HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 108-2002RESOLUTION NO. 108-2002
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NEGATWE DECLARATION ND02-
0021 AND ADOPTING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE GP02-0021 AFFECTING THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AREA
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2002 and December 11, 2002 the City Council held a duly
noticed study session and a public hearing to consider the Draft South San Francisco General
Plan Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, Section 65580 et sequiter of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1
of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires every city to adopt a housing element;
and "
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 "Housing element content" of the
California Government Code, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update
provides detailed background information, an analysis of adequate sites for residential
development, an analysis of special needs housing, an analysis of housing for the homeless, and
the description of goals and policies for the creation of new residential development and the
preservation of the existing housing stock; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of Section 65583, the South San Francisco General Plan
Housing Element incorporates the City's housing allocation of 1,331 residential units,
determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which includes that share of
the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a
general plan of the City; and
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update policies are
internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan policies for General Plan Land
Use Element policies (2-1-6, 2-1-10, 2-I-15, 2-1-18, 2-1-19, 2-G-l, 2-G-5, 2-G-6, 2-G-7, 2-1-3, 2-
1-7, 2-1-8, 2-1-9, 2-1-15, 3.1-G-3, 3.1-1-1, 3.1-1-3, 3.3-1-5, 3.3-I-12A, 3.4-1-8, 3.4-1-9, 3.4-1-16,
3.4-1-17, 3.4-1-18, 3.10-G-I, 3.10-1-1, 3.11-1-1, 3.1-G-2, 3.1-G-4, 3.1-1-2, 3.1-1-5, 3.1-1-12, 3.4-
G-4, 3.2-G-4, 3.3-G~1, 3.5-1-3.3.4-1-2, 3.6-1-2, 3.7-1-2, 3.8-G-1, 3.8-1-1, 3.8-1-3, and 3.12-G-1),
General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policy (7.5-I-1), and General Plan Health
and Safety Element policies (8.1-G-I, 8.1-1-3, 8.2-1-2, 8.5-G-2, 8.5-1-3, 9-G-l, 9-G-2, 9-1-3, and
9-I-4); and
WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with Section 65351 of the California Government
Code, has facilitated public participation in the preparation of the General Plan Housing Element
Update by conducting City Council public hearings and study sessions, Planning Commission
public heatings, study sessions, and workshops and joint City Council/Planning Commission
study sessions since 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has provided decision makers and the
public with background information, including land use diagrams, and policy documents; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a public participation program that accomplished the
following:
a) Informed the public of the ongoing General Plan Housing Element update.
b) Obtained public input regarding major issues, community objectives, and plan
policies.
c) Provided the public with opportunities to evaluate policies.
d) Informed decision makers of public opinions.
e) Worked toward community consensus.
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration and has distributed
the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate responsible agencies and interested parties
on October 16, 2002 for a 30-day public review period and concludes that the South San
Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not have a significant environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2001, February 7, 2002, March 20, 2002 and November
21, 2002 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed workshop/tour, two study sessions and a
public hearing to consider the Draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element update.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the South San Francisco City Council
does hereby find that:
,
The General Plan and elements, including Exhibit A (Public Heating Draft
Housing Element 2001-2006), comprise an integrated, internally consistent and
compatible statement of policies for the City of South San Francisco; and
,
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration concludes that the South San Francisco
General Plan Housing Element does not have a significant environmental impact.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration as set forth in Exhibit B and adopts the South San Francisco
General Plan Housing Element update, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
by reference.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 11~ day of
December 2002 by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Joseph A. Fernekes and Raymond L. Green
Mayor Pro Tem Karyl Matsumoto and Mayor Pedro Gonzalez
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
ATTEST:
{/City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
2001 -2006
AUGUST 12, 2002
EXHIBIT A
~/F£
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
Ho USING EL EMENT
Prepared by:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES
VERNAZZA WOLFE ASSOCIATES~ Inc.
August 12, 2002
HOUSING ELEMENT CREDITS
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CITY COUNCIL
Eugene Mullin, Mayor
Pedro Gonzalez - Mayor Pro-Tem
Joseph A. Fernekes - Councilmember
Raymond L. Green - Councilmember
Karyl Matsumoto - Councilmember
PLANNING COMMISSION
William Romero, Chairperson
Rick Ochsenhirt, Vice Chairperson
Joseph D'Angelo, Commissioner
Judith Honan, Commissioner
Michael Meloni, Commissioner
Eugene Sim, Commissioner
Marc Teglia, Commissioner
CITY STAFF
Michael Wilson, City Manager
Marty Van Duyn, Director of the Department of
Economics & Community Development
Tom Sparks, Chief Planner
Norma Fragoso, Housing & Community
Development Manager
Michael Lappen, Senior Planner
Armando Sanchez, Department of Economic &
Community Development Manager
CONSULTANTS
J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES
Larry Mintier, Principal
Derek DiManno, Associate
VERN/t??A WOLFE ASSOCIATES
Lucina Vernazza, Principal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND REPORT
INTRODUCTION ........................................... I-1
1.0 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING TRENDS AND
NEEDS ...................................................
I-5
1.1 POPULATION TRENDS ...................................... I-5
?opu]ation ?roj¢ctions ................................................. I-7
AG^G ?roj¢ctions ..................................................... I-8
Age o£ the ?opu]ation .................................................. I-9
Race and F. thnicity .................................................... I- ! 0
1.2 EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT ........................ 1-12
Jobs/Housing Balance ................................................. I- ] 4
2.0 HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS .......... 1-15
2.1 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND INCOME .................... 1-15
Household Income ....................................................
.~B^G Income Projections ............................................. I-] 6
2.2 HOUSING UNIT MIX AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE .................. 1-17
2.3 HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS ............... 1-21
Senior Households .................................................... I-2]
In£ormation fi.om Service ?rovidcrs ...................................... 1-23
?¢rsons with Disabilities ............................................... I-:24
In£onnation fi'om Service ?rovidcrs ......................................
Large Households .................................................... I-:25
Stogie-Headed Households ............................................. 1-25
Homeless ...........................................................
Farmworkers ........................................................ 1-29
August 12, 2002 i Public Hearing Draft
2.4 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK ................................ 1-31
Humber and Types o£ Units ............................................ I-3 !
Condition o£ the Housing Stock .......................................... I-3 !
Overcrowding ....................................................... I-:33
3.0 FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS ............................. 1-34
3.1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S SHARE OF 1999 TO 2006 HOUSING
NEEDS ..................................................... 1-34
3.2 'RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (1999 TO 2001) ........ 1-36
4.0 HOUSING OVERPAYMENT .............................. 1-39
4.1
HOUSING COSTS COMPARED TO ABILITY TO PAY ............. 1-39
Ability to Pay ........................................................ 1-40
Existing Housing Costs ................................................ 1-42
Existing Income Levels ................................................ 1-45
Owner and Renter Overpayment ......................................... I47
5.0 AVAILABILITY OF LAND AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 1-48
5.1 AVAILABLE LAND INVENTORY .............................. 1-48
Vacant and Underutilized Land Currently Planned for Residential Use ........... 1-48
Vacant Residential Land ............................................... 1-48
Underutilized Residential Land .......................................... 1-49
Special Study Area .................................................... 1-49
Planned Housing Projects .............................................. 1-56
5.2 ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL VS. PROJECTED HOUSING
NEEDS ..................................................... 1-57
5.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ......................... 1-58
Water ..............................................................
Wastewater ......................................................... I-SS
Schools ............................................................. 1-58
6.0 CONSTRAINTS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ............. 1-59
6.1
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ............................ 1-59
General Plan Land Use Controls ......................................... 1-59
Zoning Ordinance .................................................... 1-60
Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing .............................. 1-66
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance ......................................... 1-66
Persons with Disabilities ............................................... 1-67
Building Codes ...................................................... 1-69
On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements ............................... 1-70
City Permit Processing and Fees ......................................... 1-70
6.5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL/MARKET CONSTRAINTS ............... 1-74
Land Costs .......................................................... 1-75
Construction Costs .................................................... 1-75
· Cost and Availability of Financing ....................................... 1-76
7.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION .......... 1-77
8.0 CURRENT AND PAST HOUSING PROGRAMS IN SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO 1-79
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
8.1 CURRENT PROGRAMS .................................... 1-79
HOME [nYestment Pa~nership Act Program Funds .......................... I-8 !
Section $ Voucher Program ............................................. I-81
Mo~gag¢ Credit Certificate (MCC) Program ............................... 1-82
First-Time Homebuyer Program ...................................... I-$2
8.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO . 1-82
lnc]usionary Housing Program .......................................... 1-88
At-Risk Units ........................................................ 1-85
8.3 POTENTIAL FUNDING PROGRAMS .......................... 1-90
9.0 EVALUATION OF 1992 HOUSING ELEMENT
ACCOMPLISHMENTS ...................................... 1-92
Evaluation of 1992 Housing Element Policies and Programs ................... 1-93
Evaluation of Existing (1992) Housing Element Policies ...................... 1-93
What Was Learned from the 1992 Housing Element ......................... 1-93
II. POLICY DOCUMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS .................. I1-1
NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ................................... 11-2
Availability of Sites for Hew Construction ................................. II-2
Administrative Support, Housing Funding and
Permit Streamlining ................................................... 1I-5
August 12, 2002 iii
Public Hearing Draft
RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES .................................. 11-8
MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK ............. 11-8
RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES ................................. I1-11
SPECIAL NEEDS ................................................... 11-12
Senior Programs ..................................................... [I-]2
Disabled Programs ................................................... II-]3
Homeless ?rograms .................................................. [1- ] 4
·
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ............................................. 11-16
NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY ........................................... 11-16
RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES ................................. 11-18
ENERGY CONSERVATION ........................................... 11-19
Public Hearing Draft
iv August 12, 2002
LIST OF TABLES
BACKGROUND REPORT
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE 1-28:
TABLE 1-29:
TABLE 1-30:
TABLE 1-31:
TABLE 1-32:
TABLE 1-33:
TABLE 1-34:
TABLE 1-35:
TABLE 1-36:
TABLE 1-37:
TABLE 1-39:
TABLE 1-40:
TABLE 1-41:
I-1: HISTORIC POPULATION TRENDS ................................. I-7
I-2: BUILDOUT POPULATION ........................................ I-8
I-3: POPULATION PROJECTIONS ..................................... I-9
I-4: POPULATION BY AGE GROUP ................................... 1-10
I-5: POPULATION BY RACE ......................................... 1-11
I-6: EMPLOYMENT BUILDOUT ....................................... 1-13
I-7: EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ................................... 1-14
I-8: JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE ....................................... 1-15
I-9: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE .................. 1-16
1-10: MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME .................................... 1-17
I-11: NUMBER, TYPE OF UNITS, AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE ................. 1-17
1-12: HOUSING OCCUPANCY STATUS ................................ 1-19
I-13: NUMBER OF PERSONS IN UNITS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE .......... 1-20
1-14: NUMBER OF SENIORS ........................................ 1-21
1-15: HOUSING TENURE ............ ° ................................ 1-22
1-16: COMPARISON OF COST BURDENS BY AGE AND TENURE ........... 1-23
1-17: MOBILITY/SELF-CARE LIMITATION - PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OLDER . 1-24
I-18: NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, BY YEAR AND TYPE ................. 1-31
1-19: HOUSING CONDITIONS BY NEIGHBORHOOD ...................... 1-32
1-20: SIZE OF UNITS COMPARED WITH SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS ........... 1-33
1-21: HOUSING NEED BY INCOME CATEGORY ......................... 1-35
1-22: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION .................... 1-36
1-23: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY .......................... 1-39
1-24: BALANCE OF NEED ........................................... 1-40
1-25: DEFINITION OF HOUSING INCOMES ............................. 1-41
1-26: ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR VERY LOW, LOW-, AND
MODERATE INCOME ............................................... 1-43
1-27: FAIR MARKET RENT ........................................... 1-44
ASKING PRICES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ..................... 1-44
AVERAGE RENT LEVELS ....................................... 1-45
COMPLETED HOME SALES .................................... 1-46
AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES ...................... 1-46
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ...... 1-50
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 1-53
SPECIAL STUDY AREAS ....................................... 1-55
PENDING HOUSING PROJECTS ................................. 1-56
FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS .................. 1-61
STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND INTENSITY ....................... 1-63
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BART TRANSIT VILLAGE DISTRICT 1-64
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP HOMES . .~ .................. 1-69
PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE ..................................... 1-74
August 12, 2002 v Public Hearing Draft
TABLE 1-42: TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME COST COMPONENTS .............. 1-75
TABLE 1-43: HOUSING PROGRAMS ......................................... 1-80
TABLE 1-44: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS ............................. 1-86
TABLE 1-45: SINGLE OCCUPANCY HOTELS .................................. 1-87
TABLE 1-46: ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST OF UNITS AT FAIRWAY APARTMENTS
TABLE 1-47: ANNUAL HOUSING PRODUCTION IN PREVIOUS HOUSING PERIOD ... 1-92
TABLE 1-48: COMPARISON OF HOUSING NEED TO HOUSING PRODUCTION, PREVIOUS
HOUSING ELEMENT PERIOD (1990-1999) .............................. 1-93
POLICY DOCUMENT
TABLE I1-1: SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME LEVEL ......... 11-21
Public Hearing Draft vi August 12, 2002
-- LIST OF FIGURES
BACKGROUND REPORT
Following page
FIGURE 1: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES .............................. 1-48
FIGURE 2: TRANSIT VILLAGE PRE-APPLICATION PREPARATION ................ 1-71
FIGURE 3: FAIRFIELD AND CITY INPUT ON THE PROJECT PROCESS PRIOR TO
SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION PACKAGE .............. · ............ 1-71
FIGURE 4: PERMIT STREAMLINING PROCESS FOR TRANSIT VILLAGE ........... 1-72
August 12, 2002 vii Public Hearing Draft
PART I. BACKGROUND'.REPORT.:''.I''' . ":..'..,ii',::.'...'.
INTRODUCTION
The City of South San Francisco last updated its Housing Element in December 1992. The Element was
subsequently "certified" as legally adequate by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development. The document was intended to serve a planning period from 1991 to 1996, but State law
extended the housing element planning period for the Bay Area to 2001 due to a Statewide slowdown in
housing construction during the 1990s. This Housing Element is a comprehensive update of the 1992 Housing
Element.
Upon its adoption, this element will become part of the General Plan, which was updated in 1999. The
General Plan includes the following elements: Land Use Element; Planning Sub-Area Element; Transportation
Element; Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element; Economic Development Element, Open Space and
Conservation Element; Health and Safety Element; and Noise Element. The adoption of this Housing Element
may necessitate revisions of some of the other General Plan elements to maintain consistency with those
elements as mandated by State law.
OVERVIEW OF STATE REQUIREMENTS
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Each local
government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical
development of the city or county. The housing element is one of the seven mandated elements of the local
general plan. State law requires local governments plan to address the existing and projected housing needs of
all economic segments of the community through their housing elements. The law acknowledges that, in order
for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land
use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing
development. As a result, housing policy in the state rests largely upon the effective implementation of local
general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.
The purposes of the housing element are to identify the community's housing needs, to state the community's
goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs,
and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and
objectives.
State law requires cities and counties to address the needs of all income groups in their housing elements. The
official definition of these needs is provided by the Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) for each
city and county within its geographic jurisdiction. Beyond these income-based housing needs, the housing
element must also address special needs groups such as persons with disabilities and homeless persons.
Housing Element Background Report Requirements
The Housing Element is composed of two parts: the Background Report and Policy DoCument. The following
detail the primary requirements for the Background Report. Requirements for the Policy Documents are
described in the second part of this Housing Element.
Under State law the housing element must contain extensive documentation of housing stock, housing needs,
resources available to meet those needs, and constraints on housing production. Specifically, the housing
element must include all of the following:
August 12, 2002 I-1 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
An analysis of population/employment trends, documentation of projections, and a
quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels;
An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment
compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock
condition;
An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites
having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public
facilities and services to these sites;
An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of
developers, and local processing and permit procedures;
An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of
financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction;
An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the disabled, single parent families,
elderly, large families, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter;
An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development;
and
· An analysis of assisted housing development eligible to change to non-low-income housing.
The following sections satisfy these requirements and provide the foundation for the goals, policies,
implementation measures, and quantified objectives. The Housing Element Background Report is organized
as follows:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
1: Population, employment, and housing trends and needs
2: Housing and household characteristics
3: Existing and future housing needs
4: Housing overpayment
5: Available sites and services to meet identified needs
6: Governmental and non-governmental constraints
7: Energy conservation
8: Past and current housing efforts in South San Francisco
9: Evaluation of 1992 Housing Element Accomplishments
These chapters draw on a broad range of informational sources. Information on population, housing stock,
and economics comes primarily from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census (most of the 2000 census data was not
available at the time this report was prepared), the California Department of Finance, the Association of Bay
Area Governments, and City of South San Francisco records. Information on available sites and services for
housing comes from numerous public agencies. Information on constraints on housing production and past
and current housing efforts in South San Francisco comes from City staff, other public agencies, and a number
of private sources.
Public Hearing Draft
I-2 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
HOUSING ELEMENT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Overview
State law requires each Califomia city and county to prepare a general plan. A general plan is defined as "a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside
its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." State requirements call
for general plans that "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for
the adopting agency."
A city's general plan has been described as its constitution for development - the framework within which
decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment must
be made. California's tradition of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that the State's cities
have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans.
The California Government Code establishes both the content of general plans and rules for their adoption and
subsequent amendment. Together, State law and judicial decisions establish three overall guidelines for general
plans.
The General Plan Must Be Comprehensive. This requirement has two aspects. First, the general plan
must be geographically comprehensive. That is, it must apply throughout the entire incorporated area
and it should include other areas that the City determines are relevant to its planning. Second, the
general plan must address the full range of issues that affects the city's physical development.
The General Plan Must Be Internally Consistent. This requirement means that the General Plan must
fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to each other without conflict."Horizontal" consistency
applies as much to figures and diagrams as to the general plan text. It also applies to data and analysis
as well as policies. All adopted portions of the general plan, whether required by State law or not, have
equal legal weight. None may supersede another, so the general plan must resolve conflicts among the
provisions of each element.
The General Plan Must Be Long-range. Because anticipated development will affect the city and the
people who live or work there for years to come, State law requires every general plan to take a long-
term perspective.
The South San Francisco General Plan, adopted by the City Council on October 13, 1999, serves several
purposes. It:
Outlines a vision for South San Francisco's long-range physical and economic development and
resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community;
Provides strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished;
Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in
harmony with Plan policies and standards;
Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will
enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and
minimize hazards; and
Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs,
such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and
specific plans.
August 12, 2002 I-3 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
The South San Francisco General Plan has been a result a community effort. Its major policy directions have
been defined through close involvement of the City Council, the Planning Commission, other boards and
commissions, residents, and the business community, in all phases of the General Plan process.
General Plan and Housing Element Differences
The housing element is one of seven State-mandated elements that every general plan must contain. Although
the housing element must follow all the requirements of the general plan, the housing element has several State-
mandated requirements that distinguish it from other general plan elements. Whereas the State allows local
government the ability to decide when to update their general plan, State law sets the schedule for periodic
update (5-year timeframe) of the housing element. Local governments are also required to submit draft and
adopted housing elements to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for
review for compliance with State law. This review ensures that the housing element meets numerous State
mandates. Should the City satisfy these requirements, the State will "certify" that the element is legally
adequate. Failing to comply with State law could result in potentially serious consequences that extend beyond
the realm of residential land use planning.
Public Hearing Draft
I-4 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
1.0
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING TRENDS AND
NEEDS
This section includes information on South San Francisco's population, employment, and housing stock. In
most cases, information about South San Francisco is compared with information from the neighboring cities
of Daly City, San Bruno, and Colma, as well as the county as a whole. The information is oriented to identify
trends, potential shortcomings, and issues requiring a policy position.
1.1 HISTORIC GROWTH AND POPULATION TRENDS
South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County.
The City is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically located
along major transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, the Union
Pacific Railroad, (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad) and the San Francisco International Airport. Sign Hill
is a distinctive landmark.
The modem history of South San Francisco began in 1827, when the 15,000-acre Rancho Buri Buri was given
to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant. In 1856, Charles Lux purchased 1,500 acres of the
Raricho and founded the town of Baden, named for Lux's native region in Germany. At that time, the Baden
area was used for cattle grazing and dairy operations.
The meat industry played an important role in South San Francisco's evolution. The Gustavus Swift meat
packing plant, established on Point San Bruno in 1888, was the City's first industrial development. Swift
organized a "beef trust"with other Midwestem meat packing companies to join in building a community of
stockyards and packing plants on Point San Bruno, and organized for the development of an industrial town.
In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased 3,400 acres on the former site
of the Rancho Buri Buri for development of the town. The arrangement of residential and industrial uses
intentionally took advantage of stable ground and Bay access at Point San Bruno, as well the prevailing winds
from San Bruno Gap that blew offensive odors away from residential areas and over the Bay.
Industry and community growth have been closely intertwined throughout South San Francisco's history. The
construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line between San Francisco and San Jose in 1904-1907
expanded opportunities for goods shipping from South San Francisco, and steel mills began to take advantage
of the city's abundant land with excellent transportation access. A major lack of housing and services and a
battle over a copper smelter precipitated incorporation, allowing South San Francisco to control its industrial
future and provide the services needed to attract resident workers. When the City incorporated on September
19, 1908, it had 1,989 residents and 14 major industries.
By 1920, the city had grown to a population of more than 4,000 (see Table I-1). Industries continued to locate
and grow in South San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire
Rope Factory were some of the city's major establishments whose products helped build California's modem
transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry,
as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South
San Francisco even more attractive as a shipping terminal, and the city became the central distribution point
for the entire Peninsula. In the years following incorporation, South San Francisco's civic improvements kept
pace with its growing industry. The City Hall was opened in 1920 and the 20-acre Orange Memorial Park was
developed in 1925.
August 12, 2002 I-5 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Constrained by marshlands to the south, residential development began to extend north around and along the
slopes of Sign Hill as the city grew, requiring the introduction ofa curvilinear street form. Industries expanded
to the south and west, taking advantage of the SPRR and spurs along Railroad Avenue and other streets west
of the rail right-of-way.
The growth of South San Francisco's steel and, later, shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War
1I helped spur residential growth. Between 1940 and 1960, South San Francisco's population increased more
than six-fold from 6,290 to 39,418.2 Over 46 percent of South San Francisco's existing housing units were
constructed between 1940 and 1959.
By the end of the 1950s, South San Francisco had essentially reached its present level of urbanization between
U.S. 101 and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Many of the residential subdivisions west of Sign Hill and E1 Camino
Real were complete. Except at the city's northwestern comer, Junipero Serra Boulevard formed the city's
western edge, and Hillside Boulevard/Randolph Avenue was the northern boundary. As shown in Table I-1,
the 1940s and 1950s saw the most rapid increases in population.
With some important exceptions, land use in South San Francisco since the 1960s has stemmed from internal
change rather than outright expansion. Infill development has occurred along E1 Camino Real, Chestnut
Avenue, and U.S. 101. Major expansion has occurred in the Westborough area and the East of 101 area,
enabled respectively by the construction of Interstate 280 and landfill at Oyster and Sierra Points. The city has
recently entered its last phase of expansion with multi-use development at Terrabay on the south slopes of San
Bruno Mountain.
The rate of population growth slowed in the 1960s and 1970s, increasing by only six percent in the 1970s.
Population growth increased by 10 percent in the 1980s and by roughly the same percentage in the 1990s. By
2000, South San Francisco had a population over 60,552, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. With 8.5 percent
of the county's population, South San Francisco is San Mateo County's fourth-largest city. Future
opportunities for growth other than redevelopment are limited to remaining unincorporated islands.
Public Hearing Draft
I-6 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE I-1
HISTORIC POPULATION TRENDS
City of South San Francisco
1920-2000
Year Population Percent Increase
1920 4,411 --
1930 6,193 40%
1940 6,290" 2%
1950 19,351 308%
! 960 39,418 104%
1970 46,646 18%
1980 49,393 6%
1990 54,312 10%
2000 60,552 11%
Source: U.S. Census, various years.
Population Projections
General Plan Buildout Population
According to buildout projections in the 1999 General Plan, South San Francisco will accommodate a
population of approximately 67,400, an increase of 14 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200.
Ifbuildout were to occur over 20 years, South San Francisco will moderately increase its share of the San
Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 8.4 percent. Population growth rate over the plan horizon will
be much slower than growth experienced by the city over the last ten years.
August 12, 2002 I-7 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE I-2
BUILDOUT POPULATION
City of South San Francisco
1990-2020
Jurisdictio 1990 1998 1990-1998 Buildout
n
Population Population Share of Annual Population
County Growth
Rate
1990-2020
Share of Annual
County Growth
Rate
South San 54,312 59,208 8.3% 1.0% 67,400 8.4% 0.6%
Francisco
San Mateo 649,623 715,382 ! 00% 1.2% 789,600* 100% 0.5%
County
*Projected year 2020 population for San Mateo County
Source: 1999 General Plan
ABAG Projections
According to population projections produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in
Projections 2002, South San Francisco's population is expected to grow relatively slowly through 2020, with
an average annual growth rate of 0.51 percent between 2000 and 2020. As Table I-3 indicates, the city's
population is projected to grow to 67,000 by 2020, representing an increase of 6,448 residents from ABAG's
estimated 2000 South San Francisco population of 60,552. Compared to its neighboring communities, South
San Francisco ranks in the middle in terms of annual growth rates.
Public Hearing Draft
I-8 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE I-3
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities
2000 to 2020
2000-2020
Jurisdiction 2000 2005 2010 2020
Increase in
Population
Annual
Growth
Rate
South San
Francisco 60,552 62,600 63,600 67, 000 6,448
0.51%
DalyCity 103,621 106,500 108,200 111,000 7,379 0.34%
San Bruno 40,165 41,500 42,000 43,800 3,635 0.43%
Colma 1,191 1,230 1,270 1,370 179
San Mateo Coun~ 707,161 739,100 754,600 795,100 87,939
Source: Association of Bay Area Govemments, Projections2002, October2001.
0.70%
0.68%
Age of the Population
Table 1-4 shows South San Francisco's age trends from 1970 through 2000. The age of South San Francisco's
residents increased in two age categories during the last decade. Two of the most significant trends over the
last 30 years has been the decrease in the city's younger population (i.e., 0-14) and the increase in the city's
senior population (i.e., 65 and older). In 1970, those under 14 years old were approximately 30 percent of the
population. By 1980, that group's population fell to roughly 20 percent. Over the next 20 years, that
percentage has remained relatively constant. In 1970, the senior population was 5.0 percent. This percentage
has been steadily increasing over the last 30 years (8.3 percent in 1980, 11.4 percent in 1990, and 12.6 percent
in 2000). Between 1990 and 2000, the median age of South San Francisco' s residents remained relatively
constant, increasing from 35.1 in 1990 to 35.7 in 2000.
August 12, 2002 I-9 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE I-4
POPULATION BY AGE GROUP
City of South San Francisco
1970 through 2000
Age Groups 1970 1980 1990 2000
0-14 30.6% 20.8% 20.7% 20.3%
15-24 17.0% 19.2% 13.7% 13.2%
25-34 13.2% 17.2% 18.6% 15.4%
35-44 13.6% 12.0% 15.4% 16.6%
45-54 13.0% 12.0% 10.5% 13.3%
55-64 7.6% 10.6% 9.7% 8.7%
65 5.0% 8.3% 11.4% 12.6%
Source: U.S. Census, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000
Race and Ethnicity
Table 1-5 demonstrates that South San Francisco is a very ethnically and racially diverse community almost
evenly divided among three ethnic groups.. South San Francisco's ethnic/racial make-up is made primarily
of Whites (30.5 percent), Hispanics/Latinos (31.8 percent), and Asians (28.6 percent). The city's largest
ethnic/racial population consists of Hispanics and Latinos with nearly 32 percent of the city's population.
South San Francisco also has a larger Hispanic/Latino population than surrounding communities such as Daly
City, San Bruno, and San Mateo County. South San Francisco and Daly City are home to the largest
population of Filipinos in the Bay Area. African Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and those
of two or more races make up only 4.7 percent of South San Francisco's entire population.
Public Hearing Draft
1-10 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE I-5
POPULATION BY RACE
(INCLUDING HISPANIC AND LATINO POPULATIONS)
City of South San Francisco and Surrounding Communities
2OOO
South
San Francisco Daly City San Bruno
Group Pop.
White 18,487
H ispanic/Latino 19,282
Asian 17,312
African American 1,621
Native American 197
Pacific Islander 896
Two or more races 264
TOTAL 60,552
Percent Pop. Percent Pop.
30.5% 18,344 17.7% 18,822
31.8% 23,072 22.2% 9,686
28.6% 52,154 50.3% 7,393
2.6% 4,482 4.3% 753
0.3% 199 0.1% 103
1.4% 904 0.8% 1,118
0.4% 414 0.3% 211
100.0% 103,621 100.0% 40,165
San Mateo County
Percent Pop. Percent
46.8% 352,355 49.8%
24.1% 154,708 21.8%
18.4% 140,313 19.8%
1.8% 23,778 3.3%
0.2% 1,546 0.2%
2.7% 1,546 0.2%
0.5% 2,217 0.3%
100.0% 707,161 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census, 2000
August 12, 2002 1-11 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
1.2 EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT
Employment
South San Francisco's notable competitive locational advantages within the region, and a positive business
environment position it well to capture significant new development with resultant economic benefits for the
City. The city's location is highly strategic, between between two world-class universities--Stanford and
UCSF--and three major centers of economic activity: (1) the rapidly expanding San Francisco International
Airport (SFO); (2) downtown San Francisco; and (3) the Silicon Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area's primary
economic engine, which is producing tremendous growth in business and employment activity. The Silicon
Valley, once synonymous with Santa Clara County, has expanded into southern San Mateo County.
South San Francisco's economy was historically based upon manufacturing and processing industries, many
of which slowly gave way to warehousing and distribution businesses. Growth in recent years has focused on
the information-based economy, as more high-technology and service firms have located to the eastern portion
of the city. With Genentech serving as a major high-technology/biotechnology anchor in East of 101, a
significant cluster of bio-technology establishments exists today. The ability of the City to attract uses that
generate economic benefits will depend on maintaining a positive business climate and availability of land,
particularly sites suited to the needs of large office or research and development campuses, or regional-scaled
commercial centers.
The 1999 General Plan states that while non-residential building space in South San Francisco will increase
from an estimated current 18.1 million square feet to 24.6 million square feet at buildout (an increase of 31
percent), the General Plan at buildout will accommodate an employment increase from 39,100 currently to as
much as 71,400 at buildout (an increase of 83 percent; including construction and at-home workers), primarily
as sites with low-intensity warehousing and distribution uses (with an estimated average 960 square feet per
employee in South San Francisco) are succeeded by higher intensity R&D, office, retail, and other similar uses.
Attaining this level of employment will likely take more than 20 years. Table I-6 shows existing and buildout
employment by broad land use categories.
Public Hearing Draft 1-12 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Land Use
Commercial/Retail
Hotels/Visitor Services
Office and Business Park
(inc.R&D)
Warehouse/Mixed Industrial
Public and SChools
Construction and
Miscellaneous
Others (including)
TOTAL
Source: 1999 General Plan.
TABLE I-6
EMPLOYMENT BUILDOUT
City of South San Francisco
1997 to Buildout
Estimated 1997 Increase to Buildout
Employment~ Buildout Employment
10,400 3,1 O0 13,500
1,800 3,900 5,700
5,700 23,500 29,200
13,400 (3,200) 10,200
1,500 - 1,500
2,500 1,800 4,300
3,800 3,200 7,000
39,1 O0 32,300 71,400
ABAG Projections
According to ABAG's 2002 projections, South San Francisco had a total of 53,190 jobs and 32,206 employed
residents in 2000. This gives the city a jobs/housing ratio of 1.65 which means that South San Francisco is a
job center that brings in employees from surrounding communities. As Table I-7 shows, ABAG projects the
number of jobs to increase to 62,880 and the number of employed residents to grow to 36,000 by the year
2020. Table I-7 also shows South San Francisco's economic strength compared to surrounding jurisdictions.
August 12, 2002 1-13 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE I-7
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities
2000 to 2020
Jurisdictio Job Type 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
n
Percent
Increase
2000-2020
South San Total Jobs 53,190 55,330 58,020 60,650 62,880 15.5%
Francisco
Employed
Residents 32,206 33,300 33,900 35,000 36,000 10.5%
Colma Total Jobs 2,510 2,640 2,770 2,950 3,140 20.1%
Employed
Residents 739 830 850 890 950 22.1%
Daily City Total Jobs 24,650 25,750 26,750 28,290 29,180 15.5%
Employed
Residents 57,244 59,200 60,100 61,700 62,400 8.2%
San Bruno Total Jobs 15,810 16,160 17,620 19,850 21,300 25.8%
Employed
Residents 23,779 24,500 24,600 25,500 26,200 9.2%
San Mateo Total Jobs 395,890 413,380 434,740 458,750 482,050 17.8%
County
Employed
Residents 403,083 422,000 430,900 446,100 458,000 12.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2002.
Jobs/Housing Balance
The 1999 General Plan notes that where once the residential and commercial portion of South San Francisco
was a company town for the "beef trust" packers on Point San Bruno, improved transportation access and
extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco into a commuter suburb. In 1999, only 23
percent of employed residents work in the city, despite a surplus of jobs, indicating regional jobs-housing
interdependencies.
The city has continued to add jobs at a faster rate than population for the last 15 years, and in 1995, there were
13,610 more jobs than employed residents in the city. In contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall
shortage of jobs; however, during the last 15 years, the overall jobs/employed residents ratio in San Mateo
County has crept closer to balance.
Given that much of the land in the city--including all of the East of 101 area-- is not suited for residential
development, it is unlikely that a balance between jobs and housing can be attained. However, continued job
growth in the city will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area
community well served by all modes of transit--including air and rail, and in the near future BART and ferry
Public Hearing Draft 1-14 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
service---employment growth in the city will support regional transit as well. Nonetheless, availability of
housing in South San Francisco serves not only regional interest, but is important to attracting high-technology
and biotechnology jobs that the city seeks. Increased residential development within the city will help partly
alleviate traffic impacts resulting from job growth, and provide residential opporttmities to those that work in
the city but live elsewhere. Thus, the General Plan seeks to maximize residential development opportunities
on infill sites.
TABLE I-8
JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
South San Francisco
1997 and Buildout
Estimated 1997 Employment* Buildout
Jobs 39,100 71,400
Employment Residential 27,900 32,352
Jobs/Employed Residents 1.4 2.2
*Using information from Claritas Inc.(for the Planning Area) collected as part of the General Plan
Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report.
Source: 1999 General Plan.
2.0 HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Section 2 assesses current and projected housing and household characteristics, the condition of the housing
stock, and the potential impact on future housing needs. This analysis identifies key trends that will affect both
near-term and long-term housing needs.
2.1 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND INCOME
Household Composition
The 2000 Census defines the term "household" as the person or persons occupying a housing unit. This general
category includes families, defined as two or more persons, including the householder, who are related by birth,
marriage, or adoption and who live together as one household. The family definition includes both married
couples and single-parent families. Despite increases in single-parent families and unrelated households,
married couples remain the majority of households in South San Francisco. Table 1-9 shows the number and
percentage of different types of households. Households that do not meet the definition of "family" are
classified as "non-family households."
August 12, 2002 1-15 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE I-9
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE
City of South San Francisco
2000
Type of Household Number Percent of Households
Total Households 19,677 100.0
Family Households 14, 650 74. 5
Married Couple 10,977 55.8
Female Headed household 2,596 13.2
Non-Family Households 5,02 7 25. 5
Seniors 1,771, 9.0
Householder living alone 3,923 19.9
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
Household Income
General Plan Household Income
The General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report noted that the South San Francisco median
household income in 1990 was lower than San Mateo County's but slightly higher than the median income in
the Bay Area as a whole. Since that time, real incomes have risen somewhat based on 1999 estimates.
A particularly pertinent issue for economic development efforts is the education and employment profile of
South San Francisco residents. In general, residents have lower levels of educational attainment and hold lower
level jobs than residents in the Bay Area as a whole. This discrepancy is particularly notable with regard to
executive and administrative jobs: South San Francisco has a much lower concentration of residents with
managerial positions and a higher proportion of residents in administrative positions than the region as a whole.
The most prevalent industries in which SSF residents are employed are transportation, retail trade, finance,
insurance, real estate, and manufacturing. The city has a low proportion of residents in nondurable goods
manufacturing and professional services than the rest of the Bay Area.
ABAG Income Projections
Mean household income in South San Francisco (in constant 1995 dollars) was $55,800 in 1990, and increased
to $68,000 in 2000. ABAG projects that the city's mean household income will continue its upward trend,
increasing to $73,200 in 2005, $76,100 in 2010, $77,500 in 2015, and $79,300 in 2020. This represents a 15
percent increase between 2000 and 2020. By comparison, mean household income for San Mateo County as
a whole is estimated at $88,700 in 2000, and is projected to increase by 19 percent to
$109,100 by 2005. Thus, the average income for the county is not only higher than that of South San
Francisco, but will increase at a greater rate than the city (ABAG Projections 2000, December 1999, page
Public Hearing Draft
1-16 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco
88).
TABLE 1-10
Background Report
MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
City of South San Francisco and Surrounding Communities
1990 - 2020
Jurisdiction 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
South San 55,800 68,000 73,200 76,100 77,500 79,300
Francisco*
Colma** 47,000 51,000 53,500 56,000 59,000 62,400
Daly City* 57,000 69,100 74,300 77,500 79,800 81,600
San Bruno* 59,000 71,000 76,200 80,200 83,400 85,900
San Mateo 72,900 88,700 95,200 100,100 104,800 109,100
County
* City Sphere of Influence
**City limits
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999.
2.2 HOUSING UNIT MIX AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Housing Stock Composition
South San Francisco's city limits encompass 4,300 acres. According to the 1999 General Plan, single-family
residential is the predominant use, occupying 33 percent of the land. Only ten percent of the land in the city
is vacant, and development has been approved or is under review on over half of this land. Development that
has been approved or under review includes 1,002 housing units on 110 acres (October 1998). The 160 acres
of remaining vacant land is primarily concentrated in the east of US 101 area, which prohibits residential
development.
South San Francisco's housing stock reflects the city's history as an industrial town and its later role as a
convenient suburb of San Francisco. The city's residential development is fairly unusual, with small single
family homes clustered in flat areas and multifamily housing and townhomes on hillsides surrounding the town.
This development not only reflects the history of the city but also the land use constraints that have influenced
land use decisions. Noise and safety impacts resulting from aircraft operations at the San Francisco
International Airport (SFIA) include height restrictions within the airport approach zone. Likewise, no
residential development is permitted in the area east of 101 according to a Memorandum of Understanding
between SFIA and the City.
The Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report (1997) indicates that the composition of South San
Francisco's housing is similar to that of the rest of San Mateo County, with the exception that South San
Francisco has a greater concentration of townhomes and other attached single-family units. While South San
Francisco has eight percent of the housing in San Mateo County, it contains 11 percent of the county's
townhomes and other attached single-family units. Market conditions also dictate the development patterns in
the South San Francisco. Between 1990 and 1997, housing growth was modest in both the county and the city.
During that period, approximately equal amounts of single-family and multiple-family development occurred
August 12, 2002 1-17 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
in South San Francisco.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the city of South San Francisco has a total of 20,138 housing units. After
a sharp decline in the 1970s, average household size in the 1980s and again in the 1990s increasing from 2.91
to 3.05. The housing stock has remained primarily single family residential with roughly 70 percent of homes
being single family and 30 percent being multi family in 1990 and 2000. A detailed breakdown of occupancy
status and household size by type of dwelling unit is provided in Tables I-11, I-12, and I-13. Tables I-12 and
I-13 show 1990 Census information since the Census Bureau has not released 2000 data for these categories.
TABLE I-11
NUMBER, TYPE OF UNITS, AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE
City of South San Francisco
1990 and 2000
1990
Total Units 19,130
Percent Single-Family 70%
Percent Multi-Family 30%
Vacant Units 562
Percent Vacant 2.9%
Household Population* 53,975
Persons per Occupied Unit 2.91
*Household population excludes persons in group quarters.
**Based on 2000 DOF estimates.
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census; Department of Finance, 2000.
2000
20,138
71%**
29%**
461
2.3%
60,109
3.05
Public Hearing Draft 1-18 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Number of Occupied
units in Units
structure
Single-family 10,743
detached
Single-family 2,264
attached
2-unit 551
3- or 4-unit 1,002
5 or more 3,347
Mobile homes 336
Other 325
Total 18,568
Source: U.S. Census, 1990.
TABLE 1-12
HOUSING OCCUPANCY STATUS
City of South San Francisco
1990
% Owner- %
Occupied
Renter-
Occupied
57.9 8,767 76.8 1,976 27.6
12.2 1,594 14.0 670 9.4
3.0 93 0.8 458 6.4
5.4 169 1.5 833 11.6
18.0 264 2.3 3,083 43.1
1.8 297 2.6 39 0.5
1.8 226 2.0 99 1.4
100.0 11,410 61.4 7,158 38.6
August 12, 2002
1-19
Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-13
NUMBER OF PERSONS IN UNITS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE
City of South San Francisco
1990
All Units Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
Units in Total Persons Per Unit Total Persons Per Unit Total Persons Per Unit
Structure
Single-family 33,403 3.11 26,203 2.99 7,200
detached
Single-family 7,448 3.29 5,018 3.15 2,430
attached
2-unit 1,597 2.90 244 2.62 1,353
3- or 4-unit 2,853 2.85 379 2.24 2,474
5 or more 7,389 2.21 614 2.33 6,775
Mobile homes 485 1.44 413 1.39 72
Other 800 2.46 521 2.31 279
Total 53,823 2.91 33,258 2.93 20,565
Source: U.S. Census, 1990.
3.64
3.63
2.95
2.97
2.20
1.85
2.82
2.88
Public Hearing Draft
1-20
August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
2.3 HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Within the general population there are several groups of people who have special housing needs. These needs
can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The following subsections discuss
the special housing needs of six groups identified in State housing element law (Government Code, Section
65583(a)(6)). Specifically, these include senior households, persons with disabilities, large households,
single-headed households, farmworkers, and the homeless. Where possible, estimates of the population or
number of households in South San Francisco falling into each group is presented.
Senior Households
Senior households are defined as households with one or more persons over the age of 65 years. To date
(January 2002), the 2000 Census has not yet reported on the number of households headed by a senior.
However, information is available on the number of persons over the age of 65 years as well as the number of
households in which a person over the age of 65 resides. This information is presented in Table 1-14 below.
Approximately 28 percent of all households in South San Francisco included one or more senior individuals,
and 12.6 percent of all persons living in South San Francisco are seniors. Women make up approximately 59
percent of the senior population.
TABLE 1-14
Number of Persons 65 years and Over
Seniors as a Percentage of the Total
Population
Percentage Male
Percentage Female
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
NUMBER OF SENIORS
City of South San Francisco
2000
7,632 Number of Households with
Individuals 65 Years and Over
12.6%
41.3% Percentage of All Households
58.7%
5,586
28.4%
As of 1990, the majority of senior households in South San Francisco were homeowners. Of all 1990
households headed by a person 65 years or older, 71.8 percent owned their homes and 28.2 percent rented.
August 12, 2002 1-21 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-15
HOUSING TENURE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S
SENIOR AND NON-SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
City of South San Francisco
1990
Number
Household Type and Tenure*
Senior-Headed Households
Renter
Owner
Households Headed by a Non-Senior Person
Renter
Owner
* Based on occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census, 1990.
Percent
3,838 100.0%
1,083 28.2%
2,755 71.8%
14,681 100.0%
6,069 41.3%
8,612 58.7%
A much larger percentage of senior renter households (55 percent) than non-senior households (37 percent) paid
30 percent or more of their incomes for housing costs. Only 11 percent of senior homeowners reported paying
more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing.
Public Hearing Draft 1-22 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-16
COMPARISON OF COST BURDENS BY AGE AND TENURE
City of South San Francisco
1990
Cost Burden Total Cost Burden
Total Renters Greater Than 30% Homeowners Greater Than 30%
Age Category
Number Number Percentage Number Number Percentage
15-64 years 6,048 2,231 36.9% 7,689 2,531 32.9%
65 years and 1,083 594 54.8% 2,506 286 11.4%
over
Total 7,131 2,825
Sources: Census, 1990; Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
39.6% 10,195 2,817 27.8%
These data indicate that there is need in South San Francisco for additional programs to assist senior renters.
Although there are more senior homeowners, it is the renters who experience the greatest housing needs due
to fixed incomes and rising rental rates. Senior homeowners, often on fixed incomes, do face the problem of
maintaining their homes.
According to statistics from the Social Security Administration, as of December 1996, there were 954
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients 65 years and over in South San Francisco. SSI is a
needs-based program that pays monthly benefits to persons who are 65 or older, blind, or have a disability.
Seniors who have never worked or have insufficient work credits to qualify for Social Security disability often
receive SSI benefits. In fact, SSI is the only source of income for a number of low-income seniors. With the
maximum monthly benefit currently $712, SSI recipients are likely to have difficulty in finding housing that
fits within their budgets since they could afford to pay only $214 for rent. The Chestnut Creek Senior Project
will help address the need for housing for very low-income seniors, adding 40 units.
Information from Service Providers
The City's Senior Services operates two senior centers, E1 Camino and Magnolia, as well as an Adult Day Care
Center. The centers include an Information and Referral service, which provides information on senior
housing. Staff reports receiving approximately 40 inquiries per week regarding housing. Most requests are
from seniors seeking affordable and/or Section 8 apartments. There are also quite a few requests for
information concerning assisted-living and board and care homes -- probably an additional 20 per week.
There are three senior housing developments with 321 affordable units located in South San Francisco
(Fairway Apartments, Magnolia Plaza and Rotary Plaza), all with long waiting lists. The Chestnut Creek
Senior Housing Development, currently under construction, will add another 40 units. Seniors also participate
in the Shared Housing Program operated by the Human Investment Project (HIP).
August 12, 2002 1-23 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Persons with Disabilities
Since it is difficult to obtain data on South San Francisco's disabled population, Table 1-17 presents
information derived from the 1990 U.S. Census. (2000 Census data on disabilities are not yet available.) With
regard to disability status, the 1990 U.S. Census provides information on whether persons 16 years of age or
older have a mobility problem, self-care limitation or both.
TABLE 1-17
MOBILITY/SELF-CARE LIMITATION - PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OLDER
City of South San Francisco
1990
16-64 Years 65-74 Years
75 Years and Older
Total Population 16
Years and Older
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Mobility/
Self-Help
Limitation
1,964 5.4% 10.6% 550 28.0% 2,942 7.0%
428
No 34,156 94.6% 3,591 89.4% 1,412 72.0% 39,159 93.0%
Limitation
Total 36,120 100.0% 4,019 100.0% 1,962 100.0% 42,101 100.0%
Persons
Sources: 1990 U.S. Census; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
In 1990, approximately 95 percent of South San Francisco's population 16 years of age or older had no
self-care or mobility limitation. However, when this same information is separated by age group, it is clear,
that, as the population ages, the incidence of disability increases. Among the population that is age 75 and
older, 28 percent experienced either a self-care or mobility limitation or both. In summary, a total of 2,942
persons who were 16 years or older in 1990 had a mobility limitation, a self-care limitation, or a combination
of these conditions.
The statistics for the SSI program also provide information on the number of persons with disabilities who may
have housing needs because of their low incomes. As of December 1996, there were 751 SSI recipients in
South San Francisco who were receiving benefits because they are blind or disabled. Although these figures
can give a sense of the proportion of the population with different types of disabilities, a much smaller
proportion of the population may actually require specially adapted housing to accommodate disabilities.
In addition to these mobility and self-care limitations, there is also a significant population of people with
mental illness and developmental disabilities. As of January 2002, the County's Mental Health Department
reported that 969 of its clients resided in South San Francisco. Although accessibility may be a lesser concern,
housing with supportive services is critical for mentally ill individuals.
The Golden Gate Regional Center serves developmentally disabled people in San Mateo County. As of January
2002, this Center reported that 162 of its adult clients reside in South San Francisco. Over one half of them
are living with their families; only 20 currently live independently in their own apartments. A number of these
clients are 45 years or older. This aging of their clientele is of concern to the Center, since many of their clients
Public Hearing Draft
1-24 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
live with their older parents. At some point, these parents will be unable to care for their adult, disabled
children, and their children will require a supportive living situation.
Information from Service Providers
The State Independent Living Council's (SILC) 1998 report, Independent Living, provides a perspective on the
housing needs of persons with disabilities. SILC polled the independent living centers across the state to
determine the major factors that hinder people with disabilities from living independently. The SILC identified
housing as a critical issue, as follows:
Housing is a huge problem for most people with disabilities. Not only is there a scarcity of
low,income housing located in each community, there is even less barrier-free low-income housing.
For individuals who are receiving a total gross income of $640 on Supplemental Security Income
(SSI), paying market rate for any type of apartment or house is a virtual impossibility.
South San Francisco does not have any affordable housing development built specifically for
persons with disabilities, though some units at some of the affordable projects have handicap-
accessible units. The Peninsula Association for Retarded Children and Adults (PARCA) provides
housing for 11 clients and supplements the rent at four apartments at Peninsula Pines and a house
in Westborough.
The City provides CDBG funding to the Center for Independence of Disabled to make accessibility
modifications to enable persons with disabilities to stay in their homes or move to new housing. Additionally,
the minor repair programs sponsored by the City provide assistance to persons with disabilities to undertake
home repairs that increase access.
The housing coordinator for the Golden Gate Center is organizing a coalition of agencies such as PARCA and
Life Steps, nonprofit developers, and parents to address the housing needs of developmentally disabled persons
in San Mateo County. The coalition plans to request each city as well as the county to include units for
developmentally-disabled in their affordable housing developments and to request the San Mateo Housing
Authority to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers for this group. The City also provides funding for the
Human Investment Project Home Sharing Program.
Large Households
Large households require housing units with more bedrooms than housing units needed by smaller households.
In general, housing for these households should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and should be
located next to schools and child-care facilities. These types of needs can pose problems particularly for large
families that cannot afford to buy or rent single-family houses, as apartment and condominium units are most
often developed with childless, smaller households in mind. According to the 1990 Census. there were 1.725
large family owner-occupied housing units and 1.105 large-family renter occupied units.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines a large household or family as
one with five or more members. According to the 1990 Census, 2,922 households, or 15.7 percent of the
total households in South San Francisco, had five or more members. Approximately three percent of all
households (500) had seven or more members. Furthermore, most of the affordable housing projects have
smaller units. However, the Greenridge project includes 13 three-bedroom units and 4 four-bedroom units.
Single-Headed Households
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least
August 12, 2002 1-25 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
one dependent, which could include a child, an elderly parent, or non-related child. The 2000 Census
information released thus far indicates that there are 2,596 households headed by a female, representing
13.2 percent of all South San Francisco households. Less than one-half of these female-headed hous~hol_ds
(1,099) have children living in them who are under 18 years of age. (Data on the number of male "
single-headed households is not yet available.)
Due to lower incomes, single-headed households often have more difficulties finding adequate, affordable
housing than families with two adults. Also, single-headed households with small children may need to pay
for childcare, which further reduces disposable income. This special needs group will benefit generally
from expanded affordable housing opportunities. More specifically, the need for dependent care also makes
it important that housing for single-headed families be located near childcare facilities, schools, youth
services, medical facilities, or senior services.
Homeless
As part of its Consolidated Plan for Housing, Community and Economic Development for 1998-2003, the
City of South San Francisco established as one of its priorities to "provide service enriched shelter and
transitional housing for homeless persons and families." As stated in the report, the rationale for this
priority is that:
It is now accepted that a continuum of care approach is required to assist families and
individuals to break the cycle of homelessness. The City attempts to offer an array of services
that will assist families at risk of becoming homeless: by providing support services, transitional
housing, and permanent housing solutions.
As elsewhere in the nation, homelessness is usually the end result of multiple factors that converge in a
person's life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for
retraining, and the high housing costs in this county lead to some individuals and families losing their
housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental
health disabilities, or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and
long-term support needed to address these conditions.
To estimate the number of homeless in South San Francisco is difficult due to the lack of current data. For
the entire County of San Mateo a count by the County's Office on Homelessness for the calendar year 2000
indicated that there are at least 4,800 unduplicated homeless people (based on a survey of 16 agencies
serving the homeless). Because this count did not capture individuals who did not receive services or who
declined to give their social security numbers, the Shelter Network of San Mateo County estimates that the
number of homeless was closer to 6,000 people.
In June 2001 the San Mateo Humans Services Agency, Office of Housing reported on the results of a
special needs assessment for emergency shelter services. The study, which includes a survey of 49 clients
staying at the Safe Harbor winter shelter, provides additional insights about the homeless population in San
Mateo County. The findings included the following:
The population staying at the shelter was older than in a 1995 survey of the homeless.
Seventy percent of the survey participants were between the ages of 36 and 55 years old,
and 10 percent were over 55 years old.
The majority of the homeless population is either recently homeless or chronically
homeless, indicating a need for a variety of services and interventions to break the cycle
and prevent further cultural homelessness. (Forty percent of the survey participants had
Public Hearing Draft
1-26 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
been homeless for less than six months, while 27 percent has been homeless for over two
years.
The incidence of homelessness in San Mateo County appears to be steadily increasing over
time, based on one-night homeless counts by the Office of Housing. From February 1998
to March 2002 there was a 26 percent increase.
Conversations with organizations operating emergency shelters and transitional housing, and providing
services in the area, reveal the following about the homeless population in South San Francisco:
St. Vincent de Paul Society, South San Francisco: This agency provides a meal program
between 10:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon each day through the "Caf6 St. Vincent" located at 344
Grand Avenue. Staff report that the number of participants in the meal program has increased
dramatically during the fall of 2001. During the spring and summer of 2001, the average
number of people eating at the dining hall was 50 to 70, and increased to an average of 70 to
100 in October.
A majority of the participants are from South San Francisco. Most are homeless or come
from neighboring Single Room Occupancy Hotels. The dining room serves primarily single
adults; families are referred to North Peninsula Neighborhood Services.
Staff described their clientele as needing support services -- many suffer from mental illness
and substance abuse. Besides the meal service, the St. Vincent de Paul Society provides
referrals and can sometimes cover the cost of alcohol and drug rehabilitation services, and
provide bus passes, shoes, short-term and emergency rent subsidies and other necessities.
St. Vincent de Paul. San Mateo County District Council, San Mateo: This office of St.
Vincent de Paul's operates a motel voucher distribution program. In the calendar year 2001,
eleven families comprised of 21 people (twelve adults and nine children) were placed in m
otels in South San Francisco. The motels used were the Metropolitan and Grand Hotels.
Safe Harbor. South San Francisco: This 90-bed shelter is known as the "winter shelter" for the
County, and is located near the San Francisco Airport at 295 North Access Road. The shelter
is operated by a San Mateo-based non-profit organization, Samaritan House. The director of
the shelter reports that the facility is full every night. Referrals are obtained from local "core"
service agencies throughout the County who make their requests through the St. Vincent de
Paul Society. Neither the director nor staff at St. Vincent de Paul's had statistics on the exact
number of people served from South San Francisco, but believed that "many" or "most" were
from that South San Francisco.
The shelter serves only adults and is located in a dormitory-like facility with 45 bunk beds. It
is open from 5:30 P.M. until 7:00 A.M., and staff provide a hot breakfast to guests. Bus
tickets are provided, and Samaritan House plans to open a treatment center as part of the
facility in the near future. Due to increasing and steady demand, Samaritan House also intends
to keep the shelter open year-round rather than only during the winter months.
· The Salvation Army, South San Francisco: The Salvation Army is located at 409 South
Spruce Avenue, and serves a hot breakfast to about 30 people every Saturday morning.
· North Peninsula Neighborhood Service Center, South San Francisco: This agency is the
designated lead agency for homeless services in San Mateo County. They coordinate services
August 12, 2002 1-27 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
in San Mateo County and provide case management for homeless services. This agency is
partially supported by the City through CDBG funding. From 1999 through 2001 this group
served 165 homeless people from South San Francisco (an average of 55 per year) through its
blanket, food, and information and referral services..
Human Investment Program (HIP Housing), South San Francisco: This San Mateo-based
non-profit organization has a satellite office in South San Francisco to conduct its Home
Sharing program which provides assistance to low income people seeking permanent
affordable housing by matching them with roommates. From 1999 through 2001, staff
interviewed 25 people from South San Francisco who were homeless and 28 people who were
"at-risk" of homelessness.
The City of South San Francisco helps support this agency with Redevelopment Agency
funding.
Shelter Network of San Mateo County, Burlingame: Shelter Network serves South San
Francisco residents primarily at the following two shelters: 1) Family Crossroads in Daly
City, a former apartment house serving 12 families at a time for four month intervals; 2)
Maple Street Shelter in Redwood City, a program for single adults that includes 32 emergency
beds available for 60-day stays, and an additional 44 beds reserved to provide transitional
housing for six-month periods.
From FY 1998/99 through the FY 2000/01, 24 families from South San Francisco stayed at
Family Crossroads. During that same period, the number of single adults from South San
Francisco staying at Maple Street Shelter steadily increased - from ten in FY 1998/99 to 18 in
FY 1999/00 to 24 in FY 2000/01- a total of 52 individuals.
Shelter Network also provides supportive services to homeless people through the "First Step
for Families" and "Bridges" programs. From FY 1998/99 through FY 2000/01 First Step
served 13 families comprised of 50 children and adults from South San Francisco. Families
live at the First Step facility in San Mateo for up to two months and receive case management,
tutoring, childcare, and support for locating and affording permanent housing.
Three South San Francisco families have been served by "Bridges", which provides up to two
years of transitional housing to homeless families in apartments located throughout the county.
During their stay families receive job training, credit counseling and money management, and
other services that will enable them to increase their incomes.
The City of South San Francisco assists this non-profit organization through Redevelopment
Agency funding.
Clara-Mateo Alliance, Inc., Menlo Park: This private non-profit organization operates a
comprehensive emergency shelter and transitional housing program in the Veteran's Hospital.
Veterans are given preference for certain programs, but the facilities are open to all homeless
people. Staff report that since the beginning of FY 2000/01 through the first half of FY
2001/02, they have served 17 individuals and two couples from South San Francisco in the
following facilities:
- The Family Center: Includes six rooms for families with children.
Public Hearing Draft
1-28 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
- Shelter for Adults: Includes 63 beds for adults, and four rooms are reserved for
couples.
- Transitional Housing Center: Includes 28 beds for adults. Services are provided by the
Clara-Mateo Alliance to assist residents to obtain employment and find permanent
housing.
The Homeless Veterans Emergency Facility, Menlo Park: The Homeless Veterans Emergency
Facility, a private nonprofit organization, operates a shelter with 112 emergency and
transitional beds located in a building adjacent to the Clara-Mateo Alliance facilities mentioned
above.
This shelter served over 500 veterans in the year 2001 with a significant number coming from
the County of San Mateo. Staff did not know how many veterans were served from the City
of South San Francisco, but reported that they saw "quite a few". Veterans served by the
emergency shelter are waiting for inpatient treatment through the drug and alcohol abuse, and
mental health programs available at the Veteran's Hospital. Veterans eligible for the
transitional beds are being assisted with employment and training.
Spring Street Shelter, Redwood City: The San Mateo Mental Health Association, a nonprofit
organization runs this 16-bed shelter for single adults diagnosed with a mental illness.
Approximately six persons served by the shelter in the last six months were from North County
including the City of South San Francisco.
The San Mateo Hospitality Network, Burlingame: Twenty-two churches and synagogues in
San Mateo County provide shelter on a rotating basis, as well as services, donations, meals,
information and referral, shower facilities and computer access to approximately 30 homeless
families per year. Staff report that last year the program served three families from South San
Francisco. Currently, staff is working on expanding their program and is contacting
congregations in South San Francisco to gain their participation in the network, which
currently includes 800 volunteers.
Another source of affordable housing often sought by individuals who cannot afford an apartment or by
local service agencies seeking to place very low-income clients are the single-room occupancy hotels
(SROs) in South San Francisco. Currently (January 2002), there are 192 SRO units in the city. Generally,
these facilities do not include bathrooms or kitchens in the units. (The latter is one reason that St. Vincent
de Paul staff report they see so many residents from the SROs in their dining room - this population cannot
afford to eat out as well as pay rent). Two SRO buildings in South San Francisco have received City
funding for rehabilitation and are restricted to occupancy by very low-income tenants. They are the Grand
and the Metropolitan Hotels, which are comprised of a total of 82 units. North Peninsula Neighborhood
Services Center, a nonprofit organization supported by the City, is able to place homeless families in these
hotels.
As recognized by the City of South San Francisco in its Consolidated Plan, homelessness is best mitigated
by a continuum of care approach. To implement this strategy continued collaboration between South San
Francisco, the County of San Mateo, service and housing providers, and the interfaith community is
essential.
Farmworkers
South San Francisco has a history of small truck farms and local farms. However, farmworkers accounted
for slightly less than one percent of the employed persons living in South San Francisco in 1990. The 1990
August 12, 2002 1-29 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Census reported 255 South San Francisco residents who were employed in the farming, forestry, and
fishing, industries.
Public Hearing Draft
1-30 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
2.4 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Number and Types of Units
As Table I-18 indicates, the existing housing stock in South San Francisco is predominantly (over 70
percent) single-family dwellings and has been that way since 1990. Apartment buildings with three to 49
units account for 20 percent of housing units, while 3 percent of units are found in buildings with more
than 50 units. The remainder of the housing stock is made up of duplexes, mobile homes, and houseboats.
TABLE 1-18
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, BY YEAR AND TYPE
City of South San Francisco
1991-2000
Duplex/ Multi-
Year Single-Family Townhome/Condo Family Mobilehomes Total
1991 11,009 2,336 5,411 405 19,161
1992 11,030 2,336 5,426 405 19,197
1993 11,053 2,336 5,479 405 19,273
1994 11,066 2,336 5,511 405 19,318
1995 11,088 2,336 5,513 405 19,342
1996 11,120 2,336 5,545 405 19,406
1997 11,145 2,336 5,560 405 19,446
1998 11,295 2,408 5,581 405 19,689
1999 11,535 2,654 5,581 405' 20,175
2000 11,945 2,654 5,657 405 20,661
lnerease91-O0 936 318 246 0 1,500
Source: California Department of Finance, 1990 through 2000.
Condition of the Housing Stock
Recent information relating to condition of housing stock is not available because the U.S. Census Bureau
has not released (as of January 2002) housing stock condition data, and the City has not conducted
comprehensive surveys of South San Francisco's housing stock in the last 12 years. The only available
data is from a windshield survey of housing conditions conducted by the City in May 1990. The following
rating system was used in the survey:
· Good: structures needing no repairs or only cosmetic repairs, e.g., paint;
· Fair: structures requiring some minor structural repairs--visible cracks, minor roof problems,
etc.; and
· Poor: structures needing major repairs--dilapidated/substandard housing.
August 12, 2002 1-31 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Overall, South San Francisco's residential structures are in good condition. Of the 1,862 structures
surveyed, 87.3 percent were found to be in good condition, 10.7 percent in fair condition, and 2 percent in
poor condition. Applying these percentages to the city as a whole, suggest that approximately 2,000 units
need minor structural repairs, and 380 units need either major repairs or replacement. (The low rate of
demolitions, averaging five per year, indicates that relatively few units need to be replaced.) Table I-19
shows a percentage breakdown of structural conditions by neighborhood.
Neighborhood
TABLE 1-19
HOUSING CONDITIONS BY NEIGHBORHOOD
City of South San Francisco
1990
Condition
Good Fair Poor
Avalon/Brentwood 198 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
Buri-Buri/Serra 193 93.0% 7.0% 0.0%
Highlands
Grand Avenue Area 103 88.4% 11.6% 4.8%
Irish Town 277 73.3% 26.7% 10.1%
Mayfair 119 82.4% 17.6% 0.0%
Village/Francisco
Terrace
Paradise Valley 166 88.6% 10.8% 0.6%
Parkway 119 98.3% 1.7% 0.0%
Peck's Lots 77 83.1% 13.0% 3.9%
Southwood 78 93.6% 6.4% 0.0%
Sunshine Gardens 136 91.2% 8.8% 0.0%
Town of Baden 85 84.7% 14.1% 1.2%
Westborough 155 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
Winston Manor 156 93.6% 6.4% 0.0%
TOTAL 1,862 87.3% 10.7% 2.0%
Structures Surveyed
Source: Economic and Community Development Department Windshield Survey, May 1990
Based on the Planning Commission tour in November 2001, Irish Town, located north of the downtown
commercial area has by far the greatest percentage of structures in need of rehabilitation. This is the
Downtown Target Area, where Community Development Block Grant funds are concentrated for rental and
single-family rehabilitation. In five other neighborhoods, over 10 percent of the structures were in fair to
poor condition: Grand Avenue, Paradise Valley, Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace, Town of Baden, and
Peck's Lots.
Public Hearing Draft 1-32 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Overcrowding
The Census Bureau defines overcrowded conditions as dwelling units housing more than one person per
room. Overcrowding is a significant and increasing problem in South San Francisco: between 1980 and
1990, the proportion of overcrowded units nearly doubled, from 6.7 percent to 12.8 percent.
Overcrowding affects more rental households than owner households. While the rate of overcrowding was
less than 8 percent for owners, it was over 20 percent for renters.
Overcrowding is also distributed unevenly throughout the city. The three census tracts immediately west of
U.S. 101 (6021, 6022, and 6023) have the highest rates, (30.4 percent, 22.3 percent, and 17.7 percent).
Overcrowding is lowest in the area between El Camino Real and Interstate 280 (tracts 6017, 6018, and
6024).
Table 1-20 shows that the number of larger units exceeds the number of larger households, while the
number of small units is less than the number of small households. If every household could compete
effectively in the housing market, there are enough units to accommodate all households without
overcrowding. Overcrowding is primarily a problem of distribution caused by households lacking
sufficient income to bid for units of suitable size.
TABLE 1-20
SIZE OF UNITS COMPARED WITH SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS
Number of Rooms
City of South San Francisco
1990
Number of Units
I 679
2 1,375
3 2,740
4 3,304
5 4,115
6 3,837
7 or more 3,080
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
Number of Persons
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 or more
Number of
Householders
3,876
5,317
3,450
3,079
1,531
700
615
August 12, 2002 1-33 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
3.0 FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
Under the State housing element requirement, housing needs are defined in three categories: existing needs,
needs of special groups within the community, and projected needs over the next five year period. Previous
sections of this chapter have identified existing needs and needs of special groups. This section focuses on
projected housing needs for the period from 2002 to 2006.
Projected housing needs are the total additional h6using units required to adequately house a jurisdiction's
projected population in five years in units that are affordable, in standard condition, and not overcrowded.
These needs, therefore, include those of the existing population as well as the needs of the additional
population expected to reside in the city five years hence.
3.1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S SHARE OF 1999 TO 2006 HOUSING NEEDS
Government Code Section 65584 assigns responsibility for developing projections of regional housing need
and for allocating a share of this need to localities within the region to regional councils of government.
For the San Francisco Bay Area, these determinations were prepared by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). Based on a methodology that weighs a number of factors (e.g., projected
population growth, employment, commute patterns, available sites), ABAG determined quantifiable needs
for housing units in the region according to various income categories. Table I-21 depicts the South San
Francisco's estimated need for the 7 ½ year period. In its final Regional Needs Determination (RHND)
figures, ABAG allocated 1,331 housing units to the City of South San Francisco. The allocation is
equivalent to a yearly need of 177 housing units for the 7 ½ year period. The total allocation is broken
down into four income categories: very low (277 units or 20.8 percent of total units), low (131 units or 9.8
percent of total units), moderate (360 units or 27.0 percent of total units), and above moderate (563 units
or 42.3 percent of total units). In other words, of the 1,331 units allocated, 57.6 percent must be in the
affordable range (very low, low, moderate) and 44.3 percent in the above range.
Public Hearing Draft 1-34 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-21
HOUSING NEED BY INCOME CATEGORY
South San Francisco
1999 to 2006
Very Low
Low
Income Category
ABAG Need Determination
277
131
Percentage of Total
20.8
9.8
Moderate
360
27.0
Above Moderate
563
42.3
Total
Average Yearly Need
Unincorporated Sphere of Influence
Need
1,331
177
0
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, March 2001.
100%
Table 1-22 shows the total 1999-2006 RI-IND allocation and the 1999 housing unit count for South San
Francisco, San Mateo County, and the entire nine-county ABAG region. When applied to the 1999 DOF
estimate of 20,175 housing units in the incorporated area of South San Francisco, the 1,331 total housing
unit allocation for 1999-2006 is equivalent to a 6.2 percent total increase, or a 0.92 percent annual average
growth rate for the 7½-year period.
South San Francisco's RHND allocation represents 8.1 percent of the total San Mateo County RHND of
16,305. This share is slightly larger than South San Francisco's 7.7 percent share of the total San Mateo
County housing stock in 1999. South San Francisco's 1999 housing stock represented 0.8 percent of the
total 1999 Bay Area regional housing supply. However, South San Francisco has been assigned a RHND
equivalent to 0.6 percent of the regional total, a share that is almost equivalent to South San Francisco's
share of the 1999 housing stock.
South San Francisco's annual average growth rate of 0.92 percent implied in its RHND is relatively close
to the growth rate of San Mateo County (0.87 percent) and slightly less than the entire Bay Area region
(1.17 percent).
August 12, 2002 1-35 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-22
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION
South San Francisco, San Mateo County, and ABAG Regions
1999 to 2006
Regional Housing Needs (Units) Allocation -
Current Jurisdictional Boundaries
1999 Housing Units
Allocated Growth
Jurisdictio
n
South San
Francisco
Total
1,331
Average
% of Yearly
% of Regional Need (7.5
County Share Years)
Annual
Average
1999 % of % Total Growth
Housing % of Region Growth Rate:
Units County al : 1999- 1999-
(DOF) Share Share 2006 2006
8.1% 0.6% 177 20,175 7.7% 0.8% 6.2% 0.92%
San Mateo
County
16,305 100.0% 7.1% 2,174 261,434 100.0% 10.3% 5.9% 0.87%
ABAG
Regional
Total
230,743 -- 100.0% 30,766 2,529,529 -- 100.0% 9.1% I. 17%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, March 15, 2001; California Department of Finance, January 1, 2000.
3.2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (1999 TO 2001)
Between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, which is within the planning timeframe of the Housing
Element, South San Francisco approved or built 1,688 new units. By comparison, between January 1,
1989, and January 1, 1999, the City of South San Francisco issued building permits for only 1,247 new
units.
Table 1-23 summarizes building permits issued and units constructed by year and type of unit. Of the 1,688
permits issued and units constructed between 1999 and 2001,264 of those units were considered affordable
housing units (i.e., affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households).
Public Hearing Draft
1-36 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Project
1999
Grand Hotel
Terrabay Village
(Phase 1)
Terrabay Park (Phase
1)
Metro Hotel
SUB TO T,'I L
2000
Greenridge
Promenade
Bay View Villas
Avalon Terrace
Chestnut Estates
Westborough Court
El Rancho Highlands
Carter Park
TABLE 1-23
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
City of South San Francisco
1999-2001
Location Total Units Affordable units
24
24
North side of Hillside 161
Blvd.
North side of Hillside 125
Blvd.
65
Description/
Comments
375
Rehabilitated units
(completed)
1450 El Camino Real
34
179
35
21
8O
85
63
50
1450 E1 Camino Real
Comer of Gellert and
Appian Way
375 Dorado Way
9-132 Nursery Way
3851-3893 Caner Dr.
735 Del Monte Ave.
3721-3741 Carter Dr.
Townhomes
(completed)
Single Family
Residential
(completed)
65 Rehabilitated units
(completed)
89
34 townhomes and
manager's unit on 2.6
acres (completed)
0 Single family
detached units on
28.5 acres
(completed)
0 Single family
detached units on 3.9
acres (completed)
0 Single family
detached units on 5.2
acres (completed)
0 Single family
detached units on
12.8 acres
(completed)
0 Condos on a 4 acre
site (phase I of Il
completed)
0 Single family units on
10.5 acres.
(completed)
0 Planned condos on a
2 acre site (approved)
August 12, 2002 1-37 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Project
SUBTOTAL
TABLE 1-23
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
City of South San Francisco
1999-2001
Location Total Units Affordable units
547 34
Description/
Comments
2001
Oak Farms SE comer of Oak and 34_ 5
Grand Avenues
Oakmont Vistas Oakmont Drive and 34 0
Westborough Blvd.
Parc Place Orange and Railroad 153 0
Avenues
Chestnut Creek/ Comer of Mission 40 40
Bridge Senior Rd. & Chesnut
Housing Avenue
Terrabay Woods North side of Sister 135 0
(Phase III) Cities Blvd.
Oak Avenue 90 Oak Avenue 15 0
Apartments
Marbella Gellert Boulevard 280
Sihgle family
detached units on 2.6
acres (approved)
Single family
detached units on 4.9
acres (approved)
Single family
detached units on
18.9 acres
(completed)
One- and two-
bedroom units
(completed)
Single family
residential (under
construction)
Apartment complex
on 0.45 acre site
(under review)
70 Condominium
(approved)
Commercial Avenue Commercial Avenue 4
Apartments
Aegis __ 71
Terrabay Pointe 182
(Phase III)
4 Rehabilitated units
(completed)
0 Elderly residential
care (completed)
22 112 unit residential
tower, 70 single
family homes
(approved)
SUBTOTAL 948 141
TOTAL 1,870 264
Source: Economic & Community Development Department, January 1, 1999, through December 31,2001.
In an effort to relate this building permit activity to the 1999-2006 ABAG need determination figures, the
South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department assigned each new unit to one of
Public Hearing Draft
1-38 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
the four income categories specified in the ABAG needs determination. The results of this analysis are
shown in Table 1-24. After accounting for approved and constructed housing units between January 1,
1999, and December 31, 2001, South San Francisco's remaining fair share need is 504 new units (110
very low, 131 low, and 263 moderate). The City has satisfied its need for above moderate, having a
surplus of 1,021 units above the 563-unit allocation.
TABLE 1-24
BALANCE OF NEED
City of South San Francisco
2002
Units
Constructed/Planne
1999 to 2006 ABAG d and Adjustments Percentage of Need
income Category Need Determination 1999-2001' Met
Very Low 277 167 60.3%
Low 131 0 0.0%
Moderate 360 97 26.9%
Above Moderate 563 1,584 281.0%
Total 1,331 1,848 -
*Units include both units constructed and those receiving building permits between January 1, 1999 - December 31, 2001.
** For the 4 % year period January 1,2002 to June 30, 2006.
Source: Economic & Community Development Department, November 2001; Association of Bay Area Governments,
December 2000.
Balance of Existing
Need
110
131
263
1,021 (surplus)
5O4
4.0 HOUSING OVERPAYMENT
Section 4 assesses the ability of South San Francisco residents to pay for housing (owner-occupied and
rental units) within the city.
4.1 HOUSING COSTS COMPARED TO ABILITY TO PAY
The following section discusses current income levels and ability to pay for housing compared with housing
costs. Housing is classified as "affordable" if households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for
payment of rent (including monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly mortgage
(including taxes). Since above moderate-income households do not generally have problems in locating
affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that are
low- to moderate-income. Table 1-25 below shows the definition of housing income limits as they are
applied to housing units in South San Francisco, which is part of the San Francisco PMSA (Matin, San
Francisco, and San Mateo counties).
August 12, 2002 1-39
Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San FranciSco
TABLE 1-25
DEFINITIONS OF HOUSING INCOME LIMITS
Very Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or lower than 50% of the
median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). A household of four is considered to be very Iow-income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is
$42,500 or less for the year 2001.
Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 50% to 80% of the
median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be Iow-income in
the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $68,000 or less for the year 2001.
Median Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 81% to 100% of the
median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be median income
in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $80,100 or less for the year 2001.
Moderate-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 101% to 120% of
the median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be
moderate-income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $96,1 O0 or less for the year 2001.
Above Moderate-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is above 120% of the median
income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be moderate-income in
the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income exceeds $96,100 for the year 2001.
Affordable Units are affordable if households do not spend more than 30% of income on rent (including monthly allowance
for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly mortgage. Since above moderate-income households do not generally have
problems in locating affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that
are iow- to moderate-income.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2001.
Ability to Pay
Table 1-26 shows the 2001 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-defined family
income limits for Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-Income households in the San Francisco PMSA
(including South San Francisco) by the number of persons in the household. It also shows maximum
affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes. For example, a three-person
household is classified as Low-Income (80 percent of median) with annual income of up to $61,200. A
household with this income could afford to pay $1,530 for monthly gross rent (including utilities) or to
purchase a $213,308 house or condominium. A Very Low-Income household of the same size could afford
to spend only $956 for gross rent.
Public Hearing Draft
1-40 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-26
ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR
VERY LOW-,LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2001 Median Family Income (1)
Unit Studio ] Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Number Persons 1 2 3 4
Income Level $29,750 $34,000 $38,250 $42,500
4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom
5 6
$45,900 $49,300
Max. monthly $744 $850 $956 $1,063
gross rent (2)
$1,148 $1,233
Max. purchase $103,691 $118,504 $133,317 $148,131
price (3)
Low-Income Households at 80% of 2001 Median Family Income (1)
Unit Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Number Persons I 2 3 4
income Level $47,600 $54,400 $61,200 $68,000
$159,981 $171,831
4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom
5 6
$73,450 $78,900
Max. monthly $1,190 $1,360 $1,530 $1,700
gross rent (2)
$1,836 $1,973
Max. purchase $165,906 $189,607 $213,308 $237,009
price (3)
Moderate-Income Households at 100% of 2001 Median Family Income (1)
Unit Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom
Number Persons I 2 3
Income Level $56,050 $64,100 $72,100
Max. monthly $1,401 $1,603 $1,803
gross rent (2)
Max. purchase $195,358 $223,416 $251,299
price (3)
Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2001 Median Family Income (1)
Unit
Number Persons
Income Level
$256,004 $275,000
Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom
1 2 3
$67,250 $76,900 $86,500
3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom
4 5 6
$80,100 $86,500 $92,900
$2,003 $2,163 $2,323
$279,183 $301,489 $323,796
3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom
4 5 6
$96,100 $103,800 $111,500
August 12, 2002 1-41 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-26
ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR
VERY LOW-,LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Max. monthly $ 1,681 $1,923 $2,163 $2,403 $2,595
gross rent (2)
Max. purchase $234,395 $268,029 $301,489 $334,949 $361,787
price (3)
Assumptions and Notes:
(1) Since the San Francisco PMSA is a high-income area, HUD median income categories do not follow the exact
percentages. For example Low-lncome is capped at 75% of median income, rather than 80%.
(2) 30% of income devoted to maximum monthly rent, including utilities
(3) 33% of income devoted to mortgage payment and taxes, 95% loan @ 8%, 30 year term
$2,788
$388,625
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
Existing Housing Costs
Table 1-27 below shows HUD-defined fair market rent levels (FMR) for the San Francisco PMSA
(including South San Francisco) for 2001 as well as the proposed FMR rents for 2002. In general, the
FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of
privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable
amenities. FMRs are estimates of rent plus the cost of utilities, except telephone. FMRs are housing
market-wide estimates of rents that provide opportunities to rent standard quality housing throughout the
geographic area in which rental housing units are in competition. The rents are drawn from the distribution
of rents of all units that are occupied by recent movers. Adjustments are made to exclude public housing
units, newly built units, and substandard units.
Public Hearing Draft
1-42 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-27
FAIR MARKET RENT
San Francisco PMSA (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties)
2001
Bedrooms in Unit
0 BR I BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Fair Market Rent $891 $1,154 $1,459 $2,001
(FMR)
$2,118
Proposed 2002 $1,067 $1,382 $1,747 $2,386
Fair Market Rent
$2,536
Notes: 40th percentile of market rents for Fiscal Year 2001 (January 2, 2001) for the San Francisco PMSA (Marin, San
Francisco and San Mateo Counties)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (24 CFR Part 888)
Comparing this table to Table 1-26, a three-person household classified as Low-Income (80% of median)
with an annual income of up to $61,200 could afford to pay $1,530 monthly gross rent (including utilities).
The FMR for a 2-bedroom unit is $1,459, which is affordable to the household, assuming such a unit were
available in South San Francisco. A three-person household classified as Very Low-Income (50% of
median) with an annual income of up to $38,250 could afford to pay $956 monthly gross rent. A FMR
2-bedroom unit would not be affordable to this household. The proposed 2002 FMRs reflect the increase
in rental rates in this market. For example, the proposed 2002 FMR for a 2-bedroom unit is $1,747, which
is not affordable for either a Very Low or Low-Income household.
Table 1-28 presents information on asking prices of homes in South San Francisco from several sources
including the Multiple Listing Service (October 10, 2001) and Realtor.corn (December 2001). At that time
there were 43 detached homes advertised, ranging from $279,000 to $950,000. The average asking price
of the listings was $545,682. There were also two condominiums or townhouses for sale ($223,000 and
$359,000).
August 12, 2002 1-43 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-28
ASKING PRICES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
City of South San Francisco
October 2001
Bedrooms in Unit
2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR
Number of Homes 11 26 4 2
Advertised
Average Asking Price $383,613 $472,366 $564,250 $762,500
Range of Asking $279,950-435,000 $369,000-569,000 $429,000-738,000 $575,000-950,000
Prices
Source: San Marco County Association of REALTORS, October 10, 2001; Realtor. corn, December 2001; Vernazza Wolfe
Associates, Inc.
Table 1-29 below illustrates typical rent levels in South San Francisco. The average rent level ranged from
$700 for a single bedroom in a single family house to $2,113 for a four bedroom apartment. These costs
were compiled from approximately 30 listings appearing on Places4rent.com and Craiglist.org for
December 2001.
TABLE 1-29
AVERAGE RENT LEVELS
City of South San Francisco
December 2001
Number of Rooms Cost Range Average Cost
Single Bedroom in house $500-850 $700
One-bedroom $995-1,350 $1,217
Two-bedroom $1,425-2,000 $1,639
Three-bedroom $1,800-2,200 $2,070
Four-bedroom $1,975-2,250 $2,113
Source: Places4Rent, Craiglist.org, December 2001.
Home sales prices have escalated rapidly during the past few years. Table 1-30 shows the median and
average sales prices for South San Francisco for 1999-2001, January through June. The median price for
single-family homes was $320,500 in 1999 and had increased to $453,000 by the end of the June 2001.
This represents an increase of more than 40 percent. Prices for condominiums and townhouses showed a
greater percentage increase (72 percent), from $203,500 to $350,000. Theses median sales prices would
Public Hearing Draft 1-44 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
be considered unaffordable even for a four-person household classified as Moderate-Income (120 percent
of median) with an annual income of up to $96,100. This household could afford to buy a three-bedroom
house at $334,949.
Period
Single Family Homes
Jan-June 1999
Jan-June 2000
Jan-June 2001
Increase
(1999-2001)
Condos/Townhouses
Jan-June 1999
Jan-June 2000
Jan-June 2001
Increase
(1999-2000
TABLE 1-30
COMPLETED HOME SALES
City of South San Francisco
1999 - 2001
No. of Sales Median Price % Change Average Price % Change
164 $320,500 -- $342,146 --
159 $385,000 20.1% $411,688 20.3%
145 $453,000 17.7% $489,963 19.0%
-- $132,500 41.3% $14~817 43.2%
52 $203,500 -- $212,082 --
36 $285,500 40.3% $290,519 37.0%
47 $350,000 22.6% $358,574 23.4%
-- $14~500 72.0% $14~492 69.1%
Source: San Mateo County Association of REALTORS; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
Existing Income Levels
Table I-31 is an abbreviated list of occupations and annual incomes for South San Francisco residents such
as city employees, employees of the South San Francisco Unified School District, retired individuals and
minimum wage earners. The table shows the amounts that households at these income levels could afford
to pay for rent as well as the purchase prices that they could afford to pay to buy a home. Most of these
households could not afford to pay rent at the 2002 FMR levels, $1,747 for a two-bedroom unit or $2,386
for a 3-bedroom unit. None would be able to afford to pay the average listing price for a three-bedroom
home in South San Francisco ($433,300). Only a few would be able to afford the lowest price listing, a
one-bedroom condominium ($223,000).
August 12, 2002 1-45 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-31
AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES AND
INCOMES FOR SELECTED FAMILIES AND OCCUPATIONS
Category
City of South San Francisco
2001
Annual Income Monthly Affordable Rent (1)
Computer Engineer
Electrical Equipment Assembler
Precision
Retail Salesperson
Computer Support Specialist
City of South San Francisco Employee
Police Officer (recruit)
Police Officer (lateral, top of salary
range)
Communications Dispatcher
Paramedic/Firefighter (top of
range)
Two Wage Earners
Police Officer (lateral) and Retail
Salesperson
Electrical Assembler and Teacher,
Step 4
Communications Dispatcher and
Computer Support
South San Francisco Unified School District
Teacher, BA + 30, Step 4
Teacher, BA -4- 60, Step 10
Retired - Average Social Security
One person household with only SS
Two person household - both
retired - only SS
Minimum Wage Earners (effective 1/1/02)
Single Wage Earner
Two Wage Earners
SSI (Aged or Disabled)
Affordable House Price
(2)
$70,280 $1,757 $244,956
$28,380 $710 $98,916
$16,600 $415
$46,080 $1,152
$57,858
$160,608
$45,300 $1,133 $157,890
$61,068 $1,527 $212,848
$51,144 $1,279 $178,259
$70,908 $1,773 $247,144
$77,668 $1,942 $270,706
$66,353 $1,659 $231,268
$97,224 $2,431 $338,867
$37,973 $949
$50,834 $1,271
$132,352
$177,178
$11,960 $299
$23,920 $598
$41,686
$83,371
$13,500 $338
$27,000 $675
$47,053
$94,106
Public Hearing Draft
1-46
August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-31
AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES AND
INCOMES FOR SELECTED FAMILIES AND OCCUPATIONS
Category
One person household with only
SSI
City of South San Francisco
2001
Annual Income Monthly Affordable Rent (1)
HUD-Defined Income Groups (3-person HH)
Extremely Low Income (below
30%)
Very Low-Income (below 50%)
Low-Income (below 80%)
$8,544 $214
Affordable House Price
(2)
$22,950 $574
$38,250 $956
$61,200 $1,530
$29,779
$79,990
$133,317
$213,308
Moderate Income (below 120%) $86,500 $2,163
(1) Assumes 30% of income devoted to monthly rent, including utilities.
(2) Assumes 33% of income devoted to mortgage payment and taxes, 95% loan ~ 8%, 30 year term.
$301,489
Source: Employment Development Department, City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Unified School
District and Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
Owner and Renter Overpayment
According to the Regional Housing Needs Determination for the San Francisco Bay Area. South
San Francisco had a total of 2.755 low-income owners and 3.262 low-income renters as of June
2001. Of those low-income owners. 933 or 33.9 percent were overpaying for their homes. Of
those low-income renters. 1.670 or 51.2 percent were overpaying for their homes.
August 12, 2002 1-47 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
5.0 AVAILABILITY OF LAND AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Section 5.0 assesses the availability of land and services to meet the needs documented in Section 3.0. This
section inventories South San Francisco's available residentially-designated land, calculates the buildout
potential of this land, and reviews the adequacy of services to support future housing development.
5.1 AVAILABLE LAND INVENTORY
In 1999, the City conducted a buildout analysis as part of the General Plan Update that identifies a
potential for 1,630 additional housing units that could theoretically develop over the life of the General Plan
(i.e., 2020). Since that time, City Staff conducted a detailed analysis of remaining development potential
based on the existing General Plan. In November 2001, the Economic & Community Development
Department and Housing Element Consultants (Mintier & Associates) completed an inventory of vacant
and underutilized sites for residential development within the city limits. The analysis factored in residential
development activity that has occurred from the adoption of the General Plan to December 31, 2001. A
more detailed description is identified in the following paragraphs.
Vacant and Underutilized Land Currently Planned for Residential Use
In November 2001, City Staff and Mintier & Associates prepared a draft list of suitable sites for housing
for Planning Commission review and comment. The list was based on the following:
o
2.
3.
4.
Identify of suitable sites for housing;
Review General Plan residential densities;
Identify efficiently designed multi-family units (including mixed-income units in other cities); and
Investigate potential redevelopment of older industrial and commercial sites.
On November 17, 2001, the Consultants and Planning Division staff facilitated a Planning Commission
workshop and tour that reviewed sites on the list. The Consultants prepared maps of various medium and
high density neighborhoods that show where potential sites exist and a tour of neighborhoods to look at the
sites in context with the area. During the tour, the Planning Commission commented on the feasibility of
the proposed housing sites. In addition to the sites on the list, the Planning Commission indicated that staff
should prepare an inventory of available sites on Grand Avenue from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard.
The Commission was also interested in finding potential sites in the Lindenville area.
The Economic & Community Development Department survey identified 21 sites that are residentially-
designated and are considered vacant or underutilized. Table 1-32 summarizes the location, size, potential
constraints, and the estimated number of potential housing units which could be accommodated on each
site. Figure 1 shows the location and boundaries of the areas referred to in Table 1-32.
Public Hearing Draft
1-48 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Vacant Residential Land
As indicated in Table 1-32, South San Francisco has vacant residential land that, at General Plan- approved
densities, would allow for the development up to 695 new units on 18 acres. Most of these sites are located
along the BART tracks and in the downtown area. Only one site -- Chestnut Avenue Land Use Study
Area -- has a constraint that may temporarily impede development on that site. The site is currently
(January 2002) zoned for commercial uses that does not permit residential uses. The City would need to
rezone this area before it can be developed.
Underutilized Residential Land
Underutilized sites yield the potential for 704 additional units on nearly 41 acres of underutilized land.
Although all of the sites have General Plan designations that allow for residential use, several parcels are
subject to some form of development constraint. The two most prevalent constraints are zoning consistency
with the General Plan and existing buildings on site.
August 12, 2002 1-49
Public Hearing Draft
T T/ 'Ir~T
1' Tm
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Table 1-33 summarizes the information provided in Table 1-32 according to General Plan land use
designation and density. Of the nearly 1,400 units (maximum capacity) that could be accommodated under
the General Plan, 1,062 of those units fall within the high density range and could thus accommodate units
in the low and very low income categories.
TABLE 1-33
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND
BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
City of South San Francisco
January 2002
General Plan
Land Use Maximum Vacant/Underutilized
Designation Density Site Area Acres
MDR - Medium 18 units per net Mission Road 1.71
Density acre
Residential Comer of Sequoia 0.71
Avenue and Mission
Road
MDR SUBTOTAL
HDR - High
Density
Residential
HDR SUBTOTAL
DHDR -
Downtown
High Density
Residential
DHDR SUBTOTAL
MU - Mixed Usc
Business
Commercial and
Medium Density
Residential
MIXED USE SUBTOTAL
MU - Mixed Use
Community
Commercial,
Public,
High Density
Residential,
Office
30 units per net
acre
40 units per net
acre
Church sites on Oak
Avenue
Oak Avenue Apartments
Chestnut Avenue
SF PUC Property
700 Linden Avenue
616 Linden Avenue
2.42
1.34
0.32
0.52
8.63
10.81
0.32
0.32
18 units per net
acre
30 and 50 units
per net acre
Sunshine Garden Center
Comer of Railroad and
Spruce Avenues
North side of Mayfair
Avenue
South side of Mayfair
Avenue
BART Station parcel
north
BART Station parcel
south
1410 El Camino Real
Broadmoor Lumber
0.64
2.11
7.37
0.91
2.92
14.72
4.55
2.53
1.26
3.47
Maximum Units
51
21
72
40
15
16
260
351
12
12
24
38
133
16
53
265
228
127
63
174
August 12, 2002 1-53 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-33
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND
BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
City of South San Francisco
January 2002
General Plan
Land Use Maximum Vacant/Underutilized
Designation Density Site Area Acres
corner of Mission Ave. 0.67
& McLellan Drive
Paradise Valley 1.41
San Mateo County 1.15
Municipal Courthouse
MIXED USE (HIGH DENSITY) SUBTOTAL 15.04
Downtown BAE Project 0.57
Commercial
Learning Center 0.28
DC SUBTOTAL O. 85
TOTAL 41.73
Source: Economic Community Development Department; Mintier & Associates; January 2002.
Maximum Units
20
25
35
672
40
2
42
1,399
Public Hearing Draft 1-54 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Special Study Areas
South San Francisco contains several residential areas that are characterized by grid iron pattern of
development that was established at the mm of the century, small blocks, and small parcels. The
Downtown area is in the geographic heart of the city and includes the oldest commercial and residential
areas. The typical block dimension in Downtown is 1,300 x 300 feet, with 20-foot wide mid block alleys.
Resulting average lots are 140 feet deep and 50 feet wide, or 7,000 square feet in area. Located outside the
Downtown areas, both the Town of Baden, near E1 Camino Real, and Peck's Subdivision, north of Linden
Avenue, are older developments with narrow streets, insufficient parking, and homes showing signs of
dilapidation and deferred maintenance.
In November 1999, the Planning Commission toured Downtown (Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard)
and Peck's Lots to investigate potential options for the City to encourage new residential development infill
projects or focus City-supported rehabilitation efforts of existing buildings.
Figure 1 and Table 1-34 identify four areas -- Town of Baden, Irish Town, Airport Boulevard, and Peck's
lots -- upon which the City will concentrate its development standards, design standards, and rehabilitation
efforts during the timeframe of this Housing Element (2002-2006). These areas have potential for both
infill and redevelopment. However, these areas have special development constraints such as dense 2,500
square foot lots which might pose a challenge to new development. These areas also provide potential for
providing additional housing units not described in Tables 11-30 and 11-33.
TABLE 1-34
SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
City of South San Francisco
Study Area # of Lots Acres General Plan Zoning
Town of Baden 198 20.4 Medium Density Residential and R-2-H
Mixed Medium Density
Residential/Community Commercial
Irish Town 70 9.2 Downtown High Density Residential C-I-L
and Mixed Downtown High Density
Residential/Community Commercial
Airport Boulevard
between Grand and
Sister Cities Blvd.
32 6.4 Mixed Business P-C-L
Commercial/Downtown High Density
Residential
Pecks Lots
245 27.4 Low Density Residential and Medium R-2-H
Density Residential
TOTAL 545 63.4
Source: Economic and Community Development Department, Mintier & Associates, December 2001.
August 12, 2002 1-55 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Planned Housing Projects
In addition to the potential number of housing units that could be developed on the land available for
residential development in Tables 1-32 and 1-33, Table 1-35 lists the project name, location, and number
and type of housing units of three projects that are under preliminary review of have applied for a permit
and are under development review by the South San Francisco Economic and Community Development
Department (ECD) as of February 2002. These three housing projects could provide an additional 386
new units -- 20 of which will be townhomes/condos (one affordable unit), 16 will be apartments (16 of
which are affordable), and 350 will be mixed-use condos -- to the potential 1,399 units on vacant and
underutilized land. All of these units are likely to develop during the time frame of the Housing Element,
and will therefore contribute to satisfying South San Francisco's fair share responsibility for 1999 to 2006.
TABLE 1-35
PENDING HOUSING PROJECTS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Project Name Location Status Type of Units Number of Units
Stonegate Estates Hillside Blvd. & Under review Townhomes 20 (4 off-site)
Stonegate Drive
Willow Gardens
BART development E! Camino Real and
sites Mclellan Drive in the
BART Transit Village
Zone
Acquisition over next Apartments
five years
Preliminary review
Mixed-use condos
TOTAL
Note: The number of units described in this table is subject to change.
Source: Economic and Community Development Department, December 2001.
16 (all affordable)
350 (20 affordable)
386 (36 affordable)
Public Hearing Draft
1-56
August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
5.2 ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL VERSUS PROJECTED HOUSING
NEEDS
As shown in Table 1-24, South San Francisco has a net RHND allocation (after subtracting units already
built and approved units in 1999 through December 2001) of 504 housing units for the 1999-2006 planning
period. When breaking down that total by income group, there is a need of 110 units for the very low-
income category, 131 for low income, and 263 for moderate income. The above-moderate income needs
category has already been met (1,021 unit surplus) during the 1999 to 2001 time period.
Tables 1-32 and 1-33 demonstrate that the City of South San Francisco has a total remaining residential
holding capacity of 1,399 housing units. Because capacity for housing production exceeds South San
Francisco's total need for new housing during the Housing Element planning period, a primary objective for
the City over the Housing Element planning period will be to provide adequate sites to accommodate the
housing needs of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) assumes, in general, that the higher the density, the more affordable
the housing. It is HCD's position that local jurisdictions can facilitate and encourage affordable housing
development by allowing residential development at higher densities, which helps to reduce per unit land
costs.
In compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(c)(1), the General Plan Land Use
Element designates a sufficient portion of land in the medium density, residential (i.e., MDR), high density
residential (i.e., HDR) and DHDR), and mixed use/commercial designations (i.e., MU and DC) to meet its
obligation to provide sites suitable for the production of needed housing affordable to very-low, low-, and
moderate income households.
The Residential Medium Density Residential (8.1 to 18.0 units per acre) designation, which allows for
attached and detached single family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes, can also
provide for low- and moderate-income housing. The High Density Residential (18.1 to 30 units per acre)
and Downtown High Density Residential (25.1 to 40 units per acre) designations allow multi-family
residential development such as apartments. These density ranges can accommodate moderate, low, and
very low-income housing needs.
Under the General Plan, there is a total capacity of 1,399 housing units (at maximum density) in the
medium-high density residential, high density residential designations, mixed use, and commercial
designations that allow residential use. The number of potential high density units (i.e., 1,012 units)
provides adequate capacity to accommodate the combined needs of very low- and low-income households
(241 unit need) during the remaining 2002 to 2006 Housing Element planning period. In addition, the
number of potential medium density units (i.e., 337 units) provides adequate capacity to accommodate for
moderate-income households (263 unit need) during the remaining 2002 to 2006 Housing Element planning
period. Historically, typical developed densities in South San Francisco have been toward the high end of
the density range -- usually 80 to 90 percent of the designation' s allowable density. Therefore, it is likely
that future development will continue with this trend and build out near the maximum allowable density.
This analysis shows that there are enough sites to accommodate demand for all the remaining 504 housing
units (very low, low, and moderate) allocated by ABAG for South San Francisco.
August 12, 2002 1-57 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
5.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
In 1999, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan EIR.
The document is a Program EIR and evaluates environmental impacts resulting from implementation and
buildout of the General Plan. While the EIR identifies potentially significant impacts with full General
Plan buildout, it does not preclude, and indeed, it assumes that individual development project proposals
submitted to the City will necessitate an independent environmental assessment in accordance with CEQA
requirements. The EIR is intended to be used for citywide and cummulative impact analysis of subsequent
project proposals that are consistent with the General Plan as well as other implementation activities.
The environmental setting for Land Use, Transportation, Urban Design and Aesthetics, Air Quality, Noise,
Public Facilities and Services, Environmental Resources, Cultural Resources, and Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space are decribed in the South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues
Report (1997). This Background Report analyzes Public Services and Facilities based on General Plan
EIR.
Public services and facilities are not expected to pose a constraint on residential development within the
timeframe of the Housing Element (2002 to 2006). The following paragraphs summarize the current status
of each of those services essential to residential development.
Water
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula District
(CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San
Francisco's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water
allocation among these communities. The Company's current contract with the San Francisco Water
Department (SFWD) entitles the city to 42.3 mgd per year. An additional 1.4 mgd can be pumped from
groundwater. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of 1-280, an area not targeted
for growth in this Housing Element.
Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining period, the CWSC has
adequate supply to meet projected demand through the year 2020.
Wastewater
The city of South San Francisco's wastewater needs are met by the South San Francisco/San Bruno
Sewage Treatment Plant, which was constructed in the early 1970s and is jointly operated by the cities of
South San Francisco and San Bruno. The current design capacity of the treatment plant is 13 mgd and an
actual capacity of 9 mgd average dry weather flow. The plant expansion, which occurred in the fall of
1998, increased the dry-weather operational capacity to 13 mgd.
According to projections described in the 1999 General Plan, the average flow is expected to reach 13.1
mgd at buildout of the plan. Within the timeframe of this Housing Element (2006), the City expects to
have expected capacity to accommodate new residential development.
Schools
South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) operates the public schools within the city of
South San Francisco. SSFUSD operates 15 schools, including ten elementary (K-5), three middle (6-8),
Public Hearing Draft 1-58 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco
and two high schools.
Background Report
Based on Department of Finance school enrollment projections, SSFUSD will likely see a decline in
enrollment within the timeframe of this Housing Element. The District has reduced class sizes (one teacher
to 20 students) which has decreased the overall capacity of the schools. However, even with this change,
SSFUSD expects that school capacity will be sufficient to meet enrollment demands through the year 2006.
Should the SSFUSD experience enrollments exceeding capacity in the near future, the District has retained
two closed school sites to accommodate unexpected growth.
6.0 CONSTRAINTS TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
6.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
It is in the public interest for the government to regulate development to protect the general welfare of the
community. At the same time, government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing
available in a community if the regulations limit the opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements
that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or make the development process so arduous as to
discourage housing developers. State law requires housing elements to contain an analysis of the
governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, and development (Government Code,
Section 65583(a)(4)).
General Plan Land Use Controls
The City of South San Francisco's principal land use policy document is the General Plan. The City,
which updated the General Plan in October 1999, contains eight elements including: Land Use; Planning
Sub-Areas; Transportation; Parks, Public Facilities, and Services; Economic Development; Open Spaces
and Conservation; Health and Safety; and Noise. Within the Land Use and the Planning Sub Areas
Elements of the General Plan, there are six residential land use designations that allow for a range of
densities and one commercial designation that allow for higher residential densities, transit- oriented
development near transit centers, and residential units above ground floor commercial uses:
Low Density Residential: Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per
net acre. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached
single-family units are also permitted.
Medium Density Residential: Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre. Dwelling
types may include attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and
townhouses. Multi-family housing is not permitted.
High Density Residential: Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units
per net acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including single-family
attached development.
Downtown Low Density Residential: Single-family (detached or attached) residential development
with densities ranging from 5.1 to 15.0 units per acre. Multifamily development is not permitted.
Downtown Medium Density Residential: Residential development at densities ranging from 15.1 to
25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing types is permitted.
Downtown High Density Residential: Residential development at densities ranging from 25.1 to
40.0 units per acre for lots equal to or greater than ½-acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots
August 12, 2002 1-59
Public Hearing Draft
l' T m ' lII]
Background Report City of South San Francisco
smaller that '/2 acre, maximum density shall be 30.0 units per acre.
Downtown Commercial: This designation provides for a wide range of uses in the commercial core
of downtown and allows residential uses on second and upper floors only. Residential units are
subject to a use permit.
The General Plan Land Use Element outlines City policy pertaining to various land uses within the city.
The Planning Sub-Areas Element describes specific land use policies for each neighborhood, such as
transit-oriented development near the South San Francisco BART Station, the San Bruno BART Station,
and the Caltrain Station. The Element also promotes infill development, intensification, and reuse of
currently underutilized properties. As described in the vacant/underutilized land survey in Section 5.0,
there is enough vacant and underutilized land designated in the General Plan to meet South San
Francisco's fair share of regional housing as determined by ABAG.
Zoning Ordinance
Zoning is one of the most important tools used to implement the policies and programs of the General Plan.
Zoning establishes location and density constraints consistent with the General Plan and guides residential uses
away from incompatible uses and environmental hazards and conflicts.
Zoning can also create opportunities for housing, particularly affordable housing, to be developed with the use
of mechanisms such as density bonuses and inclusionary housing requirements. Thus, zoning is not inherently
a constraint to housing development.
South San Francisco has four residential zoning districts: R-E (Rural Estates), R-1 (Single-Family Residential),
R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (Multi-Family Residential). In addition, residential uses are
allowed in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village District, the Downtown Commercial District, and
the City's commercial, industrial, and open space zoning districts, subject to conditional use permit approval.
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance since adoption of the General Plan in 1999 include the South San
Francisco BART Transit Village District, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Density Bonus
Ordinance. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is described in detail in Section 8.0 of this report.
However, the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance will need to be amended to be consistent with the 1999
General Plan and the 2002 Housing Element. Specific Zoning Ordinance provisions that affect residential uses
are discussed below.
On-Site Zoning Requirements and Specifications
The Zoning Ordinance establishes setback requirements for structures in each residential zoning district (see
Table 1-36). In addition, the Zoning Ordinance employs a system of "density designators," whereby the
maximum residential density allowed in each zoning district is indicated by an additional one-letter designation
on the City's zoning map. In 1999, the City Council adopted the General Plan which establishes higher density
indicators than the 1985 Zoning Ordinance. The City Council, after reviewing the need for new incentives to
encourage infill development, adopted higher densities in order promote new high-density housing and mixed
use development in the Downtown area and older residential neighborhoods with very small lots. Table 1-37
shows the General Plan densities for all land use classifications. Tablc 1-37 illustrates thc l angc of possible
dcnsitics allowed by this dcsignatieaa systcm. Table 1-38 shows the parking requirements for residential uses
established in the Zoning Ordinance.
Public Hearing Draft
1-60 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-36
FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REGULATIONS
City of South San Francisco
Minimum Yard Dimensions* (in feet)
Zoning District Front Side Rear
R-I 15 5 20
R-2 25 $ 20
R-3 15 $ 10-11.5
C-1 15 0-10 0
D-C 0 0 0
*Ali yard requirements subject to additional conditions and terms stated in Zoning Ordinance text.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Table 20.71.030.
The 1999 General Plan calls for the development of the BART Station area as a "vital pedestrian-oriented
center," with intensity and a mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. The City
implemented this goal through the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan. The Transit Village Plan
is an area plan that includes zoning standards, design guidelines, and implementation recommendations to
realize this vision. Some of the development standards for the Transit Village Plan are identified in Table 1-37.
South San Francisco's zoning regulations for setbacks and parking are comparable to those in most other
Peninsula cities, and parking requirements for senior housing and downtown residential uses are lower. Zoning
regulations are not a constraint to housing development in South San Francisco.
August 12, 2002 1-61 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 11-37
ZONINC DENSITY RECULATIONS
City of South ,Can I'lancisco
Dcsi~.ator
Density
(Maximu-, U.its t, er Net Acre)
Maxi..u.. Site Al ea Per Dw.elli.g
Unit (square feet)
+
6
8-.-.9
H -l-b
i' 17.5
:3 4.O
~ 4-3
· I: 21.8-30
Note: All density rcquircmcnts subject to additiemal conditicms and tc,,its stated in Zoning Ordinance text.
1,t52-2,000
Public Hearing Draft
1-62
August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-37
STANDARDS FOR DENSITYAND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
City of South San Francisco
Land Use
Desit, nation
Residential Densitw
Units/net acres)
Maximum Maximum
Maximum Permitted with Permitted with
Permitted FAR Incentives and Incentives and
Bonuses Bonuses
Units/Net FAR (see Table
Acres 2.2-2
Residential
Low Density
up to 8.0 0.._~5 10.0
Medium Density
8.1 -18.0 1.0 22.5
High Density
18.1-30.0 37.5
Downtown
Commercial
15.0 3.~0
Downtown
Residential
Low Density
5.1-15.0 0.7 15.0
Medium Density
15.1-25.0 ! .25 31.3
High Density
25.1-40.0 - 50.0
Office
Commercial
Community
Commercial
Business Commercial
(hotel)
Coastal Commercial
Industrial
Business and
Technoloev Park
Mixed Industrial - 0._~.4 - 0.t5
lncludin[ garages for residential development, but excluding parkin[ structures for non-residential development.
20 percent density bonus is available for development within tA-mile of a fixed gui&way transit (Caltrain, BART station, or
Cit~ designated ferry terminal).
25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities
desi[ned for residents, or housin~ that meets community design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
Residential uses may be permitted on second and upr~er floors only and are subject to a use permit.
Required parking must be structured.
Permitted for research and development uses with Iow employment intensity, or other uses providin~ structured parking.
Permitted for uses with Iow em~lownent intensity, such as wholesalin[, warehousing, and distribution.
Source: South San Francisco General Plan
August 12, 2002 1-63 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-38
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
City of South San Francisco
Residential Use Type
One-, two- and three-unit dwellings.
Parking Requirement
2 spaces (1 enclosed) per unit for dwellings with fewer than
five bedrooms and less than 2,500 square feet in size.
Multi-family projects with four or more units.
Single family and townhouse units in planned
developments.
Group residential uses, residential hotels.
Senior citizen residential.
Family residential uses in Downtown Commercial District,
and building with 4 or fewer units (1 bedrooms units with
800 square feet or less and/or studio units with 500 square
feet or less).
3 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit with five or more bedrooms,
or for any dwelling unit with a gross floor area of 2,500
square feet or greater.
2 spaces per unit (with at least one space covered), plus one
guest space per every four units.
2.25 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit if project has driveway
aprons at least 18 feet long. Otherwise, 4.25 spaces (2
enclosed) per unit.
I space for each sleeping room.
0.50 space to 1.25 spaces per unit (to be determined by
Planning Commission).
1 covered space per unit plus 0.25 uncovered space per unit
for guest parking.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.040.
Public Hearing Draft
1-64
August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-39
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BART TRANSIT
VILLAGE DISTRICT
City of South San Francisco
Standards TV-RM* I TV-RH*
Building Scale-Intensity of Use
Minimum Lot Size (sq. feet) 5,000 5,000
Minimum Site Area per Unit (sq. feet) 1,500 1,000
Maximum Density (units per sq. acre) 30 50
Maximum Non-residential FAR 0.75 1.0
Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 75 75
Building Form and Location
Minimum Yard (feet)
Front Varies
Side 5 5
Street Side 10 10
Rear yes yes
Vehicle Accommodations-Driveways and Parkways
Location of Parking
Percent Allowable of parking - 20
podium visible from Principle
Street.
Required distance (feet) behind building 20 20
facade
*Transit Village Residential Medium Density
** Transit Village Residential High Density
Source: South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, June 2001.
Density Bonus
In December 2001, the South San Francisco City Council adopted a Residential Density Bonus Ordinance
along with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City adopted the Density Bonus Ordinance to provide
incentives for developers for the production of housing affordable to lower-income households. The
Density Bonus Ordinance allows a density bonus of up to 25 percent for housing developments that include
affordable units, assuming build out at the maximum density is allowed for that site. Greater densities may
be considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis; however, projects may be subject to further
environmental review.
August 12, 2002 1-65 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Secondary Units
The Zoning Ordinance permits secondary living units in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Medium
Density Residential), R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), and D-C (Downtown Commercial) zoning districts,
subject to use permit approval.
The Ordinance (Section 20.79.020) allows one residential second unit on any parcel or lot that has one
existing single-family detached dwelling unit. Second units are required to be within or attached to the
existing single family unit and can be no larger than 640 square feet. Secondary units also are required to
have one off-street parking space and comply with minimum housing code requirements. Since adoption of
the Second Unit Ordinance in 1983, only two applications for a second unit have been approved.
Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing can provide quality housing at a reasonable price. The recent trend in State
legislation has been to encourage homeowners to place and finance manufactured homes on single-family
lots. As a result, mobile homes as well as factory-built housing may now be taxed as real estate and may
be set on permanent foundations, in common with conventional site-built housing.
California SB 1960 (1981) prohibited local jurisdictions from excluding manufactured homes from all lots
zoned for single-family dwellings; in other words, limiting the location of these homes to mobile home
parks is forbidden. However, SB 1960 does allow the local jurisdiction to designate certain single-family
lots for manufactured homes based on compatibility for this type of use.
The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance allows manufactured housing in all zoning districts
where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted. The regulations state that "a design review
approval...shall be required for all manufactured homes on residential lots, provided that the scope of
review shall be limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material. Manufactured homes on
residential lots shall be treated in this title the same as single-family dwellings in all other respects" (Zoning
Ordinance Sections 20.14.040 through 20.34.040).
The City's zoning is thus not a constraint to manufactured housing, although the demand for such units in
South San Francisco seems to be very limited.
Emercjency Shelters and Transitional Housincl
The City has made significant efforts in not only accommodating emergency shelters and transitional
housing within the city in terms of land use regulations, but also in financially supporting these uses
The City's Zoning Ordinance allows transitional housing in the Downtown Commercial (DC) district and
emergency shelters in the Industrial District (M-1). Currently (July 2002), the City has 249 SROs in the
Downtown area and supports several non-profit organizations that provide shelter for the homeless (i.e.,
SAFE Harbor) and provide services (e.g., St. Vincent de Paul Society, Human Investment Program (HIP),
and North Peninsula Neighborhood Service Center).
The City's financial contributions include $102,000 for construction of Safe Harbor with $7,000 for
operating funds and $25,000 for the HIP program from Redevelopment Agency. The City also provides
funding to the following: $14,000 to the Shelter Network: $10,000 to Family Crossroads which supports
ten families with children a year: and the Maple Street Shelter which provides transitional housing.
Public Hearing Draft
1-66 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was adopted in December 2001. Since adoption, the City has
continued to process permit applications for high-density residential developments. Residential developers
prefer to provide below market rate units in their projects (e.g., the Marbella project is providing 25 percent
of the total units at below market rate) rather than paying in-lieu fees. If the developer is unable to finance
the project due to the affordability requirement, City staff would facilitate an agreement between the
developer and the non-profit residential developers, such as Bridge Housing, to build the market rate and
affordable compOnents of the project.
In 2001 and 2002, the City approved 280 units (with 25 percent of the units for low and moderate
households) and 15 units (with 4 units for low and moderate households) high-density residential housing.
The City is currently (July 2002) reviewing Fairfield Development's proposal to construct 350 units (with
20 percent of the units for low and moderate households) and is working with the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission to rezone ten-acres for approximately 400 units (with 20 percent of the units for low
and moderate households).
During the Inclusionary Housing review process, both Bridge Housing and Mid Peninsula Housing,
non-profit housing developers, indicated to the City Council that 100 percent affordable housing projects
could be built in the San Francisco Bay Area. Other private developers, Marbella and Fairfield, support the
inclusionary requirement due to the high housing demand and thus high home sales prices in South San
Francisco. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has told the City of South San Francisco that
they have contacted private developers who are willing to build housing with 20 percent affordable
units. Only KB Homes and Phillip Serna from the Home Builders Association opposed any form of
inclusionary housing requirements on private residential developers.
Persons with Disabilities
The following describes the City's current (June 2002) regulations and practices for accommodating
persons with disabilities:
The City reviews development plans to assure consistency with State handicap and accessibility
laws.
The City also required ADA accessibility in the following affordable residential projects: 1)
Metropolitan Hotel (67 units) - the SRO rehabilitation project includes wheelchair access: 2)
Greenridge (34 units) - the City and Mid-Peninsula Housing requires wheelchair access to each
unit and handicapped parking near key common areas: and 3) Chestnut Creek Senior Housing
Project (40 units) - the project includes wheelchair access off the emergency elevator, handicapped
parking near entries.
The City provides CDBG funds to non-profit organizations to make housing units accessible to the
disabled.
The City's Uniform Building Code, which was adopted in 1998, has not been amended to
accommodate persons with disabilities.
The City has not officially adopted any universal design elements to its building code: however, the
City has worked with developers to encourage such elements.
The City does not have any processes for individuals with disabilities to make requests for
reasonable accommodations with respect to zoning, permit processing, or building laws.
August 12, 2002 1-67 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Group Homes/Residential Care Facilities
The Zoning Ordinance identifies two types of group homes: special residential care facility and residential
care facilities for elderly. A special residential care facility is a State authorized, certified, or licensed
family care home. foster home, or group home serving six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise
handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children, when such home provides care on a
twenty-four-hour a day basis. Residential care facilities for elderly are group housing arrangements,
licensed by the state Department of Social Services. serving seven or more persons, chosen voluntarily by
residents who are over sixty-two years of age and who are provided varying levels of support service or
care. but not skilled nursing.
The permit requirements for group homes are detailed below in Table 1-40. Special residential care
facilities are allowed by right in all residential districts and conditionally permitted in commercial and
industrial districts, while residential care facilities require a conditional use permit in residential.
commercial, and industrial districts.
Public Hearing Draft
1-68 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-40
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP HOMES
City of South San Francisco Zonino Ordinance
Zonin~ District
Group Home Type
RI[ R-I R-2 R-~3 C-I D-C M-I P-._.[
Soecial residential care P P P P CUP CUP N__p.P CU...~.P
facility
Residential care N__P_P N._~.P CUP* CUP CUP CUP CUP CU__.~P
facilities for elderly
P = Permitted
CUP = Conditional Use Permit
NP = Not Permitted
*A use permit oursuant to Chapter 20.81 shall be required for any residential care facility for the elderly servine seven to
twelve residents. Residential care facilities for the elderly shall provide a minimum of four oarkine spaces, two of which
must be in an enclosed earage. The following minimum standards must be met:
(1) The facility shall not be located within an eieht-hundred-foot radius of any other licensed residential care facility for
the elderly.
(2) No sienaee shall be allowed.
(3) A minimum lot size of six thousand square feet is required.
(4) A minimum of twenty percent of the lot area shall be devoted to usable open space for the facility's residents.
(5) The site shall be conveniently located to access services for the facility's residents such as transit, medical services.
shopping and recreational facilities.
(6) Any new construction shall be designed to maintain the residential character of the surroundine neighborhood.
(7) The maximum number of beds per lot size shall be based on a ratio of one bed oer six hundred feet of lot area. Any
fractional area of a lot shall be rounded down.
(8) Bedroom dimensions shall provide a minimum of one hundred ten square feet for single occupancy and one hundred
forty-four sauare feet for double occupancy.
Source: CiW of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance.
·
Building Codes
Building and housing codes establish minimum standards and specifications for structural soundness,
safety, and occupancy. The State Housing Law requires cities and counties to adopt minimum housing
standards based on model industry codes. In addition to meeting the requirements of State Housing Law,
local governments enforce other state requirements for fire safety, noise insulation, soils reports, earthquake
protection, energy conservation, and access for the physically handicapped. The enforcement of building
and housing codes for all homes is per the minimum standards and requirements set forth in the codes listed
in the attached table. Standards for rehabilitation are no more rigorous than those contained in the
California Health and Safety Codes and the Uniform Building Codes.
The 1998 edition of the Uniform Building Code is currently (2002) enforced in South San Francisco. The
City Building Division ensures that new residences, additions, auxiliary buildings, and other structures
meet current construction and safety standards. Building permits are required for any construction work.
August 12, 2002 1-69 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of
rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this way,
building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the amount of housing and its
affordability. However, the codes enforced by South San Francisco are similar to the codes
enforced by most other cities in the region, and are necessary to promote the minimum standards
of safety and accessibility to housing. Thus, the codes are not considered to be an undue
constraint on housing investment.
On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements
The City of South San Francisco requires the installation of certain on-site and off-site improvements to
ensure the safety and livability of its residential neighborhoods. Many of the on-site and off-site
improvements are necessary to mitigate potential impacts from the project on adjacent neighborhoods, as
required by the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA). On-site improvements typically include
streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and utilities, and amenities such as landscaping, fencing, streetlights, open
space, and park facilities. Off-site improvements typically include the following:
Road improvements, including construction of sections of roadway, medians, bridges, sidewalks,
bicycle lanes, and lighting.
Drainage improvements, including improvement to sections of channel, culverts, swales, and pond
areas.
Sewage collection and treatment
Water systems improvements, including lines and storage tanks
Public facilities for fire, school, and recreation.
Geological hazard repair and maintenance where appropriate.
The City works with the residential developer to minimize on-site and off-site improvement costs by
applying for outside funding sources in order to provide incentives for developers to build affordable units.
The funding sources include MTC Transportation for Livable Communities grants, Safe Routes to
Schools, Housing Incentive Program funding, redevelopment funding, and various federal grants.
City Permit Processing and Fees
Permit Process
In 1999, the City of South San Francisco established a "One-Stop Shop" permit processing center. The
Center's objective is to provide the applicant with a clear understanding of what is involved in the
development and building permit application procedure, process applications as quickly as possible, and
supply the Planning Commissioners and the City Council members with complete and accurate
information.
The City also complies with the Permit Streamlining Act and has worked with SAMCEDA (Sam Mateo
County Economic Development Agency) to develop countywide processing standards.
Most planning applications follow a similar process. The following outlines the steps needed for a permit
applicant.
Pre-Application Meeting ~ When the project applicant has a plan of the existing site conditions but
before the applicant has developed detailed architectural and planning drawings, the applicant can
meet with City staff to discuss what the applicant can expect during the review and approval process.
Public Hearing Draft
1-70 August 12, 2002
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of
rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this way,
building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the amount of housing and its
affordability. However, the codes enforced by South San Francisco are similar to the codes
enforced by most other cities in the region, and are necessary to promote the minimum standards
of safety and accessibility to housing. Thus, the codes are not considered to be an undue
constraint on housing investment.
On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements
The City of South San Francisco requires the installation of certain on-site and off-site improvements to
ensure the safety and livability of its residential neighborhoods. Many of the on-site and off-site
improvements are necessary to mitigate potential impacts from the project on adjacent neighborhoods, as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On-site improvements typically include
streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and utilities, and amenities such as landscaping, fencing, streetlights, open
space, and park facilities. Off-site improvements typically include the following:
Road improvements, including construction of sections of roadway, medians, bridges, sidewalks, .
bicycle lanes, and lighting.
Drainage improvements, including improvement to sections of channel, culverts, swales, and pond
areas.
Sewage collection and treatment
Water systems improvements, including lines and storage tanks
Public facilities for fire, school, and recreation.
Geological hazard repair and maintenance where appropriate.
The City works with the residential developer to minimize on-site and off-site improvement costs by
applying for outside funding sources in order to provide incentives for developers to build affordable units.
The funding sources include MTC Transportation for Livable Communities grants, Safe Routes to
Schools. Housing Incentive Program funding, redevelopment funding, and various federal grants.
City Permit Processing and Fees
Permit Process
In 1999, the City of South San Francisco established a "One-Stop Shop" permit processing center. The
Center's objective is to provide the applicant with a clear understanding of what is involved in the
development and building permit application procedure, process applications as quickly as possible, and
supply the Planning Commissioners and the City Council members with complete and accurate
information.
The City also complies with the Permit Streamlining Act and has worked with SAMCEDA (Sam Mateo
County Economic Development Agency) to develop countywide processing standards.
Most planning applications follow a similar process. The following outlines the steps needed for a permit
applicant.
Pre-Application Meeting ~ When the project applicant has a plan of the existing site conditions but
before the applicant has developed detailed architectural and planning drawings, the applicant can
meet with City staff to discuss what the applicant can expect during the review and approval process.
Public Hearing Draft 1-70 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
[] Application Submittal ~ Applications may be submitted at any time but the deadline for each
planning cycle is always the first Friday of each month.
Design Review Board-- Most applications require review by the Design Review Board (DRB). This
is a panel composed of lay and professional community members who provide recommendations to the
Chief Planner and the Planning Commission regarding the project's site planning, building design, and
landscaping.
Application Completeness -- After the DRB meeting and a review by Planning staff, a letter may be
sent to the applicant describing new information, or corrections to their plans, that they may need to
submit to the Planning Division in order to complete their application. If they do not receive this letter
within thirty days after their submittal, they may assume that your application is complete.
Environmental Determination ~ Normally, within the thirty day period after the application is
accepted as complete Planning staff will review the application to determine what category of the
State's environmental regulation (i.e., California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)) apply to the
project. In some cases additional studies will be required to meet CEQA objectives. A Planner will
contact the applicant if the project requires further study. These studies will be prepared in the form of
either a "Negative Declaration" or an "Environmental Impact Report."
Public Notice ~ At least ten days before the Planning Commission reviews the project, the City sends
out a notice of a Public Hearing to property owners within a three-hundred foot radius surrounding
your project site. The notice, which is published in the San Mateo Times and mailed to the property
owners, describes the project and announces the hearing date.
Planning Commission Meeting- The Planning Commission holds public hearings at the Municipal
Services Building on the first and third Thursday of each month. Items are normally scheduled for the
public hearing six to eight weeks after the application has been accepted as complete. During the
hearing, Planning staff will present their report and recommendation to the Commission. Applicants
and their representatives also have an opportunity to make a presentation in support of your project.
[] Notice of Action ~ About a week after the Commission's action, the applicant receives by mail a
written statement of the Commission's action and the conditions of approval.
Appeal ~ Following the Commission's action, there is a fifteen day period during which anyone may
appeal all or any portion of the action to the City Council. During this appeal period, the City may not
take any further actions regarding the project, including issuing building permits.
Both single family and multi-family residential projects must go through a discretionary review process. As
noted above and illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. the City of South San Francisco uses the "One-Stop Shop
Permit Center" model to "fast track" development applications. City Staff incorporates the Design Review
Board meeting and the CEOA process into a compact review period. As noted above. City Staff provides
technical support to help the applicant prepare the application, prepare for the Design Review Board
meeting, and to comply with State mandated requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Where appropriate, the City self-finances the General Plan and zoning amendments to create the
conditions that would encourage new residential development.
The following projects benefited from the City's efforts and technical support. In 2001-2002, the City
processed the 280-unit Marbella Housing project (approved in 2002) on a previously undevelopable site
(due to the steep slope). With City technical assistance, the developer was able to provided twenty-five
percent below market rate units. Currently, City staff is assisting an applicant, Fairfield Development, to
August 12, 2002 1-71 Public Hearing Draft
FIGURE 2
Developer ~epares the
required plans & s~t.udies for
City review. Developer meets
with City s~fl to draft the
Affordable HouSing
Agmemer~ Childcare
Agreement, and Develo, pment
Agmemem
Planning Staff
coordinates schedule
and works with. Building,:
Police, Fire &
Engineering Staffs
Enlillemen'! Review Process
~ - ~ e~nd determines SChedule
Signed Application
Housing Agreement
Application fees
City Attorney Deposit
35-sets 11 x 17 plans {folded)
8-sets 24. x 32 iplans (folded)
Draft traffic study & other
related studies
-- .....
Final traff:m study & other i:i cW $~ pre. res
related studies for the ~ ...................... the CEQA
CEQA document fo~ City Document
Representative (Peter) ..................... distfibulion
.... ,..,:>:,: '.: ~"
Developer & A~chit~ team
~esents pro,eot to- the
Desig~n Renew Board
~lsnning Staff
~ep~ a
Z~
0~-
~0
Z
Background Report City of South San Francisco
construct a 350-unit apartment complex (including twenty percent below market rate units) in the Transit
Village District. The City's technical assistance is designed to fast-track the project through the review
process. City staff provides technical assistance, coordinate meetings and tours, disseminate information.
prepared the appropriate data for project approval.
In anticipation of high-density development in the Transit Village area, the City rezoned the area from
Commercial to mixed-use high-density residential and commercial. Beyond technical assistance to the
developer, the City prepared the necessary zoning and development standards on the sites in anticipation of
the mixed use project at its own expense. In 2001, the'City initiated its own (self financed process) process
to rezone several parcels near the South San Francisco BART station from commercial to mixed-use
residential with local serving commercial. The nine-month process included 1) hiring a urban design
consultant to prepare development standards and housing prototypes for the sites at taxpayers expense, 2)
preparing the master environmental document for adoption, 3) holding three study sessions and two
community meetings with local officials and neighborhoods, 4) organizing a Planning Commission/Design
Review Board/property owners Stakeholder Committee to review the plans and alternatives, and 5)
adopting a Transit Village Zoning District before the applicant was ready to submit an application.
Following adoption of the Zoning Amendment, City staff prepared a Request for Proposals, for the
property owner, to both private and non-profit developers. Prior to the sale of the site from previous
property owner, the City met with all the potential applicants to analyze methods to provide below market
rate and construct a high-quality project on the site. City staff also consulted directly with Mid-Peninsula
Housing (a non-profit housing provider) to determine specific construction costs, parking standards, and
appropriate unit sizes (for the targeted families) to make the projects work. If the potential private
developer could not afford the below market rate units, the non-profit providers were willing to build those
units on each site and let the private developer build the market rate units. In both cases, the private
developer chose to build the below market rate units on their own.
Since the City provided the necessary conditions to proceed with the development, the applicant will be
required to provide plans and complete the Environmental Checklist for Planning Commission approval.
According to Figure 4, the City anticipates that the Fairfield Housing project will take approximately 95
days from application submittal to Planning Commission public hearing.
Design Review
As in most cities in California. the City of South San Francisco's Design Review process is designed to
assist applicants, by providing specific physical design and landscaping comments, while anticipating
community concerns prior to presenting the project to the Planning Commission or City Council.
The Design Review Board reviews design review applications within the existing review period: the Board
does not hinder or extend the application review process. Applicants provide site plans, elevation drawings
and landscaping plans for comment during a noticed public meeting. The Board then makes
recommendations to the Planning Commission and Chief Planner in accordance with the Design Review
Guidelines.
The Planning Commission has design review authority for all projects requiring Planning Commission
approval (such as PUD permits, use permits and variances) and all new commercial, office and multifamily
developments. The Commission considers the Design Review Board's recommendations and can approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove the application. In practice, the Design Review process has been not
used to deny projects or reduce the overall density of the project. The Design Review process is part of the
application process and has not added additional costs, fees, or time on the applicant.
Public Hearing Draft 1-72 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Permit Processing Fees
Project application fees, permit fees, and developer fees add to housing development costs. Several fees
apply to housing developments. These include: 1) fees charged by the planning department for processing
use permits, zoning amendments and variances, tentative subdivision maps, design and environmental
review, and appeals; 2) fees levied by the Building and Public Works Departments for plan checks and
inspections; 3) fees charged for City-provided utility connections such as sewer and water; and 4) fees for
infrastructure improvements, schools, roads and public transit, parks and recreation, police and fire
services, and affordable housing funds. Whereas the first three fee categories have been enforced by local
governments for many years, the fourth category, often called growth fees, have been instituted recently to
offset the costs of new development.
State law requires that local permit processing fees charged by local govemments must not exceed the
estimated actual cost of processing the permits. Table 1-40 lists the fees that the City charges for
processing various land use permits based on the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule.
The City has not increased fees for all development applications since the early 1990s. The City charges a
flat fee for development applications and does not use a cost recovery method for any project. In 1997. the
City analyzed its comparative cost of doing business in the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning
Issues Report.
Permit Processing Times
The time required to process residential project applications depends on the size and scope of the project.
· Any delays in processing can ultimately result in added costs to a housing project. While the City of South
San Francisco has a reputation for rapidly processing development applications, some delays can occur
that are outside the control of the city. Delays in processing can occur if environmental review, pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires an EIR to be prepared. At times, approval
from State or other agencies may also be required for certain types of projects. Overall, project processing
is not a constraint on the development of housing in South San Francisco.
August 12, 2002 1-73 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-41
PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE
City of South San Francisco
2001- 2002
Type
Planned Unit Development
Use Permit
Amount
$650.00
$650.00
Use Permit Modification
$350.00
Minor Use Permit
$100.00
Zoning Amendment (Text)
Specific Plan
Variance
$600.00
$2,000.00
$385.00
General Plan Amendments
$650.00
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Negative Declaration
Tentative Subdivision Map
Final Subdivision Map
Tentative Parcel Map
Consultant Contract, plus $900.00 or
5% of the contract amount, whichever
is greatest.
Consultant Contract, plus $75.00
$500.00 plus $25.00 for each lot or
dwelling unit.
$500.00 plus $50.00 for each lot or
dwelling unit
$500.00 plus $25.00 per lot or dwelling
unit
Final Parcel Map $500.00
Source: City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule, 2001-2002
6.2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL/MARKET CONSTRAINTS
All resources needed to develop housing in South San Francisco are subject to the laws of supply and
demand, meaning that these resources may not always be available at prices which make housing
development attractive. Thus, cost factors are the primary non-governmental constraints upon development
of housing in South San Francisco. This is particularly true in the case of housing for low- and
moderate-income households, where basic development cost factors such as the cost of land, required site
improvements, and basic construction, are critical in determining the income a household must have in
order to afford housing.
Public Hearing Draft
1-74 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Land Costs
Land costs in the Bay Area have been increasing since World War II as a result of inflation, increased
immigration, and decreasing land supply. Clearly, rising land costs have constrained the development of
affordable housing. This cost increase has an adverse effect on the ability of households, particularly low-
and moderate-income households, to pay for housing.
Costs associated with the acquisition of land include the market price of raw land and the cost of holding
land throughout the development process. These costs can range from about 15 percent of the final sales
price of new homes to nearly half in very small developments or in areas where land is scarce. Among the
variables affecting the cost of land are its location, its amenities, the availability of public services, and the
financing arrangements made between the buyer and seller. As South San Francisco gets closer to full
build-out of its developable land, land costs will likely increase significantly.
Raw land in South San Francisco has been estimated to be worth approximately $248,000 per acre, or
about $183,000 for a typical improved single-family lot. Smaller infill parcels with services available
would be worth up to 25 percent more depending on their location. In addition to the cost of the raw land,
new housing prices are influenced by the cost of holding land while development permits are processed..
The shorter the period of time that it takes a local government to process applications for building, the
lesser the effect inflation will have on the cost of construction and labor. Permit processing times are
discussed earlier in this chapter in the context of governmental constraints on the development of affordable
housing.
Construction Costs
Table 1-42 presents a hypothetical composite of all the associated costs that contribute to the final cost of a
typical single-family home (i.e., 2,000 square-feet, 3-bedroom home on a 4,000 square-foot lot) in South
San Francisco. It should be noted that the totals in Table 1-42 represent a likely scenario and that the
actual development costs will vary with the size, quality, and location of the development.
TABLE 1-42
August 12, 2002
TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY
HOME COST COMPONENTS
South San Francisco
January 2002
Cost Item
Construction Costs
Construction Loan lnterest
Land Cost
Land Financing
Permits and Fees
Developer Profit and Marketing (20%)
Total Cost
Amount
$216,000
$5,000
$183,000
$7,000
$20,000
$86,200
$517,200
Source: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates; Standard Builders, January 2002.
1-75
Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Cost and Availability of Financing
In the early 1990s there was much discussion in the regional and national press of a "credit-crunch" that
made it difficult for developers to obtain financing for new real estate projects. In fact, financial institutions
did reduce lending activity in response to more stringent regulations. However, these reforms addressed
lending abuses associated primarily with very risky projects which were conceived with little relation to
project economics and underlying market conditions. Bankers and regulators assert that financing is
currently available for well-planned projects that are financially sound and target a demonstrated market
demand. One current aspect of financing that does differ from the early 1990s is that lending institutions
generally require greater contributions of equity from developers to ensure that developers share in the risk
of the project by committing their own money. In this respect, financing is less likely to be available to
developers who are not financially sound and lack the appropriate contribution of their own capital.
For credit-worthy projects, residential construction loan rates in the early 2000s are at relatively low due to
the low inflation levels that have prevailed over the last several years. Expectations of continued low
inflation should help to keep financing rates at reasonable levels for the remainder of the Housing Element
planning period. This is a benefit to home builders, who can take advantage of the interest savings on
construction financing to reduce their overall cost to develop new housing.
Public Hearing Draft
1-76 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco
Background Report
7.0
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
State Housing Element Law requires an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential
development. Energy efficiency has direct application to affordable housing because the more money spent
on energy, the less available for rent or mortgage payments. High energy costs have particularly
detrimental effects on low-income households that do not have enough income or cash reserves to absorb
cost increases and many times they must choose between basic needs such as shelter, food, and energy.
Energy price fluctuations in the late 1990s, and energy price increases in early 2001 combined with rolling
electricity blackouts have led to a renewed interest in energy conservation. The City of South San Francisco
receives both electricity and natural gas services from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code
of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These
regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 1998 (effective date of July 1, 1999).
Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process. All
new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is
made.
The California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66473-66498) allows local governments
to provide for solar access as follows:
66475.3. For divisions of land for which a tentative map is required pursuant to Section 66426, the
legislative body of a city or county may by ordinance require, as a condition of the approval of a
tentative map, the dedication of easements for the purpose of assuring that each parcel or unit in
the subdivision for which approval is sought shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent
parcels or units in the subdivision for which approval is sought for any solar energy system,
provided that such ordinance contains all of the following:
(1) Specifies the standards for determining the exact dimensions and locations of such
easements.
(2) Specifies any restrictions on vegetation, buildings and other objects which would
obstruct the passage of sunlight through the easement.
(3) Specifies the terms or conditions, if any, under which an easement may be revised or
terminated.
(4) Specifies that in establishing such easements consideration shall be given to
feasibility, contour, configuration of the parcel to be divided, and cost, and that such
easements shall not result in reducing allowable densities or the percentage of a lot
which may be occupied by a building or a structure under applicable planning and
zoning in force at the time such tentative map is filed.
(5) Specifies that the ordinance is not applicable to condominium projects which consist
of the subdivision of airspace in an existing building where no new structures are added.
The City of South San Francisco recognizes the need for greater energy efficiency in both existing dwelling
units and in new construction. The existing City of South San Francisco Housing Element contains one
policy (5.E) and two implementation programs (5E-1 and 5E-2) under Goal E related to energy
conservation:
Policy SE. Foster efforts to conserve energy in residential structures.
August 12, 2002 1-77
Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Action 5E-I
Continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for residential
buildings (e.g., brochures and other information). The City promotes the use of
passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential buildings. It
will continue to ensure that State residential energy conservation building
standards are met.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City Budget
Quantified Objective: State Standards enforced in all new construction.
Action 5E-2 Assist energy and water conserving modifications in existing residential buildings. The
CDBG division will work with Neighborhood Services and PG&E to provide winterization and
minor repairs.
Responsibility of.'CDBG Division
Time Frame:On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: ten units annually.
The 1999 General Plan does not contain any policies or programs that address energy efficiency.
Public Hearing Draft
1-78
August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
8.0 CURRENT AND PAST HOUSING PROGRAMS IN SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO
8.1 CURRENT PROGRAMS
The City of South San Francisco utilizes local, State, and Federal funds to implement its housing strategy.
Because of the high cost of new construction, more than one source of public funds is required to construct
an affordable housing development. The City does not act as a developer in the production of affordable
units, but relies upon the private sector or NGOs to develop new units with the assistance of these various
funding sources.
The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is the primary source of housing funds for the city's
housing programs. According to current Five Year Implementation Plan, the City is expected to have
approximately $7 million in housing set-aside funds that will be available to support affordable housing
activities within the City over the five-year period (FY2000 - FY 2004). The Agency anticipates using the
majority of these funds for the Willow Gardens acquisition and rehabilitation project and for the Chestnut
Senior Housing Project. The major housing programs included in the Agency's Five Year Plan are as
follows:
· Program #1: Encourage the development of affordable housing.~
· Program #2: Provide housing opportunities and support services for very low-income renters
and persons with special needs.
· Program #3: Provide services-enriched shelter and transitional housing for homeless persons
and families and prevent households at-risk from becoming homeless.
· Program//4: Provide opportunities for low and moderate-income homeowners to maintain and
repair their homes and promote neighborhood revitalization.
· Program #5: Provide homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers earning less than
120 percent of income.
During the past five years, the City has used housing set-aside funds for the following projects:
· Metropolitan Hotel - This hotel, consisting of 66 SRO units, was rehabilitated with a
combination of housing set-aside funds ($853,000) and HOME funds ($430,000).
· Grand Hotel - The City provided $900,000 in redevelopment funds for substantial
rehabilitation and seismic upgrade of this hotel (16 SRO units), which opened in early 1999.
Greenridge Housing - This project of 34 townhouse units for very low-income residents
developed by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition was completed in 1999. The Agency required
Greystone Homes, the developer of the McClellan single family home site, to provide one acre
of land for the development of affordable housing units to meet the Agency's housing
production requirement. The Agency committed $940,000 of housing set-aside funds for this
development.
August 12, 2002
1-79
Public Hearing Draft
r [] TIll
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Commercial Avenue Duplexes - Four units at 339-341 Commercial Avenue were acquired and
rehabilitated for very low-income households. Funding included housing set-aside funds
($107,500), CDBG ($430,000), and HOME ($322,500).
The City currently (January 2002) operates a number of housing programs. These are summarized in
Table I43 and include the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, the Minor Repair Program, and the
Voucher Program for housing repairs, which are funded with CDBG and/or housing set-aside funds.
TABLE 1-43
Housing Programs
Housing
Rehabilitation Loan
Program
Emergency Code
Violation Vouchers
Window Bar
Replacement
Vouchers
Debris Box Vouchers
Minor Home Repair
(House Helpers)
Transitional Housing
HIP (Human
Investment Project)
Housing
Center for
Independence of the
Disabled - Housing
Accessibility Program
HOUSING PROGRAMS
City of South San Francisco
Funding Target Group # of Households
Source Benefits Assisted
CDBG Low and Provides low-interest and/or Funding available to
moderate-income deferred loans for housing repairs, assist 3 to 5 per year.
households Maximum loan is $25,000.
CDBG Low-income Provides homeowners a grant of up Funding available to
households to $2,500 to clear up code assist 12 per year.
violations in their homes.
CDBG Low-income Provides grants to owners to replace As needed
households dangerous fixed window bars that
prevent exit from a building.
CDBG Low and Helps residents remove Funding available to
moderate-income accumulated debris and yard waste assist 10 per year.
households in the from their properties.
CDBG target
area
CDBG Low-income Provides home repairs such as roof Funding available to
homeowners and gutter repairs, water heater assist 50 per year.
replacement and installation of
security devices free of charge. The
program is administered by the
North Peninsula Neighborhood
Services Center.
RDA funds
RDA funds
CDBG
Very low and Shelter-Network (Crossroads and Funding available to
Iow-income Maple Street) provides two to four serve 30 families
homeless months of transitional housing and annually at the two
families comprehensive support services, shelters.
Very low and Offers affordable housing services HIP is expected to
low-income including a home equity conversion provide referrals to 80
homeless program for seniors, shared housing households during the
families referrals and a homeless prevention year.
program.
Very low and
Iow-income
households
Helps eliminate architectural
barriers and provides modifications
such as grab bars to make homes
safer and more accessible for
persons with disabilities and/or frail
elderly.
Funding available to
assist 30 per year.
Public Hearing Draft 1-80 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-43
HOUSING PROGRAMS
City of South San Francisco
Housing Programs
Fair Housing
Counseling
Funding
Source
HOME
Target Group
Primarily low
and
moderate-income
households
Benefits
Project Sentinel and La Raza
Centro Legal provide fair housing
education and counseling as well as
dispute resolution
Source: City of South San Francisco and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc., December 2001.
# of Households
Assisted
Project Sentinel is
expected to provide
casework for 12
residents
experiencing housing
discrimination and
respond to 120
telephone inquiries.
La Raza will provide
200 residents with
information and
referral, legal advice,
counseling and legal
representation.
South San Francisco residents may also benefit from programs that are administered by the San Mateo
County, such as the Section 8 Voucher Program or the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program.
HOME Investment Partnership Act Program Funds
The Urban County and the cities of Daly City and South San Francisco formed San Mateo County HOME
Consortium for the purpose of applying to HUD for HOME funds. Approximately $! .9 million in HOME
funds are allocated to the Consortium annually. All projects funded with HOME funds must be targeted to
very low and low-income households and must have permanent matching funds from non-federal resources
equal to 25 percent of the requested funds.
Section 8 Voucher Program
Rental assistance is available from the San Mateo County Housing, which administers the Section 8
Voucher Program. As of January 2002, 455 households in South San Francisco were receiving rental
assistance from this program, which is funded by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The low vacancy rate of rental housing in the county has meant that the Housing Authority
has had difficulties in getting landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. The lack of knowledge of Section 8
on the part of landlords as well as cultural barriers have also contributed. The waiting list for Section 8
has been closed since 1994, but is expected to be opened for new applications in 2002.
August 12, 2002 1-81 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program
The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (authorized via Section 25 of the IRS code) is targeted to
households whose incomes do not exceed 115 percent of area median income. This program permits public
jurisdictions to issue tax credit certificates for a portion of the mortgage interest paid by first-time
homebuyers. In this program, the buyer and the lender cover most of the direct expenses. The County
Office of Housing administers this program in the county. From 1999 through 2001, eight South San
Francisco residents participated in the MCC program.
First-Time Homebuyer Program
The City is pursuing several options to increase opportunities for first-time homebuyers in South San
Francisco. First, the City is participating in the Countywide Housing Investment Project (CHIP). This is a
consortium of several San Mateo cities, the County of San Mateo, lenders, school districts, and other
interested parties to establish a countywide first-time homebuyer program. CHIP members are working to
create a set of common loan documents pre-authorized by the lending community and are seeking
investment capital from county employers and pension funds. These funds will be used to leverage public
funds.
8.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Subsidized housing projects in South San Francisco, not including Housing Authority units, are
summarized in Table 1-44 below.
Public Hearing Draft
1-82
August 12, 2002
I--
LU 0
0__.
LLI 0
<o
OO
~U~
Public Hearing Draft 1-86 August 12, 2002
August 't 2, 200',
t-IS7
PubliC Hearing Draft
0._~
~ wo
~o
.<
Z
Z:
0
N
N
>
Public Hearing Draft
1-88
August 12, 2002
Background Report City of South San Francisco
In 1999 the first residents moved into Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition's Greenridge project, the first new
affordable housing project in the city in ten years. The project provides 34 units for very low and
low-income families, with over half of the units serving large families (three or more bedrooms). The
project was financed with redevelopment funds ($940,000) as well as tax credits. Another new
development, Chestnut Senior Housing (40 units), is expected to be available for occupancy before the end
of 2002. This project received HUD Section 202 funding and redevelopment funds ($2.7 million).
In 1998 the City initiated the Willow Gardens Revitalization Project with Mid-Peninsula Housing
Coalition. The project involves the acquisition and rehabilitation of 17 four-plex structures, or 64 units in
the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. The units will be converted to permanently
affordable housing for households at 50 to 60 percent of median income. The project leverages
redevelopment housing funds with public/private bonds and tax credits in a $14 million financial package.
Thus far (January 2002), the City and Mid-Peninsula have acquired three buildings (12 units), which are
being rehabilitated. The City will continue to acquire buildings as they become available.
The South San Francisco Housing Authority manages 80 units of public housing in the city, which serve
very low-income residents. The units, built in 1977 and 1980, include 22 one-bedroom units, 26
two-bedroom units, 26 three-bedroom units, and 6 four-bedroom units. Federal funds ($700,000) were
allocated to rehabilitate these units and bring them up to code. This work was completed in 1998. There is
a waiting list of more than 150 families. It would take a new applicant from three to five years to reach the
top of the list and have the opportunity to rent a unit.
In addition to the housing units included in Table I44, there are 249 SRO units in the city that are an
important part of the affordable housing market (see Table 1-45). SROs generally do not have either
kitchens or bathrooms within individual units. They serve as residences primarily for low- and very
low-income single people. This type of housing unit is found primarily in the downtown area. The City
has helped to upgrade and preserve this housing by providing funds for rehabilitation and seismic upgrade
of the Grand and Metropolitan Hotels. Work on both was completed in 1999. Occupancy is restricted to
very low-income persons.
Public Hearing Draft
1-86 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-45
Name
Weite's
Doon Building
Christie's
Grand Hotel (1)
Metropolitan Hotel (2)
S&L Hotel
Industrial Hotel
E1 Escape Building
Merriam Building
SUBTOTAL
Units Not on the Rental Market
Giffra Buildings
SINGLE OCCUPANCY HOTELS
City of South San Francisco
Location
254 Grand Avenue
317 Grand Avenue
309 Airport
309 Airport
220 Linden Avenue
400 Miller Avenue
505 Cypress Avenue
204-206 Grand Avenue
Corner of Airport and Grand Avenue
230 Grand Avenue
No. of Rooms
Bertolucci's Restaurant Building 421 Cypress Avenue
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
(1) Rehabilitated with City redevelopment funds ($900,000) and reopened in 1999. Restricted to very iow income until
2019.
(2) Renovation was initiated in 1993 and completed in 1999 with funding from redevelopment and HOME funds. The
units are restricted to very low income through 2029.
Source: City of South San Francisco P°lice Department, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
6
9
16
16
68
23
45
8
19
210
40 (units have not been retired for 30
years)
9
39
249
August 12, 2002 1-87
Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
Inclusionary Housing Program
In December 2001, the City Council adopted the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure that all
residential development including all master planned and specific planned communities provide a range of
housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the community, including households of
lower and moderate income. The following are the major requirements of the ordinance:
· All new housing developments in the city consisting of four or more units, must make 20
percent of those units available to and affordable to low and moderate income households;
Of that 20 percent, 12 percent (or 60 percent of inclusionary units) must be affordable to
households earning 81 to 120 percent of median income and eight percent (or 40 percent of
inclusionary units) affordable to households earning 50 to 80 percent of median income
(adjusted for family size);
· Housing Developments consisting of four to nine units may pay an in-lieu fee rather that
producing the affordable units;
· Fractional units will be subject to an in-lieu fee or the fractional unit rounded to a whole and
constructed at the developer's option;
· The in-lieu fee shall amount to the developers cost of producing the market-rate unit;
· A density bonus of up to 25 percent will be available to housing developments which include
affordable units, assuming build out at the maximum density allowed for that site;
· Housing development consisting of 10 or more units must produce the units on site; and
Alternatives to in-lieu fees and the production of the affordable units, at the sole discretion of
the City Council, may include: off-site development, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing
units, project subsidies, and/or other, to be defined.
At-Risk Units
The owners of the Skyline View Gardens, a 160-unit project that was funded under the HUD Section 236
program, prepaid the project's HUD loan in July 1996 and opted out of the program. As a result, 78
project-based Section 8 units were lost, and all of the units at the project are now market-rate.
The Califomia Housing Parmership's database lists the Fairway Apartments, a senior project with 74 units
with Section 8 subsidies, expiring July 30, 2000. However, the Section 8 contract has been extended to
July 30, 2005. According to the owner's representative, there are no plans at the present to opt out of the
program.
The estimated cost to replace these units is approximately $12.9 million as shown below. The cost to
preserve the units will depend on the potential financing arrangements. The most promising is acquisition
and rehabilitation under the tax credit program. In allocating tax credits to potential projects, the Tax
Credit Allocation Committee gives additional points to at-risk projects. A potential purchaser would
probably also request financial assistance from the City.
Public Hearing Draft
1-88 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-46
ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST OF UNITS AT FAIRWAY APARTMENTS
City of South San Francisco
I bd/lbath 2bd/l bath
Unit Size in Square Feet
600 850
Development Cost ~ $195'
Land Cost ($50 sf.) - 40 units/acre
Total Development Cost
$117,000 $165,750
54,500 54500
$171,500 $220,250
No. of Units in Fairway Apartments
Replacement Costs
70 4
$12,005,000 $881,000
Total Estimated Replacement
* Includes all costs except land
$12,886,000
Source: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
The estimated cost of continuing to subsidize the 74 assisted units at the Fairway Apartments if the Section
8 subsidy is lost is $900,000 per year based on the average monthly HUD subsidy payment under the
current Section 8 contract ($75,000). -
The City will monitor the status of projects with expiring affordability covenants and contact owners
concerning their plans to continue or opt out of the programs. As necessary, the City will identify potential
buyers and possible sources of City funding, for example housing set-aside funds, to supplement primary
sources, such as the low income tax credits. The City will refer to HCD's Internet site (www.hcd.ca.gov)
for the listing of individuals and organizations interested in the first-right-of-refusal program.
August 12, 2002 1-89 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
8.3 POTENTIAL FUNDING PROGRAMS
There are several local, State, and Federal funding programs that can be used to assist first-time
homebuyers, build affordable housing, and help special needs groups, such as seniors and large households
meet their housing needs. Because of the high cost of new construction, more than one source of funds is
almost always required to construct an affordable housing development. Funds provided may be
low-interest loans that need to be repaid, or in some instances, grants are provided that do not require
repayment.
In most cases other entities, including for-profit and non-profit developers apply for funds or other program
benefits. For example, developers apply directly to HUD for Section 202 and Section 811 loans or to the
Califomia Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for low-income tax credits. The City of South San
Francisco does not act as a developer in the production of affordable units, but relies upon the private
sector to develop new units with the assistance of these various funding sources, such as BRIDGE Housing
Corporation's Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project with $3.5 million in Section 202 funding and $2.7
million in redevelopment housing set-aside funds. The City can help sponsor grant and loan applications,
provide matching funds, or furnish land at below market cost. However, there are also programs, such as
the HOME Investment Parmership Act Program (HOME), to which the City applies directly to the San
Mateo HOME Consortium. Finally, there are a few programs, such as the Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC) Program or the Lease Purchase Program, to which individual households apply to directly.
City financial support of private sector applications for funding to outside agencies is very important.
Funding provided by the City can be used as matching funds required of some programs. Local funding is
also used for leverage. City support of private sector applications enhances the competitive advantage of
each application for funds.
h~ additkm, as mentioned abovc thc South San F. an¢isco Rcdcvclopmcnt Agency pa~ovidcs funds fm
housing and is cxpectcd to havc app~ oximatcly $2 million in availablc housing sct-asid¢ funds dui ing thc
fivc-ycar p¢liod ending in June 2004. h~ additim~, City l¢¢civcs $748,000 annually in CDBG funds, which
includcs funding for ¢onununity sct¢iccs and cco~,omi¢ dcvclopmcnt as wcll as housing activitics. Thc City
recently (OctoB¢l 2001) adol:ttcd an in¢lusiona, y housing policy, which allows fm payment of an in-licu fcc
if affordable units a~ ¢ not provided. If dcvclopcrs choosc to pay in-licu fccs they will augment file Agcncy's
housing sct-asidc and CDBG funds and in¢l casc thc City's ability to encore agc and assist affca~tabl¢
housing dcvclopmcnt.
The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is the primary source of housing funds for the City's
housing programs. The Agency is expected to have approximately nine million dollars in housing set-aside
funds available to support affordable housing activities through the end of the planning period (June 2006).
The Redevelopment Agency has one-million dollars ($1.000.000) a year in the 20 percent fund. The
Agency is considering increasing the allocation to one and one-half million dollars ($1 ~500.000). The
projects being funded with housing set-aside funds or planned include the following:
Chestnut Creek Senior Housinl~ Project. The 40-unit senior housing project is expected to be completed
before the end of 2002. The Agency is providing $3.4 million in housing set-aside funds.
Willow Gardens Acquisition and Rehabilitation. Three buildings have been acquired to date. The
Agency expects that three or four more (four units each) will be acquired during the planning period.
Redevelopment funds are being used to leverage other sources of funding. These units are targeted for
households at 50 to 60 percent of AMI.
Public Hearing Draft
1-90 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
Transitional Housing. The Agency provides approximately $60,000 annually in funding to support
transitional housin=.
-
First-Time Homebuyer Program. The Agency is planning to initiate a first-time homebuyer program with
CDBG funding and then use housing set-aside funds (up to $200,000 annually).
Affordable Housing Development Activities. One of the Agency's priorities is to assist in the development
of additional affordable housing units in the city. Redevelopment funds will be used to leverage other
funding for proposed affordable housing projects. Several projects under discussion that would be 100
percent low-income project include:
Developing approximately 50 units on the vacant site on the Oak Avenue.
Developing of a 40-unit mixed-use residential/commercial project on Grand Avenue in Downtown.
Offering to purchase two parcels to rehabilitate six units for low income households using RDA and
Home funding.
Developing up to 46-units for low-income households on a City-owned parcel on the comer of Hillside
and Linden Avenue. The Redevelopment Agency has plans to develop the site and fund the site
clean-up of the former gas station.
August 12, 2002 1-91 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
9.0 EVALUATION OF 1992 HOUSING ELEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The following section reviews and evaluates the City's progress in implementing the 1992 Housing
Element. It reviews the results and effectiveness of programs, policies, and objectives for the previous
Housing Element planning period. It also analyzes the difference between projected need and actual housing
production.
The 1992 Housing Element was intended to serve a planning period from 1991 to 1996. However, this
planning period was extended by State law to 2001.
Table 1-47 shows the total number of all housing units (single family, multi-family, and
townhomes/condos) receiving permits in the city by year from 1989 to 1999. During this period, 1,247
units were built or approved including 758 single family units, 154 multi-family units, and 335
townhomes/condos.
TABLE 1-47
ANNUAL HOUSING PRODUCTION
PREVIOUS HOUSING PERIOD
1989-1999
Year Single Family
1989-1994 193
1995-1999* 565
TOTAL 758
*Includes units built and approved.
Townhomes/
Multi Family Condos
Total
154 8 355
0 327 892
154 335 1,247
Source: Economic and Community Development Department; South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and
Planning Issues Report, 1997.
Table 1-48 shows a comparison of the ABAG-assigned regional fair share allocation of housing units for
the 1990 to 1995 period for South San Francisco to the housing produced between 1989 and 1999, by
income group.
Public Hearing Draft
1-92 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-48
COMPARISON OF HOUSING NEED TO HOUSING' PRODUCTION,
PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT PLANNING PERIOD 1990-1999
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Total Allocation 535 450 619 1,210 2,814
Total Built: 1989-
1999
104 0 0 1,143 1,247
Net
Deficit/Surplus
431 450 619 67 1,567
Source: Economic and Community Development Department.
Evaluation of 1992 Housing Element Policies and Programs
Tables 1-49 and 1-50 provide an evaluation of existing City of South San Francisco Housing Element
policies and implementation programs.
August 12, 2002 1-93 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-49
EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Policy #
Goal 1
IA:
lB:
lC:
Goal 2
2A:
Existing Policy Evaluation
Encourage a supply of housing units sufficient to assure each resident an attractive, healthful, safe environment
within a wide range of designs, types, sizes, and prices
Housing and Community Development (HCD) oversees a program that
funds minor repairs for South San Francisco residents. The Building
Division is expanding its code enforcement staff to respond to code
violations.
Avoid deterioration due to lack
of maintenance of existing
dwelling units and provide low
cost rehabilitation programs for
their improvement
Provide assistance from all
divisions, departments, and
levels of City government,
within the bounds of local
ordinances and policies, to
stimulate private housing
development consistent with
local needs
Assure people a choice of
locations by encouraging a
variety of housing units in well
planned neighborhoods
Since 1997, thc City has app~'oved over 1,500 new residential units,
primarily market rate. Thc Promenade and Grccnridgc rcsi&,~tial project
was approved on land formerly designated for a commercial usc. Thc
General Plan encourages thc dcvelolm~ent of higher &nsity residential
housing in thc t~ansit ~iented development areas and in Downtown South
San Francisco.
The City provides technical assistance to each residential developer and has
not adopted any cost recovery pro,rams to pay for the service. For detailed
discussion, see Evaluation for Policy 1.B following this table.
Thc General Plan la,id usc policies encore age thc development of a va~ icty
of housing DOcs. Thc Planned Unit Dcvclo~ncnt process c,~surcs that
subdivisions ccmfo, m to area standards and neighborhood charactc~ istics.
The General Plan recluires the high-density housing types and infill
development on the remainin~ vacant sites and in older commercial and
industrial areas. In high-density residential areas, the City has imvlemented
development standards that permit the hi~hest possible densities without
impacting existin~ residential nei[hborhoods. For ali residential
nei[hborhoods, the Planned Unit Development process ensures that
subdivisions conform to area standards and neighborhood characteristics.
Continue to support the provision of housing by both the private and public sector for ali income groups in the
community.
Eliminate constraints to The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was approved by the City Council in
affordable housing December 2001. It requires that the developer reserve 20% of the proposed
housing for moderate and low income households.
Public Hearing Draft 1-94 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-49
EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Policy #
2B:
Existing Policy
Stimulate the construction of
lower cost units by providing
incentives and encouraging
mixed use projects, second
units, density bonuses, and
manufactured housing.
Evaluation
Thc Inclusions, y l lousing Ordinance was approved by thc City Council in
December 2001. It requires that the developer rose, ,,c 20% of the proposed
housing for ,,,odcratc and low in¢oenc households. Thc City Council als~
adopted a Density Bonus Ordi~,ancc and thc South San Francisco Transit
Village Ordinatg'c.
The City provides a combination of direct technical assistance, permit
streamlining (includine compliance with CEOA), and adoption of soecific
development and design standards to encourage development of residential
units, including affordable units. As noted above, the City is constructing a
40-unit senior housing oroject (100 percent below market rate), has recently
approved 280 units (with 70 units reserved for below market rate), has
approved a 15 unit apartment complex (with four units below market rate),
and is reviewine a 350-unit mixed use development (with 70-units below
market rate) in the Transit Village District. The City is also pursuing the
foilowimz:
1) Second Units - During the General Plan Update vrocess, City analyzed
the Zoning Ordinance standards regarding the construction of second units
in single-family residential neighborhoods. The kev development
impediment to the development of second units is the existine small lot sizes
in many neiehborhoods (ranging from 3,000 to 4,000 square feet). Since
1997, the City be[an to review the existine requirement for on-site oarking
for the additional unit. The City contacted neighborhood grouos and found
that residents were concerned that if the oarkine standard is removed, the
additional cars using on-street parking would have a negative impact on the
adjacent homes. City staff, therefore, investigated a design solution which
would permit the additional units without impacting the neiehborhoods. The
Zonin~ Ordinance amendments, currently (July 2002) under review, would
relax the ~arking requirements by oermitting the applicant to use tandem
varking on lots with laree driveways (over 15 feet long).
2) Density Bonus - The residential projects noted above have been
approved with a density bonus for the construction of the affordable units.
3) Manufactured housing - The City Design Review procedure does not
limit the use of innovative materials in residential development. The
Zonin~ Ordinance permits manufactured housing that is subiect to the same
review procedure as typical residential develooment. City staff would
provide direct technical assistance to help the aoplicant prepare the oroject
for Desien Review Board review (for single family) and Plannin[
Commission atmroval for Planning Commission review.
4) Mixed use development - In 2001, the City Council adooted the Transit
Village Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Plan provides for a range of
densities and housing types. At this time, the City is processing an
armlication to construct 350 rental units, with 20 percent of those units
failin[ below market rate.
August 12, 2002
1-95
Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-49
EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Policy #
2C:
2D:
2E:
Goal 3
3A:
3B:
Existing Policy
Support efforts of non-
governmental sponsors to
generate affordable housing
Evaluation
Thc City contributed to thc development erf V~l ~' 10W ineenne senior hcmsine
tnojcct with Dridec ]lousine (Chestnut Creek) and will be purchasing units
at Willow Gardens for rchabilitatio,~ for vel ~, low income households, in
conjunction with Mid-lXcninsula l lousing.
The City has been successful in securing land in advance of a project and
negotiating with market rate developers to dedicate land (in exchanee for
vlanned development standards) at no cost to the City. The City provides
fundine to acquire sites for future residential proiects. Furthermore, by
creating the position of Housine and Community Develonment Manager, the
City has institutionalized its relationship with non-profit housing develovers
in San Mateo County. The followin.~ recent projects illustrate how the City
acquires property in anticipation of a proiect and works directly with both
vrivate, for-profit, and non-vrofit developers.
Involve the City directly in
retaining and increasing the
supply of affordable housing
Continue to cooperate with other
governmental agencies and take
an active interest in seeking
solutions to area-wide housing
problems
I) Greenridge (34 below market rate units): In 1997. the City worked with
the private for-vrofit developer of the Promenade vroject to make the land
available for the Greenridge vroject. The project is adjacent to the E!
Camino Real Corridor Redevelovment Project Area. By law. the deveiover
was not recruited to provide affordable housin~ at the time. As vart of the
develovment agreement. City neeotiated with the developer for the land.
The City also contributed $100.000 in gap financin.~ to Mid-Peninsula
Housine and $3.4 million in other funds to supvort the construction of the 34
units.
2) Willow Gardens: The City is assisting Mid-Peninsula to acquire and
rehabilitate existine units in the area. The City is committing $12 million
dollars to purchase and rehabilitate twelve fourplexes in Willow Gardens
area.
3) Summerhill (Parc Place): The developer contributed $900.000 to uo
specifically to the Chesmut Creek senior housine vroiect. The City worked
directly with Brid~e Housing to secure the land from California Water
Company and process the project for approval, as described under Policy 1B
-- permit streamlining.
Refer to 2C.
The City participates in several regional planning groups, including
maintaining a representative on ABAG, SAMCEDA, C/CAG, and the Bay
Area Council.
Provide housing for groups with special needs.
Encourage non-profit groups to Refer to 2C.
provide housing for the elderly
citizens of South San Francisco
Encourage the establishment of
residential board and care
facilities for the elderly in the
community
The City approved the Aegis project last year. The City funds the Magnolia
Senior Center programs.
Public Hearing Draft
1-96 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-49
EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Policy # Existing Policy
3C: Require thc inclusion of
handicapped accessible units in
all housing projects
3D:
3E:
3F:
3G:
Goal 4
4A:
Goal 5
5A:
Continue to support programs to
modify existing units to better
serve the needs of disabled
citizens
Foster amenities needed by
female-headed households
Insure provision of adequate
affordable housing suitable for
large families
Assist the homeless and those at
risk of being homeless
Evaluation
Thc City has been consistent with state law and building codes.
The City currently funds "house helpers" and the Center for Independence
for the Disabled" to retrofit existinl~ housinR units for seniors and the
disabled. House Helpers will assist three to four houses each year. The
Center retrofits ten units per year. The City also recluired ADA accessibility
in the following affordable residential l~rojects: 1) Metropolitan Hotel (67
units) - the SRO rehabilitation project includes wheelchair access: 2)
Greenridee (34 units) - the City and Mid-Peninsula Housine requires
wheelchair access to each unit and handicapl~ed parking near key common
areas; and 3) Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project (40 units) - the project
includes wheelchair access off the emergency elevator and handicapped
parking near entries.
The City has been active in supp~, ting programs to modify existing un~ts to
better sc, ~ thc needs of disabled citizx:ns.
Refer to Policy 2C and 3C..
This should be changed to reflect single parent households. No policy or
program exists at this time.
Follow~p to thc lnelusicmaJ y On:linan¢c will inclu& rcquirc,ncnts for
number of bedrooms.
As a follow-up to the Inclusionarv Ordinance. the City will include a
requirement that the developer provide units with three or more bedrooms.
Currently (July 2002). the City works directly with private non-profit
housine developers to build units with more bedrooms, such as:
Greenridge: The City worked with Mid-Peninsula Housing to find funding
to build 3-4 bedroom units for the entire project that would meet the needs
of larger families.
Willow Gardens: The City's rehabilitation strategy is to redesign the
existing 2-bedroom units to become 3-bedroom units and a family room to
meet larger family needsr
Thc City has worked with San Matco County to build a homeless center on
No, th Aitpo, t Boulevard.Thc City has assisted SAFE IIARDOR which has
been in operaticm for thc past teeo years. In FY 2000, thc City allocated ill
CDDG memcy.
The City has worked with San Mateo County to build a homeless center in
South San Francisco on North Airport Boulevard. The City has assisted
SAFE HARBOR which has been in operation for the past two Years. In
Fiscal Year 2000. the City allocated CDBG money to surmort the ~roiect.
Assist citizens in locating and retaining affordable housing without discrimination.
Strive to eliminate housing Through Staff direct assistance and funding, the city actively strives to
discrimination by race, sex, age, eliminate housing discrimination. The City funds LaRaza and Project
religion, and natural origin.
Protect neighborhoods and housing
Prohibit new residential
development in the areas
containing major environmental
hazards (such as floods, and
seismic and safety problems)
unless adequate mitigation
measures are taken
Sentinnel.
from natural and man-made hazards.
The City limits residential development in thc East of 101 Area Plan and
has thc agreement with thc San Francisco Into, national Aiepott which limits
housing nc,, th of the al, po, c
As required by the San Francisco International Airport, the City is reauired
to limit residential development in the East of 101 Area. The Airoort
requirement is in place until 2006.
August 12, 2002
1-97
Public Hearing Draft
T ; 1 'Hll
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-49
EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Policy #
5B:
5C:
5D:
5E:
Existing Policy
Require the design of new
housing and neighborhoods to
comply with adopted building
security standards that decrease
burglary and other property-
related crimes.
Require new residential
developments to comply with
the Aircraft Noise/Land Use
Compatibility Standards for the
San Francisco International
· Airport Plan Area, as contained
in the San Marco County
Airport Land Use Plan
Assist owners of existing
dwellings to mitigate the impact
of airport noise
Foster efforts to conserve energy
in residential structures
Evaluation
The Police Department reviews of all development applications and includes
specific requirements for lighting.
This is accomplished through General Plan policies, C/CAG requirements,
and the agreement with the San Francisco International Airport.
The City is involved with the Airport Noise Program to fund the installation
of new windows.
This is accomplished through building code requirements.
Source: City of South San Francisco Planning Department, January 2002.
Evaluation for Policy 1.B
The City utilizes permit streamlining programs that are established by the State of California's Department
of Trade and Commerce and endorsed by local economic development organizations, such as CALED. In
1997. the City worked with the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) to
prepare the permit streamlining and regulatory reform program in San Marco County. The attachment to
this memorandum indicates that the City of South San Francisco is a member of the Permit Streamlining
and Regulatory Reform Team that prepared the report and implemented SAMCEDA's recommendations.
The City of South San Francisco uses the "One-Stop Shop Permit Center" model to "fast track"
development applications. The City provides technical support to help the applicant prepare the
application and to comply with State mandated requirements under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). In targeted areas -- such as redevelopment project areas, downtown and next to the transit
stations - the City prepared program environmental impact reports (El Camino Real Corridor EIR and the
General Plan EIR) at taxpayers expense to analyze potential project impacts and provided for a community
outreach program. Specific projects could build off of the program EIR with a focused Negative
Declaration or an environmental determination as previously assessed. See Figure 2 which shows how the
City assists residential developers.
Where appropriate, the City self-finances the General Plan and zoning amendments to create the conditions
that would encourage new residential development. In 1997. the City began the General Plan Update
process and evaluated a variety of alternative approaches to providing affordable housing from local
employees and residents. In 1999. with the adoption of the General Plan. the City continued a two-year
evaluation of the local housing market, including determining the level of affordability and evaluating the
review process to stimulate affordable housing construction.
Public Hearing Draft
1-98 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
The following project benefited from the City's efforts and technical support. In 2001-2002. the City
processed the 280-unit Marbella Housing project (approved in 2002) on a previously undevelopable site
(due to the steep slope). With City technical assistance, the developer was able to provide twenty-five
percent below-market-rate units. Currently. City staff is assisting the applicant. Fairfield Development. to
construct a 350-unit apartment complex (including twenty percent below-market rate units) in the Transit
Village District. The City's technical assistance is designed to fast-track the project through the review
process. City staff provides technical assistance, coordinate meetings and tours, disseminate information,
prepared the appropriate data for project approval.
In anticipation of high-density development in the Transit Village area, the City rezoned the area from
Commercial to mixed-use high-density residential and commercial. Beyond technical assistance to the
developer, the City prepared the necessary zoning and development standards on the sites in anticipation of
the mixed use project at its own expense. In 2001, the City initiated its own (self financed) process to
rezone several parcels near the South San Francisco BART station from commercial to mixed-use
residential with local serving commercial. The nine-month process included 1) hiring a urban design
consultant to prepare development standards and housing prototypes for the sites at taxpayers expense, 2)
preparing the master environmental document for adoption, 3) holding three study sessions and two
community meetings with local officials and neighborhoods, 4) organizing a Planning Commission/Design
Review Board/property owners Stakeholder Committee to review the plans and alternatives, and 5)
adopting a Transit Village Zoning District before the applicant was ready to submit an application.
Following adoption of the Zoning Amendment, City staff prepared a Request for Proposals, for the
property owner, to both private and non-profit developers. The City met with all the potential applicants to
analyze methods to provide below-market-rate units and construct a high-quality project on the site. City
staff also consulted directly with Mid-Peninsula Housing (a non-profit housing provider) to determine
specific construction costs, parking standards, and appropriate unit sizes (for the targeted families) to
make the projects work. If the potential private developer could not afford the below market rate units, the
non-profit providers were willing to build those units on each site and let the private developer build the
market rate units. In both cases, the private developer Chose to build the below-market-rate units on their
own.
Since the City provided the necessary conditions to proceed with the development, the applicant will be
required to provide plans and complete the Environmental Checklist for Planning Commission approval.
According to the attached flow chart, the City anticipates that the Fairfield Housing project will take
approximately 95 days from application submittal to Planning Commission public hearing.
As noted above, South San Francisco has approved and built a significant percentage of the new housing in
San Marco County. However, since residential developers respond to the market, the City recognized that
the majority of new housing was not affordable. Several residential developers promised the City that they
were building homes that would be affordable ($350,000-400,000 range) when the received their
approvals. The houses actually were marketed for $600,000 when the housing were ready for sale. The
City Council adopted the Inclusionary Ordinance in order to encourage private developers to build
affordable (low and moderate) units or work with non-profit builders. The City would be responsible for
building or rehabilitating units for very low income households.
August 12, 2002 1-99
Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-50
EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
City of South San Francisco
Program # Implementation Program Accomplished? Comments
IA-I
Support the Housing Rehabilitation Program
with continued CDBG funding
CDBG and
Redcvelopmcnt
Agcncy
Ongoing: CDBG
and
Redevelopment
A~encv
The City contributed $400,000 to the
Commercial Avenue rehabilitation,
$130,000 to Willow Gardens rehab.,
and $50,000/yr. to other rehab, efforts.
IA-2
IB-I
lB-2
IC-I
1C-2
Aggressively enforce uniform housing, building,
and safety codes
Support Private Market Construction
Work with the owner to develop a plan for
annexation of the R.I. McClellan property (Site
No. 10 on Figures 26 and 27)
Review the Zoning Ordinance
Provide adequate public facilities, including
streets, water, sewerage, and drainage,
throughout the residential areas of the city
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Code Enforcement division has been
enlarged.
Development approvals (see Major
Projects List)
The Promenade/Greenridge project
formerly on Mclellan Nursery site and
part of the County was annexed with
the approval of the development.
The City is currently (January 2002)
reviewing the Zoning Ordinance.
The City is completing the Water
Quality Control Plant upgrade, Airport
Boulevard improvements, roadway
improvements on Chestnut and E!
Camino Real.
1C-3
2A-I
Ensure new development and rehabilitation
efforts promote quality design and harmonize
with existing neighborhood surroundings
Promote affordable housing
Yes
Yes
This is accomplished through General
Plan policies, Transit Village Plan,
Zoning Ordinance (Design Review
process)
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
was approved by the City Council in
December 2001. It requires that the
developer reserve 20% of the
proposed housing for moderate and
low income households. Refer also to
comment on Policy I.B.
2B-I
Encourage a mix of uses in Commercial and
Office Zoning Districts
2B-2
Support the development of "Second Housing
Units"
2B-3
2B-4
Grant a "Density Bonus" to developments that
include Iow-income, very Iow-income, or senior
citizen units
Complete a study of increasing residential
densities around future BART station and
required implementation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
This was accomplished with the South
San Francisco Transit Village District
and Ordinance; General Plan policies
in Downtown.
The Zoning Ordinance permits second
unit housing in residential areas,
subject to specific development and
parking standards.
In December 2001, the City adopted a
Density Bonus Ordinance that allows
for a 25% bonus for developments that
include affordable units.
The City created the South San
Francisco BART Transit Village
District, which permits higher density
development and reduced parking
Public Hearing Draft 1-100 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-50
EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
City of South San Francisco
..
Program # Implementation Program Accomplished? Comments
2B-5 Study the land use compatibility of increasing Yes
residential densities along major streets in the
downtown redevelopment area
2B-6 Appoint a Housing Programs Administrator to Yes
oversee Housing Element Programs and
maintain the element
2C-1 Maintain a list of major agencies and Yes
organizations participating in housing-related
activities
2C-2 Allocate Redevelopment funds to non-profit Yes
housing agencies that assist in providing or
developing Iow-income housing
2C-3 Support non-profits in the placement of Yes
individuals and small households needing
housing with people who have excess space in
their homes and who are willing to share that
space
Continue to operate and rent 80 units of public
housing
2D-I
2D-2
Provide financial assistance for physical
improvements to existing boarding rooms and
Single Room Occupancies
2D-3
Acquire land for rental projects
- 2D-4
Subsidize purchases or buy down the
developer's cost of rental units in new for-profit
developments
IISG Autho, ~ty
--SSi:
Oneoing: HSG
Authority-SSF
Yes
Yes
Yes
standards.
The 1999 General Plan increased
residential densities in designated
residential and commercial
neighborhoods. The Transit Village
District permits high density
development (up to 50 units/acre)
along the El Camino Real corridor.
The HCD was reorganized and
expanded (with new staff) to
incorporate required tasks.
HCD staff coordinates with San Mateo
County and non-profit housing groups
in supporting housing projects,
programs, social services, and shared
funding.
See above project, including
Commercial Avenue, Willow Gardens,
Greenridge, and Downtown
(Metropolitan Hotel)
The City has cooperated with Human
Investment Project (HIP).
The City has allocated $700,000 to
support the project
The City assists rehabilitation of
existing units by provided $1.2
million in improvements for the Grand
Hotel and $1.2 million for the
Metropolitan Hotel.
Mission/Chestnut Senior Housing
Project $1.0 million, 2 units on Pine
and I unit on Hillside.
The City adopted the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance that provides the
developer flexibility to provide rental
units. The City will purchase one unit
from a private develo~r (the Ping
Hsu vroiect) and will sell it to a Iow
income household at 80 vercent of
median income. The City also
negotiated with a develooer to include
five below market rate units in the
Oak Farms development. The
developer will build the units for
medium-income families. The City
contributed CDBG funds to bring the
affordability level for the five units
down to 100 percent of median
August 12, 2002 1-101 Public Hearing Draft
Background Report City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-50
EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
City of South San Francisco
Program # implementation Program Accomplished? Comments
2D-5 Continue to enforce limits on conversion of Yes
apartment units to condominiums
2D-6
2E-I
2E-2
2E-3
Retain 268 units subsidized under Department No
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Section 8 contracts for lower-income seniors and
families
Support State and federal legislation to make Yes
housing more affordable for owners and renters
Participate with San Mateo County in its Yes
Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit
Certificate programs
Continue to support San Mateo County's Yes
Federal Section 8 Housing Assistance Program
2E-4
3A-I
Provide Interest-free loans for rehabilitating
apartments
Offer a density bonus for senior housing
3A-2
3B-1
Provide funding for minor repairs of homes Yes
owned and occupied by low-income senior
citizens
Continue to allow reduced parking requirements Yes
for this use
3C-1
3D-I
3E-I
Review development plans and require Yes
modification for accessibility
Provide CDBG funds to the Center for the Yes
Independence of the Disabled to make housing
units accessible to the disabled
The City will strongly encourage the inclusion Yes
of childcare and after-school-care facilities
within or near affordable and higher density
housing and mixed use developments
3F-I
Require that 20 percent of all below-market-rate No
Public Hearing Draft
1-102
Disecmtinued
Yes
Yes
The Municipal Code includes the
Condominium Conversion Ordinance,
which requires 5 percent vacancy prior
to conversion.
San Mateo County is losing the
Skyline project. City HCD has
lobbied to extend Section 8 another 2
years.
This is accomplished through the
lnclusionary Ordinance and General
Plan policies.
Ongoing.
The County of San Mateo manages the
program. However, HCD staff works
directly with Federal Agencies and the
County of San Mateo to inspect
The City still provides loans based on
available funding.
The 1999 General Plan include
policies that encourage a density
bonus for senior housing. The Density
Bonus Ordinance permits a density
bonus for all residential projects with
affordable housing.
The City expanded services include
$40,000/yr. for home improvements
and $25,000/yr. For vouchers.
Transit Village Ordinance and
General Plan policies specifically
permit reduced parking standards near
transit centers.
Zoning Ordinance development
standards and review criteria.
$13,000/yr is allocated from HCD.
The General Plan contains policies
that require child care facilities in
both residential and commercial
developments, The Transit Village
Ordinance designates a specific parcel
for development of a child care
facility. The City recently adopted the
Child Care Ordinance which creates a
development fee to support child care
services in the city.
Not required at this time. The City
August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Background Report
TABLE 1-50
EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
City of South San Francisco
Program # Implementation Program Accomplished? Comments
3G-I
3G-2
housing are three- and four-bedroom units
Provide emergency rent funds to assist eligible Yes
persons to avoid eviction, or to rent an
apartment
Provide funds for transitional housing Yes
does enter into specific Development
Agreements with developers to ensure
that there is a variety of units for all
families.
Industrial Hotel residents were
provided direct assistance
HIP program - $25,000
Home Admin - $38,000 over three
years
4A-I
5A-I
5B-I
Provide legal counseling and other advice and Yes
services concerning fair housing laws, rights,
and remedies to those who believe they have
been discriminated against
Residential Projects will be reviewed for major Yes
environmental hazards during the environmental
review process
Continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Yes
Minimum Building Security Standards, of the
Municipal Code
5C-1 All new residential development shall be Yes
reviewed for compliance with the County
Airport Land Use Plan
5D-I
5E-I
5E-2
Continue to assist homeowners in insulating Yes
units adversely affected by airport noise,
pursuant to the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979
Continue to provide information on energy- Yes
efficient standards for residential buildings
Assist energy and water conserving Yes
modifications in existing residential buildings
Source: Economic and Community Development Department, January 2002.
The HCD provides the following
funding: La Raza- $15,000/year and
Project Sentinnel - $6,000
Environmental review is required
under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
The Municipal Code and the Uniform
Building Code set standards for
security. The City's Police
Department enforces requirements
through the City's development
entitlement process.
The General Plan contains policies
that require review of certain projects
by the San Francisco International
Airport. Airport Land Use review is
also a requirement of C/CAG.
The SFO/City Agreement gave the
City funds to create the Noise
Insulation Program, which is nearly
completion.
Building Code requirements
Building Code requirements
August 12, 2002 1-103 Public Hearing Draft
City of South San Francisco Background Report
· Designates a Loft Overlay District in the older industrial area.
· The City has amended the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to implement General Plan policies, including the
following:
· Designation of the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District which contains
standards for higher density development on infill sites and reduced parking standards
· Adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as a necessary to encourage affordable housing
production.
· Adoption of the Density Bonus Ordinance.
· Adoption of the Childcare ordinance.
In summary, South San Francisco is well positioned to meet the General Plan housing goals and meet the
ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination allocation. Indeed, of 768 very-low, low, and moderate
income units required, the City of South San Francisco has already approved or built 264 units. The
remaining 504 units should result from a continuation of efforts between now and 2006.
August 12, 2002 1-105 Public Hearing Draft
PART I1: POLICY DOCUMENT
PART II. POLICY DOCUMENT ....
GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Under California law, the housing element must include the community's goals, policies, quantified objectives,
and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
This Housing Element includes six goal statements. Under each goal statement, the element sets out policies
that amplify the goal statement. Implementation programs are listed at the end of the corresponding policy or
group of policies and describe briefly the proposed action, the City agencies or departments with primary
responsibility for carrying out the program, and the time frame for accomplishing the program. Several of the
implementation programs also have quantified objectives listed.
The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs,
and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element Policy Document:
Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable.
Policy: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment.
Implementation Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy.
Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an
estimated time frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the calendar year in which the
activity is scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted
based on City staffing and budgetary considerations. Quantified objectives (where applicable to
individual implementation programs) are the number of housing units that the City expects to be
constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated.
Quantified Objective: the number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed, conserved,
or rehabilitated, and the number of households the City expects will be assisted through Housing
Element programs based on general market conditions during the time frame of the Housing Element.
The housing element law recognizes that in developing housing policy and programs, identified housing needs
may exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy these needs. The quantified objectives
of the housing element, therefore, need not be identical to the identified housing need but should establish the
maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time
frame.
August 12, 2002 I1-1
Public Hearing Draft
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
GOAL 1
To promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income
groups in the community. (Existing HE Goal 2)
Availability of Sites for New Construction
Policy 1-1
The City shall maintain an adequate supply of land to meet its 1999-2006 ABAG Regional
Housing Needs Determination (RHND) of 277 very low income units, 131 low income units,
360 moderate income units, and 563 above moderate units. (New Policy)
Program 1-1A
The City shall annually update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcel identified in
Tables 1-32 and 1-33 of the Housing Element Background Report. The City shall also conduct
an annual 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 1999-2006 Regional Housing Needs Determination
(RHND) to determine if any changes in land use policy are warranted. (New Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-2 The City shall implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (New Policy)
Program 1-2A
The City shall adopt and implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring new
residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percent low- and
moderate-income housing. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council
Time Frame: FY 2001-2002, Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 111 low-income units and 167 moderate-income units
Program 1-2B The City shall prepare an Annual Report summarizing by project the number of units
developed under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Public Hearing Draft
11-2 August 12, 2002
0
Z
I.-.
z
LU
0
Z 0
~o ~
rn o
LI
J
I-
UJ
0
EE
EE
I
....
'T m T [IT
c~ o'~
I--
Z
UJ
0
Z 0
~o
o
o
E,--
z
E--
... City of South San Francisco Policy Document
Policy 1-3
In addition to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City shall investigate other methods
for providing affordable housing units. (New Policy)
Program 1-3A The City shall determine the feasibility of establishing a commercial linkage fee. (New
Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division;
City Council
Time Frame: FY 2002-2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-4
The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers in consolidating infill parcels
designated for multi-family residential development when it facilitates efficient development
of the parcels. (New Policy)
Program 1-4A
The Redevelopment Agency shall acquire sites that are either vacant or were developed with
vacant, underutilized, blighted, and nonconforming uses and will make the sites available to
non-profit developers. (Existing Program 2D-3).
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency and the Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: 1999 - 2006
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Acquire land sufficient for 60 units by 2006.
Policy 1-5
The City shall promote the construction of lower cost units by providing incentives and
encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, loft-style units, and
manufactured housing. (Existing Policy 2B)
Program 1-5A The City shall review its Zoning Ordinance to assure that it has the tools and flexibility needed
to encourage a variety of unit sizes and mix of housing types including single family
condominiums, cluster projects, PUDs, townhomes, cooperatives, mobile homes, senior
projects, and manufactured housing. The Zoning Ordinance may include the following criteria
and standards:
establishment of a residential FAR
establishment of specific parking standards for residential second units
establishment of specific design and development standards for all housing types
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; City Council
Time Frame: Complete review and amendments by December 2002.
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
August 12, 2002
11-3
Public Hearing Draft
l' ! il '5111
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Policy 1-6 The City shall implement the Density Bonus Ordinance. (New Policy)
Program 1-6A The City shall adopt and implement the Density Bonus Ordinance for projects that include
affordable housing in over 20 percent of the project. (Existing Program 2B-3)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division;
City Council
Time Frame: FY 2001-2002
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 50 units between 1999 and 2006
Policy 1-7
The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas
designated as Doxt~ntown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density
Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business
Commercial and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San
Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District. (New Policy)
Policy 1-8
The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family
designated and zoned parcels. (New Policy)
Program 1-8A The City shall revise the Zoning Ordinance to remove constraints to the development of
second units, such as overly restrictive parking standards and setback requirements.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division,
City Council
Time Frame: FY 2002-2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: 20 second units
Program 1-8B
The City shall actively promote community education on second units by posting information
regarding second units on the City's website and providing brochures at the public counter in
the Department of Economic and Community Development.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: FY 2002-2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: see 1-8A
Policy 1-9
The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and
redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating
conflicts with industrial operations.
Policy 1-10
Where appropriate, the City shall encourage the consolidation of parcels designated for
multi-family residential development when it facilitates efficient development of the parcels.
Public Hearing Draft
11-4 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Policy Document
Program 1-10A
The City shall establish development standards in the Municipal Code that would determine
the lot-size requirements for sites designated as High Density Residential. Downtown High
Density Residential. and Medium Density Residential in order to promote the consolidation
of parcels designated for multi-family residential or mixed-use multi-family
residential/commercial development.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: 2003
Funding Source: City Funds
Quantified Objective: NO
Administrative Support, Housing Funding and Permit Streamlining
Policy 1-11
The City shall continue to operate 'the "One Stop Permit Center" in order to provide assistance
from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of local
ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs.
(Revised Existing Policy lB)
Program 1-11 A
To support private market construction, the City shall work with property owners, project
sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; design housing projects that
meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; providing timely assistance
and advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and affordable housing
agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval; and interfacing with community groups
and local residents to ensure public support of major new housing d~velopments. (Existing
Program 1B-l).
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division
and Housing and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-12 The City shall support efforts to generate affordable housing. (Existing Policy 2C)
Program 1-12A
The City shall allocate redevelopment funds to non-profit housing agencies that assist in
providing or developing low-income housing through such means as providing funds for land
purchase and rehabilitation. (Revised Program 2C-2)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: FY 1999 - 2006
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 60 units by 2006.
August 12, 2002 11-5 Public Hearing Draft
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Program 1-12B The City should negotiate with the South San Francisco Unified School District to reduce
school impact fees.
Responsibility of: City Council, Department of Economic and Community Development,
Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: FY 2002-2003
Funding Source: City Funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-13
The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water,
sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential development
will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services
and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements are
already committed. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public
rights-of-way. (Existing Program 1C-2)
Policy 1-14
The City shall continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an active
interest in seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems. The City supports the concept
that all communities should make a good faith effort to meet the housing needs of very low-,
low- and moderate-income households in their area in a manner that is not disproportionate
for any community and which recognizes the degree of effort made in prior years. (Existing
Policy 2E)
Program 1-14A The City Shall participate with San Mateo County in its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage
Credit Certificate programs.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: California Debt Limit Allocation Committee
Quantified Objective: Assist 20 moderate income households with home purchases
Program 1-14B
The City shall continue participating in the San Mateo County Housing Investment Project
(CHIP), which is a consortium of several cities located in San Mateo County, San Mateo
County, lenders, school districts, and other interested parties that seek to establish a
countywide first-time home buyer program. (New Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-15 The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes with
Public Hearing Draft
11-6 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco
existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy 1 C)
Policy Document
Policy 1-16
The City shall support excellence in design through the continued use of the design review
board and/or staff and adherence to CEQA while ensuring that this process carried out
expeditiously.
Policy 1-17
The City shall ensure that the objectives of this Housing Element are carried out within the
Element's time frame (1999-2006). (New Policy)
Program 1-17A The City shall continue to maintain Housing Element and the Element's programs.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund, CDBG funds, and
General Fund for remaining non-qualifying functions
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 1-17B
The City shall maintain and regularly update a list of major agencies and organizations
participating in housing-related activities, including address, telephone, and brief description
of their function.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-18
The City shall ensure that developers and city residents are made aware of key housing
programs and development opportunities. (New Policy)
Program 1-18A
To widen the availability of information to interested residents, the City shall update its
website to include information on affordable housing, housing programs, and inclusionary
units. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: FY 2002-2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
August 12, 2002
11-7
Public Hearing Draft
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Related General Plan Policies
· See also General Plan Land Use Element policies 2-1-6, 2-I-10, 2-1-15, 2-1-18, and 2-I-19.
See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element policies 3. l-G-3, 3.1-I-1, 3.1-I-3, 3.3-1-5, 3.3-1-
12A, 3.4-I-8, 3.4-I-9, 3.4-I-16, 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.10-G-I, 3.10-1-1, and 3.11-I-1
· See also General Plan Economic Development Element policies 6-I-2, and 6-I-13,
MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK
GOAL 2
To conserve and enhance existing residential neighborhoods while maintaining affordability
in existing neighborhoods and neighborhoods with low-income families.
Policy 2-1
The City shall continue to encourage private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods
and private rehabilitation of housing. (New Policy)
Policy 2-2
As appropriate, the City shall use State and Federal funding assistance to the fullest extent
these subsidies exist to rehabilitate housing. The City shall continue to give housing
rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant funds.
(New Policy)
Policy 2-3
The City shall prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds for acquisition and
rehabilitation of housing in older residential neighborhoods. The City would target funds in
order to preserve the older housing stock that exist in older neighborhoods with low income
families.
Policy 2-4
The City shall maintain and improve neighborhoods through the use of systematic code
enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs and
other available incentives. The City shall focus on properties in older neighborhoods with low-
income families, such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old
Town), Irish Town, and Peck's Lots.
Program 2-4A The City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes.
(Existing Program I.A-2)
Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Public Hearing Draft
11-8 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Policy Document
Program 2-4B
The City shall seek to eliminate incompatible land uses or blighting influences from residential
neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures.
(New Policy)
Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2-5
The City shall ensure that all rental properties in the community are well maintained. To this
end, the City shall aggressively enforce health and safety code regulations on these units. (New
Policy)
Policy 2-6
The City shall continue to support the revitalization of older neighborhoods by keeping streets,
sidewalks, and other municipal systems in good repair. The City shall continue to work
cooperatively with other agencies and utilities concerning the maintenance of their properties
and equipment in South San Francisco. (New Policy)
Program 2-6A
As appropriate, the City shall create a capital improvement and housing rehabilitation
program to upgrade housing in older neighborhoods with low income housing, such as Village
Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck's
Lots. (New Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: General Fund, RDA and CDBG
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2-7
The City shall ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with
existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy 1 C)
Policy 2-8
The City shall use City and Redevelopment Agency rehabilitation and other programs as
appropriate to arrest the deterioration of newer housing and neighborhoods that are already
showing signs of deterioration before repair costs become excessive. (New Policy)
Policy 2-9 The City shall strive to maintain the existing multi-family housing stock. (New Policy)
Program 2-9A
The City shall provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of owner-occupied single-family
homes by supporting the Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding.
The City shall give priority is given to homes in the Downtown Target Area. (Revised
Program 1.A-l)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
August 12, 2002 11-9 Public Hearing Draft
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 40 Units by 2006.
Program 2-9B The City shall support the South San Francisco Housing Authority in the continued operation
and renting of 80 units of public housing. (Existing Program 2D-l)
Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents
Quantified Objective: Preserve 80 units.
Policy 2-10
The City shall strive to preserve existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies.
(New Policy)
Program 2-10A The City shall provide financial assistance for physical improvements to existing boarding
rooms and Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area. (Existing Program 2D-2)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency
Time Frame: 1999 - 2006
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Upgrade 60 Single Rooms between 1999 and 2006.
Policy 2-11 The City shall strive to limit the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. (New Policy)
Program 2-11A
The City shall continue to enforce limits on 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)
b)
c)
d)
e)
A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least 5 percent exists;
The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City's available housing stock;
Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting
condominium projects;
The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the
time of conversion; and
The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan.
Since the Ordinance was adopted, no conversions have occurred. This has helped
retain a rental housing stock in the community that provides a substantial source of
housing for low- and moderate-income families. (Existing Program 2D-5)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Public Hearing Draft
I1-10 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Policy Document
Policy 2-12
The City shall support State and Federal legislation to make housing more affordable for
owners and renters, and to permit rehabilitation of existing deteriorated housing without an
increase in tax assessments. (Existing Program 2E-l)
Policy 2-13
The City shall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing units at risk
of converting to market rate housing. (New Policy)
Policy 2-14
The City shall track affordability levels in the City by monitoring changes in housing sales
prices and rental rates. (New Policy)
Program 2-14A The City shall regularly monitor housing sales price trends of existing units and new units to
determine housing affordability levels. (New Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Prog?am 2-14B
The City shall regularly monitor rental rates to document any trends of unwarranted and
unreasonable rent increases. If there are signs of unwarranted and unreasonable rent
increases, the City shall investigate the feasibility of establishing a mediation board (New
Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Related General Plan Policies
See also General Plan Land Use Element policies 243-1,243-5, 2-G-6, 243-7, 2-I-3, 2-I-7, 2-I-8, 2-I-
9, and 2-1-15.
See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element Policies 3.143-2, 3. l-G-4, 3.1-1-2, 3.1-1-5, 3.1-1-
12, 3.4-G-4, 3.4-1-2, 3.6-1-2, 3.7-I-2, 3.8-G-1, 3.8-I-1, 3.8-I-3, and 3.12-G-1.
· See also General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policy 7.5-I-1.
August 12, 2002 I1-11 Public Hearing Draft
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
SPECIAL NEEDS
GOAL 3 To provide housing for groups with special needs.
Policy 3-1
The City shall continue to give special attention in housing programs to the needs of special
groups, including the disabled, large families, the elderly, and families with low incomes. (New
Policy)
Senior Programs
Policy 3-2 The City shall encourage the development of housing for elderly. (New Policy)
Program 3-2A The City shall monitor the demand for senior housing to ensure that their needs are being met
on an ongoing basis. (New Policy)
Policy 3-3
The City shall encourage non-profit groups to provide housing for the elderly citizens of South
San Francisco. The City should encourage the development of senior housing in higher
density areas close to shopping and transportation. (Existing Policy 3A)
Program 3-3A
The City shall continue to grant density bonuses for senior housing projects. The City shall
allow up to 50 units per acre for senior housing projects and permit reduced parking
standards. (Revised Program 3A- 1)
Responsibility off Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division
and Housing and Community Development Division
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 100 senior housing units between 1999 and 2006.
Program 3-3B
The City shall continue to provide funding for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied
by low-income senior citizens. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting,
carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. (Revised Program 3A-2)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 100 units from 1999 to 2006
Policy 3-4
The City shall encourage the establishment of a range of housing types for seniors including
residential board and care facilities for the elderly in the community. (Existing Policy 3B)
Program 3-4A The City shall continue to allow reduced parking requirements for residential board and care
facilities. (Existing Program 3B-l)
Public Hearing Draft
11-12 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Policy Document
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Disabled Programs
Policy 3-5
Consistent with State law, the City shall require the inclusion of handicapped accessible units
in all housing projects. In all new apartment projects with five or more units, State law
requires that 5 percent of the units constructed be fully accessible to the physically disabled.
(Existing Policy 3C)
Program 3-5A The City shall review development plans to assure consistency with state handicap and
accessibility laws and require modifications for accessibility. (Existing Program 3C. 1)
Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: Enforcement of applicable State and federal standards.
Program 3-5B
The City shall review its Zoning Ordinance and other development procedures to ensure
compliance with fair housing laws and ensure that these regulations do not create a
hardship for persons with disabilities. The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance and
change its permit processing procedures, as needed, to facilitate accessibility for disabled
persons.
Policy 3-6
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development. Planning Division
Timeframe: 2003
Funding Source: City funds
Ouantified Objective: NQ
The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the
needs of disabled citizens. (Existing Policy 3D)
Program 3-6A The City shall continue to provide funds to make housing units accessible to the disabled.
(Existing Program 3D-I)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 125 units from 1999 to 2006
August 12, 2002
11-13
Public Hearing Draft
1' [ m 'TILT
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Policy 3-7
The City shall provide reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities to
ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of this is to provide a process for individuals
with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from
the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures
of the City.
Program 3-7A
The City shall amend its Municipal Code as necessary to provide individuals with
disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures that
may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Timeframe: 2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 3-7B The City shall create a public information brochure on reasonable accommodation for
disabled persons and provide that information on the City's website.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Timeframe: 2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Large Families Programs
Policy 3-8
The City shall encourage provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large
families. (Existing Policy 3F)
Homeless Programs
Policy 3-9
The City shall assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. (Existing Policy
3G)
Policy 3-10
The City shall be an active participant in the County of San Mateo "Continuum of Care"
planning process that supports emergency shelters, temporary housing, transitional
programs, and general housing assistance for the homeless. (New Policy)
Program 3-10A
The City shall continue to be an active participant in the Continuum of Care planning
process with the appropriate homeless agencies in its efforts to address the needs of South
San Francisco residents in need of emergency shelter or temporary housing. (New
Program)
Responsibility of: Dept. of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Fund
Public Hearing Draft 11-14 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Policy Document
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 3-1 OB
The City shall support non-profits, such as Human Investment Project, Inc (HIP), in the
placement of low-income individuals and small households needing housing with
individuals who have excess space in their homes and who are willing to share that space.
(Revised Program 2C-3)
Responsibility off Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 350 placements between 1999 and 2006.
Program 3-10C The City shall continue to provide funds to organizations that provide transitional housing.
(Revised Program 3G-2)
Responsibility of: Dept. of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 210 placements of families and/or individuals between 1999 and
2006
Program 3-1 OD
The City shall sponsor the construction and operation of a 90-bed year round homeless
shelter with city limits. Once the shelter is completed and operational, the City shall
provide on-going support to ensure the continued operation of the shelter. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: FY 2001-2002
Funding Source: CDBG, RDA Housing & Set Aside.
Quantified Objective: Construction and operation of a 90-bed year round homeless shelter.
Program 3-10E
The City shall continue to provide financial assistance to organizations helping families
with social services including case management and referrals for housing and homeless
prevention. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: Case management and referrals for 500 individuals and families per
year from 1999 to 2006.
August 12, 2002 11-15 Public Hearing Draft
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Goal 4
To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone
in the community regardless of age, race, gender, religion, marital status, national origin,
disability, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary factors.
Policy 4-1
The City shall promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of age, race, sex,
religion, marital status, national origin, disability, and or other barriers that prevent
choice in housing. (New Policy)
Policy 4-2
The City shall provide information and referrals regarding fair housing complaints, tenant-
landlord conflicts, habitability, and other general housing assistance. (New Policy)
Program 4-2A The City shall provide access to legal counseling and advocacy concerning fair housing
laws, rights, and remedies to those who believe they have been discriminated against.
Persons requesting information or assistance related to housing discrimination are referred
to one or more fair housing group (s). (Existing Program 4.A-l)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 5 discrimination cases and 10 tenant-landlord cases pursued each
year between 1999 and 2006.
Program 4-2B The City shall provide funding assistance to organizations that provide counseling and
tenant-landlord issues, habitability and other general housing assistance.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 100 habitability cases pursued each year between 1999 and 2006.
NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
Goal 5
To protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards.
Policy 5-1
The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate
mitigation measures are taken. (Existing Policy SA)
Policy 5-2 The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with
Public Hearing Draft
11-16 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Policy Document
adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property-related
crimes. (Existing Policy 5B)
Policy 5-3
As appropriate and required by law, the City shall continue the abatement of unsafe
structures. (New Policy)
Program 5-3A
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. (Existing Program 5A-l)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All residential projects.
Program 5-3B The City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security
Standards, of the Municipal Code. (Existing Program 5B-l)
Responsibility: Police Department
TimeFrame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All new residential units shall comply with City standards.
Policy 5-4
The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan
Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing Policy 5C)
Program 5-4A
The City shall review all new residential development for compliance with the County
Airport Land Use Plan. Any incompatible residential use will either be eliminated or
mitigation measures will be taken to reduce interior noise levels within the acceptable
range in accordance with the Noise Element. (Existing Program 5C-1)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All new residential projects.
Program 5-4B
The City shall investigate the feasibility of pursuing additional funding to support the
Airport Noise Insulation Program to assist homeowners in insulating units adversely
affected by airport noise, pursuant to the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of
1979 (Section 49 USC 2101 et seq.). This is a broad-based project to reduce
aircraft-associated noise inside residences. This program is available regardless of income
level. (New Policy)
August 12, 2002
11-17
Public Hearing Draft
1 ' i 1 IIII
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Responsibility: Department of Public Works
TimeFrame: 1999-2006
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: To insulate existing homes within the 65 CNEL zone.
Related General Plan Policies
· See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element policies 3.2-G-4, 3.3-G-1, and 3.5-I-3.
See also General Plan Health and Safety Element policies 8.1-G-I, 8.1-I-3, 8.2-I-2, 8.5-G-2, 8.5-
I-3, 9-G-l, 9-G-2, 9-I-3, and 9-I-4.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
Goal 6
To encourage energy efficiency in all new and existing homes. (New Goal)
Policy 6-1
The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new
residential structures. (New Policy)
Program 6-lA The City shall assist with energy and water conserving modifications features in existing
residential rehabilitation projects.(Existing Program 5E-2)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: Ten units annually.
Policy 6-5
When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to respond to
climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shadow patterns. (New Policy)
Program 6-5A
The City shall continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for residential
buildings (e.g., brochures and other information). The City shall promotes 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. (Existing Program 5E-l)
Responsibility of: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: State standards enforced in all new construction.
Policy 6-6.
The City shall promote the use of weatherization programs for existing residential units
especially among low-income households. (New Policy)
Public Hearing Draft 11-18 August 12, 2002
City of South ,San Francisco Policy Document
Policy 6-7 The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving design and
construction techniques in all types of projects (including new construction and remodeled
and rehabilitated structures). (New Policy)
Program 6-7A
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:
(New Program)
Street and driveway design
Lot pattern and configuration
Siting of buildings
Landscaping
Solar access
Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City Budget
Quantified Objective: NQ
August 12, 2002 11-19 Public Hearing Draft
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Table II-1 summarizes the quantified objectives by program and income level that are expected to
contribute to the construction, rehabilitation, or conservation of units during the time frame of the Housing
Element (2001-2006). These objectives represent a reasonable expectation for the new housing units that
will be developed and the households that will be assisted based on the policies and implementation
programs outlined in this Housing Element and general market conditions. Table Il-1 also indicates
ABAG's net new construction need for South San Francisco by income group.
The programs in this section commit the City of South San Francisco to a construction objective of 528
new affordable units, a number that will exceed the City's fair share of regional needs as determined by
ABAG. In addition, the City plans the rehabilitation or improvement of 325 units and the conservation of
80 public housing units. All these units would be available to low- and very-low-income households, and
125 would be for handicapped households. Other housing assistance programs will provide help for 560
households annually, majority (515) of which will be very low- or low-income households.
Public Hearing Draft
11-20 August 12, 2002
City of South San Francisco Policy Document
TABLE I1-1
SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME LEVEL
City of South San Francisco
Construction Programs Total Units Very Low Low Moderate
NEW CONSTRUCTION
South San Francisco Fair Share Allocation
ABAG Housing Need Determination 1,331 277 131 360
(1999-2006)
Permit Development Activity (July 1,848 167 0 97
1, 1999 - December 31, 2001)
Remaining Need (January 1, 2002 - 504 110 131 263
July 1, 2006)
Pending Projects
BART Development Parcels 350 -- 28 40
Stonegate Estates 24 -- 4 --
Willow Gardens 16 8 8 --
Units Developed Through Implementation Measures
Program 1-2A - Inclusionary 278 -- 111 167
Housing Ordinance
Program 1-4A - Acquire land by 60 40 20 --
RDA for non-profit developers
Program I-6A - Density Bonus 50 -- 25 25
Ordinance
Program 1-8A - Promote second 20 -- 10 10
units
Program 1-12A: MCC Program 20 .... 20
Program 3-3A - Density Bonuses for 100 60 40 --
senior housing projects
Total Construction 528 100 206 222
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
Program 2-9A - Support Housing 40 20 20 --
Rehabilitation Program
Above
Moderate
563
1,584
1,021
(surplus)
282
20
August 12, 2002 11-21 Public Hearing Draft
Policy Document City of South San Francisco
TABLE I1-1
SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME LEVEL
City of South San Francisco
Construction Programs
Program 2-10A - Provide physical
improvements to SROs
Program 3-3B - Repairs for Iow
income senior housing
Program 3-6A - Funds for disabled
access
Total Rehabilitation
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Program 2-9B - Support SSF
Housing Authority's operation of
public housing
Total Conservation
Assistance Programs
Program 3-9B - Placement of iow-
income individuals/seniors will to
share space
Program 3-9C -Provide funds for
transitional housing
Total Assistance
Total Units Very Low
60 60
100 95 5
125 120 5
325 295 30
80 40 40
80 40 40
350 235 70 45
210 210
560 445 70 45
Above
Low Moderate Moderate
Public Hearing Draft
11-22
August 12, 2002
APPE'N'DICES':
APPENDIX A
HOUSING ELEMENT GLOSSARY
Assisted Housing Developments - Multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance under
federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of §65863.10, state and local multi fami ly revenue bond
programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or
local in-lieu fees. The term also includes multifamily rental units that were developed pursuant to a local
inclusionary housing program or used to a quality for a density bonus pursuant to §65915.
Below-Market-Rate (BMR) - Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low- or moderate-
income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of the unit. Both the State of California
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which
households qualify as "low income" or "moderate income." The financing of housing at less than prevailing
interest rates.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - A State law requiring State and local agencies to regulate
activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a
significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and
certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project.
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) - A State agency, established by the Housing and Home
Finance Act of 1975, which is authorized to sell revenue bonds and generate funds for the development,
rehabilitation, and conservation of low-and moderate-income housing.
City - City with a capital "C" generally refers to the City of South San Francisco government or
administration. City with a lower case "c" generally refers to the geographical area of the city, both
incorporated and unincorporated territory (e.g., the city bikeway system).
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - A grant program administered by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities, and by the
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This
grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including
public facilities and economic development.
Compatible - Capable of existing together without conflict or ill effects.
Consistent - Free from variation or contradiction. Programs in the General Plan are to be consistent, not
contradictory or preferential. State law requires consistency between a general plan and implementation
measures such as the zoning ordinance.
Contract Rent - The monthly rent agreed to, or contracted for regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or
services that may be included.
Dedication, In lieu of- Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for a
dedication of land, usually calculated in dollars per lot, and referred to as in lieu fees or in lieu
contributions.
August 12, 2002 A-1
Public Hearing Draft
City of South San Francisco Appendix A: Housing Element Glossary
Density, Residential - The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified
in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre.
Density Bonus - The allocation of development fights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square
footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Under
Government Code Section 65915, a housing development that provides 20 percent of its units for lower
income households, or ten percent of its units for very low-income households, or 50 percent of its units
for seniors, is entitled to a density bonus and other concessions.
Developable Land - Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards
to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural reSource areas.
Dwelling Unit - A room or group of rooms (including sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation facilities, but
not more than one kitchen), that constitutes an independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for
occupancy by one household on a long-term basis.
Encourage, v. - To stimulate or foster a particular condition through direct or indirect action by the private
sector or government agencies.
Enhance, v. - To improve existing conditions by increasing the quantity or quality of beneficial uses or
features.
Environmental Impact Report 0glR) - A report that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area
and determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action.
Fair Market Rent - The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development for purposes of administering the Section 8 Existing Housing Program.
Family - (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2) An
individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bonafide single-family housekeeping unit
in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel,
lodging house or institution of any kind [California].
Feasible - Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Goal -The ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable.
Gross Rent - Contract Rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (water, electricity, gas) and
fuels (oil, kerosene, wood, etc.) To the extent that these are paid for by the renter (or paid for by a relative,
welfare agency, or friend) in addition to the rent.
Household - All those persons -- related or unrelated -- who occupy a single housing unit.
Households, Number of- The count of all year-round housing units occupied by one or more persons. The
concept of househoM is important because the formation of new households generates the demand for
housing. Each new household formed creates the need for one additional housing unit or requires that one
existing housing unit bc shared by two households. Thus, household formation can continue to take place
even without an increase in population, thereby increasing the demand for housing.
Public Hearing Draft A-2 August 12, 2002
Appendix A: Housing Element Glossary City of South San Francisco
Housing and Community Development, Department of (HCD) - The State agency that has principal
responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low- and
moderate-income households.
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD) - A cabinet-level department of the federal
government that administers housing and community development programs.
Housing Authority, Local (LHA) - Local housing agency established in State law, subject to local activation
and operation. Originally intended to manage certain federal subsidies, but vested with broad powers to
develop and manage other forms of affordable housing.
Housing Unit - The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a
single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a
cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law. A housing unit has, at
least, cooking facilities, a bathroom, and a place to sleep. It also is a dwelling that cannot be moved without
substantial damage or unreasonable cost.
Impact Fee - A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a city, county, or
other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce.
Inclusionary Zoning - Provisions established by a public agency to require that a specific percentage of
housing units in a project or development remain affordable to very low-, and low-, or moderate income
households for a specified period.
Implementation Program - An action, procedures, program, or technique that carries out general plan policy.
Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and a time frame
for its accomplishment.
Infili Development - Development of vacant land (usually individual lots or left-over properties) within areas
that are already largely developed.
Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio - The availability of affordable housing for employees. The
jobs/housing ratio divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of employed residents. A ratio of
1.0 indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net
out-commute.
Lease - A contractual agreement by which an owner of real property (the lessor) gives the right of possession
to another (a lessee) for a specified period of time (term) and for a specified consideration (rent).
Low-income Housing Tax Credits: Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for
investors in housing for low-income households.
Mean - The average of a range of numbers.
Median - The mid-point in a range of numbers.
Mitigate, v. - To ameliorate, alleviate, or avoid to the extent reasonably feasible.
Mixed-use - Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are
combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant
August 12, 2002 A-3
Public Hearing Draft
City of South San Francisco Appendix A: Housing Element Glossary
functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A "single site" may include contiguous
properties.
Mobile Home - A structure, transportable in one or more sections, built on a permanent chassis and designed
for use as a single-family dwelling unit and which (1) has a minimum of 400 square feet of living space;
(2) has a minimum width in excess of 102 inches; (3) is connected to all available permanent utilities; and
(4) is tied down (a) to a permanent foundation on a lot either owned or leased by the homeowner or Co) is
set on piers, with wheels removed and skirted, in a mobile home park.
Multi-family Dwelling Unit - A building or portion thereof designed for or occupied by two or more families
living independently of each other, including duplexes, triplexes, quadplcxes, apartments, and
condominiums.
Overcrowding - Households or occupied housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room.
Parcel - A lot in single ownership or under single control, usually considered a unit for purposes of
development.
Poverty Level - As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above
or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or "poverty
thresholds" varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are
updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Quantified Objective - The housing element must include quantified objectives which specify the maximum
number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved by income level within a five-
year time frame, based on the needs, resources, and constraints identified in the housing element ({}65583
(b)). The number of units that can be conserved should include a subtotal for the number of existing
assisted units subject to conversion to non-low-income households. Whenever possible, objectives should
be set for each particular housing program, establishing a numerical target for the effective period of the
program. Ideally, the sum of the quantified objectives will be equal to the identified housing needs.
However, identified needs may exceed available resources and limitations imposed by other requirements
of state planning law. Where this is the case, the quantified objectives need not equal the identified housing
needs, but should establish the maximum number of units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and
conserved (including existing subsidized units subject to conversion which can be preserved for lower-
income use), given the constraints.
Redevelop - To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or
both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.
Regional Housing Needs Share - A quantification by a COG or by HCD of existing and projected housing
need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.
Rehabilitation - The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.
Residential, Multiple Family - Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same
or separate buildings.
Residential, Single-family - A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Rezoning - An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature,
Public Hearing Draft
A-4 August 12, 2002
Appendix A: Housing Element Glossary City of South San Francisco
density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.
Second Unit - A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary
residential unit on a single lot. "Granny Flat" is one type of second unit intended for the elderly.
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program - A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources
of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The program operates by providing "housing
assistance payments" to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference
between the "Fair Market Rent" of a unit (set by HUD) and the household's contribution toward the rent,
which is calculated at 30 percent of the household's adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). Section 8
includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing
rehabilitation.
Seniors - Persons age 65 and older.
Shall - That which is obligatory or necessary.
Should - Signifies a directive to be honored if at all feasible.
Site - A parcel of land used or intended for one use or a group of uses and having frontage on a public or an
approved private street. A lot.
Subdivision - The division of a tract of land into defined lots, either improved or unimproved, which can be
separately conveyed by sale or lease, and which can be altered or developed.
Subdivision Map Act - Section 66410 et seq. of the California Government Code, this act vests in local
legislative bodies the regulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions, including the
requirement for tentative and final maps.
Subsidize - To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting of terms or favors that reduce the need
for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms of mortgage interest deductions or tax
credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used
for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.
Substandard Housing - Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe
and sanitary housing.
Vacant - Lands or buildings that are not actively used for any purpose.
Zoning - The division of a city or county by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, which specify
allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that
implements policies of the General Plan.
August 12, 2002 A-5
Public Hearing Draft
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Bibliography
Association of Bay Area Govemments. Regional Housing Needs 1999-2006 Allocation: San Francisco Bay
Area. November 16, 2000.
Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections 2000. December 1999.
Association of Bay Area Governments. Draft Projections 2002. October 200.1.
Bay Area Social Services Consortium. San Mateo County Human Service Agency and Hunger and Homeless
Action Coalition of San Mateo County, San Mateo Homeless Needs Assessment. December 1995.
California, State of, Governor's Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. November 1998.
California, State of, Department of Finance. City/County Population and Housing Estimates. January 1991 -
January 2000.
New Beginning Coalition. Strategic Plan for Services to Older Adults and Adults with Disabilities, 1995-2000.
October 17, 1995.
San Mateo County. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in San Mateo County, CA.
San Mateo County Aging and Adult Services. Strategic Plan for Services for Older Adults and Adults with
Disabilities. Fiscal Year 2000-Fiscal Year 2005.
San Mateo County HOME Consortium. Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan. 1999-2003.
Social Security Administration, Office of Research. Evaluation, and Statistics, SSI Recipients by ZIP Code
Area, IX San Francisco Region. December 1996.
South San Francisco, City of. BART Transit Village Plan: Zoning District Standards and Design Guidelines.
June 2001.
South San Francisco, City of. Consolidated Plan for Housing, Community and Economic Development.
1998-2003.
South San Francisco, City of. Downtown Housing Survey. August 1999.
--- South San Francisco, City of. General Plan. October 1999.
South San Francisco, City of. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999.
South San Francisco, City of. General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues. September 1997.
August 12, 2002 B-1
Public Hearing Draft
City of South San Francisco Appendix B: Bibliography
South San Francisco, City of. Housing Element 1990-1995. December 9, 1992.
South San Francisco, City of. One-Year Action Plan. 2001-2002.
South San Francisco, City of. StaffReport: Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus Ordinances. September
26, 2001.
South San Francisco, City of. Zoning Ordinance. May 1999.
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, City of. Five Year Implementation Plan. January 2000.
State Independent Living Council. Independent Living, Report to the California Legislature on State Services
Which Foster the Ability of People to Live Independently. March 1998.
United States Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing. 1990.
United States Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing. 2000.
Agencies/Organizations Consulted
California Housing Partnership Corporation
Clara-Mateo Alliance
Center for Independence of the Disabled
Economic & Community Development Department, City of South San Francisco
Golden Gate Regional Center
Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility
Human Investment Project, Home Sharing Program
North Peninsula Neighborhood Services
Mental Health Association, Spring Street Shelter
Peninsula Association for Retarded Children and Adults (PARCA)
Rental Housing Owners Association
Safe Harbor Shelter
St. Vincent de Paul's Society
The Salvation Army
San Mateo County Association of Realtors
San Mateo County Mental Health
San Mateo County Office on Homelessness
San Mateo Interfaith Hospitality Network
Shelter Network of San Mateo County
South San Francisco Unified School District
South San Francisco Police Department
Standard Builders
City of South San Francisco- Senior Program
San Mateo County Office of Housing
Public Hearing Draft
B-2
August 12, 2002
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As part of the Housing Element process, the City implemented the State's public participation requirements
in Housing Element Law, indicated in Government Code Section 65583 (c) (6) (B), that jurisdictions
"...shall make a diligent effort to achieve participation of all economic segments of the community." It is
important to note that the Housing Element Update process is not an isolated review process, but a
continuation of the General Plan Update process, the Inclusionary Ordinance, and the implementation of
specific housing efforts. Since 1997, the City used several methods to solicit comprehensive and continued
input and participation from local residents, housing developers, non-profit housing development and
management organizations, social service providers, neighborhood associations, the business community,
and City commissions. As outlined below, the City's public outreach program has been designed to obtain
input from residents representing all income groups, non-profit and for-profit residential developers, and
businesses.
General Plan Update (1997-1999)
The General Plan Update process introduced the city residents, businesses, and policymakers to key infill
strategies that must be undertaken in order to provide needed housing over the next two decades. The City
Council reclassified properties from commercial and industrial to high-density residential and adopted
policies that increased densities near transit corridors and in Downtown South San Francisco. The proce_ss
included a comprehensive outreach program that included:
General Plan Mailing List. The list includes all property owners, interested South San Francisco.
residents, businesses, and community groups. Review of the General Plan process and
announcements about upcoming meetings are sent to the mailing list.
Cable TV Announcements. Announcements seeking participation in the General Plan update
process are aired on the cable television channel.
General Plan Update Community Meetings in residential neighborhoods. Public meetings were
held in each of the residential neighborhoods identified in the General Plan Existing Conditions
Report to discuss the General Plan update, including housing issues.
General Plan Update Open House. The City advertised (in a full-page color newspaper
advertisement) and held a city-wide open house to present the General Plan policies, includine
housing issues.
General Plan Update Information. The City prepared city-wide notices and newsletter mailings
for distribution to city property owners, interested residents, and businesses.
General Plan Update Presentations. City Staff presented the General Plan Update to service
organizations, homeowners associations, and merchant associations.
City Council/Planning Commission. The City held joint study sessions, Planning Commission
workshops, and public hearings to review the Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report, the
Alternative Land Use strategies, and the Draft General Plan policy document.
August 12, 2002 C-1 Public Hearing Draft
City of South San Francisco Appendix B: Bibliography
Inclusionary Housin(l Ordinance (1999-2001)
The South San Francisco City Council recognized during the General Plan Update process that there is a
need to provide and preserve housing for lower-income households and senior citizens. The Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance (December 2001) promotes the construction of affordable housing and provides
incentives to residential developers through the exercise of its powers and the utilization of its resources.
The process included a comprehensive outreach program that included:
2~
Inclusionary Housing Mailing List. The list includes all property owners, interested South San
Francisco residents, businesses, non-profit organizations, regional property management
associations, the Home Builders Association, and low-income family support organizations.
Review of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance process and announcements about upcoming
meetings were sent to the mailing list.
City Staff Meetings with Special Interest Groups. City Staff met with representatives from Bridge
Housing and Mid-Peninsula Housing to build on potential joint funding and partnerships to build
affordable housing. City Staff met with the appropriate service agencies and organizations to
outreach to low-income households. City Staff also met with private developers that support
affordable housing, such as DUC Housing. Staff met with residential developers that oppose
non-market rate requirements (such as the State's fifteen percent requirement in Redevelopment
Project areas), including KB Homes and Phillip R. Serna from the Home Builders Association.
Citv Council/Planning Commission. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint
study session, the Planning Commission help workshops, the Planning Commission held public
hearings, and the City Council held study sessions and public hearings to review housing issues,
affordability issues, alternative strategies to provide affordable housing, and the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance.
South San Francisco BART Transit Villal~e Plan and Ordinance
The South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan and Ordinance implements the General Plan policies
promoting high-density housing, infill development and transit-oriented development near transit corridors.
The process included a comprehensive outreach program that included:
Transit Village Mailing List. The list includes all property owners in the study area, interested
South San Francisco residents, businesses, non-profit organizations, property management
associations, and the South San Francisco Unified School District. Review of the Transit Village
Plan and Ordinance process and announcements about upcoming meetings are sent to the mailing
list.
Transit Village Subcommittee and Stakeholders Group. The Transit Village Subcommittee was
formed in November 2000 and met once a month to discuss high-density housing issues. The
Subcommittee includes Planning Commission members, Design Review Board members,
representatives from the school district, and representative from the Redevelopment Agency Public
Action Committee. The Stakeholders Group was also formed in November 2000 and met once a
month. The Group included representatives from Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), Sam
Mateo County Transit (SamTrans), property owners, housing developers, City staff, and interested
C-2
Appendix B: Bibliography City of South San Francisco
residents.
Transit Village Community Meetings and Open House. The City held three community meetings
in the at El Camino High School to discuss high-density housing and traffic issues. The City
sponsored one Open House at the Magnolia Senior Center to present the proposals for high-density
housing.
City Council/Planning Commission. The City Council and Planning Commission held public
workshops, study sessions, and public hearings to review the Ordinance.
Downtown Housinc~ Initiative (2002)
The General Plan requires high-density housing, infill development and transit-oriented development in
Downtown South San Francisco. The process to implement the General Plan policies included the creation
of the following community outreach program:
Downtown "Placemaking" Workshops. From January to May 2002. the City, San Mateo County
Transit (SamTrans) and the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA)
held "placemaking" workshops with local merchants and Downtown homeowners association
members to survey sites for high-density housing and implement pedestrian improvements in
Downtown South San Francisco.
HousinQ Element Update (2001-2002)
The Draft Housing Element builds on the General Plan Update process that began in 1997. The General
Plan process continued following the adoption of the General Plan in October 1999 through the
implementation of the Transit Village Plan and Ordinance, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. and the
Housing Element process. To date, the process to update the Housing Element includes the following:
Housing Element Mailing List. Utilizing the mailing lists since 1997. the mailing list includes all
property owners, interested South San Francisco residents, businesses, non-profit organizations,
regional property management associations, the Home Builders Association, and low-income
family, homeless and poverty support organizations. Review of the Draft Housing Element and
announcements about upcoming meetings are sent to the mailing list.
Planning Commission Tour oflnfill Sites. In November 2001. City Staff sponsored a tour of
potential infill sites with members of the Planning Commission and interested residents. The
participants visited each site and discussed the potential for high-density housing, housing
rehabilitation, and changes to development standards in existing low- and medium-density
neighborhoods.
City Council/Planning Commission. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint
study session, the Planning Commission held two workshops, the Planning Commission held one
public hearing, and the City Council held one study session and a public hearing to review housing
issues, affordability issues, alternative strategies to provide affordable housing, and the Draft
Housing Element.
Community Meetings and Open House. City staff will sponsor community meetings in each
residential neighborhood and an open house following approval of the Housing Element by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development.
August 12, 2002 C-3
Public Hearing Draft
City of South San Francisco Appendix B: Bibliography
August 12, 2002
C-4
Public Hearing Draft
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
EXHIBIT B
FILED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION/INITIAL STUDY
FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE
OCTOBER 16, 2002
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
South San Francisco General Plan Update
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
I. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM - NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................. 3
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 5
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................................................................................................... 6
IV. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................. 7
October 16, 2002 1
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Introduction
South San Francisco General Plan Update
The South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element has been prepared to meet the
requirements of State Law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with other elements of
the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in October 1999. The Housing Element is
internally consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and does not propose any changes
to the current General Plan land use designations.
The City of South San Francisco is built out, and new housing development will occur on a
limited number of infill and redevelopment sites that are curremly zoned for residemial uses. All
housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Elemem are in areas currently designated and
zoned for residential land uses. Housing estimates contained in the Housing Element are based
on residential densities permitted under in the South San Francisco General Plan and analyzed in
the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in October
1999.
The City of South San Francisco General Plan Draf~ Housing Elemem Update may be viewed
and primed by going to the City's web site at wx~,.ci.ssf, ca.us or www.ssf, net. A copy of the
Housing Element may be obtained at the Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple
Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Copies of the document may also be viewed at
the Office of the City Clerk, West Orange Library and the Grand Avenue Library. For additional
information, please call the Economic and Community Developmem Department, Planning
Division at (650) 877-8535, or e-mail "mike.lappen~ssf. net."
During the 30-day comment period, please mail comments on this Negative Declaration to the
following address:
Michael Lappen, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department, Planning
Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
October 16, 2002 2
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
South San Francisco General Plan Update
I. Environmental Checklist Form- Negative Declaration
1. Project title
2. Lead agency name and address
3. Contact person and phone number
4. Project location
5. Project sponsor's name and address
6. General plan designation
7. Zoning
8. Description of project (Describe the whole
action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary,
support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.)
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly
describe the project's sun'oundings:
10. Other public agencies whose approval is
required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
City of South San Francisco Housing Element Update
City of South San Francisco Economic and Community
Development Department
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Michael Lappen
Senior Planner
650-829-6628
City of South San Francisco
City of South San Francisco Economic and Community
Development Department
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
City-wide; all designations allowing residential development
City-wide; all zoning districts allowing residential
development
See Section II below for full description. The 2002 Housing
Element Update is a comprehensive statement by the City of
South San Francisco of its current and future housing needs
and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to
meet those needs at all income levels. The purpose of the
Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing
needs and set forth goals, policies, and programs that address
those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared to meet
the requirements of State law and local housing objectives.
See Section III below.
none
October 16, 2002
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[~] Aesthetics
[~ Biological Resources ~]
[-~ Hazards & Hazardous [--]
Materials
[-'] Mineral Resources
[~] Public Services [-']
[~] Utilities / Service Systems ['~
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Air Quality
Geology/Soils
Hydrology / Water Quality [-~
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation/Traffic
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, Co) or
NEGATIVE
and
have
been
avoided
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
October 16, 2002 4
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
South San Francisco General Plan Update
II. Project Description
The City of South San Francisco has prepared the South San Francisco General Plan Housing
Element to meet the requirements of State Law and local housing objectives, and is consistent
with other elements of the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in October 1999. The
Housing Element does not propose any changes to the current General Plan land use
designations, zoning ordinances, redevelopment project areas, or district boundaries. The City of
South San Francisco adopted its current Housing Element in December 1992. The Housing
Element was subsequently "certified" as legally adequate by HCD.
The 2002 Housing Element Update is a comprehensive statement by the City of South San
Francisco of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision
of housing to meet those needs at all income levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to
identify current and projected housing needs and set forth goals, policies, and programs that
address those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of State
law and local housing objectives. It will not require any changes in the existing zoning densities
or the City's existing General Plan's land use pattern.
The City submitted the draft Housing Element for review by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) on April 3, 2002 for the State mandated 60-day
review period. HCD reviewed the draft and submitted comments on the draft on May 31, 2002.
The City addressed HCD comments and will send the draft to the City Council for approval in
December 2002. Following adoption of the Housing Element, the City will submit the final
Housing Element to HCD for certification.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in its final Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND) figures, allocated South San Francisco 1,331 housing units for the period
from 1999 to 2006. The timeframe for this RHND process is January 1, 1999, through June 30,
2006, (a seven and a half year planning period). The allocation is equivalent to a yearly need of
177 housing units for the 7½-year time period.
After accounting for new units constructed from January 1999 through December 2001 (1,870),
South San Francisco has a remaining need for 504 housing units, including 110 very-low income
units, 131 low-income units, and 263 moderate-income units. The City has a surplus of 1,021
above moderate-income units.
The Housing Element, a component of South San Francisco's General Plan, presents a
comprehensive set of housing policies and actions for the years 1999-2006. It builds on an
assessment of the City's housing needs and evaluation of housing programs, available land, and
constraints on housing production that began with the General Plan Update process in 1997.
Since 1997, the City has identified several infill sites for mixed-use and high-density housing
development, as reflected in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and
Downtown South Francisco. In the past, the City has successfully provided housing for all
income groups. However, as San Francisco Bay Area housing prices has increased to where only
seventeen percent of residents can afford to purchase a home, the City Council has sought ways
October 16, 2002 5
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
to ensure that "workforce" housing will be built over the next decade. Prior to commencement of
this Housing Element process, the City Council adopted new initiatives to encourage affordable
housing in the City, including the implementation of affordable housing requirements, no-fee
technical support and permit streamlining for for-profit residential developers, purchase and
rehabilitation of deteriorating residential sites for low-income families, joint partnership with
private non-profit housing developers to produce new housing for low income households, and
implementing density bonus and parking reduction standards for new residential development.
The 2002 Housing Element represents minor modifications to the most critical existing policies
and implementation programs in the 1992 Housing Element. Some of the larger changes to the
1992 Housing Element in the 2002 Housing Element Update include an expanded Energy
Conservation section and new policies to remove barriers for persons with disabilities.
Based on the State CEQA Guidelines and professional judgement, the proposed project would
result in a significant impact on housing if it would:
1) Create a demand for additional housing without providing for accompanying housing
development; or
2) Result in the displacement of substantial amounts of existing affordable housing.
The updated Housing Element will not displace substantial amounts of existing housing and will
not substantially alter the location or extent of designated residential land uses. As a result,
adequate area is available to provide for anticipated housing demand.
Based on these provisions, the updated Housing Element will have no adverse impacts related to
housing issues. No mitigation measures are necessary. Housing construction may result in
indirect impacts from increased traffic, loss of natural resources, and the increase in demand for
public services and facilities. The indirect impacts resulting from housing construction under the
Housing Element Update do not extend beyond those anticipated under the 1999 General Plan
are discussed in the appropriate sections of the EIR prepared for the existing General Plan.
III. Environmental Setting
The Housing Element Planning Area includes all land within the boundaries of the city limits,
which encompasses 4,298 net acres. The South San Francisco Planning Area is located on the
west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the
Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically located along major
transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, the
Union Pacific Railroad, (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad) and the San Francisco International
Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive landmark.
October 16, 2002 6
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
IV. Evaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Signi~cant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
No Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
. buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in [ [
the area?
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of
scenic resources, including Policy 2-I-2, 5.1-I-8, 3.8-I-2, 3.9-I-2, 2-G-l, 2-G-6, 2-I-7, 2-I-9, 2-G-8, 2-I-8.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland [-~ [~ ~ ~
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ~ ~-] [~] [~
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in [~ [~] [~] [~
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion: The City of South San Francisco is located in a heavily urbanized area and has no agricultural
resources within the city limits.
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? I I
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality I [
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state [-'-]
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
October 16, 2002 7
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant with Significant
Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of air
quality, including the Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies in Section 7.3 (Air Quality) of the General Plan.
Air quality impacts of specific projects will be assessed under procedures established in the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses. The Housing Element does not add additional population to what is
akeady proposed under the General Plan. Therefore, the Housing Element would not add to traffic impacts
identified in the General Plan EIR.
·
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by D [-~ D ~
the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the ~ ~] [--I ~]
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, [~] ~ ~] [~
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife [~ ~ ~ [~
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree ~ [~ [~ ~
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation ~ ~-~ [~ ~
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of
biological resources, including the policies under Section 7.1 (Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation) of
Chapter 7 (Open Space and Conservation) of the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
October 16, 2002 8
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in [~]
'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~
'15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic [~
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? I I
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of
cultural resources, including the policies and programs under Section 7.4 (Historic and Cultural Resources) of
Chapter 7 (Open Space and Conservation) of the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the project, [-'-!
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ~
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal ~
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
October 16, 2002 9
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to geology and soils,
including the policies under Section 8.1 (Geologic and Seismic Hazards) of Chapter 8 (Health and Safety) of the
General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General.
Plan.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or ~ [~ ~ ~
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ~ [~] [~] ~
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ~] ['~ ~ ~
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ~-] [~ ~ ~
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result ina safety hazard for people ['~ [~ ~ ~
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ~ [~ [-~ ~
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including [--] [~ [~ ~
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of
residents from man-made and natural hazards, including the policies under Section 8.3 (Waste Management and
Recycling), Section 8.4 (Fire Hazards), Section 8.6 (Emergency Management), and Section 8.7 (Aircraft Safety) of
Chapter 8 (Health and Safety) of the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? [-~ ~] ~ ~
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [~ ~'~ [ [ ~]
October 16, 2002 10
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
·
South San Francisco General Plan Update
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Min'gation Impact
Incorporation
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the ['--1
course of a stream or fiver, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or fiver, or substantially increase the ~
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater i'--i
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood I---]
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ~
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ['--]
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [~] [~ [~ [5~
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the protection of
water quality, including the policies under Section 7.2 (Water Quality) of Chapter 7 (Open Space and
Conservation) and Section 8.2 (Flooding), and Section 8.6 (Emergency Management) of Chapter 8 (Health and
Safety) of the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
IX. LAND USE - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
October 16, 2002
11
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to land use, including
the policies under Section 2.6 (Land Use Policies) in Chapter 2 (Land Use) and Sections 3.1 through 3.12 in
Chapter 3 (Planning Sub-Areas) of the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the [~ [--] [~ ~
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a ['~ [~ ~ [~
local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion: There are no mineral resources located within the city limits.
XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general ~'] D [~ [~
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [~ [~ [~] [~
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ['~ ~ [~] [~
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels [~ ~ [~ ~
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the [_J [ [ [XJ
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in ~] [~] [-~ [~
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the reduction of
noise sources, including the policies under Section 9.3 (Noise Projections) in Chapter 9 (Noise) of the General
Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes [--] [~] [--3 [~
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
October 16, 2002 12
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
Discussion: All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already
designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR
for the General Plan.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? ['~ ~-] [~
Police protection? [~] ~-] ~
Schools? 5] [E [2]
Other public facilities? [--] [~ ~-]
Discussion: All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already
designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR
for the General Plan. There are numerous guiding policies and implementing policies throughout the General Plan
that require the provision of public facilities, adequate services, and irrfi'astmcture concurrent with new
development and require new development to provide its fair share of required services and infrastructure in a
timely manner, including the policies under Section 5.1 (Parks, Recreation, and Open Space), Section 5.2
(Educational Facilities), and Section 5.3 (Public Facilities and Services) of Chapter 5 (Parks, Public Facilities and
Services) of the General Plan.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational ~ [--] ~-~ ~
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect [~] ['~ [~] ~3
on the environment?
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to recreational
resources, including the policies under Section 5.1 (Parks, Recreation, and Open Space) in Chapter 5 (Parks,
Public Facilities, and Services) of the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the [~] [~ ~-~ ~
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
October 16, 2002 13
Initial Study/Negative Declaration South San Francisco General Plan Update
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
No Impact
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to maintain an
efficient transportation system, including the policies under Section 4.2 (Street Network, Classification, and
Operations) and Section 4.3 (Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking), and Section 4.4 (Transit and Public
Transportation) in Chapter 4 (Transportation) of the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses. The Housing Element does not add additional population to what is
already proposed under the General Plan. Therefore, the Housing Element would not add to traffic impacts
identified in the General Plan EIR.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater trealxnent requirements of the [-~ ~ ~ ~
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ~] ~] ~-] [~
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing [--] ~ [--1 ~
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are [~ ~ [~ ~
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected ~-~ ~3 ~
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ['-] ~ [~ ~
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and [~] [-~ ~'] C~
October 16, 2002 14
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
South San Francisco General Plan Update
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion: The development of 1,399 residential units to meet the City's remaining RHND allocation will be
subject to goals, guiding policies, and implementing policies under the General Plan related to the provision of
utilities and public services, including the policies under Section 5.3 (Public Facilities and Services) of Chapter 5
(Parks, Public Facilities, and Services) of the General Plan.
All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already designated under
the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR for the General
Plan.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, ~] [~ ~-~ [5~
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate impo~t
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection [~] ~-~ [~] ~
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, [~ [~] [~] [~
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: All residential development provided for in the Housing Element Update will be on land already
designated under the 1999 General Plan for residential uses and analyzed for environmental impacts under the EIR
for the General Plan.
October 16, 2002 15