Ex. C - Housing Element 2023-2031 with appendices — South San Francisco City Council, January 25, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

Accessible housing near
transit
Reduce parking minimums
for developments within 0.5
miles of transit. Eliminate
parking minimums entirely
for developments within 0.5
miles of transit that serve
residents with disabilities
Parking minimums raise the price of
housing and de facto subsidize car
ownership. Especially when located
near transit, these policies impose a
significant burden on housing. In the
cases of low-income households,
which can typically afford no or
and low-, very low-, or
extremely low-income
households.
limited car ownership, and the
disabled, these policies become
entirely superfluous.

The Equity Advisory Group recommends that every jurisdiction in San Mateo County implement these proposals to the best of their abilities. Implementing these policies will demonstrate your community’s commitment to affirmatively furthering fair housing for all.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kalisha Webster
Senior Housing Advocate, Housing Choices
Hyun-mi Kim
Housing Advocacy Director, Puente de la Costa Sur
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council
Signed on behalf of the 21 Elements Equity Advisory Group 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065-1064 • (650) 802-5550 • TDD (650) 802-5480 • Fax (650) 802-5564

June 30, 2022
RE: Policy recommendations for Housing Element Updates
Dear City and County Leaders,
On behalf of the San Mateo County Child Care Partnership Council (CCPC), the publicly appointed, state-mandated local child care planning entity for San Mateo County, and our partner Build Up San Mateo County, we are writing to encourage your city/county to include policies that support the development of child care facilities in your updated Housing Element. For working families with young children, having accessible child care near their home reduces traffic and commute times, and generally improves the quality of life for these residents. Including policies that are supportive of child care in or near housing is a straightforward way for cities to contribute to creating sustainable communities where families with young children can thrive. Your city/county’s Housing Element update provides an opportunity to address the housing and child care needs of all working families, while examining the housing and child care needs of special populations, such as single-parents and female-headed households, in particular.

High-quality child care is essential to families and to vibrant economic development, yet operators of potential new child care facilities face numerous barriers to opening new programs to meet community needs. While many of the challenges for child care facilities development are similar to housing, the child care sector lacks the mandates, financing sources or expertise that exist for housing developers. One of the biggest challenges is finding a location for a child care facility. Ideally, child care facilities are located in or near housing and close to family-friendly transportation options.

Housing affordability also affects the child care sector. In our high-cost area, family child care providers, those who provide licensed child care in their homes, may struggle to afford their rent or mortgage. As older providers retire, new providers cannot afford to buy homes in our communities. Those who rent a house or apartment often face business instability. In addition, child care programs across San Mateo County are struggling to hire enough workers – the child care workforce is predominantly low-income women of color. Many are struggling with their own housing needs.

In examining Housing Elements from throughout California, we have noted that a number of cities and counties have included goals and policies that support the development of child care in or near housing. We have compiled sample policies in the attached document in hopes that your city/county will include a number of them in your Housing Element update.

If you have questions or would like further support for connecting child care and housing in your city/county, please contact us: Sarah, 650-802-5647, [email protected], or Christine, 650-517-1436, [email protected].

Sincerely,
Christine Padilla
Sarah Kinahan Christine Padilla
Coordinator Director
San Mateo County Child Care Partnership Council Build Up San Mateo County Attachments: Sample Housing Element Language to Support Child Care near Housing Partner Organizations that Support Including Child Care Policies in Housing 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065-1064 • (650) 802-5550 • TDD (650) 802-5480 • Fax (650) 802-5564 Sample Housing Element Language to Support Child Care near Housing Jurisdictions are encouraged to include policy language as appropriate for their community.

1. Basic: identifying the linkage between housing and child care availability; and, if needed, ensuring alignment with state law in regard to Large Family Child Care Homes. • Support family housing that addresses residents’ needs for child care, youth services, recreation opportunities and access to transit.
• Ensure that zoning code and permitting practices are consistent with state law (2019) that prohibits use permits, business licenses, etc. for Large Family Child Care Homes. • Maintain the quality of life within neighborhoods by maintaining an adequate level of community facilities, such as child care centers and municipal services. • Facilitate and encourage the development of larger rental units appropriate for families with children, including the provision of supportive services such as family child care. • Support the provision of child care services, employment training, rental assistance, and other supportive services to enable households to be self-sufficient.
• Promote sustainable communities through locating housing near employment, transportation, child care and other community services.

2. Supportive: reducing barriers in zoning, permitting processes, fees, etc.; and promoting existing housing-related resources to Family Child Care Home Providers. • Encourage the siting and development of child care centers and family child care homes in all residential, mixed-use, and other zones where residences are permitted, for the convenience of families. • Encourage the establishment of child care centers in appropriate locations and consider modified zoning standards and review procedures and other incentives to facilitate their development. • Reduce permitting requirements or allow child care centers by right in some zones (and building types). • Allow child care facilities to serve as traffic mitigation measures. • Encourage the inclusion of space for child care in new housing developments, including affordable housing developments.
• Promote existing housing-related programs to Family Child Care Home providers, including but not limited to: fair housing counseling, housing rehabilitation loans, renovation/repair, first-time homebuyer and down payment assistance.

3. Proactive: engaging developers to build space for child care; providing land/financing. • Provide incentives for developers to provide child care facilities or services as part of new residential, commercial, and industrial developments, including but not limited to: density bonuses, increases in floor area ratios, parking reduction, community benefits credit, traffic impact fee exemption, expedited entitlements, or modifications to zoning regulations.
• Assess the demand for child care created by new housing developments. • Work proactively with all housing developers to incorporate, where feasible, child care that serves families of all incomes and children of all ages.
• Include child care facility space as a priority or required component in Request for Proposals (RFPs) for city land and Notices of Funding Available (NOFA) for affordable housing developments. • Support inclusion of specially designed and located housing units, in multi-family projects, for licensed Family Child Care Home providers. (Resource materials available) Sample language prepared in collaboration with Build Up California, https://buildupca.org City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
To the honorable South San Francisco City Council,
The Housing Leadership Council (HLC) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the city of South San Francisco’s housing element. HLC works with communities and their leaders to create and preserve quality affordable homes. We were founded by service providers and affordable housing professionals over 20 years ago to change the policies at the root cause of our housing shortage.

Over the past couple of years, South San Francisco has undergone a General Plan update, intended to accommodate the community’s housing needs through 2040. The Housing Leadership Council applauds SSF’s undertaking and the ambitious plan it has produced.

Independently of the housing element process, SSF has already implemented substantial upzoning in recent years, generating impressive new capacity. As a result, the city has over 3,500 proposed or approved units in its pipeline, already fulfilling a large portion of SSF’s 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Nonetheless, South San Francisco will continue to face challenges in planning for affordable housing, especially very low- and extremely low-income housing. Over the last housing element cycle, 16 low-income and 89 very low-income units were built in SSF, just 5.7% and 15.8% of the 5th cycle RHAN goal, respectively. Even with its recent rezonings in place, SSF has not yet demonstrated capacity to meet its very low-income RHNA obligation for the 6th RHNA cycle, much less its obligations for the other cycles slated to occur between now and 2040.

This letter provides proposals for changes and additions that will enable South San Francisco to meet its housing obligations for all residents regardless of income. The first part of this letter examines South San Francisco’s needs and constraints analyses. The second part evaluates South San Francisco’s goals, policies, and programs. HLC has not yet had a chance to review SSF’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis or site inventory, and we may provide additional comments later in the process elaborating on our findings upon review.

Needs and Constraints Analyses
State law requires housing elements to have several technical analyses, including an analysis of housing needs within the jurisdiction and an analysis of the governmental and nongovernmental constraints to meeting those housing needs. Each of these analyses must connect directly to the site inventory and the goals, policies, and programs of the housing element.

First and foremost, SSF’s needs analysis emphasizes the community’s limited supply of housing accessible to its very low- and extremely low-income households. 48.6% of SSF’s households are lower income; “70% of employed residents earn less than $75,000 annually and 52% of workers in South San Francisco job sites (whether they live in SSF or not) earn less than $75,000 annually.”1 The jobs housing balance has increased from 2.24 in 2002 to 3.24 in 2018.

Furthermore, from 2010 to 2020 median “Home prices increased by 114% from 2010 to 2020,” to $1,190,200.2 From 2009 to 2019, median rent increased by almost $1,000. Though SSF presents this data demonstrating the need for more deeply affordable housing, the city pursues few policies to promote such housing. As will be elaborated more in later sections, the city’s housing element Goal #3, “Remove Constraints to Housing Development,” does not make any substantial commitments to remove constraints. Though other sections directly address some significant identified special housing needs, such as housing for the disabled, few policies target production of general very low-income housing.

SSF’s housing element likely leaves some constraints unaddressed because the draft constraints analysis does not acknowledge very many of them. According to the draft, “The City of South San Francisco does our best to avoid all these selfimposed constraints on housing production.”3In its efforts to paint the city in the best light possible, the draft housing element sometimes ties itself into knots, claiming “While not an obstacle to housing development, the existing General Plan was limited in furthering South San Francisco’s housing goals given the limited priority development areas near mass transit.” Somehow, the existing General Plan was “not an obstacle” to housing while also being “limited in furthering” SSF’s housing goals.

Nonetheless, the draft housing element makes reasonable cases that standard barriers to housing development, such as high fees and long permit processing times, are not significant constraints in South San Francisco. Those constraints that SSF considers, it tends to justify.

However, some constraints merit further discussion, including:
- Setbacks and Minimum Lot Size Requirements: Large setbacks, minimum lot width and depth, and other requirements on usage of lots size potentially present a significant constraint on housing development in the Downtown Residential and the Downtown Station Area Zoning Districts.
- Floor Area Ratio: FARs of 0.5, 3.0, and 4.0 in the DRC, LNC, and GAC Downtown Station Area Zoning Districts likely constrain housing in those locations. For example, the DRC zone requires a minimum 80 du/ac and allows a maximum of 125 du/ac, both unrealistically high densities for the vast majority of lots with a 0.5 FAR. - Lack of Access to Local Subsidy: Despite implementation of a commercial linkage fee and in-lieu fees to fund affordable housing, to HLC’s knowledge SSF does not have a 3 Draft Housing Element, p. 49
2 Draft Housing Element, p. 35
1 Draft Housing Element, p. 33
program to regularly release a Notice of Funding Availability to the affordable housing development community. Furthermore, the city has substantial publicly owned land on which it could further promote affordable housing.

Fully analyzing the housing needs present in South San Francisco and the governmental constraints to meeting those needs will help the city implement the necessary policies and programs to make its site inventory viable.

Site Inventory (preliminary comments)
Though the Housing Leadership Council was not able to review South San Francisco’s site inventory, we noticed that the city currently plans for only 670 very low-income units to be developed over the next RHNA cycle, well below the city’s allocation of 871 VLI units. In order to comply with RHNA guidelines, the city will need to demonstrate capacity for the full quantity of VLI homes.

Fortunately, SSF’s site inventory provides a strong foundation for promoting affordable housing.

Because more than half of its lower-income units are projected to come from pipeline units and ADUs, the city elects to evaluate “opportunity sites under the standard burden of proof rather than substantial evidence,” meaning that the city needs a lower burden of proof in order to plan for lower-income housing on a site.4
Despite this wiggle room, SSF uses its minimum densities to calculate realistic site capacity.

Though HLC questions the validity of some of SSF’s selected sites and its ADU projectoins, at a glance it appears that the city has complied with the letter of the law and produced site inventory projections according to HCD’s guidelines. Thus, SSF can plan to increase its deeply affordable housing production from a strong starting point.

Goals, Policies, and Programs
In the following section, HLC describes how South San Francisco can strengthen its Goals, Policies, and Programs to more effectively promote low- and very low-income housing as needed to create a viable site inventory. The city already has a number of strong policies and programs in place. However, several programs that would otherwise be adequate lack clear timelines and quantified objectives. Some opportunities to promote affordable housing go unconsidered
New state laws have added new requirements to the goals, policies, and programs section of a housing element. Passed in 2018, AB 1397 requires cities to directly connect policies and programs to the identified needs, governmental constraints, and site inventory, among other analyses.5 Another 2018 law, AB 686, implemented Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 5 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (b), (c); HCD, Building Blocks, at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/ index.shtml 4 HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 27
mandates, specifically requiring cities to consider how their goals, policies, and programs can better advance fair housing goals, especially the production of low- and very low-income housing. The specific programs cities implement must include “concrete steps, timelines and measurable outcomes.”6
HLC recognizes that South San Francisco has many goals, policies, and programs that have these characteristics. Programs EQ-3.3 (Rental Registry), CRT-10.1 (Preapprove additional ADU plans), and SNP-5.4 (Reduce or Abolish Parking Requirements for Developmentally Disabled Population) are examples of strong policies, with clear timelines and deliverables.

Furthermore, the draft housing element’s goals, policies, and programs demonstrates the city’s receptiveness to feedback from housing advocates and service providers. On June 10, the Equity Advisory Group for the 21 Elements housing element consortium sent a letter to every jurisdiction in San Mateo County outlining policy recommendations for all jurisdictions’ housing elements. Although this letter was specifically requested by city staff from across the county, most cities have ignored the feedback.

On the other hand, SSF’s draft housing element notes “the EAG submitted a list of recommendations to all Cities, including South San Francisco, that has been considered and implemented into the Housing Programs in Chapter 7.” Several programs implement EAG recommendations, including CRT-7.2 (Allow housing on sites with institutional uses), CRT-9.1 (Affordable housing overlay zone), SNP-5.3 (Local Density Bonus Priorities), and SNP-5.4 (Reduce or Abolish Parking Requirements for Developmentally Disabled Populations); others, like CRT-5.1 (Implement Grand Blvd Initiative Policies), demonstrate that the city is already implementing EAG recommendations.

South San Francisco’s city council and planning staff merit recognition for considering input from a wide range of stakeholders. Nonetheless, several programs–including some implemented in response to recommendations from the public–would benefit from revisions, as described below:
- Program EQ-3.2, “Conduct a public hearing to consider an anti-displacement plan: This program outlines an important first step toward implementing an anti-displacement plan, but would benefit from clearer quantified objectives to guide the council discussion. - Program EQ-7.1, “Prioritize Capital Improvement Program for vulnerable populations”:

Outlines a strong vision to enhance equity for the Orange Park neighborhood but needs quantified objectives by which to measure a capital improvement program. - Program EQ-8.1, “Create Preservation Plan”: Needs quantified objectives by which to measure preservation plan.
- Program CRT-4.1, “Site Acquisition for Affordable Housing”: Promises to “work with for-profit and nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites,” but has no quantified objectives or other metric with which to measure success. The program should specify a funding source and a specific timeline for completion.
6 HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidebook, p. 55 - In order to strengthen this program, the city should build on it by recognizing South San Francisco’s abundance of publicly owned land that could be used for affordable housing. The city should identify city-owned sites that can be used to promote deeply affordable housing and commit to implementing an RFP for each site within the first three years of the 6th cycle planning period. - Program CRT-4.3, “Allow Waivers or Deferrals of Planning, Building, and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Developments”: Promises to “continue to consider the waiver of application and development fees for affordable housing development. Time frame is ongoing; waivers are to be granted on a “case-by-case” basis, which is inadequate to promote housing.
- Needs quantified objectives; City should instead commit to implementing pre-specified conditions for fee waivers
- Program CRT-7.2, “Allow housing on sites with institutional uses”: This program makes a significant commitment to allow housing on “sites used for institutional purposes, such as educational facilities and churches,” but the program has no timeline; rather, it “Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031.”
- By adding a clear timeline and quantified objectives for affordable housing on institutional sites, the city will set guidelines for required densities and other incentives to promote housing on these sites.
- Policy CRT-8, “Encourage a variety of housing types … at a range of densities”: This policy doesn’t have any substantive supporting programs. - Program CRT-9.1, “Affordable housing overlay zone”: Needs quantified objectives to guide affordable housing overlay zone, ensure the program creates strong enough incentives to achieve measurable goals
- Program SNP-5.3, “Local Density Bonus Priorities”: Needs discrete timeline, quantified objectives
The draft housing element may benefit from adoption or adjustment of other policies as well, which HLC may recommend in the coming weeks as we review the document more closely.

HLC wants to be a partner to the city, sharing our collective knowledge of state law and best practices to facilitate fair housing. Please contact me or other HLC staff if you would like to talk further about how South San Francisco can identify and implement policies that will best meet the community’s needs.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County City of South San Fransisco
400 Grand Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
To the honourable South San Francisco City Council,
We as the San Mateo Anti -Displacement Coaliti on (SMADC) are writi ng to urge you to take swift acti on to stop a wave of evicti ons by passing a robust just cause for evicti on ordinance.

SMADC represents community organizati ons across San Mateo County committ ed to fighti ng housing displacement for low-income people, communiti es of color, people living with disabiliti es, and others who have faced structural and systemic barriers to safe, stable, healthy, and affordable homes.

Thousands of San Mateo County residents are facing evicti ons that threaten to cause displacement or even homelessness. The Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County has seen the number of unlawful detainer evicti ons increase by 60% in May this year compared to the first four months of 2022. Evicti ons create lasti ng harm to individuals, families, and our communiti es. Evicti ons disrupt childrens’ educati on, cause workers to miss work and lose employment, force people into precarious housing situati ons or out of our communiti es enti rely, and lead to lasti ng mental and physical health impacts.

A local just cause for eviction ordinance is one of the most powerful tools our cities can implement to prevent evictions. Just cause for evicti on ordinances, which already exist in two dozen California citi es, require landlords to have “good cause” when pursuing evicti on, such as the tenant failing to comply with the lease or the owner moving in. They give tenants stability, security, and legal protecti on against unfair and arbitrary evicti ons. They protect tenants who speak up against poor living conditi ons, discriminati on, or landlord harassment from retaliatory evicti ons. A recent study in four California citi es, including East Palo Alto, found that evicti ons and evicti on filings decreased after passing local just cause for evicti on ordinances.

San Mateo County is increasingly becoming a home to renters, and our laws need to catch up to safeguard their homes. Across the county, 40% of households are renters. This rate is much higher for people of color due to decades of discriminati on and exclusion from homeownership opportuniti es: 58% of Black, 62% of Lati no, 53% of South Asian, and 46% of Filipino households in San Mateo County are renters (Bay Area Equity Atlas). Nearly half of all renters in the county are cost-burdened, spending more than one-third of their income on rent. A staggering 71% of Central American residents are cost burdened, leaving litt le left over for food, child care, healthcare, or other basic needs (Bay Area Equity Atlas).

California passed the Tenant Protecti on Act (TPA), a state just cause for evicti on law in 2019, but that 1 law leaves out many tenants and has loopholes that have limited its effecti veness. This law explicitly authorizes citi es to pass stronger local ordinances, because the state legislature intended the state law to Civil Code § 1946.2. 1
1 be a floor, not a ceiling, on tenant protecti ons. We also note that citi es are not constrained by the Costa- 2 Hawkins Act in enacti ng local just cause laws.

Local evicti on protecti ons allow us to add protecti ons based on the problems we see locally. San Mateo is at the epicenter of one of the most dire housing crises in the state, and we need stronger local protecti ons.

In parti cular, a local just cause for evicti on should:

1. Protect against unfair evictions from Day 1. State law excludes tenants who have lived in the unit less than one year. However, many in our community are facing arbitrary evicti ons sooner 3 than that. A local just cause ordinance should cover all tenants from day one of their tenancy.

2. Prevent renovictions by closing the “substantial remodel” loophole. Under state law, a landlord can evict a tenant if they intend to demolish or “substanti ally remodel” the property, which means the remodel requires a permit from a governmental agency, cannot be reasonably accomplished with the tenant in place, and requires the tenant to vacate the property for at least 30 days. However, landlords are using loopholes to evict tenants for remodels that do not 4 meet those requirements. Several citi es have passed ordinances requiring landlords to obtain permits before serving tenants an evicti on noti ce, including Richmond, Oakland, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and South Pasadena. A local just cause ordinance should only require a tenant to move out if the landlord is making substanti al repairs necessary for the tenants’ health and safety where such repairs cannot be completed while the tenant is living in the unit, and only after the landlord has obtained all necessary permits from the City.

3. Allow tenants the option to return to their home following a substantial remodel. Under the substanti al remodel provision under state law, a landlord can evict a tenant in order to remodel 5 their unit, and the tenant has no right to return to the unit once the renovati ons are complete. A local just cause ordinance should clarify that tenants only have to vacate temporarily under this just cause reason and give tenants the right to return after repairs are made with a rental agreement of the same terms and at the same rent.

4. Regulate Ellis Act evictions. California’s Ellis Act6 allows landlords to take their property off the rental market, while giving localiti es the power to regulate these evicti ons to protect tenants and prevent abuse. Under state law, removing the property from the rental market is an allowable just cause reason to evict, but without any local regulati on, this reason is a loophole that 7 threatens to swallow the rule. A local just cause ordinance should provide explicit procedures Civil Code § 1946.2(g)(1)(B). 2
Civil Code § 1946.2(a). 3
Civil Code § 1946.2(b)(2)(D). 4
Id. 5
Gov. Code § 7060 et seq. 6
Civil Code § 1946.2(b)(2)(B). 7
2 and protecti ons, including: requiring landlords to follow a transparent process in order to remove a property from the rental market; providing tenants with longer noti ce (120-days or 1- year for tenants who are elderly or have disabiliti es); requiring landlords to remove the enti re building from the rental market, not just a single unit; establishing penalti es for landlords who re-rent the property after pursuing a bad faith Ellis Act evicti on; and giving tenants the right to return at the same rent if the property is re-rented.

5. Regulate owner move-in evictions. Under state law, the owner move-in just cause provision8 lacks specificity and has been frequently abused. Local ordinances like Richmond’s provide further regulati on to prevent this abuse. A local just cause ordinance should include detailed provisions to prevent abuse, including: prevent corporate landlords from using owner move-in as a just cause reason to evict; require the noti ce to state the name, address, and relati onship to the landlord of the person intended to occupy the unit; restrict owner move-ins when there are vacant units in the building or in other properti es owned by the landlord, or when the person moving in already lives in the property or in another property owned by the landlord; and provide that the landlord or their relati ve must intend in good faith to move in within 90 days after the tenant vacates and occupy the unit as their primary residence for at least 36 consecuti ve months. If the landlord or their relati ve specified in the noti ce fails to move in within 90 days, the landlord should be required to offer the unit to the tenant who vacated and pay for the tenant’s moving expenses. A local just cause ordinance should also bar owner move-in evicti ons where the tenant has lived in the unit for at least five years and is either elderly, disabled, or terminally ill.

6. Expand relocation payments for all no-fault evictions. State law only provides for relocati on payments equal to one month of the tenant’s rent, which is inadequate to cover the costs of 9 moving, security deposits, first and last month’s rent at a new rental unit, and increased rent levels. These are all unplanned expenses for the tenant, and the tenant should be reasonably compensated commensurate with the loss of their housing through no fault of their own.. A local just cause ordinance should cover a minimum of four months of the tenant’s rent to cover the full costs of relocati on for all no-fault evicti ons, with additi onal payments for tenants who are low-income, disabled, elderly, have minor children, or are long-term tenants.

7. Expand which units are governed by just cause. State law excludes many types of housing units from just cause protecti ons, including units less than 15 years old and many single-family home rentals.10 A local just cause law should cover all units on the market, with only narrow excepti ons for certain types of housing (e.g. deed restricted units in affordable developments).

In East Palo Alto, the vast majority of single-family homes are covered by their just cause for evicti on ordinance..

8. Provide greater specificity for all “no-fault” just cause eviction reasons to ensure maximum compliance. Legal aid service providers frequently report that some property owners use the ambiguity in state law to evict tenants without cause using the no-fault reasons – including Civil Code § 1946.2(b)(2)(A). 8
Civil Code § 1946.2(d)(2)-(3). 9
Civil Code § 1946.2(e). 10
3 substanti al remodel, removing the property from the rental market and owner move-in, as discussed above. To protect tenants from evicti on and homelessness due to abuse of the law, many citi es have developed best practi ces around providing further specificity to the definiti ons of these no-fault reasons. A local just cause ordinance should provide greater specificity for all no-fault reasons to ensure tenants are not evicted without just cause

9. More specifically define “at-fault” just cause reasons for eviction. Local just cause ordinances should also enumerate and specifically define “at-fault” just causes for evicti on, to ensure that things such as minor curable lease violati ons do not lead to immediate evicti ons.

1. Provide tenants with recourse if their landlord att empts to recover possession in violation of the law. State law lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms. A local just cause ordinance should clearly state that a tenant may assert their landlord’s failure to comply with any requirement of the ordinance as an affirmati ve defense in an evicti on case and provide aggrieved tenants with a private right of acti on for equitable relief, damages, and resti tuti on so tenants can enforce their rights if their landlord violates the law. A local just cause ordinance should also provide for enforcement by the City Att orney or County Counsel.

Many communiti es across the state and in San Mateo County have passed strong local just cause for evicti on protecti ons, including East Palo Alto and Mountain View. In order to create a just cause for evicti on ordinance, we urge you to take the following acti ons:
- Include a housing element program to adopt a local just cause for eviction ordinance. Every Bay Area jurisdicti on must update its housing element by January of 2023, and every housing element must include acti ons to affirmati vely further fair housing (AFFH). Renters are disproporti onately people of color, due to decades of discriminati on and outright exclusion from homeownership opportuniti es. Moreover, arbitrary evicti ons often target people of color, immigrants, and other members of protected classes who may be “less desirable” renters in the minds of some landlords. Citi es should include a commitment to adopt a just cause for evicti on ordinance in the program of acti ons that will be taken in order to meet the AFFH requirements, address the housing needs of low-income renters, as well as to meet the requirement to preserve existi ng, non-subsidized, affordable housing stock. - Prioritize just cause for eviction for council consideration in 2022. With evicti ons already on the rise, we need just cause for evicti on passed this year. We urge you to take a public positi on to support passing a strong local ordinance in 2022.

Citi es such as Richmond, Berkeley, and many others have already passed strong just cause for evicti on 11 12 ordinances, creati ng strong models for your city to follow. The Anti -Displacement Coaliti on is also happy to arrange meeti ngs between jurisdicti on representati ves and renter protecti on advocates to help you craft an ordinance that works best for your community.

Chapter 11.100 of Richmond City Code. 11
Chapter 13.76.130 of Berkeley City Code. 12
4 Ulti mately, our communiti es need long-term, permanent soluti ons to stop and reverse displacement and create safe, affordable, healthy, and stable housing for all. As we build towards these long term soluti ons, we urge you to take acti on today to pass just cause for evicti on protecti ons.

We look forward to working with you to advance this and other important policy soluti ons, Ramon Quintero
Urban Habitat
Suzanne Moore
Pacifica Housing 4 All
Adriana Guzman
Faith in Action
Karyl Eldridge
One San Mateo
Maria Chatt erjee
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
David Carducci
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
Jeremy Levine
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Maria Paula Moreno
Nuestra Casa in East Palo Alto
Diana Reddy
One Redwood City
Ofelia Bello
YUCA
5 6

MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Nagales, Vice Mayor Nicolas and Councilmembers CC: Tony Rozzi (Chief Planner, City of South San Francisco), Ms. Christy Usher (Senior Planner, City of South San Francisco)
FROM: Doug Rich – Valley Oak Partners
DATE: August 9, 2022
SUBJECT: 170 & 180 S. Spruce Ave (Zoom Meeting on 8/12 at 1:00pm) Mayor Nagales, Vice Mayor Nicolas and Councilmembers:

We have been closely following the new Zoning & General Plan Updates. It is abundantly clear that the City Staff has put in a lot of hard work in the preparation of these two documents. Our property in question is being considered for the “T3C” zoning in the new Form Based Code section of the Zoning update.

We have studied the package of documents that were presented to Planning Commission on June 16th and have a few comments regarding the new T3C zoning. Most of the comments below come from “Attachment 1e – Division III” and all questions revolve around T3C and the associated detail of this particular Zoning.

Item #1 – T3C Description vs T3C Density Range
The T3C summary page (on PDF page #5 of attachment 1e) clearly calls out a density range of 40-60 du/ac, as well as three allowed building types (Triplex/Fourplex, Rowhomes & Flex Low Rise). We believe the selection of these three building types make a lot of sense for this zone to help create a sensitive development adjacent to existing neighborhoods based on their transitional density ranges, height and massing styles.

However, these three building types would not be able to achieve the minimum density of 40 du/ac. Generally speaking, for a site that is not constrained by topography or shape, we find the average Rowhome density to be 15-25 du/ac. It appears the city concurs with this finding, as on the “Rowhome” summary page (on PDF page #14 of attachment 1e), it notes Rowhomes as “typically providing 15-30 du/ac”. We have seen attached Rowhomes that push into the high 20 du/ac, but these require a majority of the units having tandem garages, as well as being much narrower, less functional unit types.

Item #2 – Minimum Density vs. Allowed Building Heights
When we look at the three building types that are allowed in T3C, it seems infeasible for a Triplex/Fourplex or Rowhome to achieve 40 du/ac. The T3C “Maximum Height” is 50 feet, but Section 20.135.030 further reduces this maximum height to 3-3.5 stories (depending on Building Type). Again, we believe a minimum density of 40 du/ac with only 3-3.5 stories would not be achievable (from a design, parking & cost perspective).

Item #3 – Goals and Intent of the T3C Zone
It is clear from hearing Mr. Gross’ detailed presentation to the Planning Commission and referencing back to some text from the Zoning Update document, that the City has attempted to take great care with respect to new development adjacent to existing Single Family Homes, in these Transect Districts via the Form Based Code.

Section 20.010.002 of the Title Zoning Districts, item (F) states, “To promote the stability of existing land uses that conform to the General Plan, protecting them inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions”
We believe that the intent and location of the T3C zone by the city makes a lot of sense, particularly in light of the single-story residential adjacent to much of Spruce Ave. However, the density range of 40-60 du/acre seems incongruous with this goal and can lead to incompatible forms and structures adjacent to the existing residential.

For example, at 40-60 du/acre allowed in the T3C zone, an owner/developer could utilize State Density Bonus Law by providing 18 affordable units at low income to achieve a 20% density bonus and construct 215 total units with eligible concessions and development standard waivers. This would result in a structure and building form as shown on Exhibit A of this Memo.

We believe that a density range of 15-25 du/acre would more appropriately support the transitional concept of the T3C zone while still achieving the City’s housing goals.

Item #4 – Impact on Site Inventory List / City RHNA Unit Requirement The city’s Zoning & General Plan updates will be adopted in advance of the RHNA 6 Cycle, allowing the City to far exceed its required number of residential units in this upcoming 6th Cycle. The city’s RHNA requirement is 3,956 units with a 20% buffer for a total of 4,747 units.

PDF page #74 (of the city’s draft Housing Element) shows the city has an “Excess Capacity” in its current Site Inventory List of the Housing Element of 9,153 units (over the RHNA requirement + 20% buffer). Given this unique excess capacity, the city could revise and lower the density range in the T3C area and not risk falling below the 4,747 unit RHNA benchmark. Lowering the T3C density would allow the construction of a product type more compatible with adjacent residential even after accounting for any density increases allowed by the State Density Bonus Law.

The new T3C Zoning is proposed for roughly 7 different areas of the City. Several of these areas are immediately adjacent to existing single-family homes.

S. Spruce Ave: There are approximately 12 contiguous acres of T3C Zoning along S. Spruce Avenue. The entire length of these 12 acres (roughly 1000 feet) all back up to existing singlefamily homes.

Hickey Blvd & El Camino Real: There are approximately 5 acres of T3C Zoning on the South side of Hickey Road where existing single-family homes are immediately adjacent.

Mission Rd & Holly Ave: There are approximately 2 acres of T3C Zoning where existing singlefamily homes are immediately adjacent.

Item #5 – Allowed Uses (Residential/Multifamily-Unit)
The “Uses in Transect Zoning Districts” (Table 20.135.060.B.1 on PDF page 36 of Division III) states that a residential multifamily-unit is “Permitted” in T3C, however there is a footnote of “P3”. P3 states (w/respect to a residential use) “Permitted on upper floors only; MUP required if located on the ground floor. MUP may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate any active pedestrian oriented use on the ground floor”.

Requiring a commercial component to a Triplex/Fourplex or Rowhome development would further render the project unable to achieve the minimum 40 units per acre.

We appreciate your consideration of these matters and look forward to further dialog.

Sincerely,
Doug Rich
Valley Oak Partners
408-282-0995
[email protected]
Cc: Scott Connelly
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING WWW.DAHLINGROUP.COM IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 6 STORY PODIUM BUILDING (5 OVER 1) 170 & 180 S. SPRUCE AVE.

N
RESIDENTIAL STUDY: DENSITY BONUS SCENARIO
PROJECT NO. 1005.007 | AUGUST 9, 2022
STUDY NOTES:

1. Assumes maximum General Plan density of 60 units per acre

2. �� building type, and required parking
��

4. 6 story (+/- 72’) building height

5. 40’ rear building setback (with 5’ balcony encroachment) adjacent to existing single family homes

AERIAL PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM NORTH

S SPRUCE AVE
WWW.DAHLINGROUP.COM
IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 6 STORY PODIUM BUILDING (5 OVER 1) 170 & 180 S. SPRUCE AVE.

N
RESIDENTIAL STUDY: DENSITY BONUS SCENARIO
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE | PLANNING

S SPRUCE AVE

PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM REDWOOD AVE
PROJECT NO. 1005.007 | AUGUST 9, 2022
STUDY NOTES:

1. Assumes maximum General Plan density of 60 units per acre

2. �� building type, and required parking
��

4. 6 story (+/- 72’) building height

5. 40’ rear building setback (with 5’ balcony encroachment) adjacent to existing single family homes Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of South San Francisco
Via email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
August 4, 2022
Re: South San Francisco’s Draft Housing Element
To the City of South San Francisco:

The Campaign for Fair Housing Elements and YIMBY Law commends the City on its clear and sincere housing element. We have but a few comments. First, the City should allow a metropolitan density of 30 homes per acre throughout its territory.

Second, the City should implement an anti-displacement policy now. Third, the City should abolish design review in favor of a ministerial process for multifamily housing.

But for bad policy, density would be normal in the Bay Area. As we wrote this spring, the City must “plan for density” and recognize that its pace of home production will only achieve 56% of its housing need. (Draft, PDF pp.210–15.) While we applaud the City’s “good sense of development feasibility” (Id., p.67), the fact remains that millions of Californians are needlessly cost-burdened by a policy-driven housing shortage. It is thus harmful to mandate, rather than tolerate, low-density development. (Cf. Draft, p.49–51 [“single-family residential is the dominant land use”].) Since “30 units per acre … provid[es] favorable prospects for affordable units,” and HCD encourages an ample capacity buffer, we recommend the City legalize this metropolitan density throughout its territory. (Draft, p.68; HCD Site Inventory Guidebook p.22.) We also urged “a strong tenant protection ordinance.” (Draft, PDF p.211.) To that end, the City plans to convene “a Renter’s Task Force to explore an anti-displacement plan” (id., p.139), and we encourage that effort. But the City acknowledges what might be done, and nothing prevents it from enacting any of “a rent stabilization policy, just-cause eviction and harassment protections, tenant and landlord mediation programs, right of first refusal, rental assistance, tenant legal counseling, [or] a rent board to implement the program” now. (See ibid.) State law already guarantees a “right of first refusal” in South San Francisco. (See Gov. Code § 66300(d)(2)(d)(ii).) We challenge the City to improve on this guarantee.

Last, we noted that “discretionary process[es]” impede the construction of multifamily housing. (Draft, PDF p.213.) Again, the City excels here in its transparency and leads the county in its processing times (id., pp.59–62)—and again, a severe housing shortage demands fundamental change. “Design review” need not and should not be “required of all new construction in South San Francisco.” (Cf. id., p.60.) The City should abolish this discretionary process and adopt fully objective standards that guard only against safety concerns such as flooding, fire, and earthquakes; there is no legitimate reason in a housing shortage to tie up home construction for want of a “gable roof addition,” “thicker columns,” or a “rectangular window.” (Cf. South San Francisco Design Review Guidelines, PDF pp.14,17,19.)
We look forward to the City’s next draft. Please contact me with questions.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org 2
7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 203
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031
APPENDIX 1.3 SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Submitted Date Commenting Agency No. Comment SSF Response Location in HE if Modified 1/24/2022 and
2/8/22 Housing Choices 1
Establish and monitor a quantitative goal. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 150 new Extremely Low-Income and Acutely Low Income housing units for South San Francisco residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.

Sample Language: The City of South San Francisco shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 150 new Extremely Low and Acutely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by Golden Gate Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.

Included as Policy SNP-5 Policy SNP-5
2 Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing under the Inclusionary Ordinance and City Housing Funds to Meet City-Specific Priorities. City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing in lieu of providing affordable units under the inclusionary ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible in South San Francisco. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of the South San Francisco residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of extremely low income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Sample Language: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary ordinance or city housing funds, the City of South San Francisco shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of extremely low-income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Included as Program SNP-5.1 Program SNP-5.1
3 Offer Developers a Range of Affordability Options Under the Inclusionary Ordinance. Most adults with developmental disabilities have incomes too low to satisfy minimum income requirements for the Very Low Income and Low Income units currently offered under the city’s inclusionary ordinance and are effectively excluded from this housing option. California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers of market rate housing a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units if priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units if priced for extremely low income. Such a menu would address a broader range of South San Francisco housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement.

Sample Language: The City of South San Francisco shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to offer developers a menu of options for achieving affordability, adjusting the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderateincome, low income, very low income, and extremely low income).

Revised Program CRT-2.2 and added Program SNP-5.2 Program CRT-2.2; SNP- 5.2 4 Local Density Bonus Priorities. The state density bonus law incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. But in counties like San Mateo County, with the highest Area Median Income in the state, these incentives reward the targeting of income levels that effectively exclude the many people with disabilities and seniors living on fixed incomes well below the Very Low Income target. South San Francisco should add additional local incentives to the state density bonus law to reward the production of more housing for South San Francisco residents who do not benefit from the Low and Very Low Income units produced under the state density bonus law--for example, projects with a percentage of Extremely Low Income units and/or projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Sample Language: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, or concessions for housing projects that include a percentage of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level and/or target special needs populations, such as people with disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Included as Program SNP-5.3 Program SNP-5.3
5 Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities. Because most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car, the City of South San Francisco should revise its ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to .5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction is recommended for affordable, physically accessible units.

Sample Language: The City of South San Francisco shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence and establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for affordable housing.

Included as Program SNP-5.4. Current parking policy is permissive and supports parking reductions for affordable units. Updated in companion zoning ordinance for General Plan Update. For studios and one bedroom units: 1 space min. per unit
In Transit Station Areas: 0.5 spaces min.,

1.0 spaces max. per unit.; For two bedroom units: 1 spaces min. per unit.

In Transit Station Areas: 0.5 spaces min.,

1.5 spaces max. per unit.

Program SNP-5.4
6 Affirmative Marketing of Physically Accessible Units: Developers are allowed to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in San Mateo County (i.e. Golden Gate Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Person with Developmental Disabilities, Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities and others) but rarely take this step. Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of cognitive, communication and social impairment, may rely on housing navigation services funded by the Golden Gate Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing.

Sample Language: As a condition of the disposition of any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary ordinance, the award of city financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City shall require that the housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for physically accessible units which, among other measures, provides disability-serving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply.

Included as Program SNP-5.6 Program SNP-5.6
7 Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a financing program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels or that are subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Sample Language: Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at Extremely Low-Income rent levels and/or target special needs populations, such as people with disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center.

Included as Program SNP-5.5 Program SNP-5.5
8 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by Producing More Extremely Low-Income Housing. Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints in San Mateo County, a growing body of San Mateo County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. This is attributable to the lack of housing priced to be affordable to Extremely Low Income (ELI) households with incomes below 30% of Area Median Income. South San Francisco offers its residents exceptional employment, educational and social opportunities but the severe shortage of Extremely Low Income rental units means that BIPOC--particularly those with disabilities--may be excluded from enjoying those community assets.

Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that will overcome such disparities. Policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in South San Francisco and decrease displacement and homelessnessness for the most at-risk South San Francisco residents.

Sample Language: The City of South San Francisco's plans to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for Black, Indigenous and other People of Color, particularly those with disabilities, shall include policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies.

This is discussed in the draft HE and covered by the AFFH Programs. Goal 1 Equity Programs 2/28/2022 YIMBY Law / California YIMBY 9 Prioritize rezoning in high resource, historically exclusionary neighborhoods. Many of the highest resource neighborhoods with the best access to jobs, good schools, and other amenities have histories of exclusion which are still reflected in their zoning. Cities should rezone to allow more housing opportunities in those neighborhoods, particularly those with low Vehicle Miles Traveled, as part of their Housing Elements. Opportunity site corridors are focused along all major transit spines of the City with lower VMT. No rezoning planned for low density residential neighborhoods - City focused on implementing State Bill 9 standards in those areas, as applications are submitted. Policy CRT-6, Program CRT-6.2; CST-3.1 10 Establish a strong tenant protection ordinance so that new housing benefits everyone. Development should not permanently displace current residents. Housing replacement programs, temporary housing vouchers, right of return, and demolition controls will create stability for renters while allowing new homes to be built for new households and to accommodate the growth associated with RHNA. In your sites inventory and rezoning programs, you should prioritize development on sites with owner-occupied housing & commercial uses over those with existing rent-controlled apartments or other rental housing with lower income residents.

HE opportunity sites specifically focus on commercial areas and rezoning to limit impact to existing housing sites. Programs added to address this comment.

Program EQ-3.2, 3.3, 3.4
11 Support homeownership opportunities for historically excluded groups. Homeownership continues to be a path to building financial security and intergenerational wealth, which has been systematically denied to many Americans. As a society, we need to make this right by intentionally offering opportunities to communities who have been excluded. The housing element should identify opportunities to create a variety of for-sale housing types and create programs to facilitate property ownership among excluded groups.

Program EQ-5.2: Participate in a regional down payment assistance program.

Program CRT-9.3: Explore shared equity homeownership models:

Explore expanded use of shared equity homeownership models, including a community land trust, to increase home ownership and how to implement these models.

Also all of the policies under the creation and facilitation goal, work together to create more affordable housing unts (i.e. Program CRT-2.1 Implement Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with State law, requiring new rental and for sale residential development over four units to provide a minimum of fifteen (15) percent low- and moderate-income housing.)
Program EQ-5.1: Conduct a robust evaluation of the inclusionary housing program: Evaluate the effectiveness of delivering units for residents with the greatest housing needs (e.g., single parent families, child-friendly housing, accessible/visitable units for persons with disabilities).

Housing will not be feasible if you have a high density paired with low height limits. This density should be emphasized around jobs and transit and should go beyond the Mullin density in those areas.

Revising components of the companion zoning ordinace for the General Plan Update to ensure consistency with this guidance and ensure HE opportunity sites are probable development sites
No edits made
13 Provide sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate all income levels, including a minimum No Net Loss buffer of 30%. Not every site will be developed at maximum density during the eight-year planning period. Identify an ample amount of opportunity sites and zone the sites to accommodate lower-income housing types (usually a statutory minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre) to give the city the best chance at meeting its RHNA.
20% buffer implemented for RHNA, however opportunity sites create a possible creation of far greater housing than RHNA requirements No edits made 14 Use data from the 5th Cycle to calculate the likelihood of development for your 6th Cycle site inventory. Likelihood of development is a measure of the probability of an inventory site being developed during the planning period. The median likelihood of development across the state is 25%, meaning only one of every four sites will likely be developed during the planning period for the median city. Incorporating the likelihood of development into the zoned capacity will set the city up to successfully achieve their RHNA, making the housing element less of a paper exercise and more of an actionable, functional document.

Updating Site Inventory expectations based on RHNA Cycle 5 creation of Owner vs Rental projects and updating expected inclusionary units based on that calculation. Will include summary assumption that a probable 25% development may be useful metric.

Various in Chapter 5
15 Commit to an automatic mid-cycle adjustment if ADU permitting activity is lower than estimated in the housing element. We highly recommend complying with HCD’s standards of using one of its “safe harbor” methodologies to anticipate future ADU production. However, if the city is optimistic about ADU growth, then creating an automatic mid-cycle adjustment will automatically facilitate alternative housing options (i.e., a rezoning program, removing development constraints, ADU incentives, etc.) if the city falls behind the estimated ADU production.

Safe harbor approach per guidance from 21 Elements has been utilized. No edits made
16 Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate or lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.

Several programs included to address ADUs and incentivize their construciton and affordability
Program CRT-6.1, 10.1,

10.2; SNP-5.5; CST-3.1;
17 Allow residential to be built in areas that are zoned for commercial use. There are a myriad of ways to do this, but a housing overlay is one common policy. Additionally, consider eliminating new commercial space in mixed-use developments where there is not a strong demand or there is otherwise a glut of commercial space that is unused or frequently vacant.

Monitoring AB 2011 and SB 6 which streamline this process and waive CEQA but included as a program. Site inventory methodology rezones historically industrial/commercial areas to high density mixed use Program CRT-9.1
18 Allow flexibility in inclusionary zoning. Cities should require different percentages for different AMI levels. Additionally, we urge cities to incentivize land dedication to affordable developers in order for market-rate developers to meet their inclusionary requirements. Avoid getting trapped into thinking that the affordable units must be “sprinkled throughout” the market-rate units, or require the market-rate units to look exactly the same as the affordable ones. This should be balanced against not locating all of the affordable units in one place and ghettoizing neighborhoods by creating or perpetuating racially concentrated areas of poverty.

Re-evaluaton of the inclusionary ordinance is a set program to allow the Housing staff to evaluate with City Council other options, as needed. Added Program SNP-5.2 to try to address, as well Program EQ-5.1, Added
Program SNP-5.2
19 Ensure that the city has a ministerial process for housing permitting, especially multi-family housing, and remove impact fees for deed-restricted housing. A discretionary process for housing development creates uncertainty and adds to the cost of construction. For example, multi-family housing should not require a conditional use permit or city council approval unless the builder is asking for unique and extraordinary concessions.

Right-sizing governmental constraints, entitlement processes, and impact fees will help the city successfully meet its RHNA.

Under General Plan Update and companion zoning, multi family housing will be a design review process by Planning Commission only.

Design review will be based on objective standards only.

Program CST-1.1, 4.1
20 Reduce parking standards and eliminate parking minimums. Minimum parking requirements are a major constraint on housing, especially for lower cost housing types. They can cost in excess of $30,000 per spot and can raise rents by as much as 17%, and eliminating them is particularly important for smaller & other spatially constrained sites. Consider adopting a parking maximum.

Under General Plan Update and companon zoning, parking minimums are reduced substantially and parking maximums introduced for transit adjacent projects.

Program CST-3.2; SNP5.4
21 Cap fees on all new housing. Most construction costs are outside the City’s control, but reducing impact fees can demonstrate that a city is serious about building new housing. At a minimum, cities should delay the collection of impact fees until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to reduce financial impacts on new housing and make the units cheaper by not asking the developer to carry impact fee charges or debt throughout the construction phase.

Fee waivers continue to be reviewed for affordable housing only at this time. Fees are adopted by resolutions and vary upon collection time but most large fees are collected prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

Program CRT-4.3
22 Provide local funding. One of the largest barriers to building new affordable homes is the lack of city/county funds available to assemble sites, provide gap funding, and to pay for dedicated staff. Without new funding, especially at the local level, we will not be able to build more affordable homes. There are three new revenue streams that should be considered: 1) Transfer tax, a one-time payment levied by a jurisdiction on the sale of a home, may be utilized to raise much needed revenue to fund affordable homes; 2) Vacancy tax may be collected on vacant land to convince landowners to sell their underutilized properties and be used to fund the construction of affordable homes; 3) Commercial linkage fees should be adopted or revisited for increases on new commercial developments.

Introducing new program to explore prioritization of Commercial Linkage Fee. Program EQ-6.3 Affordable Housing Fund Policy: The City anticipates significant income from its commercial linkage fee over the next five years. City staff will prioritize acquisition of land for the development of new affordable housing once enough funds are received.

Program EQ-6.3
4/25/2022 YIMBY Law / Greenbelt Alliance 23 To meet the 6th cycle RHNA target, the rate of new housing permits in South San Francisco would need to increase from 278 units per year in 2018- 2021 to 494 units per year in the next 8 years. This is a 78% increase from recent years. If the current pace were to continue, South San Francisco would meet only 56% of its new housing target.

Added New Program to ensure implementation: Program CRT-8.2 Adopt Updated Zoning Ordinance as Companion to General Plan 2040:

Adopt companion zoning to implement the General Plan 2040 Update and implement up zoning to create and facilitate new housing and opportunity sites.

Program CRT-8.2
Based on these trends, it is unlikely that South San Francisco’s existing realistic zoning capacity is sufficient to meet its 6th cycle RHNA target.

According to HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, housing elements must analyze the realistic capacity of their sites, which may include considerations of “[l]ocal or regional track records”, “past production trends”, and “the rate at which similar parcels were developed during the previous planning period”. A housing element that does not include a significant rezoning component is therefore unlikely to be compliant with state law.

Added New Program to ensure implementation: Program CRT-8.2 Adopt Updated Zoning Ordinance as Companion to General Plan 2040:

Adopt companion zoning to implement the General Plan 2040 Update and implement up zoning to create and facilitate new housing and opportunity sites.

Program CRT-8.2
24 We urge South San Francisco to include a major rezoning component in its Housing Element—a rezoning large enough to close the gap between recent housing production trends and the RHNA target. The rezoning should be within existing communities and should comply with the city’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. We also urge South San Francisco to ease any other constraints, such as discretionary approval processes or impact fees, that may impede the rate of development on your city's housing sites.

Added New Program to ensure implementation: Program CRT-8.2 Adopt Updated Zoning Ordinance as Companion to General Plan 2040:

Adopt companion zoning to implement the General Plan 2040 Update and implement up zoning to create and facilitate new housing and opportunity sites.

Program CRT-8.2
6/14/2022 21 Elements Equity Advisory Group 25 Just cause eviction, relocation benefits, and first right of return. Tenant protections beyond state law. (Ex: Oakland Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance; Redwood City Relocation Assistance Program, LAHD Rent Stabilization Ordinance) Updated Program included; Program EQ-3.2: Evaluate and develop a local just cause for eviction ordinance to go above California’s Tenant Protection Act (TPA), the state’s just cause for eviction law adopted in 2019. The state law explicitly authorizes cities to pass stronger local ordinances, because the state legislature intended the state law to be a floor, not a ceiling, on tenant protections. Other programs related include: Program PRSV-5.2 Assist Tenants at risk of Displacement:

Program EQ-3.3: Create a rental task force.

Program EQ-3.2, 3.3;
PRSV-5.2;
26 Prioritize city affordable housing funds, city-owned land, and land dedicated to affordable housing for projects which include more units at deeper levels of affordability or for special needs populations at greatest risk of homelessness. Scoring guidelines for RFPs for these city resources should give greater preference for projects which include more units at deeper levels of affordability or target special needs populations.

Incorporated into programs throughout Housing Element Update Program EQ--6.X; CRT3.1, 4.1, Policy CRT-4
and Programs 4.2, 4.3;
Policy SNP-5 and
Program SNP-5.1, 5.2,

5.3 27 Expand local funding sources for development of affordable housing. Can include policies such as commercial linkage fees, vacancy taxes, transfer tax, etc. (Ex: San Jose Measure E).

Program EQ-6.3; CRT4.2
28 Rent Stabilization. Tenant protections beyond state law. (Ex: Oakland Rent Adjustment Program, LAHD Rent Stabilization Ordinance) Including in existing program EQ-3.2 and 3.3 for City Council to hold a public hearing to evaluate the State program as a floor and options to include more local controls in 2023.

Program EQ-3.2 and 3.3
29 Fee exemptions for 100% affordable housing projects.

Program CRT-4.3
30 Allow exceptions to development standards for 100% affordable housing projects. Can include but is not limited to reduced/waived parking requirements, Minimum lot sizes, widths, setbacks, etc (Ex: Half Moon Bay) Will continue to rely on State Density Bonus Law via Program CRT-4.5 Program CRT-4.5; SNP- 5.3 31 Implement inclusive design standards. Implement design standards beyond state and federal law to increase cross-disability access to housing (Refer to The Kelsey’s Housing Design Standards for Inclusion and Accessibility) No edits made and Program SNP-3.1 will continue to be applied Program SNP-3.132 Increase language accessibility. Require affirmative marketing of units to non-English speakers, make multilingual applications available, and perform active outreach to newly arrived immigrants and refugees. This is current process for City - Materials are made available in up to four languages, including Tagalog, Spanish, Chines, and English No edits made 33 Promote fair housing information to residents. Provide residents with information about renter protections and monetary relief available to victims of unlawful housing practices. Post information in easily available locations on jurisdiction websites and send regular mailers to renters within the community.

Existing Program Program EQ-2.1, 3-1
34 Analyze past racially discriminatory policies and report data regarding ongoing impacts. 1) Conduct a systematic review of the preliminary title report and eradicate any language of racially restrictive covenants. 2) Provide information re: location and ratio of renters and owners and their correlation with the patterns of racial and ethnic segregation in San Mateo County. 3) Provide information re: demographics and environmental health – identify disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods.

Evaluated under the AFFH section of the Housing Element Program EQ-1.2 35 Affordable housing overlay for nonprofits and religious institutions. Create a housing overlay allowing at least the local mullin density (20 or 30 du/ac) on all nonprofit- or religious institution-owned land throughout the entirety of jurisdiction. Relax design standards and zoning regulations for projects with 20% extremely low income, 30% very low income, or 50% low income units.

Monitoring AB 2011 and SB 6 which streamline this process for commercially zoned properties and waive CEQA but included as a program
Program CRT-9.1
36 Accessible housing near transit. Reduce parking minimums for developments within 0.5 miles of transit. Eliminate parking minimums entirely for developments within 0.5 miles of transit that serve residents with disabilities and low-, very low-, or extremely low-income households. Parking minimums to be reduced to match AB 2097 as appropriate during General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update Program CRT-8.2 7/5/2022 Build Up San Mateo County 37
Basic: identifying the linkage between housing and child care availability; and, if needed, ensuring alignment with state law in regard to Large Family Child Care Homes. • Support family housing that addresses residents’ needs for child care, youth services, recreation opportunities and access to transit.
• Ensure that zoning code and permitting practices are consistent with state law (2019) that prohibits use permits, business licenses, etc. for Large Family Child Care Homes. • Maintain the quality of life within neighborhoods by maintaining an adequate level of community facilities, such as child care centers and municipal services. • Facilitate and encourage the development of larger rental units appropriate for families with children, including the provision of supportive services such as family child care. • Support the provision of child care services, employment training, rental assistance, and other supportive services to enable households to be self-sufficient.
• Promote sustainable communities through locating housing near employment, transportation, child care and other community services.

City will implement the adopted 2030 Child Care Master Plan No edits made 38 Supportive: reducing barriers in zoning, permitting processes, fees, etc.; and promoting existing housing-related resources to Family Child Care Home Providers. • Encourage the siting and development of child care centers and family child care homes in all residential, mixed-use, and other zones where residences are permitted, for the convenience of families. • Encourage the establishment of child care centers in appropriate locations and consider modified zoning standards and review procedures and other incentives to facilitate their development. • Reduce permitting requirements or allow child care centers by right in some zones (and building types). • Allow child care facilities to serve as traffic mitigation measures. • Encourage the inclusion of space for child care in new housing developments, including affordable housing developments.
• Promote existing housing-related programs to Family Child Care Home providers, including but not limited to: fair housing counseling, housing rehabilitation loans, renovation/repair, first-time homebuyer and down payment assistance.

City will implement the adopted 2030 Child Care Master Plan No edits made 39 Proactive: engaging developers to build space for child care; providing land/financing. • Provide incentives for developers to provide child care facilities or services as part of new residential, commercial, and industrial developments, including but not limited to: density bonuses, increases in floor area ratios, parking reduction, community benefits credit, traffic impact fee exemption, expedited entitlements, or modifications to zoning regulations.
• Assess the demand for child care created by new housing developments. • Work proactively with all housing developers to incorporate, where feasible, child care that serves families of all incomes and children of all ages.
• Include child care facility space as a priority or required component in Request for Proposals (RFPs) for city land and Notices of Funding Available (NOFA) for affordable housing developments. • Support inclusion of specially designed and located housing units, in multi-family projects, for licensed Family Child Care Home providers. (Resource materials available) City will implement the adopted 2030 Child Care Master Plan No edits made 7/29/2022 Housing Leadership Council 40
Nonetheless, South San Francisco will continue to face challenges in planning for affordable housing, especially very low- and extremely lowincome housing. Over the last housing element cycle, 16 low-income and 89 very low-income units were built in SSF, just 5.7% and 15.8% of the 5th cycle RHAN goal, respectively. Even with its recent rezonings in place, SSF has not yet demonstrated capacity to meet its very low-income RHNA obligation for the 6th RHNA cycle, much less its obligations for the other cycles slated to occur between now and 2040.

During the last RHNA cycle the City adopted both a Commercial Linkage Fee and an Inclusionary Housing policy. In addition to upzonings, having these policies on the books through the duration of the RHNA cycle should yield significantly more units.

Additionally, projections have been corrected and updated to reflect accurate demonstrated capacity. SSF appreciates HLC identifying the issue with the numbers as previously presented.

Section 3.11
41 Furthermore, from 2010 to 2020 median “Home prices increased by 114% from 2010 to 2020,” to $1,190,200.2 From 2009 to 2019, median rent increased by almost $1,000. Though SSF presents this data demonstrating the need for more deeply affordable housing, the city pursues few policies to promote such housing. As will be elaborated more in later sections, the city’s housing element Goal #3, “Remove Constraints to Housing Development,” does not make any substantial commitments to remove constraints. Though other sections directly address some significant identified special housing needs, such as housing for the disabled, few policies target production of general very low-income housing.

The HE has been updated to make more firm commitments to affordable housing production. Program EQ-6.1, 6.2, 6.3 42 SSF’s housing element likely leaves some constraints unaddressed because the draft constraints analysis does not acknowledge very many of them. According to the draft, “The City of South San Francisco does our best to avoid all these selfimposed constraints on housing production.” In its efforts to paint the city in the best light possible, the draft housing element sometimes ties itself into knots, claiming “While not an obstacle to housing development, the existing General Plan was limited in furthering South San Francisco’s housing goals given the limited priority development areas near mass transit.” Somehow, the existing General Plan was “not an obstacle” to housing while also being “limited in furthering” SSF’s housing goals.

Comment Noted and updates made where possible Various
43 Nonetheless, the draft housing element makes reasonable cases that standard barriers to housing development, such as high fees and long permit processing times, are not significant constraints in South San Francisco. Those constraints that SSF considers, it tends to justify.

However, some constraints merit further discussion, including:
- Setbacks and Minimum Lot Size Requirements: Large setbacks, minimum lot width and depth, and other requirements on usage of lots size potentially present a significant constraint on housing development in the Downtown Residential and the Downtown Station Area Zoning Districts.
- Floor Area Ratio: FARs of 0.5, 3.0, and 4.0 in the DRC, LNC, and GAC Downtown Station Area Zoning Districts likely constrain housing in those locations. For example, the DRC zone requires a minimum 80 du/ac and allows a maximum of 125 du/ac, both unrealistically high densities for the vast majority of lots with a 0.5 FAR.
- Lack of Access to Local Subsidy: Despite implementation of a commercial linkage fee and in-lieu fees to fund affordable housing, to HLC’s knowledge SSF does not have a program to regularly release a Notice of Funding Availability to the affordable housing development community. Furthermore, the city has substantial publicly owned land on which it could further promote affordable housing.

Zoning Comments have been shared with the City's Zoning Consultant for consideration related to the General Plan Update.

SSF commercial linkage fee went into effect in 2019. There is some time-delay in receipt of fees as while projects submitting applications as of January 1, 2019 are required to pay the fee, payment is not due until issuance of building permits. In January 2022 staff presented to Council's Housing Subcommittee that approximately $4.7M in fees had been collected to-date and that 1 acre of land is estimated to cost between $5.6 and $8M depending on how development-ready the land is.

Staff had requested during this presentation that the Council Subcommittee recommend that Council approve a Funding Plan which included a $9M NOFA in 2023-24. Council's interest in the City owning, managing, and operating housing has put on pause direction/next-steps to release a NOFA.

Program EQ-6.3
44 Though the Housing Leadership Council was not able to review South San Francisco’s site inventory, we noticed that the city currently plans for only 670 very low-income units to be developed over the next RHNA cycle, well below the city’s allocation of 871 VLI units. In order to comply with RHNA guidelines, the city will need to demonstrate capacity for the full quantity of VLI homes.

Projections have been corrected and updated to reflect accurate demonstrated capacity. SSF appreciates HLC identifying the issue with the numbers as previously presented.

Section 3.11
45 Fortunately, SSF’s site inventory provides a strong foundation for promoting affordable housing. Because more than half of its lower-income units are projected to come from pipeline units and ADUs, the city elects to evaluate “opportunity sites under the standard burden of proof rather than substantial evidence,” meaning that the city needs a lower burden of proof in order to plan for lower-income housing on a site.

Despite this wiggle room, SSF uses its minimum densities to calculate realistic site capacity. Though HLC questions the validity of some of SSF’s selected sites and its ADU projectoins, at a glance it appears that the city has complied with the letter of the law and produced site inventory projections according to HCD’s guidelines. Thus, SSF can plan to increase its deeply affordable housing production from a strong starting point.

Minimum densities were used to achieve a conservative estimate, however, most proejcts in pipeline are assuming maximum densities so SSF anticipates higher production on opportunity sites that are developed (assuming at least 25% of opportunity sites are developed based on previous RHNA cycle production)
No edits made
46 Program EQ-3.2, “Conduct a public hearing to consider an anti-displacement plan: This program outlines an important first step toward implementing an anti-displacement plan, but would benefit from clearer quantified objectives to guide the council discussion. A commitment to holding this hearing in 2023 has been added. A commitment to develop objectives to measure the success of any program/policy has been added. Program EQ-3.2 47 Program EQ-7.1, “Prioritize Capital Improvement Program for vulnerable populations”: Outlines a strong vision to enhance equity for the Orange Park neighborhood but needs quantified objectives by which to measure a capital improvement program. Language has been strengthened to support an AFFH or other equity analysis for any future CIP project Program EQ-7.1 48 Program EQ-8.1, “Create Preservation Plan”: Needs quantified objectives by which to measure preservation plan.

Language has been strengthened and addtionally a related preservation policy around adding deed restricted affordable units has been added within the Creation and Facilitation section, "CRT-9.4 Explore Adoption of Community Opportunity to Purchase Act Policy" Program CRT-9.4
49 Program CRT-4.1, “Site Acquisition for Affordable Housing”: Promises to “work with for-profit and nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites,” but has no quantified objectives or other metric with which to measure success. The program should specify a funding source and a specific timeline for completion. In order to strengthen this program, the city should build on it by recognizing South San Francisco’s abundance of publicly owned land that could be used for affordable housing. The city should identify city-owned sites that can be used to promote deeply affordable housing and commit to implementing an RFP for each site within the first three years of the 6th cycle planning period.

New Program per City Council request: CRT-4.6 City led acquisition and/or development of mixed income affordable housing: The City shall pursue site acquisition and/or development of parcels to construct a goal of up to 300 units of mixed income affordable housing for very-low, low- and moderate-income housing.

Program CRT-4.6
50 Program CRT-4.3, “Allow Waivers or Deferrals of Planning, Building, and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Developments”: Promises to “continue to consider the waiver of application and development fees for affordable housing development. Time frame is ongoing; waivers are to be granted on a “case-by-case” basis, which is inadequate to promote housing. - Needs quantified objectives; City should instead commit to implementing pre-specified conditions for fee waivers
Language and Timeline updated Program CRT-4.3
51 Program CRT-7.2, “Allow housing on sites with institutional uses”: This program makes a significant commitment to allow housing on “sites used for institutional purposes, such as educational facilities and churches,” but the program has no timeline; rather, it “Will be considered at some time during period 2023-2031.”
- By adding a clear timeline and quantified objectives for affordable housing on institutional sites, the city will set guidelines for required densities and other incentives to promote housing on these sites.

Timeline updated Program CRT-7.2
52 Policy CRT-8, “Encourage a variety of housing types … at a range of densities”: This policy doesn’t have any substantive supporting programs.

Policy is general; Program CRT-8.1 focuses effort on Lindenville for this RHNA cycle. Program CRT-8.1 Facilitate live/work housing in Lindenville: Provide opportunities for live/work options to support a creative economy and meet the changing needs of workspaces. Focus on the Lindenville Area in particular as a location for live/work opportunities.

Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division
Time Frame: Lindenville Specific Plan Adoption estimated in 2023 Funding Source: Staff time to ensure zoning consistency with this General Plan goal
Program CRT-8.1
53 Program CRT-9.1, “Affordable housing overlay zone”: Needs quantified objectives to guide affordable housing overlay zone, ensure the program creates strong enough incentives to achieve measurable goals Updated Program - Adoption of AB 2011 and SB 6 will set in motion an update to the Zoning Ordinance to comply with State requirements Program CRT-9.154 The draft housing element may benefit from adoption or adjustment of other policies as well, which HLC may recommend in the coming weeks as we review the document more closely. Comment Noted No edits made 8/8/2022
San Mateo County
Anti-Displacement
Coalition
55 Include a housing element program to adopt a local just cause for eviction ordinance. Every Bay Area jurisdiction must update its housing element by January of 2023, and every housing element must include actions to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). Renters are disproportionately people of color, due to decades of discrimination and outright exclusion from homeownership opportunities. Moreover, arbitrary evictions often target people of color, immigrants, and other members of protected classes who may be “less desirable” renters in the minds of some landlords.

Cities should include a commitment to adopt a just cause for eviction ordinance in the program of actions that will be taken in order to meet the AFFH requirements, address the housing needs of low-income renters, as well as to meet the requirement to preserve existing, non-subsidized, affordable housing stock.

Including as an expanded program in EQ-3.4 for City Council to hold a public hearing to evaluate the State program as a floor and options to include more local controls in 2023.

Program EQ-3.4
56 Prioritize just cause for eviction for council consideration in 2022. With evictions already on the rise, we need just cause for eviction passed this year. We urge you to take a public position to support passing a strong local ordinance in 2022. Included as an expanded program EQ-3.4 for City Council to hold a public hearing to evaluate the State program as a floor and options to include more local controls in 2023. Program EQ-3.4 8/9/2022 Valley Oak Partners 57
The city’s Zoning & General Plan updates will be adopted in advance of the RHNA 6 Cycle, allowing the City to far exceed its required number of residential units in this upcoming 6th Cycle. The city’s RHNA requirement is 3,956 units with a 20% buffer for a total of 4,747 units. PDF page #74 (of the city’s draft Housing Element) shows the city has an “Excess Capacity” in its current Site Inventory List of the Housing Element of 9,153 units (over the RHNA requirement + 20% buffer). Given this unique excess capacity, the city could revise and lower the density range in the T3C area and not risk falling below the 4,747 unit RHNA benchmark. Lowering the T3C density would allow the construction of a product type more compatible with adjacent residential even after accounting for any density increases allowed by the State Density Bonus Law. The new T3C Zoning is proposed for roughly 7 different areas of the City. Several of these areas are immediately adjacent to existing single-family homes.

This edit has been made in associated zoning for General Plan 2040 Update with no major impact to RHNA projections No edits made 8/5/2022
Campaign for Fair
Housing Elements /
YIMBY Law
58 First, the City should allow a metropolitan density of 30 homes per acre throughout its territory. But for bad policy, density would be normal in the Bay Area. As we wrote this spring, the City must “plan for density” and recognize that its pace of home production will only achieve 56% of its housing need. (Draft, PDF pp.210–15.) While we applaud the City’s “good sense of development feasibility” (Id., p.67), the fact remains that millions of Californians are needlessly cost-burdened by a policy-driven housing shortage. It is thus harmful to mandate, rather than tolerate, low-density development. (Cf. Draft, p.49–51 [“single-family residential is the dominant land use”].) Since “30 units per acre … provid[es] favorable prospects for affordable units,” and HCD encourages an ample capacity buffer, we recommend the City legalize this metropolitan density throughout its territory. (Draft, p.68; HCD Site Inventory Guidebook p.22.) Comment noted but no change made. No edits made
59 Second, the City should implement an anti-displacement policy now. We also urged “a strong tenant protection ordinance.” (Draft, PDF p.211.) To that end, the City plans to convene “a Renter’s Task Force to explore an anti-displacement plan” (id., p.139), and we encourage that effort. But the City acknowledges what might be done, and nothing prevents it from enacting any of “a rent stabilization policy, just-cause eviction and harassment protections, tenant and landlord mediation programs, right of first refusal, rental assistance, tenant legal counseling, [or] a rent board to implement the program” now. (See ibid.) State law already guarantees a “right of first refusal” in South San Francisco. (See Gov. Code § 66300(d)(2)(d)(ii).) We challenge the City to improve on this guarantee.

Comment noted. Program edited as follows: Program EQ-3.2: Conduct a public hearing to consider an anti-displacement plan. in 2023:

Develop a Renter’s Task Force to Explore an anti-displacement plan to halt displacement in the City, particularly in Downtown, Sign Hill, El Camino, and Sunshine Gardens, which may include a rent stabilization policy, just cause-eviction and harassment protections, tenant and landlord mediation programs, right of first refusal, rental assistance, tenant legal counseling, and a rent board to implement the program. As policies are developed/adopted, develop objectives by which to measure the success of each program area.

Program EQ-3.2
60 Third, the City should abolish design review in favor of a ministerial process for multifamily housing. Last, we noted that “discretionary process[es]” impede the construction of multifamily housing. (Draft, PDF p.213.) Again, the City excels here in its transparency and leads the county in its processing times (id., pp.59–62)—and again, a severe housing shortage demands fundamental change. “Design review” need not and should not be
“required of all new construction in South San Francisco.” (Cf. id., p.60.) The City should abolish this discretionary process and adopt fully objective standards that guard only against safety concerns such as flooding, fire, and earthquakes; there is no legitimate reason in a housing shortage to tie up home construction for want of a “gable roof addition,” “thicker columns,” or a “rectangular window.” (Cf. South San Francisco Design Review Guidelines, PDF pp.14,17,19.)
Multi-family projects will require Design Review and approval of any State Density Bonus Law concessions or design waivers by Planning Commission only. City Council will only approve legislative change requests.

No edits made
8/9/2022 Joint CC/PC Study Session 61 Consider Rental Assistance/Guaranteed Income as a continuing program New Program EQ-8.4 and 8.5 Program EQ-8.4, EQ-8.5 62 Consider city owned parcels for dedication to low income housing development as a program New Program CRT-4.6 City led acquisition and/or development of mixed income affordable housing: The City shall pursue site acquisition and/or development of parcels to construct a goal of up to 300 units of mixed income affordable housing for very-low, low- and moderateincome housing.

Program CRT-4.6
63 Consider program to develop, coordinate, and provide available sites for affordable housing New Program CRT-4.6 City led acquisition and/or development of mixed income affordable housing: The City shall pursue site acquisition and/or development of parcels to construct a goal of up to 300 units of mixed income affordable housing for very-low, low- and moderateincome housing.

Program CRT-4.6
64 Consider program to for just cause eviction ordinance Including an expanded program EQ-3.2 for City Council to hold a public hearing to evaluate the State program as a floor and options to include more local controls in 2023.

Program EQ-3.2
65 Consider strengthening program for development along El Camino Real El Camino Real is focus of opportunity sites No edits made66 Consider a program to focus funding prioritization of Commercial Linkage Fees Incorporated into programs throughout Housing Element Update Program EQ--6.X and 8.1; CRT-3.1; 67 Consider upzoning Treasure Island Mobile Home Park from RH-50 to T5C zoning Site can be rezoned as part of a General Plan and Zoning Amendment Request No edits made68 Consider program to permit further parking reduction if a higher percentage of affordable housing is provided with a project This is covered by State Density Bonus Law and included in sevreal policies and programs in this Housing Element. Program CST 3.2; CRT- 4.5; SNP 1.1, 1.2; 5.3 and 5.4; 1/0/1900 CC Study Session 69 Add program to study Veteran's Housing New program created CRT-8.3 Program CRT-8.3 Council 70 Modify Program EQ-9.2 to ensure home repair support for low income property owners OR tenants Program EQ-7.2 modified Program EQ-7.2 Council 71 Modify Program CRT-9.1 to create flexibility for an affordable housing overlay that allows projects to qualify with less than 100% affordable project Program CRT-9.1 Modified Program CRT-9.1 HLC Comment 72 Commit to prioritization of commercial linkage fees in Program EQ-6.3 Program EQ-6.3 Modified Program EQ-6.3 HLC Comment 73 Clarify density that would be allowed for housing on institutional uses in Program CRT-7.2 Program CRT-7.2 Modified Program CRT-7.2 Submitted Date Commenting
Agency No. Comment SSF Response Location in HE if Modified 1/24/2022 and
2/8/22 Housing Choices 1
Establish and monitor a quantitative goal. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 150 new Extremely Low-Income and Acutely Low Income housing units for South San Francisco residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.

Such a menu would address a broader range of South San Francisco housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement.

Revised Program CRT-2.2 and added Program SNP-5.2 Program CRT-2.2; SNP5.2 4 Local Density Bonus Priorities. The state density bonus law incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. But in counties like San Mateo County, with the highest Area Median Income in the state, these incentives reward the targeting of income levels that effectively exclude the many people with disabilities and seniors living on fixed incomes well below the Very Low Income target. South San Francisco should add additional local incentives to the state density bonus law to reward the production of more housing for South San Francisco residents who do not benefit from the Low and Very Low Income units produced under the state density bonus law--for example, projects with a percentage of Extremely Low Income units and/or projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the Golden Gate Regional Center.

1.0 spaces max. per unit.; For two bedroom units: 1 spaces min. per unit.

In Transit Station Areas: 0.5 spaces min.,

1.5 spaces max. per unit.

South San Francisco offers its residents exceptional employment, educational and social opportunities but the severe shortage of Extremely Low Income rental units means that BIPOC--particularly those with disabilities--may be excluded from enjoying those community assets. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that will overcome such disparities. Policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in South San Francisco and decrease displacement and homelessnessness for the most at-risk South San Francisco residents.

Opportunity site corridors are focused along all major transit spines of the City with lower VMT. No rezoning planned for low density residential neighborhoods - City focused on implementing State Bill 9 standards in those areas, as applications are submitted.

Program CRT-6.2; CST3.1
10 Establish a strong tenant protection ordinance so that new housing benefits everyone. Development should not permanently displace current residents. Housing replacement programs, temporary housing vouchers, right of return, and demolition controls will create stability for renters while allowing new homes to be built for new households and to accommodate the growth associated with RHNA. In your sites inventory and rezoning programs, you should prioritize development on sites with owner-occupied housing & commercial uses over those with existing rent-controlled apartments or other rental housing with lower income residents.

HE opportunity sites specifically focus on commercial areas and rezoning to limit impact to existing housing sites. Programs added to address this comment.

Program EQ-5.2: Participate in a regional down payment assistance program.

Program CRT-9.3: Explore shared equity homeownership models:

Explore expanded use of shared equity homeownership models, including a community land trust, to increase home ownership and how to implement these models.

Also all of the policies under the creation and facilitation goal, work together to create more affordable housing unts (i.e. Program CRT-2.1 Implement Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with State law, requiring new rental and for sale residential development over four units to provide a minimum of fifteen (15) percent low- and moderateincome housing.) Program EQ-5.1: Conduct a robust evaluation of the inclusionary housing program: Evaluate the effectiveness of delivering units for residents with the greatest housing needs (e.g., single parent families, child-friendly housing, accessible/visitable units for persons with disabilities).

Program EQ-5.1, 5.2;
CRT-9.3;
12 Adequately plan for density. Ensure that a site’s density will accommodate the number of homes that are projected to be built. In addition, make sure height limits, setback requirements, FAR, and other controls allow for adequate density and the ability to achieve a site’s realistic capacity. Housing will not be feasible if you have a high density paired with low height limits. This density should be emphasized around jobs and transit and should go beyond the Mullin density in those areas.

Revising components of the companion zoning ordinace for the General Plan Update to ensure consistency with this guidance and ensure HE opportunity sites are probable development sites
No edits made
13 Provide sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate all income levels, including a minimum No Net Loss buffer of 30%. Not every site will be developed at maximum density during the eight-year planning period. Identify an ample amount of opportunity sites and zone the sites to accommodate lower-income housing types (usually a statutory minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre) to give the city the best chance at meeting its RHNA. 20% buffer implemented for RHNA, however opportunity sites create a possible creation of far greater housing than RHNA requirements No edits made 14 Use data from the 5th Cycle to calculate the likelihood of development for your 6th Cycle site inventory. Likelihood of development is a measure of the probability of an inventory site being developed during the planning period. The median likelihood of development across the state is 25%, meaning only one of every four sites will likely be developed during the planning period for the median city. Incorporating the likelihood of development into the zoned capacity will set the city up to successfully achieve their RHNA, making the housing element less of a paper exercise and more of an actionable, functional document.

Safe harbor approach per guidance from 21 Elements has been utilized. No edits made 16 Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate or lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.

Several programs included to address ADUs and incentivize their construciton and affordability
Program CRT-6.1, 10.1,

Re-evaluaton of the inclusionary ordinance is a set program to allow the Housing staff to evaluate with City Council other options, as needed.

Added Program SNP-5.2 to try to address, as well
Program EQ-5.1, Added
Program SNP-5.2
19 Ensure that the city has a ministerial process for housing permitting, especially multi-family housing, and remove impact fees for deed-restricted housing. A discretionary process for housing development creates uncertainty and adds to the cost of construction. For example, multi-family housing should not require a conditional use permit or city council approval unless the builder is asking for unique and extraordinary concessions. Right-sizing governmental constraints, entitlement processes, and impact fees will help the city successfully meet its RHNA.

Under General Plan Update and companion zoning, multi family housing will be a design review process by Planning Commission only. Design review will be based on objective standards only.

Under General Plan Update and companon zoning, parking minimums are reduced substantially and parking maximums introduced for transit adjacent projects.

Program EQ-6.3
4/25/2022 YIMBY Law /
Greenbelt Alliance 23
To meet the 6th cycle RHNA target, the rate of new housing permits in South San Francisco would need to increase from 278 units per year in 2018- 2021 to 494 units per year in the next 8 years. This is a 78% increase from recent years. If the current pace were to continue, South San Francisco would meet only 56% of its new housing target.

Added New Program to ensure implementation: Program CRT-8.2 Adopt Updated Zoning Ordinance as Companion to General Plan 2040: Adopt companion zoning to implement the General Plan 2040 Update and implement up zoning to create and facilitate new housing and opportunity sites.

Program CRT-8.2
Based on these trends, it is unlikely that South San Francisco’s existing realistic zoning capacity is sufficient to meet its 6th cycle RHNA target.

Program CRT-8.2
6/14/2022 21 Elements Equity
Advisory Group 25 Just cause eviction, relocation benefits, and first right of return. Tenant protections beyond state law. (Ex: Oakland Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance; Redwood City Relocation Assistance Program, LAHD Rent Stabilization Ordinance) Updated Program included; Program EQ-3.2: Evaluate and develop a local just cause for eviction ordinance to go above California’s Tenant Protection Act (TPA), the state’s just cause for eviction law adopted in 2019. The state law explicitly authorizes cities to pass stronger local ordinances, because the state legislature intended the state law to be a floor, not a ceiling, on tenant protections. Other programs related include: Program PRSV-5.2 Assist Tenants at risk of Displacement:

Program EQ-3.3: Create a rental task force.

Incorporated into programs throughout Housing Element Update Program EQ--6.X; CRT3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3; SNP5.1, 5.2, 5.3 27 Expand local funding sources for development of affordable housing. Can include policies such as commercial linkage fees, vacancy taxes, transfer tax, etc. (Ex: San Jose Measure E).

Program EQ-3.2 and 3.3
29 Fee exemptions for 100% affordable housing projects.

This is current process for City - Materials are made available in up to four languages, including Tagalog, Spanish, Chines, and English No edits made 33 Promote fair housing information to residents. Provide residents with information about renter protections and monetary relief available to victims of unlawful housing practices. Post information in easily available locations on jurisdiction websites and send regular mailers to renters within the community.

Parking minimums to be reduced to match AB 2097 as appropriate during General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update Program CRT-8.2 7/5/2022 Build Up San Mateo
County 37
Basic: identifying the linkage between housing and child care availability; and, if needed, ensuring alignment with state law in regard to Large Family Child Care Homes. • Support family housing that addresses residents’ needs for child care, youth services, recreation opportunities and access to transit.
• Ensure that zoning code and permitting practices are consistent with state law (2019) that prohibits use permits, business licenses, etc. for Large Family Child Care Homes. • Maintain the quality of life within neighborhoods by maintaining an adequate level of community facilities, such as child care centers and municipal services. • Facilitate and encourage the development of larger rental units appropriate for families with children, including the provision of supportive services such as family child care. • Support the provision of child care services, employment training, rental assistance, and other supportive services to enable households to be self-sufficient.
• Promote sustainable communities through locating housing near employment, transportation, child care and other community services.

City will implement the adopted 2030 Child Care Master Plan No edits made 39 Proactive: engaging developers to build space for child care; providing land/financing. • Provide incentives for developers to provide child care facilities or services as part of new residential, commercial, and industrial developments, including but not limited to: density bonuses, increases in floor area ratios, parking reduction, community benefits credit, traffic impact fee exemption, expedited entitlements, or modifications to zoning regulations.
• Assess the demand for child care created by new housing developments. • Work proactively with all housing developers to incorporate, where feasible, child care that serves families of all incomes and children of all ages.
• Include child care facility space as a priority or required component in Request for Proposals (RFPs) for city land and Notices of Funding Available (NOFA) for affordable housing developments. • Support inclusion of specially designed and located housing units, in multi-family projects, for licensed Family Child Care Home providers. (Resource materials available) City will implement the adopted 2030 Child Care Master Plan No edits made 7/29/2022 Housing
Leadership Council 40
Nonetheless, South San Francisco will continue to face challenges in planning for affordable housing, especially very low- and extremely low-income housing. Over the last housing element cycle, 16 low-income and 89 very low-income units were built in SSF, just 5.7% and 15.8% of the 5th cycle RHAN goal, respectively. Even with its recent rezonings in place, SSF has not yet demonstrated capacity to meet its very low-income RHNA obligation for the 6th RHNA cycle, much less its obligations for the other cycles slated to occur between now and 2040.

Additionally, projections have been corrected and updated to reflect accurate demonstrated capacity. SSF appreciates HLC identifying the issue with the numbers as previously presented.

According to the draft, “The City of South San Francisco does our best to avoid all these selfimposed constraints on housing production.”3 In its efforts to paint the city in the best light possible, the draft housing element sometimes ties itself into knots, claiming “While not an obstacle to housing development, the existing General Plan was limited in furthering South San Francisco’s housing goals given the limited priority development areas near mass transit.” Somehow, the existing General Plan was “not an obstacle” to housing while also being “limited in furthering” SSF’s housing goals.

0.5 FAR.
- Lack of Access to Local Subsidy: Despite implementation of a commercial linkage fee and in-lieu fees to fund affordable housing, to HLC’s knowledge SSF does not have a program to regularly release a Notice of Funding Availability to the affordable housing development community. Furthermore, the city has substantial publicly owned land on which it could further promote affordable housing.

Zoning Comments have been shared with the City's Zoning Consultant for consideration related to the General Plan Update.

SSF commercial linkage fee went into effect in 2019. There is some timedelay in receipt of fees as while projects submitting applications as of January 1, 2019 are required to pay the feel, payment is not due until issuance of building permits. In January 2022 staff presented to Council's Housing Subcommittee that approximately $4.7M in fees had been collected to-date and that 1 acre of land is estimated to cost between $5.6 and $8M depending on how development-ready the land is.

Projections have been corrected and updated to reflect accurate demonstrated capacity. SSF appreciates HLC identifying the issue with the numbers as previously presented.

A commitment to holding this hearing in 2023 has been added. A commitment to develop objectives to measure the success of any program/policy has been added.

Program EQ-3.2
47 Program EQ-7.1, “Prioritize Capital Improvement Program for vulnerable populations”: Outlines a strong vision to enhance equity for the Orange Park neighborhood but needs quantified objectives by which to measure a capital improvement program.

Language has been strengthened to support an AFFH or other equity analysis for any future CIP project Program EQ-7.1
48 Program EQ-8.1, “Create Preservation Plan”: Needs quantified objectives by which to measure preservation plan.

Language has been strengthened and addtionally a related preservation policy around adding deed restricted affordable units has been added within the Creation and Facilitation section, "CRT-9.4 Explore Adoption of Community Opportunity to Purchase Act Policy"
Program CRT-9.4
49 Program CRT-4.1, “Site Acquisition for Affordable Housing”: Promises to “work with for-profit and nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites,” but has no quantified objectives or other metric with which to measure success. The program should specify a funding source and a specific timeline for completion. In order to strengthen this program, the city should build on it by recognizing South San Francisco’s abundance of publicly owned land that could be used for affordable housing. The city should identify city-owned sites that can be used to promote deeply affordable housing and commit to implementing an RFP for each site within the first three years of the 6th cycle planning period.

Timeline updated Program CRT-7.2
52 Policy CRT-8, “Encourage a variety of housing types … at a range of densities”: This policy doesn’t have any substantive supporting programs.

Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division
Time Frame: Lindenville Specific Plan Adoption estimated in 2023 Funding Source: Staff time to ensure zoning consistency with this General Plan goal
Program CRT-8.1
53 Program CRT-9.1, “Affordable housing overlay zone”: Needs quantified objectives to guide affordable housing overlay zone, ensure the program creates strong enough incentives to achieve measurable goals Updated Program - Adoption of AB 2011 and SB 6 will set in motion an update to the Zoning Ordinance to comply with State requirements Program CRT-9.1 54 The draft housing element may benefit from adoption or adjustment of other policies as well, which HLC may recommend in the coming weeks as we review the document more closely. Comment Noted No edits made 8/8/2022
San Mateo County
Anti-Displacement
Coalition
55 Include a housing element program to adopt a local just cause for eviction ordinance. Every Bay Area jurisdiction must update its housing element by January of 2023, and every housing element must include actions to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). Renters are disproportionately people of color, due to decades of discrimination and outright exclusion from homeownership opportunities. Moreover, arbitrary evictions often target people of color, immigrants, and other members of protected classes who may be “less desirable” renters in the minds of some landlords. Cities should include a commitment to adopt a just cause for eviction ordinance in the program of actions that will be taken in order to meet the AFFH requirements, address the housing needs of low-income renters, as well as to meet the requirement to preserve existing, non-subsidized, affordable housing stock.

Including in existing program EQ-3.4 for City Council to hold a public hearing to evaluate the State program as a floor and options to include more local controls in 2023.

Program EQ-3.4
56 Prioritize just cause for eviction for council consideration in 2022. With evictions already on the rise, we need just cause for eviction passed this year.

We urge you to take a public position to support passing a strong local ordinance in 2022.

Including in existing program EQ-3.4 for City Council to hold a public hearing to evaluate the State program as a floor and options to include more local controls in 2023.

Program EQ-3.4
8/9/2022 Valley Oak
Partners 57
The city’s Zoning & General Plan updates will be adopted in advance of the RHNA 6 Cycle, allowing the City to far exceed its required number of residential units in this upcoming 6th Cycle. The city’s RHNA requirement is 3,956 units with a 20% buffer for a total of 4,747 units. PDF page #74 (of the city’s draft Housing Element) shows the city has an “Excess Capacity” in its current Site Inventory List of the Housing Element of 9,153 units (over the RHNA requirement + 20% buffer). Given this unique excess capacity, the city could revise and lower the density range in the T3C area and not risk falling below the 4,747 unit RHNA benchmark. Lowering the T3C density would allow the construction of a product type more compatible with adjacent residential even after accounting for any density increases allowed by the State Density Bonus Law. The new T3C Zoning is proposed for roughly 7 different areas of the City. Several of these areas are immediately adjacent to existing single-family homes.

This edit has been made in associated zoning for General Plan 2040 Update with no major impact to RHNA projections No edits made 8/5/2022
Campaign for Fair
Housing Elements /
YIMBY Law
58 First, the City should allow a metropolitan density of 30 homes per acre throughout its territory. But for bad policy, density would be normal in the Bay Area. As we wrote this spring, the City must “plan for density” and recognize that its pace of home production will only achieve 56% of its housing need. (Draft, PDF pp.210–15.) While we applaud the City’s “good sense of development feasibility” (Id., p.67), the fact remains that millions of Californians are needlessly cost-burdened by a policy-driven housing shortage. It is thus harmful to mandate, rather than tolerate, low-density development. (Cf. Draft, p.49–51 [“single-family residential is the dominant land use”].) Since “30 units per acre … provid[es] favorable prospects for affordable units,” and HCD encourages an ample capacity buffer, we recommend the City legalize this metropolitan density throughout its territory. (Draft, p.68; HCD Site Inventory Guidebook p.22.)
Comment noted but no change made. No edits made
59 Second, the City should implement an anti-displacement policy now. We also urged “a strong tenant protection ordinance.” (Draft, PDF p.211.) To that end, the City plans to convene “a Renter’s Task Force to explore an anti-displacement plan” (id., p.139), and we encourage that effort. But the City acknowledges what might be done, and nothing prevents it from enacting any of “a rent stabilization policy, just-cause eviction and harassment protections, tenant and landlord mediation programs, right of first refusal, rental assistance, tenant legal counseling, [or] a rent board to implement the program” now. (See ibid.) State law already guarantees a “right of first refusal” in South San Francisco. (See Gov. Code § 66300(d)(2)(d)(ii).) We challenge the City to improve on this guarantee.

Comment noted. Program edited as follows: Program EQ-3.2: Conduct a public hearing to consider an anti-displacement plan. in 2023: Develop a Renter’s Task Force to Explore an anti-displacement plan to halt displacement in the City, particularly in Downtown, Sign Hill, El Camino, and Sunshine Gardens, which may include a rent stabilization policy, just cause-eviction and harassment protections, tenant and landlord mediation programs, right of first refusal, rental assistance, tenant legal counseling, and a rent board to implement the program. As policies are developed/adopted, develop objectives by which to measure the success of each program area.

Program EQ-3.2
60 Third, the City should abolish design review in favor of a ministerial process for multifamily housing. Last, we noted that “discretionary process[es]” impede the construction of multifamily housing. (Draft, PDF p.213.) Again, the City excels here in its transparency and leads the county in its processing times (id., pp.59–62)—and again, a severe housing shortage demands fundamental change. “Design review” need not and should not be “required of all new construction in South San Francisco.” (Cf. id., p.60.) The City should abolish this discretionary process and adopt fully objective standards that guard only against safety concerns such as flooding, fire, and earthquakes; there is no legitimate reason in a housing shortage to tie up home construction for want of a “gable roof addition,” “thicker columns,” or a “rectangular window.” (Cf. South San Francisco Design Review Guidelines, PDF pp.14,17,19.)
Multi-family projects will require Design Review and approval of any State Density Bonus Law concessions or design waivers by Planning Commission only. City Council will only approve legislative change requests.

No edits made
8/9/2022 Joint CC/PC Study
Session 61 Consider Rental Assistance/Guaranteed Income as a continuing program New Program EQ-8.4 and 8.5 Program EQ-8.4, EQ-8.5 62 Consider city owned parcels for dedication to low income housing development as a program New Program CRT-4.6 City led acquisition and/or development of mixed income affordable housing: The City shall pursue site acquisition and/or development of parcels to construct a goal of up to 300 units of mixed income affordable housing for very-low, low- and moderate-income housing.

Program CRT-4.6
64 Consider program to for just cause eviction ordinance Including in existing program EQ-3.2 for City Council to hold a public hearing to evaluate the State program as a floor and options to include more local controls in 2023.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 7, 2022
Nell Selander, Director
Economic and Community Development Department
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Nell Selander:

RE: City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of South San Francisco’s (City) draft housing element received for review on September 9, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on December 5, 2022 with Tony Rozzi, Stephanie Skangos, Danielle Thoe, and consultant Sabina Mora. In addition, HCD considered comments from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance; David Kellogg, Campaign for Fair Housing Elements' and YIMBY Law; Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County; and Kevin Burke pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) (1) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed.

Nell Selander, Director

Page 2 ends

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html HCD appreciates the commitment and cooperation of the housing element update team during the update and our review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Molivann Phlong, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 December 7, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
As part of the review of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, femaleheaded households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness).

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Integration and Segregation: The element reports some data regarding segregation and integration of race, disability, familial status, and income but should specifically evaluate patterns of households by income, including comparing areas geographically throughout the City, coincidences with other components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., disparities in access to opportunity and disproportionate housing need) and incorporating local data and knowledge and other relevant factors.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity: The element should describe availability and access to transportation mobility geographically within the City and impacts on the various components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., race, disability, income, overpayment).

Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: The element includes some general information on persons experiencing homelessness and housing conditions but should also evaluate those needs, impacts and patterns within the City, such as areas of higher need. For homelessness, the element should examine disproportionate Updated language added on P. 22. Red-lined Appendix 2.1 evaluates program effectiveness for special needs populations
Redlined analysis beginning on P. 136 as well as Maps 1-17 Attachment Redlined edits and map on P. 138-40
City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 December 7, 2022
impacts on protected characteristics (e.g., race, disability) and patterns of need, including access to transportation and services. For housing conditions, the element should discuss any areas of potentially higher needs of rehabilitation and replacement.

The element may utilize local data and knowledge such as service providers and code enforcement officials to assist this analysis.

Contributing Factors: The element identifies many contributing factors to fair housing issues but must prioritize these factors to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): The element must quantify the number of existing ELI households by tenure and analyze their housing needs, including overpayment, overcrowding and other characteristics, resources and strategies and the magnitude of housing needs.

Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).

Housing Costs: While the element includes estimated rents for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data. The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge) to better reflect market conditions.

Housing Stock Condition: While the element briefly mentions substandard housing based on ACS data, it should estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.

Special-Needs Populations: While the element identifies the number of persons experiencing homelessness Countywide, it should include an estimate and analysis of persons experiencing homelessness within the City utilizing the most recent Point in Time count.

Redlined edits for Homelessness on P. 48 and 153 and for Housing Conditions P. 46 and 136 Redlined edits on P. 164
Redlined edits on P. 48
Redlined edits on P. 37
Redlined edits on P. 45
Redlined edits on P. 46-47
Redlined edits on P. 153
City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 December 7, 2022

3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress toward the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): As you know, the City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022, however, the element must demonstrate the affordability of units in the planning period based on actual sales price, rent level, or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). This analysis should specifically address listed pipeline projects (Table 5-2) that are “under review”. The element must also discuss availability or likelihood the units will be built in the planning period and should account for any barriers to development, phasing, anticipated build out horizons, market conditions and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period.

Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions for the realistic residential capacity on identified sites in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. The element must clarify whether the number of units estimated for each site is adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level. For example, the element could list recent and pending developments by zone, allowable densities, number of units and built density.

In addition, the element must account for the likelihood of residential development in zones that allow for 100 percent nonresidential development. For example, the element could discuss which zones allow 100 percent nonresidential development, evaluate all (residential and nonresidential) recent trends in the zones, discuss how often these developments include a residential component and account for that likelihood in the calculation of residential capacity. Lastly, the element heavily relies on sites where specific plans are not complete. The element must describe the timing of when the specific plans will be completed and clarify whether appropriate zoning is in place prior to implementing the specific plans.

Small Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is suitable and appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov.

Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).) The element lists small sites but must also evaluate whether the sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income households and add or modify programs as appropriate. For example, the element could list past consolidations by the number of parcels, number of owners, zone, number of units, affordability and circumstances leading to consolidation and relate those trends to the identified sites or could explain the potential for consolidation on a site-by-site basis.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element describes in general the existing use of each nonvacant site for example Red-lined edits throughout Chapter 5 and beginning on P. 75 Red-lined edits beginning on P. 77
Red-lined edits beginning on P. 78
City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 December 7, 2022
“commercial” or “industrial”. This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period. In addition, the element needs to also analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. For example, the element includes sites identified as warehouse, parking lot, civic, residential, and religious, but no analysis was provided to demonstrate whether these existing uses would impede development of these sites within the planning period. The element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified. The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors.

Replacement Housing Requirements: Absent a replacement housing program, sites with existing residential uses are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. If utilizing sites with existing residential uses, the element must include a program or remove the sites. The replacement housing program must have the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3).

Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites: Nonvacant sites identified in the prior planning period or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless the site is available at appropriate densities and the element includes a program to make sites available by right in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) The element should denote any sites identified in prior planning periods and add or modify programs, if necessary.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element projects 336 ADUs over the planning period or approximately 47 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning period. These trends are inconsistent with HCD records (3 reported in 2018, 4 in 2019, 47 in 2020, and 41 in 2021) and do not support an assumption of 47 ADUs per year. To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if number and affordability assumptions are not met.

Availability of Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply capacity, including the availability and access to distribution facilities to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period.

Red-lined edits beginning on P. 78
Comment noted.

No carryover nonvacant or vacant sites from RHNA Cycle 5 are included in Cycle 6.

Red-lined edits beginning on P. 79
Red-lined edits beginning on P. 80
City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 December 7, 2022
For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The element should demonstrate compliance with these requirements and add or modify programs, if necessary.

Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City, it must describe any other known environmental constraints or conditions within the City that could preclude development on identified sites in the planning period (e.g., airport compatibility and related land use controls, shape, contamination, easements, overlays).

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element should list and evaluate the development standards of the MI zone that allows emergency shelters and clarify whether emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary action. The element should provide an analysis of proximity to transportation and services for these sites, hazardous conditions, and any conditions in appropriate for human habitability. In addition, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement. • Supportive Housing: Supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) The element must describe and analyze the City’s supportive housing standards and codes and demonstrate consistency with Section 65583(c)(3) or add or revise programs to comply with the statutory requirements.
• Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Low Barrier Navigation Centers shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.
• By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use byright in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.

Red-lined edits beginning on P. 80
Updated electronic sites inventory to be submitted with adopted HE Red-lined edits to address each item below
beginning on P. 108
City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 December 7, 2022
• Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The element must describe where SROs are allowed and how (development standards and permit procedures) or add a program as appropriate.
• Manufactured Housing: The element must clarify whether manufactured homes on -a permanent foundation are treated similar to single-family uses pursuant to Government Code section 65852.3 or add a program if necessary.

4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types in all zones that allow residential uses. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, feasibility, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints. The analysis must specifically describe and analyze SB 330 requirements, maximum lot coverage in the RH-50 zone, height limits in the RM-22, DRM, and T3 zones, maximum floor area ratios in the ETC zone without utilizing a community benefit, the FAA height constraint in the T6 zone, and whether there are minimum unit sizes. In addition, the element should specify the notes in Table 4-2 development standards. Lastly, the element must describe and analyze parking requirements in all zones that allow residential uses.

Red-lined edits starting on P. 49 - P. 59
Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. While the element lists total fees and the percentage of development cost, it must list and analyze planning fees including, but not limited to, conditional use permits (CUP), zone changes, general plan amendments, variances, site plans, specific plans, affordable housing in lieu fee, lot line adjustment, and other environmental fees. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element should include programs to address identified constraints.

Red-lined edits starting on P. 59 - P. 62
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development, including any design review. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. For example, the element should identify and analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty, the presence of processes or guidelines to promote certainty and add or modify programs as appropriate. Finally, the element should discuss compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and timing requirements, including streamlining determinations and add or modify programs as appropriate. Red-lined edits starting on P. 66 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 December 7, 2022
Streamlining Provisions: The element should clarify whether the City has procedures consistent with streamlining procedures pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 and include programs as appropriate.

Zoning Fees and Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards, fees, and inclusionary requirements for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe and analyze the degree and type of code enforcement for impacts on housing supply and affordability.

Local Ordinances: While the element analyzes the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, it must describe and analyze whether the City has a short-term rental ordinance or other ordinances and requirements that impact housing development.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element briefly describes its reasonable accommodation procedures. However, the element should also describe the process and decision-making criteria such as approval findings and analyze any potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, the element must describe and analyze how group homes for six or fewer and seven or more are allowed within the City and add programs as appropriate. For your information, zoning should simply implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, population types and licenses. These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones, most notably low-density zones, which can constrain the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities. Requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses.

5. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.

While the element includes a list of at-risk properties within the next ten years, the table shows Magnolia Plaza Apartments at-risk of expiring in 2017 with a “low” risk level. The element must address whether this property was maintained as affordable and analyze the risk of affordability expiration. In addition, the element must include an analysis of preservation versus replacement costs, a list of qualified entities with capacity to preserve at-risk properties and identify funding sources to maintain affordability. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).

Red-lined edits starting on P. 31 and reference to preservation Program EQ-8.1 Red-lined edits starting on P. 64 - P. 65
Red-lined edits starting on P. 54 - P. 60
New sub section starting on P. 62
Red-lined edits starting on P. 62
Red-lined edits starting on P. 63 and reviews ADU and STVR regulations Red-lined edits starting on P. 69 and include a new program recommendation City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8 December 7, 2022
C. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs must have specific commitment to housing outcomes and discrete timing (e.g., at least annually or by January 2024). Examples of programs to be revised include:
• Program EQ-2.1 (Legal Counsel and Advocacy Assistance): The program should include proactive outreach regarding available services. • Program EQ-3.1 (Provide Renter Education and Assistance): The program should include proactive outreach to tenants.
• Program EQ-3.2 (Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider Anti-displacement): The program should commit to a specific action or outcome to implement the program.
• Program EQ-4.1 (Provide Resident Housing Rights Education): The program should include proactive outreach for the identified trainings. • Program EQ-6.1 (Increase Affordable Units): The program must include specific actions on how the City will increase units as well as proactive outreach. • Program EQ-6.2 (Incentivize Development): The program should specify whether incentives are in place or include timing for implementing the incentives. • Programs EQ-7.2 (Fund Home Repair for Low Income Residents), CRT-10.1 (Maintain and Update Preapproved ADUs), CRT-10.2 (Continue ADU Construction Management Program), CRT-11.1 (Connect Residents to Mortgage Assistance), PRSV-1.1 (Minor Home Repair), PRSV-1.3 (Provide Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation), PRSV-5.1 (Monitor At-Risk Units), PRSV-7.3 (Expand Maintenance and Abatement Assistance Programs): The programs should include proactive outreach.
• Program EQ-8.2 (Provide Fair Housing Training): The program should be revised and commit to AFFH training for landlords regardless of implementing the rental registry.
• Program CRT-4.1 (Site Acquisition for Affordable Housing): The program should describe how often the site acquisition will occur, what potential incentives will be offered, and include proactive outreach to developers.
• Program CRT-4.3 (Allow Waivers or Deferrals of Fees for Affordable Housing Development): This program should describe the criteria for waivers and whether the process will be discretionary.
• Programs CRT-9.2 (Preserve Naturally-Occurring Affordable Housing), CRT-12.1 (Encourage Resident Controlled Limited-Equity Housing), SNP-5.4 (Reduce or Red-lined edits completed as suggested below.

City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9 December 7, 2022
Abolish Parking Requirements for Developmentally Disabled Populations), SNP5.5 (Create ADU Rent Restriction Incentives): The programs must be revised to include specific timing for implementation.
• Program CST-4.1 (Implement Adopted Objective Design Standards): The program must include actions and timing to implement the objective standards. • Program SNP-1.3 (Facilitate Multigenerational Housing), and SNP-2.1 (Facilitate Housing for All Needs): The programs should be revised to include specific timing of implementation beyond “consider” and “encourage” housing. • Program SNP-3.2 (Promote Disabled Housing Resources and Programs): The program must include timing and annual revisions.
• Program SNP-9.1 (Continue to Promote Home Sharing): The program should include proactive outreach as well as how often it will be publicized. • Many programs identified under the climate section currently state “at some time during the planning period”. The programs should include specific timing for implementation.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Program CRT-7.1 (Coordinate with SSFUSD Regarding Housing on Closed School Sites) and CRT-7.2 (Allow Housing on Sites with Institutional Uses): The programs should clarify whether the school sites and institutional sites are also identified in the sites inventory. If the sites are needed to meet the RHNA, additional information on timing and likelihood of availability must be included.

Program CRT-8.2 (Adopt Updated Zoning Ordinance as Companion to General Plan): The program must clarify whether the updated zoning ordinance that the City is relying on to meet the RHNA has been completed by the start of the planning period (January 31, 2023). For your information, if these sites are not rezoned prior to the beginning of the planning period and if rezoning is necessary to accommodate a shortfall of adequate sites in the planning period, sites must permit housing by-right pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c)(1) and 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Red-lined edits indicated no SSFUSD sites included in RHNA Red-lined edits indicate updated zoning completed in November 2022 City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10 December 7, 2022
Program CRT-9.1 (Create Affordable Housing Overlay Zone): The program should describe concrete actions and include specific timing for implementation.

Program CST-3.1 (Ensure Zoning Consistency): After a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should revise this program to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law as well as include specific timing for implementation.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Program CRT-4.5 (Implement State Density Bonus Law): The program must commit to reviewing and amending the City’s current density bonus ordinance for compliance with current state law and monitor compliance and update as necessary. (Gov. Code, § 65915.)
Program SNP-5.2 (Codify Flexibility into the Inclusionary Ordinance): The program should be revised to include specific implementation by removing “consider”.

Program SNP-8.2 (Implement Permanent Supportive Housing): The program should clarify whether the actions are to implement AB 2162, by-right permanent supportive housing requirements as well as include specific timing for implementation.

Program CST-1.1 (Expedite Permit Review): The program must clarify how the City will expedite reviews by including specific implementation actions with timing.

Program CST-3.2 (Reduce Parking Requirements): The program must clarify what parking standards will be revised.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete City awaits separate letter indicating non-compliance as all current zoning has been reviewed and approved by HCD to date.

No new programs added.

City of South San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11 December 7, 2022
analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or numeric objectives and, as appropriate, must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

In addition, Table 6-13 (pp. 132-135) list a fair housing action plan recommendations to address fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. This list of actions and timing should be integrated into the programs to incorporate measurable or numerical objectives to affirmatively further fair housing.

Table 6-13 is directly implemented as the Equity Programs beginning on P. 142 D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
The element must include quantified objectives to establish an estimate of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. While the element includes these objectives for units that can be constructed, it must also include an estimate of housing units that can be rehabilitated and conserved over the planning period. Estimates updated in Table 7-2 on P. 179 E. Consistency with General Plan
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) While the element discusses how internal consistency will be achieved with other elements of the general plan as part of the housing element update, it should also discuss how internal consistency will be maintained throughout the planning period.

Updated language added on P. 3
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031
APPENDIX 2.1 PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments City of South San Francisco: Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element Program
Name/Number
Program Description and Objective Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluationand Recommendation
Goal 1 ‐ Promote New Housing Development1‐1A Vacant and Underutilized LandInventory
The City shall periodically update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels identified in this Housing
Element. The City shall also conduct a periodic review of the composition of the housing stock, the types of
dwelling units under construction or expected to be
constructed during the following year, and the
anticipated mix, based on development proposals
approved or under review by the City, of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the period
covered by the Housing Element. This analysis will be
compared to the City's remaining 2014‐2022 Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any
changes in land use policy are warranted.

Ongoing Retain, update to
reflect new planningperiod.
1‐2A Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance, in accordance with State law,
requiring new for sale residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percent low‐
and moderate‐income housing.

Completed in
2018 withordinanceupdate. Ongoing.

Retain and update to
re‐evaluate bi‐annually.

Program requires 15%affordable for new for‐sale or rental units.Strengthen program toaccommodate specialneeds populations. 1‐2B Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance Review
The City shall periodically review the success of the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SSFMC 20.380, to
determine if the objectives of the ordinance are being
met. Consideration shall be made to revising provisions of the ordinance to ensure that a range of housing
opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including households of low‐and
extremely‐low income.

Completed in
2018 withordinanceupdate. Ongoing.

Retain as stated above.
1‐3A Commercial and
Housing Linkage FeeReview
The City shall continue to implement the Commercial
and Housing Linkage Fee, periodically reviewing to
determine if the fee is appropriate and keeping pace
with affordable housing production needs.

Ongoing Retain and evaluate bi‐
annually. Strengthen
program to allocatefunding for specialneeds populations. 1‐4A Site Acquisition The City shall work with for‐profit and nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or
developed with underutilized, blighted, and/or
nonconforming uses for the development of affordable
housing. As needed, the City will meet with developers
to discuss and identify development opportunities and
potential funding sources.

Ongoing. Retain and evaluate
annually.
1‐4B Support and Pursue
Funding Applications
for Affordable Housing
Consistent with existing practice, the City shall continue to support funding applications for federal and state
funds to promote the development of affordable
housing.

Ongoing. Retain. Target funding
applications thatprioritize special needspopulations.
1‐4C Consider Waivers or
Deferrals of Planning,
Building and ImpactFees for Affordable
Housing Development
Consistent with SSFMC section 20.310.004, the City shall continue to consider the waiver of application and
development fees for affordable housing development
in order to support the financial viability of affordable housing development. Waiver of such fees will be on a
case‐by‐case basis at the City Council’s discretion and will balance the goal of affordable housing production
with the need to collect fee revenues to support other
City goals.

Ongoing. Retain.
1‐4D Review New
DevelopmentRequirements for
Condominiums, SSFMC

19.36 The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires a minimum of 5 units in order to construct new
condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit requirements.

Is being reviewed
as part of the
General Planupdate.

Retain as this was not
implemented underprevious Housing
Element.
1‐5A Increased Residential
Densities in the
Downtown Area
Through implementation of the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan, support increased residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in the
downtown area to realize the objectives of the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and General Plan
policies.

Specific Plancompleted in
2018. Ongoing.

Remove (completed).
1‐6A Continue to support
the development ofsecondary dwelling
units and educate the
Actively promote community education on second units,
as permitted in SSFMC 20.350.035, by posting
information regarding second units on the City website
and providing brochures at the public counter in the
Centralized Permit Center.

Ongoing.Brochures are
provided at the
Permit Center
Counter; in
Retain and reflect
recent State Law
impacts. Explore
programs that couldprioritize ADU
FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments community about this
program
addition, staffexplores second
unit options
during counter
discussions and
during building
permit planchecks.Also, changes at
State level to
encourageproduction ofsecond units ledCity to modifycurrent zoning regulations to be
more permissive.No parking,
reduced setbacks,
larger secondunits, and units
with multiple
bedrooms are
now permitted
with approval of a
Building Divisionpermit.
construction for special
needs populations.
1‐7A Continue to identify
opportunities for
residentialdevelopment through
infill andredevelopment of
underutilized sites
Through completion and implementation of the
Downtown Specific Area Plan and ongoing
implementation of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area
Specific Plan, the BART Transit Village Plan, the El
Camino Real Mixed Use Zoning Districts the City will
maintain an inventory of residential development
opportunities on infill and underutilized sites with
proper zoning to support both affordable and market
rate housing development.

Ongoing.The Department
of Economic and
CommunityDevelopment –EconomicDevelopment and
Housing Divisionmaintains a list of
potentialdevelopmentsites.Additionally, theDivision is
currently
conducting a
Request forQualifications for
severalunderutilizedsites within theDowntownStation Area Specific Plan.

Retain and update to
reflect new
Opportunity Site
Corridors.
1‐7B Evaluate Downtown
residential lotstandards
Evaluate the feasibility of reduced lot development
standards for Downtown residential zoning districts to
encourage the development of new housing and
ownership opportunities.

Complete.Staff hired a
consultant andconducted in‐
depth analysis of
reduced lotstandards within
the downtownarea to promotesubdivision and
additionalownership
opportunities. A
zoning text
amendment was
adopted in 2019
to reducerequired lot
dimensions and
facilitate newhousing and
ownershipopportunities.

Remove (completed).

GOAL 2: The City of South San Francisco will take necessary steps to remove government and public infrastructure constraints to housing development through administrative support, intergovernmental cooperation, public‐private partnerships, and permitstreamlining. 2‐1A Expedite Permit Review To support affordable and market rate housing construction, the City shall work with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; promote housing design and projects
that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this
Ongoing.The Citycontinues toprovide prompt
customer service,
Retain and update.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element; provide timely assistance and advice
on permits, fees, environmental review requirements,
and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly
delays in project approval; and interface with
community groups and local residents to ensure public
support of major new housing developments.
and use project
planner liaisons
for large
developments, tofacilitate
expeditedentitlementreview and
processing. Theyear 2018 was
particularlysuccessful for
staff ‐ several
new large‐scalehousingdevelopmentswere approvedunder time‐sensitiveconditions.The One Stop Permit center
provides services
by Planning,
Building andPublic Works in
one building. The
One Stop Permit
Center hours are
from 7am‐5pm.

Permit processing
is efficient and
timely, withaccessible staff.

The City'sPlanningCommissionmeets twice amonth and the
Design Review
Board meets once
a month toensure the timelyprocessing ofapplications.
2‐2A Ensure coordination
among departments
Early in the development application process, the
Planning Division shall work with the applicant and
consult with other departments and divisions to ensure
that necessary infrastructure is planned or is in place to support the proposed project.

Ongoing.The CommunityDevelopmentDepartment relieson a Technical Advisory Group
and pre‐submittal
meetings with
potentialapplicants to
ensure a smooth
applicationprocess.Representativesfrom PublicWorks, FireSafety, Police,Water Qualityand Buildingensure thatadequateinfrastructure is planned oravailable to
support the
proposed project.

Additionally,applicants of
large projects areinvited to attendthe TechnicalAdvisory Group meetings to
present their pre‐
developmentplans and discuss
any questions orconcerns withCity staff.

Retain and update.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 2‐3A Support regional
funding programs
The City shall continue to participate with other
government agencies to support regional funding
programs, such as participating with San Mateo County
in its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit
Certificate programs.

Ongoing.The Citycontinues toparticipate in the
21 Elements TAC
meetings. The
City also
collaborates with
HEART (Housing
Endowment andRegional Trust) ofSan Mateo
County as well asthe HousingLeadershipCouncil of SanMateo County.

Retain and update as
this programspecifically prioritizespecial needspopulations, asappropriate. 2‐4A Continue to implement
adopted design
guidelines
Implementation of design guidelines applies to
rehabilitation and renovation of existing structures as well as to new construction.

Ongoing.The Residential
Design Guide was
adopted by thePlanningCommission by
Resolution No.2471. In addition,the adopted El
CaminoReal/ChestnutAvenue Plan and
DowntownStation AreaSpecific Plan
includes Design
Standards and
Guidelines. Allnew projects areevaluated for
consistency with
applicable design
guidelines.City staff willadopt a form‐based code for
new ResidentialDesign Guidelines
consistent withobjectivestandards as part
of the General
Plan 2040process.

Retain and update to
reflect new Zoning
Ordinance
implementing General
Plan vision andobjective standards.
2‐5A Disseminate
Information onAffordable HousingPrograms
To widen the availability of information to interested
residents, the City will continue to update its website and other promotional/informational materials to
include information on affordable housing, housing
programs, and inclusionary units.

Ongoing.The Housing
Division maintains
online resourcesfor general
affordablehousing programs
and for specific
inclusionary units
related to newdevelopment.Outreach relatedto the COVID‐19pandemic was significantlyramped up in
2020, as well.ONGOING
Retain and update.

GOAL 3: The City of South San Francisco will strive to maintain and preserve existing housing resources, including both affordable and market‐rate units.
3‐1A ‐ Minor Home Repair The City will provide funds to non‐profit organizations providing free minor home repairs to assist extremely
low‐ to low‐income homeowners to bring houses into a
good state of repair and maintain them as viable units in the local housing stock.

Ongoing.Minor HomeRepair Programs
Center for
Independence of
Individuals with
Disabilities (CID):

The City used$10,000 in CDBGfunds to support
Retain. This program
successfully focuses onspecial needspopulations and shouldcontinue.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments CID HousingAccessibilityModification(HAM) Program
which providesaccessibilitymodifications.RebuildingTogetherPeninsula (RTP):The City used$70,500 in CDBGfunds to support two RTP
programs,NationalRebuilding Dayand Safe atHome.El Concilio: The City used $27,500in CDBG funds to
support El
Concilio'sPeninsula MinorHome Repair
Program.
3‐1B ‐ Funding Prioritization The City shall continue to give housing rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Funds shall be
targeted towards older housing stock and to families
earning less than 80 percent of AMI.

Ongoing.See details re:
fundingallocations under
Program 3‐1A,
Minor HomeRepair.

Retain. This program
successfully focuses onspecial needspopulations and shouldcontinue. 3‐1C ‐ Low Interest Loans for
Housing Rehabilitation
The City shall provide low‐interest loans for
rehabilitation of single‐family and multi‐family housing by supporting the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding.

Ongoing.See details re:
fundingallocations under
Program 3‐1A,Minor HomeRepair.The City also
issued one loan
for rehabilitation
of a single family
home for a very‐
low‐incomefamily using CDBG
funds.

Retain. This program
successfully focuses onspecial needspopulations and shouldcontinue. 3‐1D ‐ Financial Assistance for
SROs
The City shall provide financial assistance, when feasible, for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms
and Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area.

Ongoing.The City did notprovide anyfinancialassistance toSingle RoomOccupancies in the Downtownarea in 2020.

Remove.
3‐2A ‐ Enforce Housing,
Building and Safety
Codes
The City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes as well as eliminate incompatible uses or blighting influences from
residential neighborhoods through targeted code
enforcement and other available regulatory measures.

Ongoing.The City operates
a CodeEnforcementDivision through
the Public Works
Department. As
of 2020 there
were up to 2
enforcementofficers on staffthat enforce
housing, building
and safety codes.

Additionally,Building Divisionstaff enforcesthese codes when they are out on
inspections.Incompatible uses
Retain and update.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments are addressed inzoning code
section 20.320.
3‐3A ‐ Capital Improvement
Program for Older
Neighborhoods
The City shall maintain its capital improvement program to upgrade infrastructure in older neighborhoods such
as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden,
Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck's Lots.

Ongoing.The Engineering
Division continues
to manage andadminister the
Capital
ImprovementProgram budget
to upgrade
essentialinfrastructurethroughout the
City.

Retain and update. This
program successfullyfocuses on specialneeds populations andshould continue. 3‐4A ‐ Support SSF Public
Housing Authority(PHA)
The City shall support the South San Francisco PHA in its continued operation and rental of 80 units of public
housing.

Ongoing.The SSF PHAcontinues toreceive HUDfunding support and operates
independently of
the City, however
the City is
coordinating to
pursue federalfunding sources
to improve public
housing.

Retain and update. This
program successfullyfocuses on specialneeds populations andshould continue. 3‐4B ‐ Examine Displacement
of Affordable Housingand Lower‐IncomeHouseholds
The City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, under the umbrella of work to be
undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop and
evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents. The City will use this analysis, in addition to other analysis, to develop potential
measures and programs and the City will implement
those programs, as it considers and deems appropriate,
to address the risk of displacement of existing lower
income residents.
2015, study
completed.Ongoing.The City
continues toparticipate in the21 Elements
TechnicalAdvisory Group,which analyzed
displacementconcerns for San
Mateo County in
2018.The draft reportwas submitted to
the City inFebruary 2018
and has been
reviewed for
recommendationsandimplementationmeasures. Staffconducted onestudy session with City Council
in 2018, a second
in 2019 to discuss
tenantprotections for
SSF residents, and
adopted interim
measures toprotect tenants
during thewindow betweenadoption of State
Legislation forRental Protectionand the effective
date.

Remove (completed)and new displacementprogram included in Housing Element to
continue to prioritizespecial needspopulations, asappropriate. 3‐5A – Condominium
Conversion Limitations
The City shall continue to enforce limits on the
conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As
specified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code,
condominium conversions are allowed only if they meet
the following general criteria:
a. A multiple‐family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists;
Ongoing.

No requests or
preliminaryrequests for
consideration of a
CondominiumConversion ofapartment unitswere submitted
Retain. This program
effectively limits theconversion ofapartments intocondominiums andreduces displacementpressure on specialneeds populations.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City’s available housing stock;
c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and
managing the resulting condominium projects;
d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the time of conversion;
e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable
policies of the General Plan; and
f. The conversion creates at least five (5) condominium units.
to the City in
2020.
3‐6A ‐ Monitor At‐Risk Units The City shall monitor its supply of subsidized affordable housing to know of possible conversions to market rate, including taking the following actions:
a. Publicize existing State and federal notice
requirements to nonprofit developers and property
owners of at‐risk housing.
b. Respond to any federal and/or State notices including Notice of Intent to Pre‐Pay, owner Plans of Action, or
Opt‐Out Notices filed on local projects.

Ongoing.No subsidizedunits monitoredby the City of SSF
were at‐risk of
conversion tomarket rate in
2020 but were in
previousreporting years.

Retain. This program
successfully focuses onspecial needspopulations and shouldcontinue. 3‐6B ‐ Assist Tenants "The City shall assist tenants displaced by the conversation 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."
Ongoing.In 2020, the
COVID‐19
pandemic created
many risks for
tenants. The Citymaintains onlineresources andbrochures in theEconomic andCommunityDevelopmentDepartment that detail informationabout tenants'rights, social
service providers,and other support
institutions.Additionally,programs werecreated to offset rent challenges of
tenants and rent
loss of property
owners withsuccess.

Retain and update. This
program successfullyfocuses on specialneeds populations andshould be expanded aspart off future fundingchoices.

GOAL 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of existing neighborhoods is a highpriority for the City of South San Francisco. 4‐1A ‐ Review Projects for
Major EnvironmentalHazards during the
Environmental Review
Process
The City shall review residential projects for major
environmental hazards during the environmental review
process. The City shall not approve the projects unless the hazards are adequately mitigated.

Ongoing.All projects
reviewed and
approved by the
PlanningCommission
and/or City
Council have
been reviewed
for consistency
with theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act.

Remove and replace
with meaningful and
actionablesustainability programs
that prioritize specialneeds populates, asappropriate.
4‐2A ‐ Administer Minimum
Building Security
Standards
The City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48,
Minimum Building Security Standards, of the Municipal
Code by continuing to route all new development
applications and additions.

Ongoing.The Economic
and Community
DevelopmentDepartment'sproject review,
entitlement, and
building permit
processes ensurethat Chapter

15.48 is
administered and
applied to all new
development
Retain.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments applications andadditions.
4‐3A ‐ Ensure that
applications for new
residential land usesproposed within the 65
to 69 CNEL aircraft
noise contour include
an acoustical study
The City shall require that the acoustical study be
prepared by a professional acoustic engineer and specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of the new units, to
achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on measured aircraft noise events at the land use location.

Ongoing.All newapplications for
residentialdevelopment arereviewedconsistent withthe SFO Airport Land UseCompatibility Plan
(ALUCP) and
adoptedMunicipal Code
regulations. New
residentialprojects withinthe 70+ dB CNEL
areas are not
currentlypermittedwithout an
override process
by the localagency and new
residentialprojects withinthe 65 to 69 dB
CNEL noise
contours requireacoustic studies.

Retain and update to
reflect potentialoverride process.

Goal 5: Support the development of an adequate supply of safe, decent, and affordable housing for groups with special housing needs.
5‐1A ‐ Density Bonus for
Senior Housing
The City shall include density bonus incentives
specifically targeted for senior housing projects and
permit reduced parking standards.

Ongoing.A project for 80
units available to
low‐incomeseniors wasissued a building
permit in 2017
and completed in
January 2019
(and will berecognized as.

Density bonus
incentives were
included in the
project duringentitlementstage.

Retain as this program
effectively produceshousing units targetingspecial needspopulations. 5‐1B ‐ Reduced Parking
Requirement for Board
and Care Facilities
Encourage development of residential board and care
facilities for seniors by continuing to allow reduced
parking requirements for these types of facilities.

Ongoing.The City'sMunicipal Code
SSFMC20.330.004reduces parking
requirements for
residential carefacilities as part of
the 2010 Zoning
Ordinance
Update. Therequirement is:
1 space for every
7 residents plus 1
space for each
live‐in caregiver.

Facilities servingmore than 15residents shall
also provide 1space for each
caregiver,employee, anddoctor on‐site at
any one time.

Retain as this program
effectively produceshousing units targetingspecial needspopulations. 5‐2A ‐– Ensure Consistency
with State Accessibility
Laws
Encourage development of residential board and care
facilities for seniors by continuing to allow reduced
parking requirements for these types of facilities.

Ongoing.During the review
of all new
Retain as this program
effectively produceshousing units targeting
FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments developmentprojects andapplications for
modifications toexisting buildings,
the Building
Division staff planchecks projects to
ensure that all
State Accessibly
Laws are met in
accordance withCalifornia Building
Code Section
1134B.
special needs
populations.
5‐2B ‐ Promote Disabled
Housing Resources and
Programs
The City shall ensure that its website and handout
materials regarding housing resources, requirements,
and services for the disabled are updated regularly and made available to the public.

Ongoing.The Citymaintains onlineresources andmaterialsregarding housing and services for
the disabled and
has staff in the
Economic andCommunityDevelopmentDepartment whoare trained toassist with housing issues.

Retain and strengthen
outreach to proactivelyreach special needspopulations.
5‐3A ‐ Accessibility
Modification Programs
The City shall continue to support
programs that provide modifications that make
housing units accessible to the disabled.

Ongoing.The City providesannual grant funding to
the Center of
Independent ofIndividual with
Disabilities (CID) who
has a Housing
Accessibly Modification
(HAM) Program that
provides financial
assistance to people
that need to make
modifications to theirhome to allow for
disabled access.Additionally, the zoning
ordinance includes
SSFMC section 20.510,Waivers andModifications, that
provides provisions for
reasonableaccommodations toensure equal access to
housing by allowing the
Chief Planner authority
to grant relief from
zoning requirements.

Retain and
strengthenoutreach toproactively reachspecial needspopulations. 5‐4A ‐ Reasonable
Accommodations
The City shall create a public information brochure on
reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and
provide that information on the City's website.

Ongoing.The City providesinformation consistentwith the program.

Additionally, the zoning
ordinance includes
SSFMC section 20.510,Waivers andModifications, that
provides provisions for
reasonableaccommodations to
ensure equal access to
housing by allowing the
Chief Planner authority
to grant relief from
zoning requirements
Retain and
synthesize with 5‐4B and reflect
appropriately in
AFFH programstargeting special
needs populations.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 5‐4B ‐– Resources for the
developmentallydisabled
The City shall support the Golden Gate Regional Center
in its mission to serve those with developmental
disabilities, disseminate information about the Center
and its services, and make referrals as appropriate.

Ongoing.The City'’s Zoning
regulations permit
Adult Day Care uses in
many areas of the City
by‐right. These usesare typically funded insome part by the Golden Gate Regional
Center to serve
developmentallydisabled infants,children, youth and
adults.

Retain and
synthesize with 5‐4A and reflect
appropriately in
AFFH programstargeting special
needs populations.
5‐5A ‐ Support a variety of
housing unit designs,
including larger
housing units that can
accommodate large
families
The City shall seek to broaden the diversity of its
housing stock that is affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households to include more units
that are suitable to large families. Currently, much of South San Francisco’s affordable housing consists of
single‐room occupancy units and one‐ and two‐
bedroom units. The City shall work with housing
developers during the entitlement process to ensure
family units are included, as possible.

Ongoing.At pre‐applicationmeetings staff
discusses providing a
range of housing sizes
with developers prior
to the submittal of a
formal application. Inthe Downtown StationArea Specific Plan, family sized housing is
recognized as a
community benefit
eligible for a density
bonus.

Retain as this
produces housingfor special needspopulations.
5‐6A ‐ Support Continuum of
Care Planning
The City shall continue to be an active participant in
the Continuum of Care planning process and support
its efforts to address the needs of South San Francisco residents in need of emergency shelter or temporary
housing.

Ongoing.The City continues toprovide referrals to
families and individuals
for social services
including case
management andreferrals for housing
and homeless
prevention, as
appropriate.

Retain as this
produces housingfor special needspopulations.
5‐6B ‐ Support non‐profits
that offer housing
solutions and services
for homeless
The City shall continue to support non‐profit
organizations that offer solutions to solving
homelessness and/or provide housing related services
for the homeless or at‐risk homeless.

Ongoing.There is a County runhomeless shelterlocated in South San Francisco on North
Access Road. The
former RedevelopmentAgency regularly
provided funding to the
County for the
operation of theshelter. As part of the
2015‐2023 Housing
Element update, theCity conducted a
capacity analysis for
new emergency shelter
construction within
approved zoning
districts.

Retain as this
produces housingfor special needspopulations.
5‐6C ‐ Support Ongoing
Operation of 90‐Bed
Emergency Shelter inSouth San Francisco
The City shall continue to support the operation of a
90‐bed year‐round homeless shelter within the city
limits.

Ongoing.Funding for homeless
services and housing
was provided to
Samaritan House and
CORA (CommunitiesOvercomingRelationship Abuse).

Retain as this
produces housingfor special needspopulations.
5‐6D ‐ Social Services for
Housing and Homeless
Prevention
The City shall continue to provide referrals to
organizations helping families with social services for housing and homeless prevention.

Ongoing.The City's HousingDivision maintains
online and handout
resources for residents
with housingchallenges. Consistentwith COVID‐19pandemic outreach,this effort has been Retain as this
produces housingfor special needspopulations.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments ramped up in 2020 to
prevent homelessness.
5‐7A ‐ Support and Promote
Home Sharing
The City shall support the efforts and services of the
HIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternative
housing solution for extremely low and very low
income individuals and families; female‐headed
households; those at risk of homelessness; and others
in need.

Ongoing.The City's Housing
Division maintains
online and handout
resources for residents
with housingchallenges.

Retain as this
produces housingfor special needspopulations.
5‐8A ‐ Provide referrals to
Veterans who arehomeless or at risk of
homelessness
The City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their
immediate families that are homeless or at risk of
homelessness. Resources for referrals include the
Veteran’s Administration (VA) National Call Center of
Homeless Veterans at 1‐877‐4AID‐VET and to the HUD‐
VASH program that is a joint effort between the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the VA Supportive Housing (HUD‐VASH) Program to
move Veterans and their families out of homelessness
and into permanent housing through a voucher
program that allows homeless Veterans to rent
privately owned homes.

Ongoing.Many of theseresources are shared
with applicableresidents through the
funded Samaritan
House and CORAshelter systems. The
City provides an annual
grant to a fair housing
service provider using
its HOME
Administrative funds.Project Sentinel,providescomprehensive fairhousing services including complaint
investigation,community outreach
and education to San
Mateo County
residents
Retain as this
produces housingfor special needspopulations.
5‐9A ‐ Amend the Zoning
Code to comply with
Health and Safety Code
Section 17021.5regarding employee
housing for six or fewer
employees
The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow
employee housing in accordance with Health and
Safety Code Section 17021.5, to permit and encourage
the development and use of sufficient numbers and
types of employee housing facilities as are
commensurate with local needs.

Complete.

This item has been
included in a recent
zoning text amendment
update reviewed by the
Planning Commissionand adopted by the
City Council.

Remove(completed).

GOAL 6: South San Francisco values diversity and strives to ensure that all households have equal access to the City's housingresources. 6‐1A ‐ Support Equal Housing
Opportunity Laws
The City shall require that all recipients of locally‐
administered housing assistance funds and other
means of support from the City acknowledge their
understanding of fair housing law and affirm their
commitment to the law. The City shall provide
materials to help with the understanding of and
compliance with fair housing law.

Ongoing.The City provides an
annual grant to a fair
housing service
provider using its
HOME Administrative
funds.See also info on Project
Sentinel under 5‐8A.

Retain as this helps
all residents andspecial needspopulations.
6‐1B ‐ Regional Cooperation The City shall participate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to periodically update the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County, a
report that helps jurisdictions identify impediments to fair housing and develop solutions.

Ongoing.The City is a member of
the 21 Elements
Technical Advisory
Committee, which is
working to address
housing shortage and
displacement concerns.

Retain as this helps
all residents andspecial needspopulations..
6‐2A ‐ Legal Counsel and
Advocacy Assistance
The City shall support nonprofits providing legal
counseling and advocacy assistance concerning fair
housing laws, rights, and remedies to those who
believe they have been discriminated against.

Ongoing.The City provides an
annual grant to a fair
housing service
provider using its
HOME Administrative
funds.See also info on Project
Sentinel under 5‐8A.

Retain as this helps
all residents andspecial needspopulations..

GOAL 7: The City of South San Francisco will promote energy efficiency in residential development within the city, including reductionof energy use through better design and construction in individual homes, and also through energy efficient urban design.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 7‐1A ‐ Assist with energy/
weatherization and
water conservingmodifications/featuresin existing residentialrehabilitation projects The City will continue to provide funds to non‐profit
organizations that provide energy efficiency upgrades
and/or weatherization improvements for very low‐ and
low‐income households.

Ongoing.Through the City's
Housing RehabilitationProgram and CDBG
subrecipient grants, the
City encourages
weatherization and
energy efficiencyupgrades.The City continues toprovide funding andtechnical assistance to energy efficiencyupgrade programs,
including the Home
Energy RenovationOpportunity (HERO)program.

Retain and update
to reflect latest
sustainability
initiatives adopted
by the new ClimateAction Plan thatprioritizes accessfor special needspopulations. 7‐2A ‐ Continue to provide
information on energyefficient standards for
residential buildings
The City shall promote the use of passive and active
solar systems in new and existing residential buildings to ensure that State residential energy conservation
building standards are met. The City's Climate Action
Plan (CAP), adopted in February 2014, also includes
measures to promote energy efficiency, which are
actively implemented.

Ongoing.Building Division staff
implements and
enforces the CA Green
Building Code for all
new projects. During
residentialrehabilitation projects,like RebuildingTogether, replacement of appliances/utilities
includes energy andwater conservingmodels.The City promotes useof solar panels with reduced permitting
fees and streamlined
review and inspections.

In addition, the City
Council adopted a
Climate Action Plan
(CAP) in February 2014,
that sets forth
reduction measuresthat apply to residential
development. Measure
3‐5 in the CAP
promotes energyinformation and
sharing, and educating
the community about
energy‐efficiency
behaviors andconstruction.

Retain and update.
7‐3A ‐ Title 24 The City shall continue to enforce State requirements, including Title 24 requirements, for energy
conservation in residential development and
encourage residential developers to consider
employing additional energy conservation measures
with respect to the following:

Ongoing.The CAP includesmeasures that
encourage theintegration of higher‐
density development
and mixed‐usedevelopment neartransit facilities and
community faculties,
and to reduce the
dependence on autos
through smart parking
practices. In addition,the City continues to
implement Title 24requirements through
the Building Division.

Remove andreplace withmeaningfulprogramsimplementing the Building Code.
7‐3B ‐ Promote Green
Building Features
The City will utilize the following tools to promote
green building and energy conserving features in new
and existing residential construction.

In 2009, the City completed the Green X‐Ray House,
transforming an existing single‐family home into an
energy efficient model home. The City will use the
Green X‐Ray House as a public outreach tool to
disseminate information regarding energy‐savingopportunities, offering regular tours to homeowners Ongoing.Building Division staff
implements andenforces the CaliforniaGreen Building Code for all new residential
and commercial
projects. Duringresidentialrehabilitation projects,
Remove andreplace with
meaningfulprogramsimplementing the
Building Code,
Climate Action
Plan.

FINAL / City of South San Francisco 2023‐2031 Housing Element Summary of Previous Housing Element Accomplishments and homebuilders as well as for promotional events.

This home features an array of products including solar panels, radiant floor heating and recycled glass tiles.

Staff has adopted the Green Building Ordinance (2014).
like RebuildingTogether, replacement
of appliances/utilities
includes energy andwater conservingmodels. The Green X‐ Ray house is no longer
in operation.
7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 207
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031
APPENDIX 3.1 ABAG HOUSING NEEDS REPORT
1 HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: SOUTH

SAN FRANCISCO
ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning
2021-04-02
2 0.1 Table of content

0.1 Table of content .................................................................................................... 2

0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3

0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 2 Summary of Key Facts .................................................................................................. 6 3 Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs .................................................................. 9

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination......................................................................... 9

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. 9 4 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ..................................................... 11

4.1 Population .......................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Age ................................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................ 14

4.4 Employment Trends ............................................................................................... 15

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers ............................................................................... 15

4.4.2 Sector Composition .......................................................................................... 19

4.4.3 Unemployment ............................................................................................... 20

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households ............................................................................. 21

4.6 Tenure ............................................................................................................... 25

4.7 Displacement ....................................................................................................... 29 5 Housing Stock Characteristics ...................................................................................... 31

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits ............................................................ 31

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion ...................................................... 34

5.3 Substandard Housing .............................................................................................. 35

5.4 Home and Rent Values ............................................................................................ 36

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ................................................................................ 39 6 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................ 48

6.1 Large Households .................................................................................................. 48

6.2 Female-Headed Households ...................................................................................... 49

6.3 Seniors............................................................................................................... 51

6.4 People with Disabilities .......................................................................................... 52

6.5 Homelessness ....................................................................................................... 54

6.6 Farmworkers ....................................................................................................... 59

6.7 Non-English Speakers ............................................................................................. 60 3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 ................................................................................... 13 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race .......................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 ................................................................................. 15 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction ............................................................................................. 16 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence ......................... 17 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ........................................................................... 18 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry .............................................................................. 20 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................. 21 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level ...................................................................... 23 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure ........................................................................... 24 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 14: Housing Tenure ................................................................................................... 26 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ..................................................................... 27 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type .............................................................................. 29 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ............................................................... 30 Figure 19: Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................ 31 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ........................................................................ 32 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type ............................................................................................ 33 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues..................................................................................... 36 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ...................................................................... 37 Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ............................................................................... 37 Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ................................................................... 38 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent ........................................................................................... 39 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure .......................................................................................... 40 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level .................................................................................. 41 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race ............................................................................................. 42 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................ 43 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ........................................................ 44 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ........................................................................ 45 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ................................................................ 46 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race........................................................................................... 47 Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure ...................................................................................... 48 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ....................................................................... 49 Figure 37: Household Type .................................................................................................. 50 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status .............................................................. 51 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure.................................................................... 52 Figure 40: Disability by Type ................................................................................................ 53 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County .............................. 55 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County......................... 56 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County ................................. 57 Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County ................... 58 Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County ......................................... 60 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency ................................................................ 61

0.3 List of tables
4 Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology .................................. 10 Table 2: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................ 11 Table 3: Housing Permitting ................................................................................................. 33 Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ............................................................................. 34 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age .......................................................... 54 Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence .................................................. 54 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ............................................... 59 Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population ............................................................................. 59 5 1 INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of South San Francisco. 6 2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of South San Francisco increased by 12.1% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area.
• Age – In 2019, South San Francisco’s youth population under the age of 18 was 12,386 and senior population 65 and older was 10,903. These age groups represent 18.4% and 16.2%, respectively, of South San Francisco’s population.
• Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 20.1% of South San Francisco’s population was White while 1.8% was African American, 41.2% was Asian, and 33.3% was Latinx. People of color in South San Francisco comprise a proportion above the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.1 • Employment – South San Francisco residents most commonly work in the Health & Educational Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in South San Francisco decreased by 2.7 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 22,300 (48.8%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in South San Francisco has increased from 2.24 in 2002 to 3.24 jobs per household in 2018. • Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in South San Francisco increased, 2.9% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for San Mateo County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. • Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all South San Francisco residents to live and thrive in the community. – Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $750k-$1M in 2019. Home prices increased by 114.2% from 2010 to 2020. – Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in South San Francisco was $2,000 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 58.3% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $80,120 per year.2 • Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 58.5% of homes in South San Francisco were single family detached, 12.7% were single family attached, 6.0% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 21.3% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of 1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source. 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices. 7 multi-family units increased more than single-family units. Generally, in South San Francisco, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region.
• Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs.

A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In South San Francisco, 19.0% of households spend 30%- 50% of their income on housing, while 16.3% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 16.3% of households in South San Francisco live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 6.5% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

11.4% of households in South San Francisco live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built. • Neighborhood – 20.6% of residents in South San Francisco live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 24.1% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.3
• Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In South San Francisco, 9.0% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 14.1% of South San Francisco households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 13.4% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of 3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional guidance from HCD.
8 respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.

Additionally, there may be instances where there is no data available for a jurisdiction for particular data point, or where a value is 0 and the automatically generated text cannot perform a calculation. In these cases, the automatically generated text is “NODATA.” Staff should reword these sentences before using them in the context of the Housing Element or other documents.

Note on Figures
Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for South San Francisco.
9 3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 20504 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing.5 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.6 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needsallocation Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area are likely to receive a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to previous cycles.

In January 2021, ABAG adopted a Draft RHNA Methodology, which is currently being reviewed by HCD.

For South San Francisco, the proposed RHNA to be planned for this cycle is 3,956 units, a slated increase from the last cycle. Please note that the previously stated figures are merely illustrative, as ABAG has yet to issue Final RHNA allocations. The Final RHNA allocations that local jurisdictions 4 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation 5 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories:

Very Low-income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
Low-income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
Moderate-income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
Above Moderate-income: 120% or more of Area Median Income 6 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf 10 will use for their Housing Elements will be released at the end of 2021. The potential allocation that South San Francisco would receive from the Draft RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category as follows:

Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology Income Group
South San
Francisco
Units
San Mateo
County
Units
Bay Area
Units
South San
Francisco
Percent
San Mateo
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI) 871 12196 114442 22.0% 25.6% 25.9%
Low Income
(50%-80% of AMI) 502 7023 65892 12.7% 14.7% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of
AMI)
720 7937 72712 18.2% 16.6% 16.5%
Above Moderate
Income (>120% of
AMI)
1863 20531 188130 47.1% 43.1% 42.6%
Total 3956 47687 441176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Methodology and tentative numbers were approved by ABAG’s Executive board on January 21, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021). The numbers were submitted for review to California Housing and Community Development in February 2021, after which an appeals process will take place during the Summer and Fall of 2021.

THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER HCD REVIEW 11 4 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD

CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, South San Francisco’s population has increased by 12.1%; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In South San Francisco, roughly

8.4% of its population moved during the past year, a number 5.0 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%.

Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
South San Francisco 54312 56528 60552 61444 63632 66884 67879 San Mateo County 649623 685354 707163 719844 718451 761748 773244 Bay Area 6020147 6381961 6784348 7073912 7150739 7595694 7790537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

In 2020, the population of South San Francisco was estimated to be 67,879 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 11.5%, while it increased by 5.1% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 6.7%. The population of South San Francisco makes up 8.8% of San Mateo County.7
7 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990. 12 Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.

For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts.

DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

4.2 Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In South San Francisco, the median age in 2000 was 35.6; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 40 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and-over population has increased (see Figure 2). 13 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.

People of color8 make up 54.6% of seniors and 71.4% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3). 8 Here, we count all non-white racial groups
14 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.

4.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today9 . Since 2000, the
percentage of residents in South San Francisco identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 11.8 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 13,517 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Asian / API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.
9 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 15 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02.

4.4 Employment Trends

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in South San Francisco increased by 53.8% (see Figure 5).
16 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.

There are 37,206 employed residents, and 53,842 jobs10 in South San Francisco - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 1.45; South San Francisco is a net importer of workers.

Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively lowincome workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. South San Francisco has more low-wage residents than low-wage jobs (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other 10 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey.
17 end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage jobs than high-wage residents (where highwage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).11 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7). 11 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.
18 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in South San Francisco has increased from 2.24 in 2002, to 3.24 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8). 19 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.

4.4.2 Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which South San Francisco residents work is Health & Educational Services, and the largest sector in which San Mateo residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.
20 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:

Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail:

C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.

4.4.3 Unemployment
In South San Francisco, there was a 2.7 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.
21 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonallyadjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15.

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state12.

In South San Francisco, 39.0% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)13, compared to 15.5% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11).
12 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 13 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 22 Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In San Mateo County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $44,000 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

Note on Estimating the Projected Number of Extremely Low-Income Households Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs.

This document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households, as Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers. Once South San Francisco receives its 6th Cycle RHNA, staff can estimate the projected extremely low-income households using one of the following three methodologies:

Option A: Assume that 59.8% of South San Francisco’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

According to HCD’s Regional Housing Need Determination for the Bay Area, 15.5% of the region’s housing need is for 0-30% AMI households while 25.9% is for 0-50% AMI households. Therefore, extremely low-income housing need represents 59.8% of the region’s very low-income housing need, as 15.5 divided by 25.9 is 59.8%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as HCD uses U.S. Census data to calculate the Regional Housing Need Determination.

Option B: Assume that 56.1% of South San Francisco’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

According to the data shown below (Figure 11), 5,718 of South San Francisco’s households are 0-50% AMI while 3,209 are extremely low-income. Therefore, extremely low-income households represent 56.1% of households who are 0-50% AMI, as 3,209 divided by 5,718 is 56.1%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as the information in Figure 11 represents a tabulation of Census Bureau Data.

Option C: Assume that 50% of South San Francisco’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

HCD’s guidance notes that instead of using use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, local jurisdictions can presume that 50% of their RHNA for very low-income households qualifies for extremely low-income households. percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.
23 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In South San Francisco, the largest proportion of renters falls in the 51%-80% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 12).
24 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.14 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In South San Francisco, American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 13). 14 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
25 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

4.6 Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In South San Francisco there are a total of 21,330 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 38.8% versus

61.2% (see Figure 14). By comparison, 39.8% of households in San Mateo County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.
26 Figure 14: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.

Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.15 In South San Francisco, 54.2% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were

71.3% for Asian households, 49.1% for Latinx households, and 62.7% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.
15 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 27 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In South San Francisco, 56.7% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 22.7% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 16).
28 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.

In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In South San Francisco, 79.1% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 22.0% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 17).
29 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22.

4.7 Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in South San Francisco, 16.3% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 6.5% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 11.4% of households in South San Francisco live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.16
16 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement 30 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: LowIncome/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25. 31 5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of South San Francisco in 2020 was made up of 58.5% single family detached homes,

12.7% single family attached homes, 6.0% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 21.3% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 1.5% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In South San Francisco, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Multifamily Housing: Five-plus Units.

Figure 19: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01.

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In South San Francisco, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1940 to 1959, with 8,581 units constructed during this period (see Figure 20). Since 2010,

0.9% of the current housing stock was built, which is 193 units. 32 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

Vacant units make up 3.8% of the overall housing stock in South San Francisco. The rental vacancy stands at 3.1%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 0.5%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is Other Vacant (see Figure 21).17
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for shortterm periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.18 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting 17 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (3.8%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant. 18 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
33 in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.19
Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

Between 2015 and 2019, 977 housing units were issued permits in South San Francisco. 85.4% of permits issued in South San Francisco were for above moderate-income housing, 5.9% were for moderateincome housing, and 8.7% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 3).

Table 3: Housing Permitting
Income Group value
Above Moderate Income Permits 834
Very Low Income Permits 80
Moderate Income Permits 58
Low Income Permits 5
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the 19 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley. 34 county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG-11.

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 614 assisted units in South San Francisco in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 12.1% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.20 Note on At-Risk Assisted Housing Developments
HCD requires that Housing Elements list the assisted housing developments at risk of converting to market-rate uses. For more information on the specific properties that are at Moderate Risk, High Risk, or Very High Risk of conversion, local jurisdiction staff should contact Danielle Mazzella, Preservation & Data Manager at the California Housing Partnership, at [email protected].

Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area
Low 540 4656 110177
Moderate 0 191 3375
High 74 359 1854
Very High 0 58 1053
Total Assisted Units in Database 614 5264 116459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included. 20 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
35 Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at [email protected] to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK-01.

5.3 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in South San Francisco. For example, 1.3% of renters in South San Francisco reported lacking a kitchen and 0.9% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.4% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.2% of owners who lack plumbing.

Note on Substandard Housing
HCD requires Housing Elements to estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. As a data source for housing units in need of rehabilitation and replacement is not available for all jurisdictions in the region, ABAG was not able to provide this required data point in this document. To produce an estimate of housing needs in need of rehabilitation and replacement, staff can supplement the data below on substandard housing issues with additional local information from code enforcement, recent windshield surveys of properties, building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Housing Stock Characteristics. 36 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.

5.4 Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in South San Francisco was estimated at $1,122,070 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow.

The largest proportion of homes were valued between $750k-$1M (see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $1,418,330 in San Mateo County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $1m-$1.5m (county) and $500k-$750k (region).

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 152.6% in South San Francisco from $444,160 to $1,122,070. This change is above the change in San Mateo County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 24). 37 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.

Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The 38 ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In South San Francisco, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $1500-$2000 category, totaling 25.4%, followed by 23.3% of units renting in the Rent $2000-$2500 category (see Figure 25).

Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $3000 or more category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole.

Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 58.3% in South San Francisco, from $1,430 to $2,000 per month (see Figure 26). In San Mateo County, the median rent has increased 41.1%, from $1,560 to $2,200. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.21
21 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the 39 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data. 40 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.

Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in South San Francisco, 27.9% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 16.3% of those that own (see Figure 27). Additionally, 20.8% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 10.3% of owners are severely cost-burdened.

In South San Francisco, 16.3% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 19.0% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 28). For example, 65.1% of South San Francisco households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For South San Francisco residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 0.4% are severely cost-burdened, and 92.0% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.
41 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 66.7% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with 38.7% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29).
42 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In South San Francisco, 15.2% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while

14.4% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 19.6% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 16.6% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).
43 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 44.3% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 90.0% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 31).
44 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In South San Francisco, 4.9% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to

0.7% of households that own (see Figure 32). In South San Francisco, 8.4% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 4.5% for those own. 45 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 3.0% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 2.1% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 33).
46 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In South San Francisco, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (see Figure 34) 47 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and nonHispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03. 48 6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

6.1 Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In South San Francisco, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (59.9%) are owner occupied (see Figure 35). In 2017, 19.6% of large households were very lowincome, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 12,952 units in South San Francisco. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 18.0% are owner-occupied and 82.0% are renter occupied (see Figure 36). 49 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.

6.2 Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly femaleheaded households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In South San Francisco, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 55.2% of total, while Female-Headed Households make up 13.4% of all households. 50 Figure 37: Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In South San Francisco, 16.2% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 0.6% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 38). 51 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

6.3 Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 39).
52 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

6.4 People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 40 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of South San Francisco. Overall, 9.0% of people in South San Francisco have a disability of any kind.22
22 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
53 Figure 40: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:

Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty:
has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.

State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.23 In South San Francisco, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 33.6%, while adults account for 66.4%.
23 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.
54 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group value
Age 18+ 344
Age Under 18 174
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.

The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in South San Francisco is the home of parent /family /guardian.

Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 349
Community Care Facility 81
Intermediate Care Facility 56
Independent /Supported Living 22
Foster /Family Home 11
Other 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.

6.5 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In San Mateo County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.5% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing (see Figure 41).
55 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.

People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In San Mateo County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for

66.6% of the homeless population, while making up 50.6% of the overall population (see Figure 42). 56 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.

Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.

In San Mateo, Latinx residents represent 38.1% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 24.7% of the general population (see Figure 43). 57 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In San Mateo County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 305 reporting this condition (see Figure 12). Of those, some 62.0% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

Note on Homelessness Data
Notably all the data on homelessness provided above is for the entire county. This data comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Point in Time count, which is the most comprehensive publicly available data source on people experiencing homelessness. HUD only provides this data at the countylevel and not for specific jurisdictions. However, Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to estimate or count of the daily average number of people lacking shelter. Therefore, staff will need to supplement the data in this document with additional local data on the number of people experiencing homelessness. If staff do not have estimates of people experiencing homelessness in their jurisdiction readily available, HCD recommends contacting local service providers such as continuum-of-care providers, local homeless shelter and service providers, food 58 programs, operators of transitional housing programs, local drug and alcohol program service providers, and county mental health and social service departments.24
Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

In South San Francisco, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year. By comparison, San Mateo County has seen a 37.5% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects. 24 For more information, see HCD’s Building Blocks webpage for People Experiencing Homelessness:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/people-experiencinghomelessness.shtml 59 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness AcademicYear South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area 2016-17 11 1910 14990
2017-18 0 1337 15142
2018-19 0 1934 15427
2019-20 0 1194 13718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

6.6 Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

In South San Francisco, the migrant worker student population totaled 37 during the 2019-20 school year and has decreased by 81.5% since the 2016-17 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 57.1% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.

Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population
AcademicYear South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area 2016-17 130 657 4630
2017-18 105 418 4607
2018-19 37 307 4075
2019-20 24 282 3976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01. 60 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in San Mateo County has decreased since 2002, totaling 978 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 343 in 2017 (see Figure 45).

Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

6.7 Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In South San Francisco, 8.7% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for San Mateo County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.
61 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03. 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 209
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031
APPENDIX 4.1 ZONING ORDINANCE FORM-BASED DISTRICTS
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 1
Chapter 20.135: Form-Based Zoning Districts
Section 20.135.010: Introduction to the Form-Based Code

20.135.010.A: Overview of Form-Based Codes
A Form-Based Code is an alternative to the conventional approach of regulating the built environment. Unlike
conventional codes which are primarily based on allowed uses, Form-Based Codes (FBCs) look to the intended
form and character of a neighborhood as the primary
organizing framework. This approach is described by
the Form-Based Codes Institute as a way to "foster
predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code.”
Speci�cally, FBCs focus on the relationship between
building facades and the public realm (the sidewalk,
street, and public open spaces); the form and mass
of buildings in relation to one another; and the scale
and types of buildings. While FBCs prescribe desired
physical forms, they also regulate use by allowing a mix of appropriate land uses chosen to ensure compatibility and to support the intended character of an area. Ultimately, through the combination of forms, public spaces, and
uses, FBCs transform commercial corridors and centers
into vibrant and walkable neighborhoods, where, over
time, the range of everyday needs of residents and
employees can be found within a walking distance.

20.135.010.B: Organization of the South San
Francisco Form-Based Code
The primary organizing principle used to establish formbased zoning districts is the "rural-to-urban transect," a gradient of intensity with the lower numbers designating more rural/natural zones and higher numbers designating more urban zones. Variations of transect zones may also be developed as appropriate to tailor zones to speci�c
environments.

Chapter 20.135, Form-Based Code, starts by establishing six transect zones, and follows with related regulations for buildings, frontages, public open spaces, and uses.

Taken together, these sets of regulations support the
community's shared vision for select areas of the City.

The components of the South San Francisco Form-Based
Code are as follows:

1. Section 20.135.020: Transect Zoning Districts.

This section presents the six transect zoning districts developed to promote pedestrian activity, facilitate
the transition of auto-oriented development patterns
to more walkable and urban places, and encourage
a compatible mix of uses. Organized from lowest
(T3N) to highest (T6UC) intensity and named to
describe the general form and function, the transect
The six South San Francisco transect zoning districts can all be located from T3 to T6 in the "rural-to-urban transect." Division III, Page 2 | South San Francisco Zoning Code
zoning districts are place-based standards for key
nodes corridors. The regulations include standards
for residential density��oor area ratio, building
and parking placement, and building height. Also
included are the speci�c building types that are
allowed in each district.

2. Section 20.135.030: Building Types. This section
describes the range of building types allowed
throughout the transect zoning districts. The types
are distinguished by building site size, building
scale as determined by overall building dimensions,
and key elements such as orientation, access and
circulation. Also included are the speci�c frontage
types that are allowed for each building type.

3. Section 20.135.040: Frontage Types. A frontage
is the interface between the building and the rightof-way, or pedestrian realm. This section describes the range of frontage types allowed throughout
Together, the sets of form-based regulations in Chapter 20.135 support a walkable urban form with range of engaging streetscapes and public spaces for residents, employees, and visitors.
the transect zoning districts. The types are
distinguished by basic form and dimension to ensure
that each frontage fosters an engaging pedestrian
environment.

4. Section 20.135.050: Public Open Space Types.

Based on size, publicly accessible open spaces may
be required of some developments. This section
ensures that the required public open spaces within
the transect zoning districts are context-sensitive
and integrated into the development in a way that
promotes walkability and an engaging urban form.

5. Section 20.135.060: Uses. This section lists the
uses allowed, permitted with a Minor Use Permit,
and permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in each
transect zoning district. Also included are references
to the sections in Chapter 20.350 ("Standards and
Requirements for Speci�c Uses and Activities") that
provide standards speci�c to uses.

South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 3
Subsections:

20.135.020.A: Purpose and Intent

20.135.020.B: Applicability

20.135.020.C: General Standards

20.135.020.D: T3 Neighborhood District (T3N)

20.135.020.E: T3 Corridor District (T3C)

20.135.020.F: T4 Corridor District (T4C)

20.135.020.G: T4 Maker District (T4M)

20.135.020.H: T5 Corridor District (T5C)

20.135.020.I: T6 Urban Core District (T6UC)

20.135.020.A: Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Form-Based Code standards is to
implement the General Plan, speci�cally the General
Plan’s vision for higher intensity, walkable, mixed-use districts, corridors, and neighborhoods. The speci�c
purpose and intent of each transect zoning district
is established in the standards for each zone, i.e.
subsections 20.135.010.D through 20.135.010.I in this
section.

20.135.020.B: Applicability

1. This subsection applies to all proposed development
within the transect zoning districts as identi�ed on
the Zoning Map.

2. Where this section is silent or does not provide
an explicit provision, the chapters of this Zoning
Ordinance shall apply.

3. Projects required to adhere to the standards within
this Section 20.135.020 ("Transect Zoning Districts")
shall be reviewed and approved consistent with
Division VI ("Administration and Procedures").

20.135.020.C: General Standards

1. Buildings in the transect zoning districts, as
established in sections 20.135.020.D through I,
must be placed within a primary and secondary
"build-to area," illustrated below. Building placement
standards maintain continuous street frontages
within the transect zoning districts.

Section 20.135.020: Transect Zoning Districts

2. Residential density (du/ac) shall in no case be
less than the existing residential density on a
development site.

3. Publicly-accessible civic spaces may be required
based on development size. For requirements, see
Section 20.135.050 ("Public Open Space Types").

4. The standards of Division V ("Regulations Applying
to Some or All Districts") apply to all development
within the transect zoning districts.

Division III, Page 4 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

20.135.020.D: T3 Neighborhood Zoning District (T3N)

1. Description
The T3N zoning district is a low-intensity neighborhood mixed-use district. Residential in character, it supports neighborhood-serving commercial uses in a walkable context. The district is generally located in areas central to residential neighborhood areas, including busy ��
scale of surrounding low-density neighborhoods and frontages are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood.

4. Building Height
35 ft max. unless otherwise limited by Building Type; see Section

20.135.030 ("Building Types").

3. Building Placement
Build-to Area
Front 10 ft max.; 25 ft min.

Building Placement in
Front Build-to Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 60% of the width of the buildto area.

Street side 10 ft min.; 25 ft max.

Building Placement in
Street Side Build-to
Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 40% of the width of the buildto area.

Primary Building Setbacks
Interior side 5 ft min.

Rear 10 ft min.; 15 ft min. abutting an R
district
Lot Coverage 60% max.

2. Density and Floor Area Ratio
Residential Density (du/ac) 20 min, 60 max.

FAR 1.5 min.; 2.25 max.

5. Parking Setback
Front 20 ft min.

Street Side 5 ft min.

Interior Side 5 ft min.

Rear 5 ft min.

Curb Cut Access 12 ft max. width; max. 1 per street
frontage

7. Additional Standards
For general site development standards including fences and walls, landscaping, and building projections, see Chapter 20.300 ("Lot and Development Standards").

For airspace protection evaluation requirements based on the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, see Chapter 20.300.003 ("Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency").

For general site and building design standards, see Chapter 20.310 ("Site and Building Design Standards").

For general parking and loading requirements, see Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and Loading").

6. Allowed Building Types
Duplex See Sec. 20.135.030.D
Triplex/Fourplex See Sec. 20.135.030.E
Flex Low-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.I
A
B
D
C
N
H
I
G
F
E
E
F
B
C
Min.

Max.

C
A
Max. Min.

A
J
K
I
J
G
H
K
D
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 5

20.135.020.E: T3 Corridor Zoning District (T3C)

4. Building Height
50 ft max. unless otherwise limited by Building Type; see Section

20.135.030 ("Building Types").

3. Building Placement
Build-to Area
Front 10 ft min along Spruce Avenue, 0 ft min.
along all other frontages; 15 ft max.

Building Placement in
Front Build-to Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 60% of the width of the build-to
area.

Street side 0 ft min.; 15 ft max.

Building Placement in
Street Side Build-to
Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 40% of the width of the build-to
area.

Primary Building Setbacks
Interior side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.

Lot Coverage 65% max.

2. Density and Floor Area Ratio
Residential Density (du/ac.) 20 min, 60 max.

FAR 1.5 min.; 2.25 max.

5. Parking Setback
Front 40 ft min. or 50% of lot
depth, whichever is less
Street Side 5 ft min.

Interior Side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.

Curb Cut Access 20 ft max. width; max. 1 per street
frontage

7. Additional Standards
Publicly-accessible civic spaces may be required based on development size. For requirements, see Section 20.135.060 ("Public Open Space Types").

For general site development standards including fences and walls, landscaping, and building projections, see Chapter 20.300 ("Lot and Development Standards").

For general site and building design standards, see Chapter 20.310 ("Site and Building Design Standards").

For general parking and loading requirements, see Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and Loading").

6. Allowed Building Types
Triplex/Fourplex See Sec. 20.135.030.E
Rowhouse See Sec. 20.135.030.F
Flex Low-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.I

1. Description
The T3C zoning district is a low- and medium-intensity mixed-use district that supports community-serving uses adjacent to established residential neighborhoods. Located on corridors and nodes near existing residential areas, the district supports active, walkable streets and a range of neighborhood and community services. Buildings face the street and provide a transition in scale to surrounding lower-density areas. Diverse frontages engage private development with the public realm.

E
F
B
C
Min.

Max.

C
A
Max. Min.

A
A
B
D
C
F
E
I
J
G
H
D
H
I
G
J
K
K
Division III, Page 6 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

20.135.020.F: T4 Corridor Zoning District (T4C)

7. Additional Standards
Publicly-accessible civic spaces may be required based on development size. For requirements, see Section 20.135.050 ("Public Open Space Types").

For general site development standards including fences and walls, landscaping, and building projections, see Chapter 20.300 ("Lot and Development Standards").

For general site and building design standards, see Chapter 20.310 ("Site and Building Design Standards").

For general parking and loading requirements, see Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and Loading").

4. Building Height
65 ft max. unless otherwise limited by Building Type; see Section

20.135.030 ("Building Types").

3. Building Placement
Build-to Area
Front 0 ft min., 10 ft max.

Building Placement in
Front Build-to Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 70% of the width of the build-to
area.

Street side 0 ft min., 10 ft max.

Building Placement in
Street Side Build-to
Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 30% of the width of the build-to
area.

Primary Building Setbacks
Interior side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.

Lot Coverage 70% max.

6. Allowed Building Types
Triplex/Fourplex See Sec. 20.135.030.E
Rowhouse See Sec. 20.135.030.F
Multiplex See Sec. 20.135.030.H
Flex Low-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.I
Flex Mid-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.J

2. Density and Floor Area Ratio
Residential Density (du/ac.) 80 min,, 120 max.

FAR 0.5 min.; 3.5 max.

0.5 max. for non-residential uses

5. Parking Setback
Front 40 ft min.

Street Side 5 ft min.

Interior Side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.

Curb Cut Access 20 ft max. width; max. 1 per street
frontage

1. Intent
The T4C zoning district establishes a mixed-use urban corridor along key rights-of-way west of highway 101 and outside of the Downtown.

The district supports medium- to high-intensity mixed-use development along active, busy streets, with buildings that transition in scale to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Diverse frontages provide a relationship between private development and the public realm and a consistent frontage along the key rights-of-way.

A
B
D
C
H
I
G
F
E
J
K
E
F
B
C
Min.

Max.

C
A
Max. Min.

A
D I
J
G
H
K
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 7

20.135.020.G: T4 Maker Zoning District (T4M)

4. Building Height
65 ft max. unless otherwise limited by Building Type; see Section

20.135.030 ("Building Types").

3. Building Placement
Build-to Area
Front 0 ft min.; 40 ft max.

Building Placement in
Front Build-to Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 70% of the width of the build-to
area.

Street side 0 ft min.; 10 ft max.

Building Placement in
Street Side Build-to
Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 30% of the width of the build-to
area.

Primary Building Setbacks
Interior side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.

Lot Coverage 75% max.

6. Allowed Building Types
Live/work See Sec. 20.135.030.G
Flex Low-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.I
Flex Mid-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.J

2. Density and Floor Area Ratio
Residential Density (du/ac.) 80 min., 120 max.

FAR 0.4 min.; 3.0 max.

5. Parking Setback
Front 5 ft min
Street Side 5 ft min.

Interior Side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.

Curb Cut Access 20 ft max. width; max. 1 per street
frontage

7. Additional Standards
Publicly-accessible civic spaces may be required based on development size. For requirements, see Section 20.135.050 ("Public Open Space Types").

For general site development standards including fences and walls, landscaping, and building projections, see Chapter 20.300 ("Lot and Development Standards").

For general site and building design standards, see Chapter 20.310 ("Site and Building Design Standards").

For general parking and loading requirements, see Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and Loading").

Any new commercial or multi-unit buildings or structural alterations or additions to commercial or multi-unit buildings involving more ��
between the building and the curb in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department.

1. Intent
The T4M zoning district bridges the City’s high-density residential areas near Downtown with its older industrial areas. The district supports medium- to high-intensity mixed-use development ��s historic mixed-industrial character. New
development provides space for a mix of residential, maker spaces, ��
consistent relationship between private development and the public realm.

A
B
D
C
H
I
G
F
E
J
K
E
F
B
C
Min.

Max.

C
A
Max. Min.

A
I
J
G
H D
K
Division III, Page 8 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

20.135.020.H T5 Corridor Zoning District (T5C)

4. Building Height
85 ft max. unless otherwise limited by Building Type; see Section

20.135.030 ("Building Types").

3. Building Placement
Build-to Area
Front 0 ft min.; 10 ft max.

Building Placement in
Front Build-to Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 75% of the width of the build-to
area.

Street side 0 ft min.; 10 ft max.

Building Placement in
Street Side Build-to
Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 50% of the width of the build-to
area.

Primary Building Setbacks
Interior side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.; 10 ft min. adjacent to any
non-transect zoning district
Lot Coverage 80% max.

6. Allowed Building Types
Live/work See Sec. 20.135.030.G
Multiplex See Sec. 20.135.030.H
Flex Low-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.I
Flex Mid-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.J
Flex High-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.K

2. Density and Floor Area Ratio
Residential Density (du/ac.) 140 max.

FAR 0.5 min.; 5.0 max.

Non-residential: 2.0 max. if residential
on-site, 0.5 if no residential on-site

5. Parking Setback
Front 40 ft min.

Street Side 5 ft min.

Interior Side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.

Curb Cut Access 20 ft max. width; max. 1 for street
frontages up to 300 feet, max. 2 for
street frontages exceeding 300 feet

7. Additional Standards
Publicly-accessible civic spaces may be required based on development size. For requirements, see Section 20.135.050 ("Public Open Space Types").

For general site development standards including fences and walls, landscaping, and building projections, see Chapter 20.300 ("Lot and Development Standards").

For general site and building design standards, see Chapter 20.310 ("Site and Building Design Standards").

For general parking and loading requirements, see Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and Loading").

1. Intent
The T5C zoning district supports a comfortable and walkable highintensity urban core. Located west of Highway 101 as well as at major nodes along El Camino Real, the district supports walkable sites and high-intensity forms. As large sites transition into walkable blocks, the district supports vertical mixed-use development with buildings facing the City’s corridors as well as internal street networks and publicly-accessible open spaces. Diverse frontages provide space for ��
development and the expanded public realm.

A
B
D
C
H
I
G
F
E
J
K
E
F
B
C
Min.

Max.

C
A
Max. Min.

A
D
I
J
G
H
K
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 9

20.135.020.I: T6 Urban Core Zoning District (T6UC)

4. Building Height
See Chapter 20.300.002 ("Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency") for height allowances and airspace protection evaluation requirements based on the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, unless otherwise limited by Building Type; see Section 20.135.030 ("Building Types").

3. Building Placement
Build-to Area
Front 0 ft min.; 10 ft max.

Building Placement in
Front Build-to Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 85% of the width of the build-to
area.

Street side 0 ft min.; 10 ft max.

Building Placement in
Street Side Build-to
Area
Primary building must extend across
a min. 60% of the width of the build-to
area.

Primary Building Setbacks
Interior side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.; 10 ft min. adjacent to any
non-transect zoning district
Lot Coverage 90% max.

6. Allowed Building Types
Multiplex See Sec. 20.135.030.H
Flex Mid-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.J
Flex High-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.K

2. Density and Floor Area Ratio
Residential Density (du/ac.) 200 max.

FAR 2.0 min.; 8.0 max.

5. Parking Setback
Front 40 ft min.

Street Side 40 ft min.

Interior Side 0 ft min.

Rear 0 ft min.

Curb Cut Width 20 ft max. width; max. 1 for street
frontages up to 300 feet, max. 2 for
street frontages exceeding 300 feet

7. Additional Standards
Publicly-accessible civic spaces may be required based on development size. For requirements, see Section 20.135.050 ("Public Open Space Types").

For general site development standards including fences and walls, landscaping, and building projections, see Chapter 20.300 ("Lot and Development Standards").

For general site and building design standards, see Chapter 20.310 ("Site and Building Design Standards").

For general parking and loading requirements, see Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and Loading").

1. Intent
The T6UC zoning district is the City’s highest-intensity district. The district supports a transit-oriented vertical mix of uses along transit corridors, publicly-accessible open spaces, and new rights-ofway. Small block sizes, elevated open spaces, connections to the Downtown, amenities for pedestrians and cyclists, and active ground- �� .

A
B
D
C
H
I
G
F
E
J
K
E
F
B
C
Min.

Max.

C
A
Max. Min.

A
I
J
H
D
G
K
This page intentionally left blank
Division III, Page 10 | South San Francisco Zoning Code South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 11 Section 20.135.030: Building Types
Subsections:

20.135.030.A: Purpose and Intent

20.135.030.B: Applicability

20.135.030.C: General Standards

20.135.030.D: Duplex

20.135.030.E: Triplex/Fourplex

20.135.030.F: Rowhouse

20.135.030.G: Live/work

20.135.030.H: Multiplex

20.135.030.I: Flex Low-Rise

20.135.030.J: Flex Mid-Rise

20.135.030.K: Flex High-Rise

20.135.030.A: Purpose and Intent
This section establishes development standards for
all building types allowable within the form-based, or
transect, zoning districts. These standards are intended to support the City’s vision for walkable mixed-use areas near transit and along key corridors. The standards
support a range of building forms that o�er predictability as well as a degree o��exibility. The building types
are intended to support a variety of uses, as allowed
by the zone. For example, the “multiplex” building type may include residential units, retail/commercial uses,
professional offices, creative industrial/maker spaces, or others uses as allowed by the zoning district in which is it located.

20.135.030.B: Applicability

1. The requirements of this section apply to all buildings within the transect zoning districts, and must be
considered in combination with the standards for the
applicable zone in Section 20.135.020 ("Transect
Zoning Districts").

2. The development of civic, public facilities (including public education), transportation, communications,
and/or infrastructure facilities is exempt from this
chapter.

20.135.030.C: General Standards

1. Development site, lots, and lot lines shall be
considered synonymous with properties and property
lines as de�ned and used in this Code.

2. If an applicant proposes multiple principal buildings on a single lot, the proposal must divide the lot into
development sites to demonstrate compliance with
this chapter, regardless of whether or how the lot is
intended to be subdivided.

3. Standards relating to the design of required private and common open space, see Chapter 20.310 ("Site
and Building Design Standards").

Division III, Page 12 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

20.135.030.D: Duplex
Building form is illustrative only.

1. Description
A duplex is a detached building consisting of two side-by-side or stacked units. For side-by-side units, both may be accessible via a single entrance or separate entrances that face the street. This type ��
medium intensity walkable neighborhoods.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC

3. Development Site Size
Width 50 ft min.

Depth 120 ft max.

4. Building Size
Width 42 ft max.
6 Pedestrian Access
Primary pedestrian access must be provided along the right-of-way.

9. Private Open Space
Min. dimension 15 ft
��Access
Required parking spaces may be exposed surface parking, carports,or detached or attached garages. Parking shall be accessed from a rear lane or alley where possible.

7. Allowed Frontage Types
Dooryard See Sec. 20.135.040.E
Porch See Sec. 20.135.040.H
Stoop See Sec. 20.135.040.I

5. Building Height
Stories 2.5 stories max. Allowed building height
may be further restricted by zone; see
Section 20.135.020 ("Transect Zoning
Districts").

B
A
E
A
B
C
C
E
D
D
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 13

20.135.030.E: Triplex/Fourplex
Building form is illustrative only.

1. Description
Triplexes and fourplexes are detached structures that consist of three or four side-by-side or stacked dwelling units within a single structure.

This type has the appearance of a large single-family home and is ��

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC

3. Development Site Size
Width 70 ft min.

Depth 120 ft max.

4. Building Size
Width 56 ft max.

7. Allowed Frontage Types
Dooryard See Sec. 20.135.040.E
Porch See Sec. 20.135.040.H
Stoop See Sec. 20.135.040.I

6. Pedestrian Access
Primary pedestrian access must be provided from the right-of-way.

5. Building Height
Stories 3.5 stories max. Allowed building height
may be further restricted by zone; see
Section 20.135.020 ("Transect Zoning
Districts").

A
B
C E
B
A
E
C
D
D

C C C C
Front
Division III, Page 14 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

20.135.030.F: Rowhouse
Building form is illustrative only.

1. Description
The rowhouse building type is composed of one or more series of 2 to 10 attached rowhouse buildings. Each rowhouse building has groundlevel private open space and an individual entry along the right-of-way or along a shared pedestrian pathway. Typically providing 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre and located on or near a corridor, this building ��.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC

3. Development Site Size
Width 18 ft min.; 35 ft max. per unit
Depth 80 ft min., 100 ft max

4. Building Size and Massing
Width 18 ft min.; 35 ft max.

Depth 60 ft max.

Building Separation 10 ft max.

6. Pedestrian Access
Primary pedestrian access must be provided from the right-of-way or along a shared pedestrian-only pathway. Must be located on the opposite side of building from driveways/garages.

9. Open Space
Private Open Space
Area 80 sq ft per unit
Minimum dimension 8 ft when located on ground level; 6 ft when located above ground level
Common Open Space
Area 80 sq.ft per unit
Minimum dimension 12 ft
Public Open Space
Publicly-accessible open spaces may be required based on development size. See Section 20.135.050 ("Public Open Space Types").
��Access
Required parking spaces shall be provided in individually secured, attached garages. Parking shall be accessed from a shared rear drive aisle, lane or alley.

7. Allowed Frontage Types
Dooryard See Sec. 20.135.040.E
Porch See Sec. 20.135.040.H
Stoop See Sec. 20.135.040.I
Terrace See Sec. 20.135.040.J

5. Building Height
Stories 3.5 stories max. Allowed building height
may be further restricted by zone; see
Section 20.135.020 ("Transect Zoning
Districts").

A A A
B
F

D C C C
A
B
C
D
F
E
D
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 15

20.135.030.G: Live/work
Building form is illustrative only.

1. Description
The live/work building type is an attached or detached structure that ��
��
��
��. Live/work is
appropriate for incubating neighborhood-serving commercial uses and ��
market demands and opportunities.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC

3. Development Site Size
Width 18 ft min.

Depth 80 ft min.; 100 ft max.

4. Building Size and Massing
Width 18 ft min.; 35 ft max.

Depth 60 ft max.

6. Pedestrian Access
Primary pedestrian access must be provided from the public right-ofway.

9. Open Space
Area 100 sq ft per unit. May be common or private;
may be attached to individual units, located on
a balcony, deck, or rooftop.

Minimum
dimension
8 ft when located on ground level; 6 ft when
located above ground level
��Access
Required parking spaces may be exposed surface parking, carports,or detached or attached garages. Parking shall be accessed from a rear lane or alley where possible.

7. Allowed Frontage Types
Dooryard See Sec. 20.135.040.E
Shopfront See Sec. 20.135.040.G
Terrace See Sec. 20.135.040.J

5. Building Height
Stories 3 stories max. Allowed building height may
be further restricted by zone; see Section

20.135.020 ("Transect Zoning Districts").

Ground Floor ��
Upper Floors ��
A A
B
H
C C
D
A
B
C
D H
F
G
F
G
G
E
E
Division III, Page 16 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

20.135.030.H: Multiplex
Building form is illustrative only.

1. Description
A multiplex is a building that consists of 5 to 24 stacked units with one shared entry��
medium-density neighborhoods and along corridors. Buildings may be ��.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC

3. Development Site Size
Width 60 ft min.

Depth 150 max.

4. Building Size and Massing
Maximum dimension 60 ft.

6. Pedestrian Access
Primary pedestrian access must be provided along the building frontage.
��Accesss
Required parking spaces shall be provided in attached individally secured garages or in a a shared garage that is either underground or in a podium structure. Parking shall be accessed from a rear lane or alley where possible.

7. Allowed Frontage Types
Dooryard See Sec. 20.135.040.E
Forecourt See Sec. 20.135.040.F
Shopfront See Sec. 20.135.040.G
Stoop See Sec. 20.135.040.I
Terrace See Sec. 20.135.040.J

9. Open Space
Private Open Space
Area 50 sq ft per unit
Minimum dimension 6 ft
Common Open Space
Area 80 sq ft per unit
Minimum dimension 10 ft
Public Open Space
Publicly-accessible open spaces may be required based on development size. See Section 20.135.050 ("Public Open Space Types").

5. Building Height
Stories 5 stories max. Allowed building height
may be further restricted by zone; see
Section 20.135.020 ("Transect Zoning
Districts").

P
B
C
E
A
A
B
C
E
D
D
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 17

20.135.030.I: Flex Low-Rise
Building form is illustrative only.

1. Description
��
��, with upper
��
��
��
individual entries or through a street-level lobby.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC

3. Development Site Size
Width 25 ft min.

Depth 80 ft min.

4. Building Size and Massing
Width 20 ft min.; 150 ft max.

Depth 60 ft max.

6. Pedestrian Access
��
spaces
Primary pedestrian access must be provided along
the building frontage.
��
units
Primary pedestrian access may be provided along
the building frontage or street side frontage.
��Access
Required parking is typically provided in a shared surface parking area. Parking may also be provided in a shared garage that is either underground or in a podium structure.

7. Allowed Frontage Types
Arcade See Sec. 20.135.040.D
Dooryard See Sec. 20.135.040.E
Forecourt See Sec. 20.135.040.F
Shopfront See Sec. 20.135.040.G
Terrace See Sec. 20.135.040.J

9. Private Open Space
Area 50 sq ft per residential unit.

Minimum
dimension
6 ft

5. Building Height
Stories 3 stories max. Allowed building height
may be further restricted by zone; see
Section 20.135.020 ("Transect Zoning
Districts").

Ground Floor ��
Upper Floors ��
F
G
G
B
C
A
B
A
B
C
D
F
E
G
F
Division III, Page 18 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

20.135.030.J: Flex Mid-Rise
Building form is illustrative only.

1. Description
A��
��
��The development typically
faces one or two rights-of-way.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC

3. Development Site Size
Width 50 ft min.

Depth 100 ft min.

4. Building Size and Massing
Building base width 350 ft max.; see Section

20.310.004.B for building modulation
requirements
Building base depth 350 ft max.; see Section

20.310.004.B for building modulation
requirements

6. Pedestrian Access
��
spaces
Primary building frontage.
��
units
Primary building frontage or street side frontage.

May be through a shared entry or a street-level
lobby.
��Access
Required parking shall be provided in a shared garage that is either underground or in a podium structure. A shared aboveground garage may be “wrapped” with habitable spaces.

7. Allowed Frontage Types
Arcade See Sec. 20.135.040.D
Dooryard See Sec. 20.135.040.E
Forecourt See Sec. 20.135.040.F
Shopfront See Sec. 20.135.040.G
Terrace See Sec. 20.135.040.J

9. Open Space
Combined Private/Common Open Space
Area 120 sq ft per unit
Minimum dimension 6 ft for private open space,
15 ft for public open space
Public Open Space
Publicly-accessible open spaces may be required based on development size. See Section 20.135.050 ("Public Open Space Types").

P
P

5. Building Height
Stories 8 stories max. Allowed building
height may be further restricted
by zone; see Section 20.135.020
("Transect Zoning Districts").

Street wall height 2 stories min.
��
��
aboveground parking
levels
��
G
G
E
F
F
B
C
D
G
A
I
I
A
B
C
D
H
E
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 19

20.135.030.K: Flex High-Rise
Building form is illustrative only.

1. Description
A��
��
��
��
underground, at ground level (placed behind other street-facing uses), or elevated.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC

3. Development Site Size
Width 120 ft min.; 500 ft max.

Depth 150 ft min.; 500 ft max.

4. Building Size and Massing
Building base width 500 ft max.; see Section

20.310.004.B for building modulation
requirements
Building base depth 500 ft max.; see Section

20.310.004.B for building modulation
requirements

6. Pedestrian Access
��
spaces
Primary building frontage or publicly accessible
open space.
��
units
Primary building frontage or street side frontage.

May be through a shared entry, a street-level lobby,
or ground-level open space.
��Access
Required parking shall be provided in a shared garage that is either underground or in a podium structure. A shared aboveground garage must be “wrapped” with habitable spaces.

7. Allowed Frontage Types
Arcade See Sec. 20.135.040.D
Dooryard See Sec. 20.135.040.E
Forecourt See Sec. 20.135.040.F
Shopfront See Sec. 20.135.040.G
Stoop See Sec. 20.135.040.I
Terrace See Sec. 20.135.040.J
P
P

5. Building Height
Stories 12 stories max. Allowed building
height may be further restricted by
zone; see Section 20.135.020
("Transect Zoning Districts").

Street wall height 2 stories min.
��
��
aboveground parking
levels
��
G
H
B
C
D
A
I
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
F
H
I
E
This page intentionally left blank
Division III, Page 20 | South San Francisco Zoning Code South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 21 Section 20.135.040: Frontage Types

20.135.040.A: Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this section is to establish standards
for all building frontages types allowable within the
form-based, or transect, zoning districts. Frontages
are the components of the building that provide the
transition and interface between the public realm (i.e. street and sidewalk) and the private realm (i.e. yard or building). Frontages are to be located within the buildto areas indicated in Section 20.135.020 ("Transect Zoning Districts"). The standards set forth in this section supplement the standards for each zoning district in which the frontage types are allowed.

20.135.040.B: Applicability

1. The requirements of this section apply to all new
development within the transect zoning districts.

2. Each building must have at least one frontage type
for each street frontage. A building may have multiple
frontage types. For example, a dooryard frontage
may have a stoop or engaged porch frontage type as
well.

3. Frontages for public facilities, including schools,
transportation, communications, and/or infrastructure
facilities is exempt from this Chapter.

4. Frontage types that are not listed in the standards for the applicable transect zoning district are not allowed in that zone.

20.135.040.C: General Standards

1. Section 20.135.030 ("Building Types") indicates
frontage types allowed for each building type, and
this section (subsections D through K) indicate
frontages allowed in each transect zoning district.

Only frontages allowed by both Section 20.135.020
("Transect Zoning Districts") and 20.135.030
("Building Types") are allowed.

2. Projects subject to the requirements of this article must provide at least one building entrance and
facade type on each primary and secondary building
facade selected from the types allowed in the zone.

3. Architectural projections are permitted in accordance with Section 20.300.011 ("Projections into Required
Setbacks") except when in con�ict with this section,
in which case this section supersedes.

4. The area between the building and property line
shall be paved so that it functions as a wider
public sidewalk. Entry courtyards, plazas, entries,
or outdoor eating and display areas are located
between the build-to line and building, provided that
the buildings are built to the edge of the courtyard,
plaza, or dining area. This requirement may be
modi�ed or waived by the Planning Commission if:
a. Substantial landscaping must be located
between the build-to line and groun��oor
residential units to soften visual impact of
buildings;
b. The building incorporates an alternative entrance
design that creates a welcoming entry feature
facing the street.

5. Required access to electrical��re, refuse pick-up,
and other utility spaces shall be allowed along public
frontages.

6. ADA-compliant ramps are allowed subject to
approval by the Principal Planner.

Subsections:

20.135.040.A: Purpose and Intent

20.135.040.B: Applicability

20.135.040.C: General Standards

20.135.040.D: Arcade

20.135.040.E: Dooryard

20.135.040.F: Forecourt

20.135.040.G: Shopfront

20.135.040.H: Porch

20.135.040.I: Stoop

20.135.040.J: Terrace
Division III, Page 22 | South San Francisco Zoning Code B
C
Example of arcade frontage.

Section
Plan
A
B

20.135.040.D: Arcade

1. Description
An arcade frontage provides a continuous covered walkway in place of or next to a sidewalk. The main façade of the building is placed at or near the right-of-way with the walkway at the ground level and habitable space above, often encroaching over the public right-of-way.

The arcade facilitates pedestrian circulation along building frontages ��

2. Standards
Height, clear 12 ft. min.; 16 ft. max.

Depth, facade to interior of
column face
10 ft. min.

Setback from curb (encroachment
permit may be required)
2 ft. min; 6 ft. max.

Column height 4 times column width min.;
6 times column width max.
��
��
Max. 6 in.

May be used in conjunction with another allowed frontage type (e.g., shopfront).

Must have consistent depth along the frontage.

A
B
C
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 23 A
D
D
B
C
B
Section
Plan
Example of dooryard frontage.

20.135.040.E: Dooryard

1. Description
A dooryard provides a limited amount of private open space at the primary building entry. ��
planter��
the building while preserving a sense of openness to the building entrance. The dooryard may be raised, sunken, or at grade.

2. Standards
Dooryard grading 3% max.

Dooryard width 6 ft. min.

Dooryard depth 4 ft. min.; 10 ft. max.
��
below sidewalk
3 ft. max.

Projection depth 6 ft. max.

Height, clear 8 ft. min.

Wall/planter/fence height 3 ft. max.

A
B
Division III, Page 24 | South San Francisco Zoning Code A
B
B
Example of forecourt frontage.

Section
Plan

20.135.040.F: Forecourt

1. Description
The main façade of the building is placed at or near the right-of-way and a portion (usually the central portion) is set back, creating a courtyard-like space. The space is typically used as an entry court, shared garden area, or additional shopping or restaurant seating area.

2. Standards
Width 12 ft. min.

Depth 12 ft. min.

Ratio, Width-to-Height 2:1 max.
��
below sidewalk
3 ft. max.

May be used in conjunction with another permitted frontage type (e.g., shopfront).

A
B
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 25 D
F
C
D
E
F
Examples of shopfront frontage.

Section
Plan
B
A
B
C
E
F

20.135.040.G: Shopfront

1. Description
The main façade of the building is placed at or near the right-ofway with an at-grade entrance along the sidewalk. The shopfront is generally intended for retail, service, or maker space uses. Shopfront frontages may also incorporate projections or recesses.

2. Standards
Width of shopfront bay 10 ft. min.; 25 ft. max.
��
sidewalk
18 in. max.

Projection Width 6 ft. min.

Projection depth 4 ft. min.

Height, clear 8 ft. min.

Projection setback from curb 2 ft. min.

Recess depth 12 in. max
Recess bay width, where
recess is provided
6 ft. min,; 25 ft. max.

May be used in conjunction with another allowed frontage type (e.g., terrace).

All primary entry doors must face the street.

Entry doors are encouraged to be covered or recessed to provide shelter from the elements.

A
Division III, Page 26 | South San Francisco Zoning Code Section
Plan
Examples of porch frontage.

C
B
A
D
A
B
B
C D

20.135.040.H: Porch

1. Description
A porch provides an outdoor living area. It can be either engaged with or projecting from the building facade. The front setback area in front ��
edge of the property.

2. Standards
Width, clear 12 ft. min.

Depth, clear, not including stairs 8 ft. min.

Height, clear 8 ft. min.; 12 ft. max.

Finish level above sidewalk 18 in. min.

Clear distance to development
site line
2 ft. min.

May be used in conjunction with another allowed frontage type (e.g. terrace).

Engaged porches must be open on two sides and have a roof.

South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 27 D
B
C
A
Section
Plan
Example of stoop frontage.

C
D
E
E

20.135.040.I: Stoop

1. Description
The main façade of the building is near the frontage line and the elevated stoop engages the sidewalk. The stoop must be elevated above the sidewalk to ensure privacy within the building. The entrance is usually an exterior stair and landing.

2. Standards
Width 4 ft. min.; 8 ft. max.

Depth 4 ft. min.; 8 ft. max.

Depth, entry recession 6 in. min., 6 ft. max.
��
sidewalk
18 in min.

Projection depth 5 ft. max.

Height, clear 8 ft. min.

Stairs may be perpendicular or parallel to the building facade.

The entry doors are encouraged to be covered or recessed to provide shelter from the elements.

Gates are not allowed.

All doors must face the street.

A
B
Division III, Page 28 | South San Francisco Zoning Code A
B
B
D
Section
Plan
Example of terrace frontage.

20.135.040.J: Terrace

1. Description
The main façade of the building has an elevated terrace that projects outward and engages the sidewalk with frequent stairs or ramps. The ��
�� . Building
activities are slightly separated from the adjacent sidewalk by the ��
outdoor seating, private yards, or any other appropriate uses.

2. Standards
Width 120 ft. max.

Depth 8 ft. min.
��
sidewalk
18 in. min.; 5 ft. max.

Distance between stairs 25 ft. max.

May be used in conjunction with another permitted frontage type (e.g., Shopfront).

Reasonable accommodation must be provided as appropriate.

A
B
C
D
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 29 Section 20.135.050: Public Open Space Types

20.135.050.A: Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards
for public open spaces within the transect zones.

The standards in this chapter ensure that public open
spaces reinforce walkable environments, provide ample
respite in urban areas, and enhance connectivity. Public open spaces described here are distinct from open
areas required by building type as speci�ed in Section

20.135.030 ("Building Types"). The standards established in this section should be considered alongside building form, building types, and frontage types to shape a quality urban environment.

20.135.050.B: Applicability

1. Required Public Open Spaces. The is section
applies to all new development projects as follows:
a. Projects less than three acres in site size must
provide open spaces as follows:
(i) All residential projects including 20 or more
units must provide a minimum of one open
space type.
(ii) All non-residential or mixed-use projects
including two or more structures, or
including more than 10,000 gross square
feet of building space, must provide a
minimum of one open space type.
b. All projects three acres or more in total site area
must provide at least two open space types.

2. Public Open Space Types. All public open
spaces located in a transect zone is subject to the
requirements of this section. Public open space
types not addressed in this section are not allowed.

The standards for each public open space type are
included in this section.

3. Required Creek Access. Creek access required
in accordance with Section 20.310.002.G.3 ("Creek
Access") satis�es the requirements for the greenway
described in Section 20.135.050.H.

20.135.050.C: General Standards
All spaces satisfying the requirement for public open
space must comply with the following:

1. Space types:
a. Natural Spaces. Public open spaces with natural
character must be designed in a natural manner
with no formal arrangement of elements.
b. Formal Spaces. Public open spaces with
a formal character must be designed with
geometric forms, and trees and other elements
arranged in regular spacing or patterns.
c. Informal Spaces. Open spaces with an informal
character must be designed to have a mix of
formal and natural characteristics

2. Unless the land includes sensitive natural resources, a public open space area must be accessible and
usable between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

3. Surfaces must be suitable for intended outdoor
activities.

4. Seating areas and plazas must be located in areas
with solar exposure and wind protection.

5. Projects subject to the provisions of this section must also comply with Section 20.310.002 ("General Site
and Building Design").

Subsections:

20.135.050.A: Purpose and Intent

20.135.050.B: Applicability

20.135.050.C: General Standards

20.135.050.C: Town Square

20.135.050.D: Plaza

20.135.050.E: Paseo

20.135.050.F: Pocket Park

20.135.050.G: Greenway
Division III, Page 30 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

1. Description
A town square is a formal open space area with landscaping, hardscaping, and other amenities. A town square is located at the ��
by building frontages, the space is a highly visible and serves as a gathering space, supporting civic and commercial activities such as farmers’ markets, concerts, and art fairs.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC
Examples of town squares.

20.135.050.D: Town Square

3. Standards
Area 0.5 acre min., 2 acre max.

Minimum
dimension
100 ft in any one direction
Access Must be directly accessible from rights-of-way or alleys on all sides. Crosswalks required at major
intersections.

Landscape and
Design
Formal space. Must include shade trees, other
landscaping measures such as planted areas,
turf area, and ground cover; a central hardscape
area for events; and connected hardscape paths
for convenient movement through the space.

Landscaping and site design must create visually
and functionally separate spaces, or “rooms,”
within the square.

Required
Amenities
Must include amenities such as benches, play
structures, chairs, tables, and drinking fountains.

May include structures such as gazebos,
monuments, bandstands, and kiosks.

South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 31

1. Description
A plaza is a formal space available for civic purposes and commercial activities that supplements streetlife, adds vibrancy to mixed-use areas, and functions as a meeting and gathering space. Plazas are ��
��
by a combination of frontages and rights-of-way.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC
Example of plazas.

20.135.050.E: Plaza

3. Standards
Area 0.25 acre min., 1 acre max.

Minimum
dimension
60 ft in any one direction
Access Must be directly accessible from rights-of-way or alleys on at least one side. Crosswalks required at
major intersections.

Frontages Must have building frontages directly facing at least two sides.

Landscape and
Design
Formal space. Plaza surfaces are primarily
hardscaped. Must also include shade trees or other
landscaping measures such as planted areas or
ground cover. Landscaping and site design must
create visually distinct spaces within the plaza.

Required
Amenities
Must include amenities such as benches, play
structures, chairs, tables, and drinking fountains.

May include structures such as gazebos,
monuments, and kiosks.

Division III, Page 32 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

1. Description
A paseo is an informal pedestrian way that provides mid-block connections. A paseo should by employed in blocks with large perimeters to enhance pedestrian connectivity within urban areas and serving as connectors between gathering places, streets, and/ or parking areas. Active frontages, patios, outdoor dining areas, and residential frontages may face onto paseos as appropriate. Paseos are typically hardscaped and may be linear or L-shaped.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC
Examples of paseos.

20.135.050.F: Paseo

3. Standards
Width Min 15 ft or half the height of tallest abutting
structure, whichever is greater. Max. 50 ft.

Context Must connect to streets with sidewalks and/or
alleys at both ends.

Access Where paseos are aligned across adjacent blocks, mid-block crosswalks are required. Abutting
development may but is not required to front onto
the paseo.

Landscape and
Design
Informal space. Must include regularly-spaced
trees and a continuous paved pathway.

Amenities May include amenities such as benches, chairs, tables, public art, and drinking fountains.

South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 33

1. Description
A pocket park is an informal small space tucked into a mid-block space interspersed within neighborhoods or urban areas. Pocket parks are generally intended for quiet, passive recreation and may include small gardens, open shelters, or other passive recreational amenities.

Pocket parks are typically accessible from, and visually distinct from, the public right-of-way.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC
Examples of pocket parks.

20.135.050.G: Pocket Park

3. Standards
Area No min., 0.25 acre max.

Context ��
sidewalks, a greenway, or a paseo.

Access Must be directly accessible from all abutting rightsof-way, alleys, or other publicly accessible open spaces.

Landscape and
Design
Informal space. Must include landscaping
measures such as planted areas, turf area, and
ground cover.

Amenities May include amenities such as benches, chairs, tables, public art, and drinking fountains.

Division III, Page 34 | South San Francisco Zoning Code

1. Description
A greenway is a natural pedestrian and bicycle trail way that provides connectivity between creek and shoreline areas, trails, and other public open spaces. Greenways may be paved or unpaved and are intended to thread through neighborhoods and urban areas to enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility throughout the city. Abutting frontages may face onto greenways as appropriate.

2. Zones Allowed
T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC
California Cultural Districts
Examples of greenways.

StreetsBlogSF

20.135.050.H: Greenway

3. Standards
Width 15 ft. min., 60 ft. max.

Context Must terminate at public open spaces or
waterways.

Access Where greenways are aligned across adjacent
blocks, mid-block crosswalks are required. Abutting
development may but is not required to front onto
the greenway.

Landscape and
Design
Natural space. Must include regularly-spaced trees
and a continuous pathway. The pathway may be
paved or unpaved
Amenities May include amenities such as benches, exercise stations, public art, and drinking fountains.

Alternative Creek access required in accordance with Section

20.310.002.G.3 ("Creek ��
requirements for a greenway.

South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 35

20.135.060 Uses

20.135.060.A Purpose and Applicability

1. The purpose of this Section is to establish allowed
uses and level of review in the form-based, or
transect, zoning districts.

2. The standards in Chapter 20.350 ("Standards and
Requirements for Speci�c Uses and Activities") apply
to uses allowed in this chapter.

3. Uses are de�ned in Chapter 20.620 ("Use
Classi�cations").

20.135.060.B Allowed Uses

1. Allowed Uses. Table 17.135.060: Uses in the
Transect Zoning Districts identi�es the allowed land
uses and corresponding permit and entitlement
requirements in the transect zoning districts.

2. Permit Requirements. A use is either allowed byright, allowed through issuance of a use permit, allowed through issuance of a Minor Use Permit,
or not allowed. In addition to the requirements
for planning permits or entitlements listed herein,
other permits and entitlements may be required
prior to establishment of the use (e.g., building
permit or permits required by other agencies). The
requirements for planning permits or entitlements
identi�ed in Table 17.135.060 include:
a. Permitted (P). A land use shown with a “P”
indicates that the land use is permitted by right
in the designated zone, subject to compliance
with all applicable provisions of this Title (e.g.,
development standards) as well state and federal
law.
b. Minor Use Permit (MUP). A land use shown
with an “M” indicates that the land use is
permitted in the designated zone upon issuance
of a Minor Use Permit from the designated
approving authority, subject to compliance
with all applicable provisions of this title (e.g.,
development standards) as well as state and
federal law.
c. Conditionally Permitted (C). A land use shown
with a “C” indicates that the land use is permitted
in the designated zone upon issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit from the designated
approving authority, subject to compliance
with all applicable provisions of this Title (e.g.,
development standards) as well as state and
federal law.
d. Not Allowed (―). A land use shown with a “―” is
not allowed in the applicable zone. Additionally,
uses not shown in the table are not permitted,
except as otherwise provided in this Title.

3. A project that includes two or more categories of
land use in the same building or on the same site is
subject to the highest permit level required for any
individual use or single component of the project.

Subsections:

20.135.060.A Purpose and Applicability

20.135.060.B Allowed Uses
Division III, Page 36 | South San Francisco Zoning Code Table 20.135.060.B.1 Uses in the Transect Zoning Districts �� Zoning District Additional Regulations T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC “P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Residential Uses In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency
Dwelling, Single-Unit
Attached M M P1 ― ― ―
Dwelling, Multiple-Unit
Duplex P1 P1 P1 ― ― ―
Multifamily-Unit P P P2 P3 P2, 3 P3
Senior Citizen Residential P P P2 P3 P2, 3 P3
Domestic Violence Shelter P4 P4 P2, 4 M M2 M See Chapter 20.350, Domestic Violence Shelter Group Residential P ― ― C C2 C See Chapter 20.350, Group Residential Live-Work M P P P P2 P See Chapter 20.350, Live-Work Units Residential Care Facilities
Residential Care Facility, General ― C C C C2 C
Residential Care Facility, Limited ― C P C C2 C
Residential Care Facility, Senior M P P P P2 P
Single Room Occupancy ― ― P ― ― ―
Public and Semi-Public Uses
College and Trade School, Public or
Private

M P P P M M
Community Assembly
Community Assembly, Small M P P P M M See Chapter 20.350, Community Assembly, Small and Large. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300,
Airport Land Use Consistency Community Assembly, Large ― C C C C C Community Garden P P P P P P
Cultural Institution C C P C C C
Day Care Center P P P M M M See Chapter 20.350, Day Care Centers. In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use
Consistency
Elderly and Long-Term Care C C2 C2 C C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency
�� P P P P P P
Hospitals and Clinics
Hospital ― C ― C C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency
Clinic M5 M5 M5 M M M
Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P P P
Public Safety Facilities C C C P P P
Schools, Public or Private C C M M M M In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency
Social Service Facilities M M M P P P See Chapter 20.350, Social Service Facilities Commercial Uses
Animal Care, Sales, and Services
Kennel ― ― ― M M M
See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and
Services
Pet Day Care M M ― P M M
Pet Store P P P P P P
Veterinary Clinic M M P M M M
Artist’s Studio P P P P P P
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 37 Table 20.135.060.B.1 Uses in the Transect Zoning Districts �� Zoning District Additional Regulations T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC “P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Leasing
― ― ― C ― ― See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing
Automobile/ Vehicle Service and
Repair, Major
― C C P6 C C
See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Service
Automobile/ Vehicle Service and and Repair, Major and Minor Repair, Minor
C M M P6 M M
Automobile/ Vehicle Washing ― M M M6 M M See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations
Service Station C C ― C ― ― See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations
Towing and Impound ― ― ― C ― ―
Banks and Financial Institutions
Other Financial Services
Bank and Credit Unions P P P7 P P P
Pawnbroker ― ― ― C C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Alternative Loan Business ― C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Building Materials Sales and
Services
― ― ― C ― ―
Business Services P P P8 P P P
Commercial Cannabis Uses
Cannabis Delivery-Only Operations ― ― ― C ― ―
See Chapter 20.410, Regulation of Cannabis
Activities
Cannabis Distribution ― ― ― C ― ―
Cannabis Indoor Cultivation ― ― ― C ― ―
Cannabis Manufacturing ― ― ― C ― ―
Cannabis Testing ― ― ― C ― ―
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation
Indoor Entertainment C C C C9 C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency
Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C9 C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Bar/ Night Club/ Lounge C C C C C C
Coffee Shop/ Cafe P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Full Service P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Limited Service P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales
Convenience Market P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Convenience Market Grocery Store P P M P P P
Supermarket ― C C C P P
Funeral Parlor and Mortuary C C C C C C
Lodging
Bed and Breakfast M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Bed and Breakfast Lodging.

In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use
Consistency
Hotel and Motel C C M ― C M See Chapter 20.350, Hotels and Motels. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use
Consistency
Short-Term Vacation Rental P P P C C P See Chapter 20.350, Short-Term Vacation Rentals
Maintenance and Repair Services M P P P P P
Division III, Page 38 | South San Francisco Zoning Code Table 20.135.060.B.1 Uses in the Transect Zoning Districts �� Zoning District Additional Regulations T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC “P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Maker's Space M M M P P M
Massage Business M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Massage Businesses Nursery and Garden Center M M M M M M
��
Business and Professional P P P8 P P P
Medical and Dental P P P P P P
Walk-In Clientele P P P P P P
Parking Services
Public Parking P P P P P P
Personal Services
General Personal Services P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Personal Services Instructional Services P P P P P P
Tattoo or Body Modification
Parlor
P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, T��
Parlor
Retail Sales
General Sales P P P P P P
Firearm Sales ― ― ― C ― ―
Off-Price Merchandise C C C C C C
Second Hand Store C C C C C C
Outdoor Market C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Market Shopping Center
Community Shopping Center ― ― P ― C C
Neighborhood Shopping Center C C C C C C
Regional Shopping Center C C C
Industrial/R&D Uses
Clean Technology M M ― P ― M
Construction and Material Yard ― ― ― M ― ―
Contractor Shop M
Food Preparation ― ― ― P ― ―
Handicraft / Custom Manufacturing M M M P M P
Industry, General ― ― ― P ― ―
Industry, Limited ― ― ― P ― ―
Recycling Facility
Collection Facility M M M M M M
See Chapter 20.350, Recycling Facilities Intermediate Processing Facility ― ― ― M ― ― Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution
Chemical, Mineral, and
Explosives Storage
― ― ― C ― ―
Frieght/ Truck Terminals and
Warehouses
― ― ― C ― ―
Indoor Warehousing and Storage ― ― ― P ― ―
Outdoor Storage ― ― ― P ― ― See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Personal Storage ― ― ― C ― ― See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Transportation, Communication and Utilities
Communications Facilities
South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 39 Table 20.135.060.B.1 Uses in the Transect Zoning Districts �� Zoning District Additional Regulations T3N T3C T4C T4M T5C T6UC “P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Antenna and Transmission
Towers
See Chapter 20.370, Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities and Chapter 20.375, Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities
Facilities within Buildings M M M P P P
Light Fleet-Based Services ― ― ― C ― ―
Transportation Passenger Terminals ― ― ― C C C
Utilities, Major ― ― C C C C In T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency
Utilties, Minor C C P P P P
Accessory Uses (See Section 20.350.004 for Additional Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Accessory Dwelling Units Family Day Care
Small P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Large P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Home Occupations P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Home Occupations Mobile Vendor Services ― P P ― P P See Chapter 20.350, Mobile Vendor Services Temporary Uses
Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340, Temporary Uses
Notes:

1. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet.

2. �� West Orange Drive subject to approval of the permit indicated.

3. ��. MUP may only be approved if the Review �� .

4. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter.based on �� .

5. ��, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a CUP.

6. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district.

7. ��.

8. Customer service ��are permitted on the ground level, and other ��are permitted on the second ��or when conducted as an accessory �� , upon ��

9. Must be associated with a hotel or retail use when located within 1,000 feet of San Francisco International Airport.

This page intentionally left blank
Division III, Page 40 | South San Francisco Zoning Code 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 211
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031
APPENDIX 4.2 CENTURY URBAN EVALUATION OF LAND AND

DEVELOPMENT COSTS
PAGE 1
BAIRD + DRISKELL
TO: Baird + Driskell
FROM: Century Urban, LLC
SUBJECT: San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Cost & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research
DATE: April 7, 2022
Century | Urban has been engaged by Baird + Driskell to perform research on the development costs of certain residential prototypes in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties as well as the unit mixes of residential projects delivered since 2013 in San Mateo County. The research findings shown below in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 are based on Century | Urban’s recent work on other assignments as well as on third-party data sources, further detailed below, which Century | Urban considers credible but has not independently verified.

The estimated prototype project costs shown below reflect high-level averages and do not represent any specific project budget. Project costs vary by geography, topography, site conditions, finish level, entitlement and permit status, contractor type, and time among other factors. Key elements of the prototypes were provided by Baird + Driskell.

The San Mateo County unit mix results represent the data available to Century | Urban through its research and does not represent every project built in each market or market-level conclusions.

However, the data does present over 100 projects and over 13,000 units and as such is informative with respect to the types and sizes of units built during the period surveyed.

With respect to the unit mix data, please note that a lack of data for a given city does not necessarily mean that no projects or units were built in that city, but rather that no relevant data was available for that city.

Land prices range substantially across the surveyed transactions. To convey the range of land costs reviewed, Century | Urban provided the averages of the bottom third of the land sales, the middle third, and the highest third. Further detail on the land sales that were available is reflected in Exhibits 3 and 4.

PAGE 2
Research and Data Sources
The estimates shown below are based on data and sources including but not limited to: similar projects Century | Urban has underwritten and/or priced; specific project economics Century | Urban has reviewed; direct conversations with developers and cost estimators; database research including CoStar, MLS, Redfin, and title databases; online research sources including City and project websites; market reports compiled by real estate sales and research organizations; and, Century | Urban’s general experience assessing residential project feasibility in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Single Family Home Land Price Data
To generate the single-family land values utilized in the development cost estimates, Century | Urban collected sales data for land lots totaling one acre or less which transacted over the past three years across the surveyed jurisdictions in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Over 250 data points were collected. The data does not include properties with existing homes or infrastructure that were redeveloped as new single-family homes, and the data for some cities is limited.

As the data collected is not comprehensive, summaries and averages may be valuable for reaching overall conclusions about the range of land prices in the counties, but they may or may not be representative of a given city’s average or median land price or the land price for a given parcel. The table in Exhibit 3 should therefore be reviewed noting the limited number of data points for certain cities. Land prices vary substantially by location, topography, site conditions, shape of the parcel, neighboring uses, access, noise, and many other factors. In addition, completed sales are necessarily past transactions and may not represent the current state of the market and expected future land sale prices.

Multi Family Home Land Price Data
Century | Urban collected available multi family land sales data from 2013 to the present in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Over 65 data points were collected. In certain cases, the multi family projects designated for the sites have not been completed. In those cases, Century | Urban based unit counts based on approved or the reported number of units planned. The data includes both sites with for-rent and for-sale projects.

Similar to the single family data points, the available information is not comprehensive and is more informative at a county level. Summaries and averages by city may not be valuable for reaching definitive conclusions about a given city’s average or median land price or the land price for a given parcel. Particularly in cities with a less than five data points, any given sale or set of sales could represent an outlier or outliers which may affect median and average calculations. As noted above, land prices vary substantially by location, topography, site conditions, shape of the parcel, neighboring uses, access, noise, and many other factors. In addition, completed sales are necessarily past transactions and may not represent the current state of the market and expected future land sale prices.

PAGE 3
Exhibit 1: Total Development Cost: Single-family
Baird and Driskell
Total Development Costs - San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Large numbers rounded to nearest $'000 or nearest $'0,000 Total $ / SF Total $ / SF
Prototype Elements
1) Gross Residential Square Feet 2,600 5,000
Hard Costs
1) Residential Hard Costs $1,040,000 $400 $2,500,000 $500 2) Site improvements and utilities
3) Grading and erosion control
4) Parking Hard Costs
5) Contingency 5% $52,000 $20 $125,000 $25
Total Hard Costs $1,092,000 $420 $2,625,000 $525
Soft Costs
1) Soft Costs 25.0% $270,000 $104 $660,000 $132
2) City Fees $75,000 $29 $75,000 $15
3) Soft Cost Contingency 5% $20,000 $8 $40,000 $8
Total Soft Costs $365,000 $133 $775,000 $147
% of hard costs 33% 30%
Land Costs Total Per SF Bldg Total Per SF Bldg
1) Land Costs - San Mateo $1,030,000 $396 $1,030,000 $206 2) Land Costs - Santa Clara $1,320,000 $508 $1,320,000 $264 Single Family Land Cost Range
SFH Land - Lower Price Tier $210,000 $81 $210,000 $42
SFH Land - Middle Price Tier $730,000 $281 $730,000 $146 SFH Land - Higher Price Tier $2,510,000 $965 $2,510,000 $502 Total Development Cost - San Mateo $2,487,000 $949 $4,430,000 $878 Total Development Cost - Santa Clara $2,777,000 $1,060 $4,720,000 $936 Total Development Cost by Range of Land Cost
Single Family - Lower Land Price Tier $1,667,000 $633 $3,610,000 $714 Single Family - Middle Land Price Tier $2,187,000 $833 $4,130,000 $818 Single Family - Higher Land Price Tier $3,967,000 $1,518 $5,910,000 $1,174 Single Family Small Single Family Large
PAGE 4
Exhibit 1: Total Development Cost: Multi-family
Baird and Driskell
Total Development Costs - San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Large numbers rounded to nearest $'000 or nearest $'0,000 Total $ / SF $ / Unit Total $ / SF $ / Unit
Prototype Elements
1) Gross Residential Square Feet 10,000 93,750
2) Parking Square Footage 3,750 40,000
3) Parking Type Surface Lot Standalone above grade
4) Units 10 100
5) Avg Net SF / Unit 850 750
6) Efficiency 85% 80%
Hard Costs
1) Residential Hard Costs $4,150,000 $415 $420,000 $39,840,000 $425 $400,000 2) Site improvements and utilities $605,000 $1,165,000
3) Grading and erosion control $110,000 $335,000
4) Parking Hard Costs $100,000 $28 $4,800,000 $120
5) Contingency 5% $250,000 $21 $21,000 $2,310,000 $21 $20,000 Total Hard Costs $5,215,000 $522 $521,500 $48,450,000 $517 $484,500 Soft Costs
1) Soft Costs 25.0% $1,303,750 $130 $130,000 $12,110,000 $129 $120,000 2) City Fees $350,000 $35 $35,000 $2,800,000 $30 $28,000 3) Soft Cost Contingency 5% $80,000 $8 $8,000 $750,000 $8 $7,500 Total Soft Costs $1,733,750 $165 $165,000 $15,660,000 $159 $148,000 % of hard costs 33% 32%
Land Costs Total Per Unit Per Unit
1) Land Costs - San Mateo $1,000,000 $100,000 $10,000,000 $100,000 2) Land Costs - Santa Clara $600,000 $60,000 $6,000,000 $60,000 Range of Land Costs
Apts/Condo- Lower Price Tier $400,000 $40,000 $4,000,000 $40,000 Apts/Condo- Middle Price Tier $800,000 $80,000 $8,000,000 $80,000 Apts/Condo- Higher Cost Tier $1,600,000 $160,000 $16,000,000 $160,000 Total Development Cost - San Mateo $7,948,750 $795 $786,500 $74,110,000 $791 $732,500 Total Development Cost - Santa Clara $7,548,750 $755 $746,500 $70,110,000 $748 $692,500 Total Development Cost by Range of Land Cost
Apts/Condo- Lower Land Price Tier $7,348,750 $726,500 $68,110,000 $672,500 Apts/Condo- Middle Land Price Tier $7,748,750 $766,500 $72,110,000 $712,500 Apts/Condo- Higher Land Price Tier $8,548,750 $846,500 $80,110,000 $792,500 Multi-Family Small Multi-Family Large
PAGE 5
Exhibit 2: Unit Mixes – Number of Units by Unit Type and Unit Mix Percentages San Mateo County Apartments
Number of Units
Projects Studios One Two Three Four Total Studios One Two Three Four Proposed 25 936 1,639 888 124 56 3,643 26% 45% 24% 3% 2% Existing 63 905 4,223 2,626 523 1 8,279 11% 51% 32% 6% 0% Final Planning 3 328 19 75 33 7 462 71% 4% 16% 7% 2%
Under Construction 16 268 619 523 79 0 1,489 18% 42% 35% 5% 0% Totals 107 2,437 6,500 4,112 759 64 13,872 18% 47% 30% 5% 0% Projects Studios One Two Three Four Total Studios One Two Three Four South San Francisco 8 90 853 604 55 0 1,602 6% 53% 38% 3% 0% San Mateo 19 228 734 715 154 1 1,832 12% 40% 39% 8% 0%
Redwood City 28 1,019 2,262 1,125 163 0 4,569 22% 50% 25% 4% 0% Menlo Park 12 600 995 411 80 47 2,133 28% 47% 19% 4% 2% Millbrae 3 147 151 133 23 0 454 32% 33% 29% 5% 0%
Foster City 5 12 367 302 83 0 764 2% 48% 40% 11% 0%
Burlingame 11 105 606 474 28 0 1,213 9% 50% 39% 2% 0%
Daly City 3 206 79 72 23 0 380 54% 21% 19% 6% 0%
San Carlos 7 0 101 84 88 9 282 0% 36% 30% 31% 3%
Half Moon Bay 2 0 149 21 2 0 172 0% 87% 12% 1% 0%
East Palo Alto 2 8 55 80 27 7 177 5% 31% 45% 15% 4%
San Bruno 4 4 119 62 14 0 199 2% 60% 31% 7% 0%
Belmont 1 18 25 21 17 0 81 22% 31% 26% 21% 0%
El Granada 1 0 3 6 0 0 9 0% 33% 67% 0% 0%
Pacifica 1 0 1 2 2 0 5 0% 20% 40% 40% 0%
Total 107 2,437 6,500 4,112 759 64 13,872 18% 47% 30% 5% 0% San Mateo County Condominiums
Number of Units
Projects Studios One Two Three Four Total Studios One Two Three Four Proposed 2 72 0 8 1 1 82 88% 0% 10% 1% 1%
Existing 12 0 46 293 194 0 533 0% 9% 55% 36% 0%
Final Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Construction 1 0 0 10 0 0 10 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total with Unit Mix Data 15 72 46 311 195 1 625 12% 7% 50% 31% 0% Projects Studios One Two Three Four Total Studios One Two Three Four South San Francisco 1 0 40 57 0 0 97 0% 41% 59% 0% 0%
San Mateo 5 72 0 201 97 1 371 19% 0% 54% 26% 0%
Daly City 2 0 0 2 84 0 86 0% 0% 2% 98% 0%
San Carlos 1 0 3 8 9 0 20 0% 15% 40% 45% 0%
Menlo Park 1 0 0 15 0 0 15 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Burlingame 3 0 3 18 1 0 22 0% 14% 82% 5% 0%
Redwood City 1 0 0 10 0 0 10 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Half Moon Bay 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Brisbane No data available
Belmont No data available
Foster City No data available
Pacifica No data available
Total 15 72 46 311 195 1 625 12% 7% 50% 31% 0%
Unit Numbers Unit Mix
Unit Numbers Unit Mix
PAGE 6
Exhibit 2: Unit Mixes – Unit Sizes
San Mateo County Apartments
Average Unit Sizes
Studios One Two Three Four
Proposed 506 688 1,115 1,565 2,208
Existing 535 745 1,108 1,411 1,939
Final Planning
Under Construction 508 708 1,081 1,413
Total Data Available 524 733 1,105 1,422 2,186
Studios One Two Three Four
South San Francisco 511 705 1,116 1,321
San Mateo 590 769 1,109 1,436 1,939
Redwood City 546 756 1,125 1,421
Menlo Park 538 692 1,062 1,434 1,782
Millbrae 475 656 1,147 1,369
Foster City 579 716 1,088 1,402
Burlingame 518 785 1,128 1,368
Daly City 422 649 932 1,187
San Carlos 774 1,206 1,520 2,303
Half Moon Bay 659 957 1,330
East Palo Alto 530 795
San Bruno 476 716 1,006 1,386
Belmont
El Granada 616 1,047
Pacifica 1,750 900 1,100
San Mateo County Condominiums
Average Unit Sizes
Insufficent data
PAGE 7
Exhibit 3: Single Family Land Sale Data Summary
The data in the table above represents the available single family home lot sales data points collected for this high-level survey. As the data is limited for certain cities, the specific, median, and average amounts per city may not be representative of a city’s current median or average land costs or the city’s land costs relative to other cities listed.

Single Family Home Land Sites up to 1 acre, last 3 years Available
County City Data Points Min Max Median Average Min Max Median Average San Mateo County Moss Beach 19 $14 $117 $64 $64 $125,000 $582,500 $375,000 $335,053 San Mateo County Woodside 4 $10 $88 $24 $36 $150,000 $2,000,000 $377,250 $726,125 San Mateo County South San Francisco 4 $33 $89 $59 $60 $165,000 $3,800,000 $431,000 $1,206,750 San Mateo County Montara 12 $23 $269 $65 $79 $275,000 $1,750,000 $439,000 $533,917 San Mateo County Half Moon Bay 33 $1 $324 $75 $91 $5,000 $2,300,000 $447,000 $514,455 San Mateo County Pacifica 6 $14 $105 $70 $63 $300,000 $925,000 $447,500 $500,000 San Mateo County Belmont 12 $2 $721 $56 $118 $55,000 $4,470,000 $495,000 $960,583 San Mateo County East Palo Alto 5 $72 $135 $92 $100 $235,000 $3,550,000 $675,000 $1,379,600 San Mateo County Redwood City 18 $6 $345 $129 $145 $50,000 $5,350,000 $825,000 $1,170,250 San Mateo County Emerald Hills 2 $125 $132 $129 $129 $975,000 $980,000 $977,500 $977,500 San Mateo County San Bruno 2 $179 $207 $193 $193 $560,000 $1,500,250 $1,030,125 $1,030,125 San Mateo County San Carlos 11 $2 $405 $94 $126 $29,000 $2,980,000 $1,100,000 $1,214,455 San Mateo County San Mateo 1 $500 $500 $500 $500 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 San Mateo County Portola Valley 4 $47 $129 $58 $73 $1,325,000 $3,000,000 $1,578,000 $1,870,250 San Mateo County Burlingame 1 $125 $125 $125 $125 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 San Mateo County Menlo Park 3 $165 $591 $459 $405 $2,580,000 $6,500,000 $2,780,000 $3,953,333 San Mateo County Millbrae 1 $239 $239 $239 $239 $3,080,500 $3,080,500 $3,080,500 $3,080,500 San Mateo County Hillsborough 3 $85 $306 $116 $169 $3,050,000 $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,016,667 San Mateo County Atherton 2 $147 $208 $178 $178 $2,500,000 $6,400,000 $4,450,000 $4,450,000 San Mateo County Total 143 $1 $721 $84 $110 $5,000 $8,000,000 $510,000 $1,026,691 Santa Clara County Los Gatos 15 $1 $251 $6 $50 $9,500 $3,250,000 $250,000 $716,237 Santa Clara County Morgan Hill 11 $1 $495 $15 $79 $29,000 $1,365,000 $475,000 $490,533 Santa Clara County San Jose 54 $12 $677 $75 $150 $32,000 $5,300,000 $925,000 $949,380 Santa Clara County Campbell 8 $13 $897 $120 $194 $10,000 $1,500,000 $1,038,000 $975,000 Santa Clara County Mountain View 3 $76 $271 $141 $163 $1,050,000 $2,300,000 $1,150,000 $1,500,000 Santa Clara County Santa Clara 1 $169 $169 $169 $169 $1,275,000 $1,275,000 $1,275,000 $1,275,000 Santa Clara County Sunnyvale 3 $167 $602 $214 $328 $1,080,000 $5,750,000 $1,345,000 $2,725,000 Santa Clara County Cupertino 4 $47 $297 $197 $185 $872,000 $2,900,000 $2,175,000 $2,030,500 Santa Clara County Monte Sereno 2 $61 $1,006 $534 $534 $2,142,714 $2,427,500 $2,285,107 $2,285,107 Santa Clara County Saratoga 5 $61 $171 $74 $93 $1,380,000 $2,900,000 $2,640,000 $2,386,000 Santa Clara County Palo Alto 7 $79 $584 $333 $323 $2,050,000 $4,000,000 $3,100,000 $2,965,000 Santa Clara County Los Altos 5 $121 $352 $257 $235 $1,600,000 $7,250,000 $3,470,000 $3,723,600 Santa Clara County Los Altos Hills 1 $99 $99 $99 $99 $3,995,000 $3,995,000 $3,995,000 $3,995,000 Santa Clara County Total 119 $1 $1,006 $84 $157 $9,500 $7,250,000 $1,065,000 $1,320,556 Per Square Foot Per Single Family Home
PAGE 8
Exhibit 4: Multi Family Land Sale Data Summary
Multi Family Land Sites - Available Data
Available Per Multi Family Unit
County City Data Points Min Max Median Average
San Mateo San Mateo 3 $135,000 $180,000 $151,000 $155,000 San Mateo San Carlos 4 $33,000 $333,000 $262,000 $222,000 San Mateo Millbrae 2 $64,000 $92,000 $78,000 $78,000
San Mateo Redwood City 6 $78,000 $400,000 $95,000 $157,000 San Mateo South San Francisco 2 $44,000 $77,000 $61,000 $61,000 San Mateo Burlingame 3 $59,000 $117,000 $73,000 $83,000 San Mateo Menlo Park 3 $37,000 $98,000 $50,000 $62,000
San Mateo Daly City 2 $29,000 $60,000 $45,000 $45,000
San Mateo Pacifica 2 $117,000 $118,000 $117,000 $117,000 San Mateo Belmont 1 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 San Mateo Total 28 $29,000 $400,000 $95,000 $123,000
County Weighted
Average $96,000
Per Unit Land Amount Applied $100,000
Available Per Multi Family Unit
County City Data Points Min Max Median Average
Santa Clara San Jose 17 $16,000 $125,000 $50,000 $52,000 Santa Clara Gilroy 1 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000
Santa Clara Morgan Hill 1 $86,000 $86,000 $86,000 $86,000 Santa Clara Campbell 3 $42,000 $184,000 $59,000 $95,000 Santa Clara Santa Clara 6 $18,000 $146,000 $92,000 $83,000 Santa Clara Sunnyvale 6 $55,000 $306,000 $238,000 $215,000 Santa Clara Palo Alto 1 $73,000 $73,000 $73,000 $73,000 Santa Clara Mountain View 4 $45,000 $736,000 $120,000 $256,000 Santa Clara Los Altos 1 $513,000 $513,000 $513,000 $513,000 Santa Clara Total 40 $16,000 $736,000 $60,000 $117,000
County Weighted
Average $63,000
Per Unit Land Amount Applied $60,000
The data in the table above represents the available multi family home lot sales data points collected for this high-level survey. As the data is limited for certain cities, the specific, median, and average amounts per city may not be representative of a city’s current median or average land costs or the city’s land costs relative to other cities listed. 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 213
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031
APPENDIX 6.1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT Appendix 6.1
South San Francisco
Fair Housing Assessment
City of South San Francisco Fair Housing Assessment
What is AFFH?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.

AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation”1
AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14. 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 2 History of segregation in the region. The
United States’ oldest cities have a history of
mandating segregated living patterns—and
Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in
its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment,
attributes segregation in the Bay Area to historically
discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and
discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as
“structural inequities” in society, and “self
segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar
people).

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color
of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government
Segregated America chronicles how the public sector
contributed to the segregation that exists today.

Rothstein highlights several significant
developments in the Bay Area region that played a
large role in where the region’s non-White residents
settled.

Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities, taking the form of “blockbusting” and “steering” or intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded low income neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.

According to the San Mateo County Historical Association. San Mateo County’s early African Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and entertainment. Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War II attracted many new residents into the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African Americans. Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed to occupy housing—housing segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal developments.

Asian Americans, who had also come to the area for employment, also faced discrimination. This was built into financing and covenants in the public and private sector—and facilitated by White homeowners. In 1952, a Chinese family attempted to buy a home in the all White Southwood neighborhood of South San Francisco. Their purchase This history of segregation
in the region is important
not only to understand how
residential settlement
patterns came about—but,
more importantly, to
explain differences in
housing opportunity among
residents today. In sum, not
all residents had the ability
to build housing wealth or
achieve economic
opportunity. This
historically unequal playing
field in part determines why
residents have different
housing needs today.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 3 was blocked by a vote of the neighbors—a referendum that the Chinese buyer had asked for, believing that acceptance would trump racist policies built into lending transactions.2 Other acts were more subtle yet just as damaging. The segregatory effect of blockbusting activities is well-documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954, after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then-president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and speculators. These agents then sold these homes at over-inflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto—initially established with “whites only” neighborhoods—became 82% African American. The FHA prevented reintegration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers residing in East Palo Alto.

Throughout the county, neighborhood associations and city leaders attempted to thwart integration of communities. Although some neighborhood residents supported integration, most did not, and it was not unusual for neighborhood associations to require acceptance of all new buyers. Builders with intentions to develop for all types of buyers (regardless of race) found that their development sites were rezoned by planning councils, required very large minimum lot sizes, and\or were denied public infrastructure to support their developments or charged prohibitively high amounts for infrastructure.

In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns throughout the Bay Area, it’s also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today. The original inhabitants of present-day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush Ohlone, who have “…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful stewards of the land.”3 However, “[d]ue to the devastating policies and practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government over the centuries since European expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their population as well as their land.”4 The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native populations today.5
The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears on the following page.
2 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/phr.2004.73.3.463 3 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 4 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 5 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 4 As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s.

Courts struck down only the most discriminatory, and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act.

For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low income housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 5 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 6 Maps and data referenced in this section. Throughout this section, there are references to maps created by HCD to support the AFFH and data tables created by HCD, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the consultant team. Those maps and tables appear in an Appendix and follow the organization of this section and the state guidance. The maps, in particular, are useful in demonstrating how the City of San Bruno compares with surrounding jurisdictions and the county overall in offering housing choices and access to opportunity.

Report content and organization. This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California State Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the 21 Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions.

Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges and the plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity.

Section I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.

Section II. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation Section III. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

Section IV. Disparate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.

Appendices.
 Map and Data packet—includes data tables and maps that support this section  Resident survey results—findings from a survey of San Mateo County residents on their experience finding and remaining in housing
 Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class.  State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations—summary of key state laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 7 Primary Findings
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for the City of South San Francisco including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the city’s fair housing action plan.  7% of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 were in the City of South San Francisco—the city accounts for 9% of the county’s population. The most common issues cited in the city were refusal to rent, refusal to rent and negotiate for a rental, and failure to make a reasonable accommodation.

Most complaints were on the basis of disability status (2 complaints) and national origin (2 complaints) in the city.
 Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the nonHispanic White population in the City of South San Francisco. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be denied for a home mortgage loan. Hispanic residents are more likely to live in low resource areas.  Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty (Figure II-5) and lower household incomes (Figure II-4) compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of South San Francisco.  Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding (Figure IV-17). Households making between 31-50% AMI are also more likely to be overcrowded (Figure IV-18).  People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black, White, and Hispanic are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population (Figure IV-22).
 Hispanic residents are more likely to live in low resource areas compared to high resource areas. Conversely, Asian residents are much more likely to live in high resource areas compared to low resource areas (Figure III-12).  American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic households have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019 (Figure IV-33).  Geospatially, the areas in the city adjacent to Highway 101 are disproportionately impacted by high poverty, low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, overcrowding, and low resource scores. These areas have:
 Higher poverty rates between 10% and 20% (Figure II-28).

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 8  Education opportunity scores less than 0.25 and between 0.25 and 0.5— meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the city (Figure III-1).
 Low economic opportunity scores between 0.25 and 0.5 (Figure III-7).  Low environmental scores—which account for PM2.5, diesel PM, drinking water, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites (Figure III-9).  The composite opportunity score for the City of South San Francisco shows census tracts adjacent to Highway 101 fall within low resource areas while the rest of the city is within moderate or high resource areas (Figure III-14).  The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster. The areas adjacent to Highway 101 are most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).  Overcrowded households in the city are concentrated west of Highway 101 (Figure IV-19).
 Areas in the southern portion of the city adjacent to Highway 101 fall within Special Flood Hazard Areas (Figure IV-31) while nearly the entire city is vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV-28).
 The City of South San Francisco has a slightly greater proportion of residents with a disability than the county (Figure III-17). Residents living with a disability in the city are more likely to be unemployed and are largely concentrated in areas around Highway 101. Finally, the aging population is putting a strain on paratransit access countywide.  Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 13% compared to 3% for residents without a disability in the City of South San Francisco—particularly when compared to the county (Figure III-20).
 Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. However, South San Francisco Unified has the lowest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 41%. Hispanic students in the district were less likely to meet the admission standards.
 South San Francisco Unified had one of the highest dropout rates in the county at 9% with White (12%) and Hispanic (11%) students accounting for the highest rates (Access to Education Appendix).
 Over half of all renter households in the City of South San Francisco are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and approximately one in five are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 9 their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of South San Francisco by race and ethnicity (Figure IV-11).  In the City of South San Francisco 12% of income assisted rental units are at high or very high risk for displacement, a total of 74 out of 614 total units in the city.

Resident needs collected through local survey. A survey administered to capture residents’ needs and support the AFFH found the following housing challenges.

Over 830 residents completed the survey:
 About 21% of residents said their house or apartment is too small for their family;  23% for racial and/or ethnic minority households;
 35% for single parent households;
 13% of renters said they worry that if they request a repair they will experience rent increase or get evicted;
 14% for racial and/or ethnic minority households;
 27% for single parent households;
 13% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for housing in San Mateo County;
 23% for respondents experiencing a disability;
 24% for single parent households;
 7% (18% for single parent households) of renters are often late on rent and 9% (16% for single parent households) can’t keep up with utilities.  20% of respondents to the resident survey said that schools in their neighborhood were of poor quality.

Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan. The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors that limit employment and income growth, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited resources to respond to needs. Specifically, Fair housing issue: Hispanic households have disproportionate housing needs.

These needs are evident in mortgage denial gaps, cost burden, and overcrowding.

Contributing factors:
 Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households stem from decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 10  As discussed below, Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated where there is a high concentration of housing choice vouchers and most affordable homes in South San Francisco. As such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty.
 Hispanic residents are more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not support the city’s or region’s housing prices, resulting in higher rates of cost burden and overcrowding. Although, it is customary for Hispanic households to live in multigenerational settings, which may account for higher rates of perceived overcrowding, overcrowding is also an indicator of lack of access to affordable and right-sized housing.

Fair housing issue: Hispanic residents are concentrated in census tracts with higher poverty, low economic and environmental opportunity, high rates of overcrowding, and high rental cost burden compared to the rest of the City of South San Francisco.
 Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the central area of the city (from Sign Hill to Orange Park) where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.

Some census tracts within this area are designated as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities.
 The census tract that spans from Oyster Point in the east to Orange Park in the west of the city is designated as an edge Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP).
 Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 5- percent or more (majority-minority) and the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (12.8% in 2019).  Hispanic households are five times as likely to live in a low resource area compared to a high resource area in South San Francisco.  Areas of Hispanic concentration overlap with high shares of Housing Choice Vouchers and affordable housing. Concentration of affordable rental housing opportunities in further concentrates poverty, cost burden, and overcrowding in areas with low environmental and economic outcomes.  There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the city, as well as the county overall. Because South San Francisco has more affordable housing opportunities than other parts of the county—as evidenced by Location Affordability Index maps (Figure IV-29)— the residents who live in South San Francisco often have higher housing needs. Those needs are not being met in other parts of the county.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 11 Fair housing issue: Single parent households struggle to find housing that is large enough for their families and that is affordable. Single parent households are concentrated in lower opportunity areas where the most affordable housing exists.
 In the resident survey conducted for this study, single parent households were more likely than other demographic groups to say that the housing they live in is too small for their families.
 Single parent households also report very high rates of discrimination in housing choice (24%). As such, they are more reluctant than other demographic groups to ask landlords for repairs for fear of losing their housing (27% said they are afraid if they request repairs they will experience rent increases or get evicted).
 There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the city, as well as the county overall. Because South San Francisco has more affordable housing opportunities than other parts of the county—as evidenced by Location Affordability Index maps (Figure IV-29)— the residents who live in South San Francisco often have higher housing needs. Those needs are not being met in other parts of the county.

Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities have higher housing needs due to challenges accessing employment and housing discrimination and are concentrated in areas with high rates of cost burden, poverty, and social vulnerability and low resource opportunity scores.
 The unemployment rate for South San Francisco’s residents with a disability is more than four times that of persons without a disability. The exact reasons for this disparity are unclear and are likely related to limited job opportunities, access to employment, and market discrimination.  The undersupply of accessible housing units creates a scarcity of units for residents living with a disability.
 There were two complaints—out of four total complaints in the city—filed with HUD in South San Francisco from 2017 to 2020 where the issues cited included a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property owners are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living with a disability upon request.
 There are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of Highway 101 in the census tract that includes Orange Park neighborhood.

This census tract has a higher poverty rate relative to the city, has low TCAC environment and economic opportunity scores, and is designated as a low resource opportunity area.

Fair housing issue: Nearly one in nine income-assisted rental units in South San Francisco are at high risk of converting to market rate housing.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 12  In South San Francisco, 12% of income assisted rental units are at high risk for converting to market rate housing and displacing residents, a total of 74 out of 614 total units in the city.
 This is higher than in the county overall, where 8% of units are at high or very high risk, and the Bay Area overall, where 2% are at risk of converting.

Fair housing issue: Students attending South San Francisco Unified schools have lower probability of meeting college standards and higher drop out rates.
 South San Francisco Unified had the lowest rate of graduates who met CU or CSU admission standards at 41%. Hispanic students in the district were less likely to meet the admission standards than other students.  South San Francisco Unified has one of the highest dropout rates in the county at 9% with White (12%) and Hispanic (11%) students accounting for the highest rates.
 The reasons underlying these disparities are unclear and need to be evaluated.

SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and
Outreach Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.

Fair housing legal cases and inquiries. California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers).

The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.6 6 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 13 DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD.

DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.7 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County (Figure I-1).

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Figure I-2)—7% of complaints were in the City of South San Francisco (4 complaints) (Figure I-3). Most complaints cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). In the City of South San Francisco, the most common issues cited were refusal to rent, refusal to rent and negotiate for a rental, and failure to make a reasonable accommodation.

Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily submitted from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park (Figure I-3, Figure I-4, and Figure I-5).

Of the 832 City of South San Francisco respondents to the resident survey, 344 residents have looked for housing seriously, of those, 60 (24%) indicated that a “Landlord did not return calls and/or emails asking about a unit”, and 98 (30%) indicated they have been denied housing to rent or buy in the past 5 years. The main reason for denial (58%) was “income too low.”
Similarly, of the 27 voucher holders responding to the survey, 89% indicated that finding an affordable unit is somewhat or very difficult. Seventeen (17) of them indicated this is due to “Landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders.” Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints 7 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 14 nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%).

Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
 First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.  Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.  Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.8
8 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/ ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 15 Outreach and capacity. The City of South San Francisco provides relatively accessible fair housing information on their website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. The website page includes contact information for local fair housing organizations, legal assistance, and AFFH information. However, the city could improve these resources by providing general information about the Fair Housing Act and discrimination. Additionally, the city could provide a link to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing approved by HUD in November 2017—and AFFH goals specific Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
HUD Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 32 56%
Race 11 19%
Familial Status 8 14%
National Origin 3 5%
Religion 2 4%
Sex 1 2%
Total cases 57 100%
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021) 26 24
16 9
9 9
7 7
6 6
5 4
2 1
San Mateo
Redwood City
Daly City
Menlo Park
Belmont
Pacifica
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Burlingame
South San Francisco
San Bruno
San Carlos
Woodside
Half Moon Bay
9 6
8 5
2 3
5 0
5 4
4 2
0 1
HUD Fair Housing
Complaints
HCD Fair Housing
Inquiries
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 16 to the City of South San Francisco.
9 Currently, the AI linked on the city’s website is from 2012.

Compliance with state law. The City of South San Francisco is compliant with the following state laws that promote fair and affordable housing. The City has not been alleged or found in violation of the following:
 State Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Law (Gov. Code. Title 7. Division 1.

Chapter 4.3 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives, amended and effective January 1, 2021)
 Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations;
 No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations, including among income levels;  Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov Code Section 65913.1);
 Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov Code Section 65913.2);  Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov Code Section 65589.5).

Housing specific policies enacted locally. The City of South San Francisco identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city.

Local policies in place to encourage
housing development.
 Reduced Parking Requirements
 Streamlined Permitting Process
 Mixed Use Zoning
 Density Bonus Ordinances
 Inclusionary/Below Market Rate
Housing Policy
 Condominium Conversion Ordinance
 SRO Preservation Ordinances
 Homeowner Rehabilitation program
 Reduced Fees or Waivers
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
 N/A
9 https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/housing/fair-housing-legal-services ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 17  Acquisition/Rehabilitation/Conversion
program
 Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fees
 Housing Development Impact Fee
 Commercial Development Impact Fee
 Locally Funded Homebuyer
Assistance Programs
 Home sharing programs
 Public Housing, Group Homes,
Emergency Shelters, and Affordable
Housing Complexes
 Second Unit Ordinance
 Density Bonus Ordinance
Local policies that are NOT in place
but would provide the best outcomes
in addressing housing shortages.
 Rent stabilization
 Just cause eviction
Local policies that are NOT in place,
but have potential Council interest
for further exploration.
 Rent review board and/or mediation
 Community land trust
 Acquisition of affordable units with
expiring subsidies
 Acquisition of unsubsidized
properties with affordable rents
 Dedicating surplus land for affordable
housing
Local policies in place to mitigate or
prevent displacement of low income
households.
 Affordable housing impact/linkage
fee on new residential and
commercial development
 Inclusionary zoning
 Promoting streamlined processing of
ADUs
 Fair housing legal services
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 18 According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), the South San Francisco Public Housing Authority has 80 units of public housing situated on C Street off of W Orange Avenue. In addition to physical assisted housing units, the city has one census tract with a sizable share of households using housing vouchers (15% to 30%), five tracts with a moderate share (5% to 15%), and most other areas of the city have some (5% or less) housing voucher utilization (Figure I-7).

Compared to nearby Brisbane, Millbrae, and Burlingame, the City of South San Francisco appears accommodating to renters with housing vouchers because the city has a greater share of voucher holders compared to the surrounding communities (Figure I-7).

The presence of housing voucher users indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a lack of exclusionary behavior from landlords in the city.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 19 SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.

Race and ethnicity. Generally, the demographic characteristics of the City of San South San Francisco differ from the overall characteristics of San Mateo County. While the city has similar proportions of Black or African American (2%) and residents who identify as other/multiple race (4%), the racial and ethnic makeup of South San Francisco differs significantly from the county (Figure II-1).10
Asian residents make up the largest proportion of the population in South San Francisco (41% compared to 30% countywide), followed by Hispanic residents (33% compared to 24%) (Figure II-2). The City of South San Francisco has a significantly smaller share of nonHispanic White residents compared to the county (20% compared to 39% countywide).

Older residents are less diverse with 45% of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to only 29% of the population for children less than 18 years old (Figure II-3).

Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty and lower household incomes compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of South San Francisco (Figure II-4 and Figure II-5).
10 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 20 Geospatially, the City of South San Francisco has several census tracts that have Hispanic (eastern area of the city) and Asian (western area of the city) majorities. 11 The city also has two White majority census tracts (Figures II-6, II-7, II-8, II-9, and II-10).12 Dissimilarity and isolation indices. The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The DI is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once
DI values range from 0 to 100—where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

The isolation index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.

ABAG and UC Merced completed an analysis of segregation in South San Francisco. Several indices were used to assess segregation in the city and determine how the city differs from patterns of segregation and integration in the region overall.  As of 2020, Asian residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in South San Francisco, as measured by the isolation index. Asian residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups.
 Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
 According to the dissimilarity index, within South San Francisco the highest level of racial segregation is between Black and white residents.13 However, local jurisdiction 11 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous. 12 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County.
13 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 15 in Appendix 2 in AFFH Segregation Report: South San Francisco), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 21 staff should note that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size.
 According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in South San Francisco declined between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation stayed about the same between 2010 and 2015.
 Very Low-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in South San Francisco. Very Low-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.  Among all income groups, the Very Low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
 According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has increased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in South San Francisco between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

Disability status. The share of the population living with at least one disability is 9% in the City of South San Francisco compared to 8% in San Mateo County (Figure II-13).

There are a handful of census tracts dispersed throughout the city that have a 10% to 20% share of the population living with a disability (Figure II-14). These census tracts are mostly concentrated in the east and southern portions of the city. Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate increased access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population.

Familial Status. The City of South San Francisco is home to less single-person households than the county with 17% of households compared to only 22% in the County (Figure II-16). Collectively, there are a greater number of married-couple families and families with children in the city (Figure II-17 and Figure II-18).

Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of married families and larger households indicates a need for three to four bedroom units, both for the rental and for sale market.

Over 70% of married couple households and a slim majority of residents living alone live in owner occupied housing (Figure II-19). The number of housing units available by number of bedrooms and tenure is generally consistent with the familial status of the households that live in the City of South San Francisco (Figure II-16 and Figure II20). Compared to the county, the City of South San Francisco has a greater proportion of family households and smaller proportion of single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing stock in the city (Figure II-19 and Figure 20). The distribution of households by family type are mapped at the census tract levels in Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 22 Household income. The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in the City of South San Francisco is somewhat similar to the county (Figure II25). However, South San Francisco has a smaller proportion of households making more than 100% AMI (39% compared to 49% countywide). There are several census block groups in the city that have median incomes below the 2020 state median income of $87,100, but the majority of block groups have median incomes well above that (Figure II-26 and Figure II-27). Poverty rates are highest in the City of South San Francisco—between 10% and 20%— in census tracts along the San Francisco Bay and south of Colma and San Bruno Mountain State Park (Figure II-28).

Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
City of South San
Francisco San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0% 0%
Asian / API, NH 41% 30%
Black or African American, NH 2% 2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH) 20% 39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 4% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 33% 24%
Disability Status
With a disability 9% 8%
Without a disability 91% 92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 13% 10%
Male-headed Family Households 7% 5%
Married-couple Family Households 55% 55%
Other Non-Family Households 8% 8%
Single-person Households 17% 22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 15% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 12% 11%
51%-80% of AMI 21% 16%
81%-100% of AMI 12% 10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 39% 49%
0%
41%
2%
20%
4%
33%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
9%
91%
8%
92%
13%
7%
55%
8%
17%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
15%
12%
21%
12%
39%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 23 rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.14
It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

R/ECAPs
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
 A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majorityminority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR
 A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majorityminority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.

For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as an R/ECAP was three times the average census tract poverty rate countywide—or 19.1%. In addition to R/ECAPs that meet the HUD threshold, this study includes edge or emerging R/ECAPs which hit two thirds of the HUD defined threshold for poverty—emerging R/ECAPs in San Mateo County have two times the average tract poverty rate for the county (12.8%).

In 2010 there were three Census tracts that qualified as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county and 11 that qualified as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in the City of South San Francisco in 2010 (Figure II-29).

In 2019 there are two Census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county and 14 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in the City of South San Francisco in 2019 (Figure II-30). However, one of the 2019 14 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 24 edge R/ECAPs is located in the City of South San Francisco—which means it is majority minority and has a poverty rate two times higher than the countywide census tract average. This tract is located along Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay and has a concentration of Hispanic households.
[PLACEHOLDER] RCAAs.[ABAG data on RCAAs was not available at the time this report was prepared] HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is:
 A census tract that has a percentage of total white population that is 1.25 times higher than the average percentage of total white population in the given COG region, and a median income that was 2 times higher than the COG AMI.

SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.

Local knowledge: resident survey questions about access to opportunity.

Residents were asked about several resources that would improve their living situation in the survey conducted to support this AFFH. When asked what type of help they need to improve their housing security, top answers were:
 Help me with a down payment/purchase (31%);
 Help me get a loan to buy a house (23%); and
 Help me pay rent each month (13%).

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 25 When asked what type of help they need to improve their neighborhood, top answers were:
 Better lighting (38%);
 Reduce crime (29%); and
 Improve street crossings (24%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their health, top answers were:
 Make it easier to exercise (41%);
 More healthy food (35%); and
 More playgrounds for children (23%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their job situation, top answers were:
 Increase wages (41%);
 Find a job near my apartment/house (15%); and
 Help paying for college (15%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve children’s education, top answers were:
 Have more activities after school (29%);
 Better school facilities (25%); and
 Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school (25%).

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low income residents—particularly children.

The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 26 Education. TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, most Census tracts in the City of South San Francisco score between 0.25 and 0.5—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes (Figure III-1). However, there are a few Census tracts adjacent to Sign Hill Park that have scores of less than 0.25—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the city. This area also has lower economic opportunity scores and a greater share of minority households compared to the rest of the city.

The City of South San Francisco is served by the South San Francisco Unified District.

Serving K-12 students, South San Francisco Union experienced a decrease in enrollment by 12% from 2010 to 2020. The district also lost students during the COVID pandemic.

South San Francisco Union enrollment by race and ethnicity differs from the countywide distribution. South San Francisco Unified has a greater proportion of Filipino (23% compared to 8%) and Hispanic students (48% compared to 38% countywide) and a smaller proportion of Asian (14% compared to 17% countywide), non-Hispanic White (6% compared to 26%), and Other/Multiple race students (6% compared to 8%).

The South San Francisco Unified District has a slightly higher share of English learners (21% compared to 20% countywide) and students who qualify for reduced lunch (34% compared to 29% countywide). One percent of the district’s students experience homelessness.

Overall, South San Francisco Unified district is more diverse than the countywide average.

Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, South San Francisco Unified had the lowest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 41%. Hispanic students in the South San Francisco Unified district were less likely to meet the admission standards with a rate of 27%.

South San Francisco Unified had one of the highest dropout rates in the county at 9%, with White (12%) and Hispanic (11%) students accounting for the highest rates.

Employment. The top three industries by number of jobs in the City of South San Francisco include manufacturing and wholesale, transportation and utilities, and professional and managerial services (Figure III-2 and Figure III-3). The City of South San Francisco is a major employment center with a higher job to household ratio when compared to the county at 3.24 and 1.59 respectively—which means there are more employment opportunities per household in the City of South San Francisco (Figure III-4 and Figure III-5). The city also has a higher unemployment rate of 7% compared to the county at 6.6% (Figure III-6).

TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The western portions of the City of ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 27 South San Francisco score more than 0.50 for economic opportunity, whereas tracts in the eastern portion, adjacent to Highway 101, score between 0.25 and 0.5. These tracts have the lowest economic opportunity scores in the city (Figure III-7).

HUD’s job proximity index shows the City of South San Francisco is in relatively close proximity to jobs (Figure III-8), with a majority of the city scoring above 80—on a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs. These census tracts are directly adjacent to Highway 101. However, as you move further west in the city, job proximity scores progressively decline.

Transportation. [TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this report] This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access throughout the county. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in South San Francisco and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to San Mateo County. “San Mateo’s PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk right-of-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs.

Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.

While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”15 A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and 15 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 28 communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco Bay, served by MTC.”16 TRACS highlights that improving accessibility requires engagement for the community because there are no “watch-dog” systems in place to hold agencies accountable.

As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.” The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.17 MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18 month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.18
Environment. TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.

Generally, the City of South San Francisco scores poorly on environmental outcomes.

Census tracts surrounding Highway 101 have the lowest environmental scores in the city— primarily due to groundwater threats, hazardous waste, traffic noise and cleanups (Figure III-9 and Figure III-10). However, the city scores moderately well on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure III-11)19. Census tracts west of El Camino Real have the highest scores in 16 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
17 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilit ies.html
18 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 19 Specific environmental issues listed are sourced from: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40 ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 29 the city while the two census tracts with the lowest scores are situated west of Highway 101 and north of 1st Lane.

The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.20
Disparities in access to opportunity. Data show that Hispanic residents are more likely to live in low resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents (Figure III-12). While 60% of Hispanic residents live in low resource areas, only 12% live in high resources areas. Conversely, nearly 70% of the population living in high resource areas are Asian residents compared to just 40% in moderate resource areas. Non-Hispanic White and Other/Multiple race residents are more likely to live in moderate resource areas.

The share of the population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is 9% compared to 7% in the county (Figure III-13).

TCAC’s composite opportunity score for the City of South San Francisco shows census tracts west of Highway 280 and west of Sign Hill Park fall within high resource areas. The majority of the western portion of the city falls within moderate resource areas while the areas adjacent to Highway 101 fall within low resource areas (Figure III-14). The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—which ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Again, the low resource areas in the eastern portion of the city are most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).

The areas designated as low resource and facing the greatest vulnerability in the City of South San Francisco are also designated as disadvantaged communities, which are defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”21
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability. Nine percent of the population in the City of South San Francisco are living with at least one disability, compared to 8% in the county (Figure III-17). The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (4.8%), independent living (4.5%), and cognitive (2.9%) (Figure III-18).

Of residents with a disability responding to the resident survey, 32% said that their home does not meet the needs of their household member.
20 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
21 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 30 Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.

For the population 65 and over the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases (Figure III-19). As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging, therefore this population with a disability is likely to increase.

Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability with an unemployment rate of 13%, compared with 3% for residents without a disability in the City of South San Francisco—particularly when compared to the county where the disparity is not as high (Figure III-20). Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4%, compared to 3% for residents without a disability. High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

Residents living with a disability are concentrated geographically in the eastern and southern areas of the city, primarily along the Highway 101 corridor (Figure III-21). This is likely due to increased transportation access and access to support services.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 31 Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
City of South San
Francisco San Mateo County
Jobs to Household Ratio 3.24 1.59
Unemployment Rate 7% 6%
LEP Population 9% 7%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the City of South San Francisco Employment by Disability Status
97%
87%
3%
13%
No Disability
With A Disability
City of South San Francisco
97%
96%
3%
4%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
San Mateo County
0%
0%
40%
69%
1%
3%
26%
12%
4%
4%
29%
12%
Moderate Resource Area
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 32 SECTION IV. Disparate Housing Needs
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

Housing needs. Population growth in the City of South San Francisco has generally been in line with the county, albeit at a slower pace. Population growth slowed from 2019 to 2020 in San Mateo County, likely due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the City of South San Francisco gained population over that same period of time (Figure IV-1).

Since 2015, the housing permitted to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate income households with 834 units permitted for above moderate income households compared to 58 permits for moderate income households; 5 permits for low income households; and 80 permitted for very low income households (Figure IV-2).

The Housing Needs Data Report for the City of South San Francisco indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.” 22 The variety of housing types available in the city in 2020 are predominantly single family (71%) and medium to large scale multifamily (21%). From 2010 to 2020, the multifamily inventory increased more than single family, however, the city has a greater share of detached single family housing compared to other communities in the region. 23 22 Housing Needs Data Report: South San Francisco, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 23 Housing Needs Data Report: South San Francisco, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 33 Over 70% of the housing inventory in the City of South San Francisco was constructed from 1940 to 1979 (Figure IV-3). As such, the city’s units are older, lack energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot afford to make improvements.

Compared to San Mateo County, the city’s owner occupied housing market has a similar share of units priced between $1 and $1.5 million—22% of units in the city fall within this price range compared to 23% in the county (Figure IV-4). Conversely, units priced above $2 million make up a significantly smaller proportion of the city’s housing stock compared to the county with 1% and 19% respectively. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in both the city and county (Figure IV-5).

Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for sale market—however, median rents increased more rapidly from 2016 to 2019 (Figure IV-7). Rent increases have likely been dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the county, the City of South San Francisco has fewer luxury rental units—13% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the city compared to 22% in the county (Figure IV-6). Housing price trends indicates the City of South San Francisco is relatively affordable compared to other areas of the county.

Cost burden and severe cost burden. Over half of all renter households in the City of South San Francisco are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and approximately one in five are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9).

Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.

A slightly smaller portion of households in the City of South San Francisco (36%) struggle with cost burden compared to the county (37%) (Figure IV-8). Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. Nearly two out of every three households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low income households—are severely cost burdened. No households earning more than 100% of AMI are severely cost burdened (Figure IV-10).

There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of South San Francisco by race and ethnicity and family size. American Indian or Alaskan Native (100%), Other/Multiple Race (57%), and Black or African American households (50%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city. Non-Hispanic White (30%) and Asian households (32%) experience the lowest cost burden (Figure IV-11).

Large family households—considered households with five or more persons—experience less cost burden at a rate of 29% compared to all other households at 37% (Figure IV-12).

Cost burdened households are primarily concentrated in the Sign Hill Park area (Figure IV13 and Figure IV-14).

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 34 Overcrowding. The vast majority of households (92%) in the City of South San Francisco are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room (Figure IV15).

The resident survey shows higher needs: 21% of respondents said that their house or apartment isn’t big enough for their family members.

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Other races (18% of households), Hispanic households (15%), and Asian households (9%) experience the highest rates of overcrowding (Figure IV-17).

Households earning between 31-50% AMI have the highest rates of overcrowding in the city (Figure IV-18).

Geographically, overcrowded households are concentrated in areas west of Highway 101, south of Miller Avenue and east of Maple Avenue—the same areas designated as low resource and more likely to experience high social vulnerability (Figure IV-19).

Substandard housing. Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys.

In the City of South San Francisco, renter households are also more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to owner households. Generally, a low share of households are lacking kitchen or plumbing. For renters, 1.3% are lacking kitchen facilities while nearly one percent are lacking plumbing. For owners, less than one percent are lacking either kitchen or plumbing facilities (Figure IV-20).

Homelessness. In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county, 40% of people were in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children (Figure IV-21).

People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% homeless, less than 1% general population), Black (13%, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population (Figure IV-22 and Figure IV-23). People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represent a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019 (Figure IV-24).

Displacement. Owner households generally experience a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile (i.e., move more frequently).

Households in the city were less likely to have moved in the past year compared to households in the county (8% compared to 12% in the county) (Figure IV-25 and Figure IV26).

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 35 In the City of South San Francisco 12% of income assisted rental units are at high or very high risk for displacement, a total of 74 out of 614 total units in the city. In San Mateo County, 417 units are at risk—8% of the total assisted housing units in the county (Figure IV-27).

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
 They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
 Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017  AND
 The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent
increases, 2012-2017
OR
 Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.

The resident survey conducted for this study found that 12% of respondents in the City of South San Francisco have been displaced in the past 5 years. The top reason for displacement was “Rent increased more than I could pay” (42%).

According to the Urban Displacement Project, almost every Census tract in the city is vulnerable to displacement—the only census tract not vulnerable is located in the far ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 36 northwest area of the city, just east of Interstate 280 (Figure IV-28). Additionally, a substantial portion of the city is included in the Special Flood Hazard Areas determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having a 1% chance of flooding annually (Figure IV-29, IV-30 and IV-31). Geospatially, the southern area of the city surrounding Highway 101 is the largest portion of the city at risk.

Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates (Figure IV-32). American Indian or Alaska Native (33% denial rate) and Hispanic households (27%) had the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, Black (13%) and White households (20%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time (Figure IV33).

Zoning and land use.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 37 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6% 0%
Asian / API 6% 30%
Black or African American 13% 2%
White 67% 51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8% 17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement South San Francisco San Mateo County Number of Units 74 417
% of Assisted Units 12% 8%
21%
38%
55%
72%
92%
14%
30%
34%
25%
8%
65%
31%
11%
3%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

0.4%

0.2%

1.3%

0.9%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter

8.4%

4.9%

4.5%

0.7%
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Owner Renter
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room

1.5+ Occupants
per Room
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 38 Placeholder for Site Inventory Analysis
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

Once sites are identified, the analysis will be placed here and will consist of:
 Map of identified sites by lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income units;
 Identification of sites within or proximity to R/ECAPs and edge R/ECAPs and/or low income/poverty concentrations;
 Proportion of low and very low income units located in that area, as well as concentrations of Housing Choice Vouchers,
 How the distribution of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units—and the share located in low, moderate, and high resourced areas—will change with proposed site inventory development;
 Proximity to:
 High proficiency K-12 education institutions;
 High-resourced areas/positive economic outcome areas;  Low social vulnerability;
 Good jobs proximity;
 Access to transportation;
 Healthy places; and
 Flood hazards.
7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 215
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031
APPENDIX 6.2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AFFH MAP AND DATA
PACKET
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 1
Appendix 6.2
Fair Housing Map and Data Packet
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
Figure I-1.

Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County Source: Organization Websites
Name
Project
Sentinel Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid
Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County
330 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 123,
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.org/h
ousing-resources
Community
Legal Services
of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park,
Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bay Road,
East Palo Alto, CA
94303
(650)-326-6440 https://clsepa.org/services/#ho
using
Service Area Address Phone Website
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 2
Figure I-2.

Fair Housing
Complaints Filed
with HUD by
Basis, San Mateo
County, 2017-
2021
Source:

HUD
Disability 8 9 3 9 3 32 56%
Race 3 5 2 1 11 19%
Familial Status 4 3 1 8 14%
National Origin 2 1 3 5%
Religion 1 1 2 4%
Sex 1 1 2%
Total cases 17 18 5 11 6 57 100%
2017-2021 Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cases % of Total
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 3
Figure I-3.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021)
Source: Organization Websites
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 4
Figure I-4.

FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, San Mateo County, 2013-2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 5
Figure I-5.

Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Jurisdiction
Atherton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belmont 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9
Brisbane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burlingame 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 6
Colma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daly City 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 9 16
East Palo Alto 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 7
Foster City 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Half Moon Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 9
Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacifica 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 9
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood City 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 15 24
San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
San Carlos 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4
San Mateo 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 16 26
South San Francisco 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 6
Woodside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Color
None
Disability Race Cited Total
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 6
Figure I-6.

Public Housing Buildings, San Mateo County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 7
Figure I-7.

Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 8
SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
Race and ethnicity.

Figure II-1.

Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-2.

Population by Race and Ethnicity, City of South San Francisco, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 9
Figure II-3.

Senior and Youth Population by Race, City of South San Francisco, 2000- 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-4.

Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 10
Figure II-5.

Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 11
Figure II-6.
% Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 12
Figure II-7.

White Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 13
Figure II-8.

Asian Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 14
Figure II-9.

Hispanic Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 15
Figure II-10.

Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 16
Figure II-11.

Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 17
Figure II-12.

Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 18
Disability status.

Figure II-13.

Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 19
Figure II-14.
% of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 20
Familial status.

Figure II-15.

Age Distribution, City of South San Francisco, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-16.

Share of Households by Size, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 21
Figure II-17.

Share of Households by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-18.

Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 22
Figure II-19.

Housing Type by Tenure, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-20.

Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 23
Figure II-21.
% of Children in Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 24
Figure II-22. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 25
Figure II-23. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 26
Figure II-24. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 27
Household income.

Figure II-25.

Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 28
Figure II-26.

Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 29
Figure II-27.

Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 30
Figure II-28.

Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 31
Figure II-29.

R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2010
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 32
Figure II-30.

R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2019
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.1% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (12.8% in 2019).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 33
SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
Education
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 34
Figure III-1.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 35
Employment
Figure III-2.

Jobs by Industry, City of South San Francisco, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 36
Figure III-3.

Job Holders by Industry, City of South San Francisco, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-4.

Jobs to Household Ratio, City of South San Francisco, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 37
Figure III-5.

Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, City of South San Francisco, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-6.

Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 38
Figure III-7.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 39
Figure III-8.

Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 40
Transportation
[TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this report]
Environment
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 41
Figure III-9.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 42
Figure III-10.

CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 43
Figure III-11.

Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 44
Patterns in disparities in access to opportunity.

Figure III-12.

Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-13.

Population with Limited English Proficiency, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 45
Figure III-14.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 46
Figure III-15.

Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 47
Figure III-16.

SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 48
Disparities in access to opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Figure III-17.

Population by Disability Status, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-18.

Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 49
Figure III-19.

Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-20.

Employment by Disability Status, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 50
Figure III-21.

Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 51
Figure III-22
[PLACEHOLDER] San Mateo County Housing Policies and Programs Analysis
Source: ABAG.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 52
SECTION IV. Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing needs.

Figure IV-1.

Population Indexed to 1990
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-2.

Housing Permits
Issued by Income
Group, City of
South San
Francisco, 2015-
2019
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 53
Figure IV-3.

Housing Units by Year
Built, City of South San
Francisco
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-4.

Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 54
Figure IV-5.

Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-6.

Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 55
Figure IV-7.

Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Cost burden and severe cost burden.

Figure IV-8.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 56
Figure IV-9.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-10.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 57
Figure IV-11.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-12.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 58
Figure IV-13.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 59
Figure IV-14.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 60
Overcrowding.

Figure IV-15.

Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-16.

Occupants per Room by Tenure, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 61
Figure IV-17.

Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-18.

Occupants per Room by AMI, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 62
Figure IV-19.

Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 63
Substandard housing.

Figure IV-20.

Percent of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Homelessness.

Figure IV-21.

Homelessness by
Household Type
and Shelter Status,
San Mateo County,
2019
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 68 198
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 271 74
Unsheltered 1 62 838
People in
Households
Solely
Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 64
Figure IV-22.

Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-23.

Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 65
Figure IV-24.

Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Displacement.

Figure IV-25.

Location of Population One Year Ago, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 46 0 70 31 10
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 46 3 46 4 14
Unsheltered 20 0 189 34 103
Chronic
Substance Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 66
Figure IV-26.

Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, City of South San Francisco, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-27.

Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, City of South San Francisco, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
South San Francisco 540 0 74 0 614
San Mateo County 4,656 191 359 58 5,264
Bay Area 110,177 3,375 1,854 1,053 116,459
Low Moderate High Very High
Total Assisted
Units in Database
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 67
Figure IV-28.

Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 68
Figure IV-29.

Location Affordability Index by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 69
Figure IV-30.

Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 70
Figure IV-31.

Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 71
Other considerations.

Figure IV-32.

Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, City of South San Francisco, 2018-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-33.

Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, City of South San Francisco, 2018-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Map 1 Predominant Race
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
Opportunity Sites
12/23/2022, 7:15:58 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks (R) Predominant Population - Hispanic Majority Tracts
Slim (gap < 10%)
Sizeable (gap 10% – 50%)
Predominant (gap > 50%)
(R) Predominant Population - Asian Majority Tracts
Slim (gap < 10%)
Sizeable (gap 10% – 50%)
Predominant (gap > 50%)
Slim (gap < 10%)
Sizeable (gap 10% – 50%)
Predominant (gap > 50%)
(R) Predominant Population - White Majority Tracts
Map 2 Low to Moderate Income Population
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(A) Low to Moderate Income Population (HUD) - Tract
< 25%
25% - 50%
50% - 75%
75% - 100%
12/23/2022, 7:23:30 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 3 Median Income
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) Median Income (ACS, 2015-2019) - Block Group
< $55,000
< $87,100 (HCD 2020 State Median Income)
< $125,000
Greater than $125,000
12/23/2022, 7:18:21 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 4 Poverty Status
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) Poverty Status (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract
< 10%
10% - 20%
30% - 40%
12/23/2022, 7:17:45 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 5 Population with a Disability
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) Population with a Disability (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract < 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 30%
12/23/2022, 7:16:53 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 6 Percent of Children in Female Headed Households
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households (ACS, 2015-2019) - Tract ≤ 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
12/23/2022, 7:22:25 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 7 TCAC Opportunity Map - Composite Score
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity Map 2022 - Composite Score (Tract) High Resource
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
Missing/Insufficient Data
12/23/2022, 7:26:48 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 8 TCAC Opportunity Map - Economic Score
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity Map 2022 - Economic Score (Tract) < 0.25 (Less Positive Economic Outcomes)

0.25 – 0.5

0.5 – 0.75
.75 – 1 (More Positive Economic Outcomes)
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
12/23/2022, 7:28:31 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 9 TCAC Opportunity Map - Education Score
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity Map 2022 - Education Score (Tract) < 0.25 (Less Positive Education Outcomes)
.25 – 0.5

0.5 – 0.75
.75 – 1 (More Positive Education Outcomes)
12/23/2022, 7:27:53 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 10 TCAC Opportunity Map - Environmental Score
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity Map 2022 - Environmental Score (Tract) < .25 (Less Positive Environmental Outcomes)

0.25 – 0.5

0.5 – 0.75
.75 – 1 (More Positive Environmental Outcomes)
12/23/2022, 7:27:22 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 11 TCAC Opportunity Map - Jobs Proximity Score
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(A) Jobs Proximity Index (HUD, 2014 - 2017) - Block Group < 20 (Furthest Proximity)
20 - 40
40 - 60
60 - 80
> 80 (Closest Proximity)
12/23/2022, 7:29:11 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 12 Overpayment by Homeowners
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) Overpayment by Home Owners (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract 20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
12/23/2022, 7:36:05 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 13 Overpayment by Renters
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) Overpayment by Renters (ACS, 2015 - 2019) - Tract
< 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
12/23/2022, 7:35:47 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 14 Percent of Renter Households
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) Percent of households in renter - occupied housing units (HUD) - Tract ≤ 20 %
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
> 80%
12/23/2022, 7:35:08 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 15 Overcrowded Households
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(R) Overcrowded Households (CHHS) - Tract
≤ 8.2% (Statewide Average)

8.3% - 12%

12.01% - 15%

15.01% - 20%
> 20%
12/23/2022, 6:36:45 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 16 Estimated Displacement Risk - Overall Displacement County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
(R) Estimated Displacement Risk - Overall Displacement (UCB, Urban Displacement Project 2022) Low Data Quality
Lower Displacement Risk
At Risk of Displacement
2 Income Groups Displacement
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
12/23/2022, 7:36:48 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks Map 17 Sensitive Communities - Urban Displacement Project County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
SSF Sites_Inventory_Spreadsheet_SSF_Updated_September 2022 -FINAL CSV City/Town Boundaries
(A) Sensitive Communities (UCB, Urban Displacement Project) Vulnerable
Other
12/23/2022, 6:43:30 PM
0 0.47 0.95 1.9 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
1:70,000
CA HCD
County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 7 | HOUSING PLAN – GOALS AND POLICIES
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031 217
South San Francisco Housing Element 2023-2031
APPENDIX 6.3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT (UC MERCED)
Appendix 6.3
South San Francisco
AFFH Segregation Report
1 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: SOUTH

SAN FRANCISCO
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 15:56:01
2 0.1 Table of content

0.1 Table of content .................................................................................................... 2

0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................. 4

1.2 Defining Segregation ............................................................................................... 5

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 5

1.4 Segregation and Land Use ......................................................................................... 6 2 Racial Segregation in City of South San Francisco ................................................................ 8

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of South San Francisco) ........................... 8

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between South San Francisco and other jurisdictions) ..................16 3 Income Segregation in City of South San Francisco ............................................................ 21

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within South San Francisco) ..................................21

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between South San Francisco and other jurisdictions) .................27 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 31

4.1 Segregation in City of South San Francisco ...................................................................31

4.2 Segregation Between City of South San Francisco and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region . 31 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ...................................................................................... 33 6 References .............................................................................................................. 37 3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of South San Francisco (2020) ................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...........................................................................................................................11 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...........................................................................................................................14 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...........................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of South San Francisco and Surrounding Areas (2020) ....................................16 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of South San Francisco Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) .........18 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in South San Francisco and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) ...................................................................................................................................19 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of South San Francisco (2015) ...............................................................22 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................24 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................26 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................27 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of South San Francisco and Surrounding Areas (2015) ................................. 28 Figure 13: Income Demographics of South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ..29

0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within South San Francisco ................................10 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within South San Francisco............................13 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within South San Francisco................................15 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, South San Francisco and the Region ..........................................17 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ..........................................................................20 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within South San Francisco ......................23 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within South San Francisco ..................25 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within South San Francisco ..............................26 Table 9: Population by Income Group, South San Francisco and the Region ........................................28 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................30 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in South San Francisco ..........................................33 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in South San Francisco ........................................34 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures .........................................................................35 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................35 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, South San Francisco and the Region ........................................36 Table 16: Population by Income Group, South San Francisco and the Region .......................................36 4 1 INTRODUCTION
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability.1 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.23 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.

Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:

A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk

1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with disability.

This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra-city segregation), this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil’s-H index. The isolation index measures

1 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
2 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021. 5 segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two groups.

The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between cities within the Bay Area (inter-city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the regional level as required by HCD’s AFFH guidelines. HCD’s AFFH guidelines also require jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.

1.2 Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).

Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 6 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”4
However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

1.4 Segregation and Land Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).5 ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.

4 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 5 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I. 7 Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.6 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.

Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG. Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.

Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.

6 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data.

However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people. 8 2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g. white or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.7 This report combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:

White: Non-Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race8
Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander People of Color: All who are not non-Hispanic white (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)9

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of South San Francisco)
Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of South San Francisco in Figure 1 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher.

7 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 8 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group. 9 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.
9 Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of South San Francisco (2020) Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of South San Francisco and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.

There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
• The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole.
• This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups.
• Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.

Within City of South San Francisco the most isolated racial group is Asian residents. South San Francisco’s isolation index of 0.488 for Asian residents means that the average Asian resident lives in a neighborhood that is 48.8% Asian. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in South San Francisco for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. 10 The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.10 The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 1 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.

Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within South San Francisco
South San Francisco Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.419 0.459 0.488 0.245
Black/African American 0.035 0.027 0.020 0.053
Latinx 0.419 0.445 0.415 0.251
White 0.368 0.262 0.207 0.491
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Figure 2 below shows how racial isolation index values in South San Francisco compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value for that group in City of South San Francisco, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for racial groups in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

10 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).
11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index:
• This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.
• The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g. they tend to live in different neighborhoods). 12 Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial Group Populations The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population.

HCD’s AFFH guidance requires the Housing Element to include the dissimilarity index values for racial groups, but also offers flexibility in emphasizing the importance of various measures. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff use the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of their jurisdiction’s neighborhood-level segregation patterns (intra-city segregation).

If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the jurisdiction’s segregation patterns.

In City of South San Francisco, the Black/African American group is 1.8 percent of the population - so staff should be aware of this small population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving this group.

Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in South San Francisco between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).

In South San Francisco the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table 2).

South San Francisco’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.302 means that 30.2% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents. However, local jurisdiction staff should note that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size. See callout box above for more information.

The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities of color are from white residents in this jurisdiction.
13 For example, Table 2 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction.

Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within South San Francisco
South San Francisco Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.359 0.254 0.228 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.384* 0.311* 0.302* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.298 0.292 0.287 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.270 0.218 0.202 0.168
Universe: Population.

Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

Figure 3 below shows how dissimilarity index values in City of South San Francisco compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in South San Francisco, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Similar to Figure 2, local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between white residents and communities of color in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region. However, staff should be mindful of whether a racial group in their jurisdiction has a small population (approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population), as the dissimilarity index value is less reliable for small populations. 14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Note: The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction:
• This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. • The index ranges from 0 to 1. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the whole city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
• For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity (multiple racial groups comprise more than 10% of the population), Theil’s H offers the clearest summary of overall segregation.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in South San Francisco for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in the table provides the average Theil’s H Index across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in South San Francisco declined, suggesting that there is now less neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in South San Francisco was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, 15 indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in South San Francisco is more than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within South San Francisco
South San Francisco Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.104 0.090 0.072 0.042
Universe: Population.

Figure 4 below shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in South San Francisco compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for neighborhood racial segregation in South San Francisco, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood racial segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in South San Francisco Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
16 Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between South San Francisco and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood racial segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 5 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in South San Francisco as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.

Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of South San Francisco and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

To understand how each city contributes to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in South San Francisco for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 4 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, South San Francisco has a lower share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
17 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, South San Francisco and the Region South San Francisco Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 28.6% 37.7% 42.3% 28.2%
Black/African American 2.7% 2.3% 1.8% 5.6%
Latinx 31.8% 34.0% 32.8% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 6.4% 4.0% 5.1% 5.9%
White 30.5% 22.0% 18.0% 35.8%
Universe: Population.

Figure 6 below compares the racial demographics in South San Francisco to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions.11 In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions.

South San Francisco City CouncilJanuary 25, 2023

South San Francisco City Council
January 25, 2023