participate in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and to serve on the San
Mateo County's Housing & Community Development Committee (HCDC)
Continued to build and improve relationships with local service providers.
Continued working with regional economic development groups and promote economic
development collaborations.
Continued to work with businesses and the Chamber of Commerce on downtown beautification
and other projects to improve the downtown
Continued to finance and support the City sponsored housing rehab program.
Worked with El Concilio, RTP and CID to coordinate housing repair and rehabilitation needs
throughout the community.
Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the
jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a)
During PY 2016 the City participated in a regional Assessment of Fair Housing. The Assessment of Fair
Housing provides new goals and metrics by which the City will work to address fair housing issues in the
community. The assessment was completed in PY 2017 and approved by HUD. The City used the
assessment as a tool in preparing the new 2018‐2022 Consolidated Plan that will guide implementation
in the CDBG program for the next five years.
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 21
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
Other actions currently under way include:
The City continued to support testing and enforcement activities, efforts to educate landlords
and property management companies about fair housing law, and efforts to educate housing
consumers in fair housing rights.
The City continued to support investigations into actual cases, and efforts to educate housing
providers about requirements for reasonable accommodation or modification.
The City continued to support efforts by outside groups to educate buyers through credit
counseling and home purchase training.
Project Sentinel was able to identify and evaluate the causes of denial of HUD funding in
2012. Project Sentinel received $11,437 in CDBG funding in PY 2017.
Project Sentinel was audited by City staff on June 11, 2018. As a result, staff recommended to
improve records of income verification by including what is required in outreach materials, and
to log interaction with clients around income verification requests.
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 22
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
CR‐40 ‐ Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance
of the plan and used to ensure long‐term compliance with requirements of the programs
involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning
requirements
The City uses the Consolidated Subrecipient Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan) that was developed by
the entitlement jurisdictions in San Mateo County to review performance over a period of time and to
evaluate compliance of non‐profit subrecipients funded with CDBG funding. The Monitoring Plan
specifies the criteria the City uses to determine potential areas and levels of risk, which include quarterly
desk reviews, new subrecipients or organizational change, cumulative grant award amount,
administrative history, program performance, and financial capacity. On a quarterly basis, the City
conducts a limited review of all subrecipients, which includes reviewing quarterly performance reports
and expense summaries that are submitted by the subrecipients. These quarterly performance reports
update staff as to whether the non‐profit is meeting its annual objectives and the status of the program.
Additionally, the City will conduct on‐site monitoring reviews of those subrecipients the City determines
to have potential risks and/or have not been monitored in recent years. The on‐site monitoring consists
of a programmatic and fiscal review of files, a tour of the program facilities as appropriate, an
explanation of the services provided, discussions with program and administrative staff, and
introduction to one or more actual beneficiaries, if possible. Also, the City can conduct in‐depth reviews,
if needed, which typically consist of a concentrated review of a known high‐risk area or critical function.
During PY 2017, the City was able to review and monitor several shared services providers and verify
that the projects were in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies related to CDBG.
The Human Investment Partnership – Home Sharing Program was monitored with the consortium in PY
2017. Additionally, the City monitored El Concilio of San Mateo County – Peninsula Minor Home Repair
for both their PY 2015 and PY 2016 programs to help identify ongoing challenges and propose new
solutions. Other agencies were monitoried remotely via desk review.
Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d)
Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to
comment on performance reports.
Public Notification Efforts
A notice announcing the 15‐day public comment period and a public hearing for the CAPER was
published in the San Mateo County Times on August 28, 2018 and a public hearing will be held on
September 12, 2018. All notices informed citizens about the purpose of the CAPER and invited them to
review the document and to either submit comments or provide them at the public hearing. All notices
included the phone number and address of the Economic & Community Development (ECD) office in
order to address any community inquiries. This notification was written in English and Spanish in an
Public Review Draft 8/28/2018
CAPER 23
OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)
effort to reach the City’s Spanish language community. Draft copies of this report were made available
at all public libraries, at the City’s ECD office, and on the City’s main website. Additionally, an email
notification was sent out to local non‐profits and CDBG sub‐recipients.
Summary of Citizen Comments
Pending Close of Public Comment Period.
CR‐45 ‐ CDBG 91.520(c)
Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives
and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its
experiences.
The City did not experience any changes in its program objectives this year. All of this year’s CDBG
activities addressed one of the objectives that were identified in the FY2017‐2018 AAP. Each year, the
City conducts a needs assessment and reviews the prior year performance of each CDBG activity before
it allocates funding. This is to ensure that CDBG funding is being used to meet the City’s objectives for
the year, and to make sure the CDBG program is alilgned with the applicable Consolidated Plan.
Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
grants?
No