HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-08 e-packet
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
RICHARD A. GARBARINO
Mayor
MARK ADDIEGO
Vice Mayor
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Councilwoman
PRADEEP GUPTA
Councilman
LIZA NORMANDY
Councilwoman
FRANK RISSO
City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI
City Clerk
MIKE FUTRELL
City Manager
STEVEN T. MATTAS
City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open
session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates,
then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of
City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2015
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2015
AGENDA PAGE 2
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
PRESENTATIONS
Certificate of Appreciation presented to Police Sgt. Adam Plank (Councilwoman
Normandy).
Proclamation honoring National Library Week (April 12-18, 2015), accepted by Pat
FitzPatrick, Library Board President.
Proclamation recognizing William A. Nack presented by Mayor Garbarino.
Proclamation recognizing California Safe Digging Month (April 2015) and encouraging all
excavators, homeowners, and professional contractors to call 811 in advance of all digging
projects. (Brian McMinn, Public Works Director).
Presentation on Smoke Free Multi-Unit Housing (Karen Licavoli, Breathe California.
Requested by Mayor Garbarino.)
Proposition 47 presented by San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. (Chief
of Police Azzopardi)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card
located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda
Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking
action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred
to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more
comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address
(optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for
your cooperation.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of March 25, 2015.
2. Motion confirming payment registers for April 8, 2015.
3. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $15,000 in grant funding from the San Mateo
County Human Services Agency to support digital literacy programming at Library and
Parks and Recreation Departments’ after school homework program sites and amending the
Library Department’s 2014-2015 Operating Budget. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director).
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2015
AGENDA PAGE 3
4. Resolution rejecting all bids for the Municipal Services Building Atrium Restroom
Modernization Project (Project No. pf1509). (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer).
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
5. Motion to waive reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 11.24 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code to prohibit the intentional obstruction of pedestrian traffic upon
sidewalks. (Steve Mattas, City Attorney).
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
6. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with
CSG Consultants, Inc. of San Mateo, California, in an amount not to exceed $126,556 for
design of the Junipero Serra Boulevard and King Drive Intersection Improvements (Project
No. tr1501). (Lawrence Henriquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer).
7. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute plan review and inspection services
agreements with 1) CSG Consultants Inc., in the amount of $400,000 and 2) West Coast
Code Consultants Inc., in the amount of $200,000. (Alex Greenwood, ECD Director).
8. Resolution authorizing an application for the City Council of the Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program in the amount of $7,728,625 to support
Pedestrian and Bicycle Linkages from Downtown to the relocated Caltrain Station. (Alex
Greenwood, Economic and Community Development Director).
9. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with
Helio Energy Solutions of San Francisco, California, for the South San Francisco/San Bruno
Water Quality Control Plant Web-Based Monitoring and PredictEnergy Advance Analytics
Upgrade Project in an amount not to exceed $219,728.00. (Brian Schumacker, WQCP
Superintendent).
PUBLIC HEARING
10. Consideration of a Negative Declaration (ND14-0001) and an Amendment to the General
Plan (GPA14-0001) to adopt the 2015-2022 Housing Element, and acceptance of 2014
Housing Element Annual Progress Report, in accordance with South San Francisco
Municipal Code Chapters 20.460 and 20.540. (Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner).
11. Zoning Text Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.360 to revise regulations and permitting for
signs citywide in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.550.
(Billy Gross, Senior Planner).
CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN FROM REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2015.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2015
AGENDA PAGE 4
12. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of use permit and design review to allow the
substitution of a legally established nonconforming use (auto repair) with another
nonconforming use (service station convenience market) within an existing service station at
221 Airport Blvd in the Downtown Core (DC) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC
Chapter 20.570.004. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner).
MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING TO MAY 13, 2015.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Item #7. Has been pulled off the agenda
Staff Report
DATE: April 8, 2015
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND14-0001) AND AN
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA14-0001) TO ADOPT THE 2015-2023
HOUSING ELEMENT, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 20.460 AND 20.540.
Case Nos.: P14-0012: ND14-0001, GPA14-0001
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration (ND14-0001) for the City’s 2015-2023
Housing Element;
2. Adopt a resolution amending the South San Francisco General Plan (GPA14-0001) to update
the Housing Element and accepting the 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on
the Implementation of the 2007-2014 Housing Element of the General Plan and authorize
transmittal to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development.
BACKGROUND
Overview of Housing Element Update
California requires every city to prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan in order to ensure
that all jurisdictions are planning for the projected housing demand throughout the State. A Housing
Element is one of the seven State-mandated Elements of a locally-adopted General Plan. Unlike other
elements of a General Plan, the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the State. The
Housing Element is the blueprint for future housing development in the City and includes goals, policies,
and programs that direct residential decision-making. The Housing Element is required by State law to
identify how and where the housing needs of each community will be met. If a city does not comply with
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements for their Housing
Element, there is a risk of Housing Element litigation, loss of local land use control, the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers (allocation) becoming cumulative (per AB 1233), and ineligibility for
qualifying for State Housing Funds and other infrastructure funds.
The Housing Element includes the following major components:
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
DATE: April 8, 2015
A review of the prior Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production over the
previous Housing Element planning period (2007-2014);
An analysis of the City’s current and future housing needs;
An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production;
An inventory and analysis of housing resources; and
A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to address the
City’s housing needs.
The City adopted its current Housing Element in June, 2009, and the draft Housing Element for 2015-2023
has been updated to meet new State requirements, stakeholder requests, and City initiatives. This staff
report summarizes the review process of the 2015-2023 Housing Element to date, housing demand
projections for the City, opportunity sites for new housing to meet this expected demand, community
outreach, and new housing programs that are being introduced since the last Housing Element adoption.
Overview of Annual Progress Report
California Government Code Section 65400 requires that an Annual Progress Report (APR) be prepared
on the status and progress of implementation of the current Housing Element and be submitted to the City
Council, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) by April 1st of each year (with a 60 day grace period). There is no
similar requirement for the other Elements of the General Plan. Additionally, the APR has to be prepared
in accordance with the provisions set forth by HCD and on the forms provided by HCD (attachment 4).
The APR includes the following information about housing production since the start of the planning
period in 2007:
The types of housing units that were issued building permits (Att. 4, Table A & A3);
Information on the City’s progress in meeting its RHNA requirement (Att. 4, Table B); and
Progress report on implementation of current Housing Element programs (Att. 4, Table C).
The APR is informational only, and does not change adopted policies or authorize any action or
expenditure of funds. For the 2014 reporting year, the APR submittal coincides with the update to the
Housing Element. Accordingly, the Housing Element update has already provided a thorough analysis of
the required elements of the APR. Once the Council has acknowledged that the Annual Progress Report
has been provided to the City Council for review, staff will transmit the Report to HCD and OPR.
Airport Land Use Commission – C/CAG
The draft Housing Element was submitted to the City and County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County on October 29, 2014. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is responsible for
evaluating local land use documents to ensure consistency with the Airport’s operation plan. The ALUC
made a positive consistency review at their January 8, 2015 board meeting.
Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions
On November 6, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Housing Element, prior to submittal
to HCD for their mandatory review. At that time, the Planning Commission found the draft Housing
Element and new programs to be appropriate but did express concern about housing affordability and
potential displacement of existing residents. The City Council reviewed the draft Housing Element on
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
DATE: April 8, 2015
December 10, 2014 and shared a similar concern regarding current affordability in South San Francisco
and the region.
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
HCD manages the review and certification of a local jurisdiction’s Housing Element for the State of
California. Due to this responsibility, the City was required to submit the draft Housing Element to HCD
staff for compliance with State statutes after the Planning Commission and City Council study sessions.
HCD staff requested minor changes to the draft, including:
Include additional details regarding public outreach as part of the adoption process;
Include a new program that commits the City to comply with State code regarding employee
housing;
Clarify impact fees for new development in “constraints” analysis;
Ensure that transitional and supportive housing is permitted in residential districts;
Complete a capacity analysis for emergency shelters to ensure adequate sites are zoned for new
facilities; and
Revise Program 3-4B to incorporate State-preferred language related to displacement risks.
Staff and the Housing Element consultants have since responded to these requirements and working in
tandem with the Joint Housing Subcommittee (see discussion below), submitted a revised draft Housing
Element to HCD on February 27, 2015. As part of the State’s streamlined review, the document only
highlights the changes that were made by the City to satisfy the State’s comments (the streamlined revision
document is attached for reference). HCD staff provided written acceptance/tentative certification of the
revised draft Housing Element on March 3, 2015. Therefore, the current public hearing draft of the
Housing Element represents a complete document approved by HCD on March 3, 2015. The City Council
could still consider additional revisions to the public hearing draft of the Housing Element, but any new
changes should not impact the State required programs that were specifically requested to satisfy State
statutes.
Joint Housing Subcommittee
The Joint Housing Subcommittee was attended by two members of the City Council (Councilmembers
Gupta and Matsumoto) and Chair Wong of the Planning Commission and the Subcommittee met on
February 26, 2015 and March 5, 2015 to provide feedback on the proposed programs. Based on that
feedback, the following changes to two (2) housing programs could be considered by the City Council:
Program 1-4D - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, South San Francisco
Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 19.36
This is a City-led initiative based on developer feedback to consider reducing the threshold for
condominium construction to less than the current 5 unit threshold. The Subcommittee felt that
this type of change could discourage the construction of apartment units, however, which could
hurt the City’s ability to provide affordable rental opportunities, and recommended removing the
program.
Currently, the five unit requirement for condominium construction ensures that the inclusionary
housing requirement is triggered which requires that twenty percent (20%) of the units must be
provided at affordable prices. Reducing this condominium threshold to below 4 units would
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
DATE: April 8, 2015
eliminate the applicability of the inclusionary housing provision for certain condominium projects.
Alternatively, the opportunity to develop a three unit property as condominiums could potentially
provide an affordable homeownership opportunity for residents; condominiums are typically less
expensive than single family homes.
Program 3-4B – Examine Displacement of Affordable Housing and Lower-Income Households
This advocate-requested program was generally a reiteration of a similar policy included in the
recently adopted Downtown Station Area Specific Plan to address the growing concern that
residents could be displaced by economic development and rising rent prices. After submitting this
language to the HCD Department for preliminary review, HCD requested revisions to incorporate
additional language and State preferences. The Subcommittee reviewed these proposed options
and identified their preferred language, which reflects the City’s concern about affordability,
displacement, and desire to consider and implement locally-sensitive solutions. This language is
included as the revised Program 3-4B in the “Discussion” section for consideration.
Planning Commission Hearing
On March 19, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and Housing
Element update to the General Plan and found the proposed changes consistent with City policy and goals.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt both the environmental
document and the draft Housing Element. No changes were made to the draft Housing Element and the
Planning Commission chose to retain Program 1-4D related to condominium construction and
recommended that City staff investigate this policy as part of the Housing Element Annual Progress
Report, which would be provided prior to April 1, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The process begins with the State advising a region of their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RNHA),
which is the estimated number of housing units that will be needed over the planning period (usually seven
years). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the public process by which
this regional allocation is apportioned to each jurisdiction within its boundaries. A City’s allocation is
then further subdivided among four household income categories: very-low, low, moderate and above
moderate. The amount that residents can afford to spend on housing depends on their income.
Specifically, federal guidelines suggest that people not spend more than 30 percent of their earnings on
rent or mortgage, including utilities, as illustrated in Table 1. Income limits are determined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and are adjusted for family size.
Table 1 – U.S. Department of HUD Housing Affordability Guidelines
FAMILY
SIZE
EXTREMELY LOW
BELOW 30%
VERY LOW
BELOW 50%
LOW
BELOW 80%
MEDIAN
100%
MODERATE
BELOW 120%
ABOVE
MODERATE
1 $23,350 $38,500 $62,200 $72,100 $86,500 > $86,500
2 $26,650 $44,400 $71,050 $82,400 $98,900 > $98,900
3 $30,000 $49,950 $79,950 $92,700 $111,250 > $111,250
4 $33,300 $55,500 $88,800 $103,000 $123,600 > $123,600
5 $36,000 $59,950 $95,950 $111,250 $133,500 > $133,500
6 $38,650 $64,400 $103,050 $119,500 $143,400 > $143,400
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
DATE: April 8, 2015
This housing cycle covers January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023. The City of South San Francisco
has a RHNA allocation of 1,864 units for this cycle, with units distributed based upon income group as
shown in Table 2. The City’s RHNA allocation for the previous housing cycle (2006-2014) was 1,635
units, of which 251 units or about 16% have been constructed. This was primarily due to the economic
downturn in 2008 that essentially halted all residential construction statewide.
Table 2 – RHNA Allocation by Income Group for South San Francisco
INCOME GROUP UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL
Very Low/Extremely Low Income 565 30%
Low Income 281 15%
Moderate Income 313 17%
Above Moderate Income 705 38%
Total for 2015-2023 Cycle 1,864 100%
2006-2015 Cycle Total (for context) 1,635
Opportunity Site Analysis
To show that the City has properly zoned land to meet the RHNA numbers, the City is required to complete
an adequate site inventory. For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in South San Francisco have
been grouped into two geographic areas – Transit Village and Downtown. Each of these areas represents
the greatest potential for infill development given their underlying zoning standards that promote high-
density housing adjacent to transit. The opportunity site analysis indicates the potential to develop up to
2,169 units of new housing given the adoption of the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
Nearly all opportunity sites would support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater, providing
favorable prospects for affordable units. As discussed before, the City has a determined need of 1,864 units
during the planning period. Compared against the RHNA, the City’s housing opportunity sites offer a
development capacity with existing zoning that exceeds the needs determination by more than 300 units.
Table 3 – Opportunity Site Analysis to Meet RHNA Allocation
LOCATION ACREAGE UNIT CAPACITY PERCENT OF TOTAL
Transit Village 16.9 1,731 80%
Downtown 6.1 438 20%
Total Capacity 23.0 2,169 100%
RHNA Target 1,864
Excess Capacity 305 116%
Community Outreach
The Housing Element was developed with participation from members of the South San Francisco
community, as well as housing advocates, developers, employer representatives and other interested
parties. Key community outreach included:
Public workshop that included participation by the City Council, Planning Commission, Sierra
Club, Rotary Club, San Mateo County Union Community Alliance, Office of Assembly member
Kevin Mullin, and the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County (2/11/14);
Housing Resources Fair at the Municipal Services Building (5/10/14);
Participation in the 21 Elements regional working group, which hosted advocate input meetings for
the 2015-2023 Housing Element adoption cycle;
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
DATE: April 8, 2015
Comment letters from HIP Housing, Housing Leadership Council, Peninsula Interfaith Action and
Greenbelt Alliance, and San Mateo County Association of Realtors (SAMCAR); and
Study session input from the Planning Commission (11/6/14) and City Council (12/10/14).
Input from the community outreach was incorporated into a revised draft Housing Element that was then
forwarded to the HCD Department for a consistency review. HCD provided subsequent minor revisions,
which have been incorporated into the final draft Housing Element attached to this staff report.
New Housing Element Programs
Based on public input and City-led initiatives, the 2015-2023 Housing Element includes new programs to
address HCD requirements, ensure that the City’s housing stock is maintained, and make housing available
citywide to all types of persons on an equitable basis. The updated Housing Element carries over many of
the goals, policies and programs from the previous Housing Element. In response to comments received
by the public and advocate groups, however, thirteen (13) new programs have been included for the
Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration. The program number, title, and purpose are listed
below:
Program 1-2B - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Review: The City shall periodically review the
success of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SSFMC 20.380, to determine if the objectives of
the ordinance are being met. Consideration shall be made to revising provisions of the ordinance to
ensure that a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the
population, including households of low-and moderate incomes, are provided.
Program 1-4D - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, South San Francisco
Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 19.36: The City shall review SSFMC Chapter 19.36, which
requires a minimum of 5 units in order to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of
reducing unit requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership.
Program 1-5B – Support Grand Boulevard Initiative Polices: Continue to support the guiding
principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which encourages the provision of medium- and high-
density housing along El Camino Real in Peninsula communities, in order to create an environment
that is supportive of transit, walkable, and mixed-use. The City shall reference this policy direction
when considering future land use and zoning changes along El Camino Real, and assess the
opportunity for housing development along this key corridor as development proposals arise.
Program 3-1B – Funding Prioritization: The City shall continue to give housing rehabilitation
efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Funds
shall be targeted towards older housing stock and to families earning less than 80 percent of AMI.
Program 3-4B – Examine Displacement of Affordable Housing and Lower-Income Households:
The City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, under the umbrella of work
to be undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop and evaluate potential strategies to address
displacement of lower income residents. The City will use this analysis, in addition to other
analysis, to develop potential measures and programs and the City will implement those programs,
as it considers and deems appropriate, to address the risk of displacement of existing lower income
residents. Displacement might be direct, caused by the redevelopment of sites with existing
residential properties, or indirect, caused by increased market rents as an area becomes more
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
DATE: April 8, 2015
desirable. The City shall monitor any such implemented programs annually for effectiveness and
make adjustments as necessary.
Program 3-6B – Assist Tenants: The City shall assist tenants displaced by the conversion of at risk
units by providing information about tenants’ rights, providing referrals to relevant social service
providers, endeavoring to establish a funding source to assist nonprofit organizations that support
tenants, and facilitating other support as appropriate.
Program 5-2B – Promote Disabled Housing Resources and Programs. The City shall ensure that its
website and handout materials regarding housing resources, requirements, and services for the
disabled are updated regularly and made available to the public.
Program 5-4B – Resources for the developmentally disabled: The City shall support the Golden
Gate Regional Center in its mission to serve those with developmental disabilities, disseminate
information about the Center and its services, and make referrals as appropriate.
Program 5-5A – Support a variety of housing unit designs, including larger housing units that can
accommodate large families: The City shall seek to broaden the diversity of its housing stock that
is affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households to include more units that are
suitable to large families. Currently, much of South San Francisco’s affordable housing consists of
single-room occupancy units and one- and two-bedroom units. The City shall work with housing
developers during the entitlement process and encourage them to provide a unit mix with at least
10 percent of units having three or more bedrooms.
Program 5-7A – Support and Promote Home Sharing: The City shall support the efforts and
services of the HIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternative housing solution for
extremely low and very low income individuals and families; female-headed households; those at
risk of homelessness; and others in need. The Housing and Economic Development Division will
provide information about the HIP program, provide referrals, and support residents of South San
Francisco who are interested in participating.
Program 5-8A – Provide referrals to Veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: The
City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate families that are homeless or at risk of
homelessness. Resources for referrals include the Veteran’s Administration (VA) National Call
Center of Homeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint
effort between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the VA Supportive
Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into
permanent housing through a voucher program that allows homeless Veterans to rent privately
owned housing.
Program 5-9: Amend the Zoning Code to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5
regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees. The City shall amend its Zoning
Ordinance to allow employee housing in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5,
to permit and encourage the development and use of sufficient numbers and types of employee
housing facilities as are commensurate with local needs.
Program 6-1A – Support Equal Housing Opportunity Laws: The City shall require that all
recipients of locally-administered housing assistance funds and other means of support from the
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
DATE: April 8, 2015
City acknowledge their understanding of fair housing law and affirm their commitment to the law.
The City shall provide materials to help with the understanding of and compliance with fair
housing law.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
State Law requires that all elements of the General Plan “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and
compatible statement of policies.” Staff has reviewed the proposed Housing Element Update and
determined that it will not create any inconsistencies within the City’s General Plan.
CEQA
An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The IS/ND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and
circulated for a 30-day public review on Friday, February 27, 2015. The review period closed on Monday,
March 30, 2015.
One (1) letter was received on the Housing Element IS/ND from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC), dated March 19, 2015. The SFPUC stated that any new development proposals on
certain identified opportunity sites (Site 2 and Site 5 within the Transit Village Area – Figure 2, page 85 of
the Housing Element) will need to be reviewed by the SFPUC to ensure the protection of their easements.
This is a standard comment letter from the SFPUC and does not raise any environmental impacts not
discussed in the Negative Declaration, nor impact the City’s ability to use the identified properties as
future development sites.
The Negative Declaration analyzed the potential impacts of updating the General Plan’s Housing Element
and determined that the Project is considered to have no impact or impacts that would be less than
significant with mandatory compliance with existing federal, State and local standards. Implementation of
the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment or result in adverse effects on
human beings, provided the Project adheres to all mandated policies, rules and regulations of all relevant
governing bodies.
CONCLUSION
The Housing Element Update results in minor policy changes and a robust list of opportunity sites in the
Transit Village and Downtown zoning districts, where new housing adjacent to transit service is consistent
with City and State policies. Both the draft Housing Element and the environmental document adequately
address South San Francisco’s complex housing needs and the legal requirements defined by the State.
Additionally, the 2014 Annual Progress Report provides the necessary updates for the state related to the
final year of previous Housing Element and RHNA cycle.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration (ND14-0001) for the City’s Housing Element;
2. Adopt a resolution amending the South San Francisco General Plan (GPA14-0001) to update the
Housing Element and accepting the 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on the
Implementation of the 2007-2014 Housing Element of the General Plan and authorize transmittal
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL CEQA RESOLUTION
1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE INITIAL
STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND14-0001) FOR THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE (GPA14-0001)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65580 of the State Planning and Zoning Law
requires every city to adopt a housing element; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code,
“Housing element content,” the City of South San Francisco has prepared a General Plan
Housing Element Update (“Project”), which provides detailed background information, an
assessment of housing needs, an analysis of adequate sites, resources, and constraints 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, the Project policies are internally consistent with the policies contained in
each of the South San Francisco General Plan elements; and
WHEREAS, the City presented the Project to the Airport Land Use Commission/ C/CAG
and it was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the City prepared the attached Initial Study/
Negative Declaration and distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate
responsible agencies and interested parties on February 27, 2015 for a 30-day public review
period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on March
19, 2015 to consider and evaluate the Negative Declaration, and at the conclusion of which, the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2015 to
consider and evaluate the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of the record is the City’s Chief Planner, and the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration and the General Plan Housing Element Update, as well as other
materials comprising the record for these proceedings, are available and may be reviewed at the
2
offices of the South San Francisco Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, 94080.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,
including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners,
and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission Study Session on November 6, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the City Council Study Session on December 10, 2014; all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly
noticed March 19, 2015 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of
the City Council’s duly noticed April 8, 2015 meeting and any other evidence (within the
meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for
the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update (attached as Exhibit A) are each incorporated by
reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby adopts the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND14-0001), attached hereto as Exhibit A,
for the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update (GPA14-0001).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 8th day of April, 2015 by the following
vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
3
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
4
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2421305.1
5
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
February 2015
Prepared by
Table of Contents
Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1
1 Background .................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Housing Element Overview ............................................................................................. 7
1.2 City of South San Francisco Housing Needs ............................................................... 7
1.3 Potential Housing Opportunity Sites ............................................................................. 8
1.4 Housing Element Organization .................................................................................... 12
1.5 Required Approvals ........................................................................................................ 13
2 Determination ........................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................. 14
2.2 Determination .................................................................................................................. 14
3 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................... 16
3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Agriculture Resources ................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 23
3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 26
3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 27
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 28
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 31
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 34
3.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 36
3.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 37
3.12 Noise .................................................................................................................................. 38
3.13 Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 40
3.14 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 42
3.15 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 43
3.16 Transportation and Circulation ................................................................................... 45
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................ 47
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................. 49
4 References ................................................................................................................. 51
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Planning Area ......................................................................................................................................5
List of Tables
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2014-2022 .........................................................................8
Table 2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area .................................................................. 10
Table 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown South San Francisco ........................................... 11
Housing Element Update
1
Project Description
PROJECT TITLE
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:
PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
ZONING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
2
Housing Element Update
3
1 Background
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
4
Housing Element Update
5
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
6
Housing Element Update
7
1.1 Housing Element Overview
1.2 City of South San Francisco Housing Needs
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
8
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2014-2022
Income Category Household Income Limits for
4-Person Household
RHNA 2014-2022 Percent of Total
Extremely Low (less than 30%
AMI)
Less than $33,950
282 15%
Very Low (30-49% AMI) $33,951-$56,550 283 15%
Low (50-79% AMI) $56,551-$90,500 281 15%
Moderate (80-120% AMI) $90,501-$123,600 313 17%
Above Moderate (over 120%
AMI) Over $123,600 705 38%
Total Units 1,864 100%
Notes:
1. The 2013 San Mateo County median for a family of four was $103,000, as determined by HUD.
Source: ABAG, 2014; Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
1.3 Potential Housing Opportunity Sites
Housing Element Update
9
TRANSIT VILLAGE AREA
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
10
Table 2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area
Site Acres Existing Use Zoning
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
Estimated Actual
Dwelling Units
Per Acre Units
1 0.1 Vacant SFR TV-RM 30 30 3
1 1.5 Vacant TV-RM 30 30 44
Site 1 Total 1.6 47
2 1.3 Vacant motel ECR/C-MXH 80 80 104
2 1.3 Vacant ECR/C-MXH 80 80 104
2 3.1 Lumber yard ECR/C-MXH 80 80 248
Site 2 Total 5.7 456
3-Block A Vacant ECR/C-RH 120 108 419
3-Block B
Vacant ECR/C-MXH 80 76 43
3-Block C
Vacant ECR/C-MXH 80 72 94
3-Block D
Commercial,
vacant ECR/C-MXH 80 64 139
3-Block E
Commercial,
vacant ECR/C-MXH 80 54 150
3-Block H Commercial ECR/C-MXH 80 70 223
3-Block J
Commercial ECR/C-MXH 80 39 45
Site 3 Total1 7.6 1,113
4 0.3 Utility RH-30 30 23 7
Site 4 Total 0.3 7
5 1.7 Commercial ECR/C-MXH 80 64 108
Site 5 Total 1.7 108
Total 16.9 1,731
Notes:
1. Includes blocks A, B, C, D, E, H, and J from the Focus Area of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan. Buildout
assumptions reflect those in the Area Plan.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett & Bhatia, 2015.
DOWNTOWN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Housing Element Update
11
Table 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown South San Francisco
Site Acres Existing Use Zoning
Maximum
Dwelling
Units Per
Acre
Estimated Actual1
Dwelling
Units Per
Acre2
Total
Units
6 0.3 Vacant
Linden Neighborhood
Center 60 48 14
Site 6 Total 0.3 14
7 0.3 Parking Lot
Linden Neighborhood
Center 60 48 14
Site 7 Total 0.3 14
8 0.3 Vacant Downtown Transit Core 100 80 24
Site 8 Total 0.3 24
9 0.3 Parking Lot
Downtown Residential
Core 80 64 19
Site 9 Total 0.3 19
10 0.3 Parking Lot
Downtown Residential
Core 80 64 19
10 0.1 Parking Lot
Downtown Residential
Core 80 64 6
10 0.1 Parking Lot
Downtown Residential
Core 80 64 6
10 0.1 Parking Lot
Downtown Residential
Core 80 64 6
Site 10 Total 0.6 38
11 0.3 Office Building Downtown Transit Core 100 80 24
11 0.2 Parking Lot Downtown Transit Core 100 80 16
11 0.1 Office Building Downtown Transit Core 100 80 8
11 0.2 Retail Downtown Transit Core 100 80 16
Site 11 Total 0.8 64
12 0.1 Parking Lot Grand Avenue Core 80 64 6
12 0.1 Parking Lot Grand Avenue Core 80 64 6
12 0.2 Parking Lot Grand Avenue Core 80 64 13
12 0.1
Commercial
Building Grand Avenue Core 80 64 6
12 0.1 Vacant Grand Avenue Core 80 64 6
12 0.2 Parking Lot Grand Avenue Core 80 64 13
Site 12 Total 0.8 51
13 0.2
Vacant Fire
Station Downtown Transit Core 100 80 16
13 0.3 Parking Lot Downtown Transit Core 100 80 24
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
12
Table 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown South San Francisco
Site Acres Existing Use Zoning
Maximum
Dwelling
Units Per
Acre
Estimated Actual1
Dwelling
Units Per
Acre2
Total
Units
Site 13 Total 0.5 40
14 0.5
Commercial
Building Downtown Transit Core 100 80 41
Site 14 Total 0.5 41
15 0.4 Parking Lot Downtown Transit Core 100 80 32
Site 15 Total 0.4 32
16 Parking Lot Downtown Transit Core 100 80
16 Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80
16 Parking Lot Downtown Transit Core 100 80
Site 16 Total 1.1 85
17 0.2 Parking Lot Downtown Transit Core 100 80 16
Site 17 Total 0.2 16
Total 6.1 438
Notes:
1. Numbers may not sum precisely due to rounding.
2. Estimated actual density does not include density bonuses incentives that may be achievable.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014; Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
1.4 Housing Element Organization
Housing Element Update
13
1.5 Required Approvals
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL
OTHER AGENCIES
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
14
2 Determination
2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Aesthetics Agriculture Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gases Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use & Planning Energy & Mineral Resources Noise
Population & Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation & Circulation Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2.2 Determination
Housing Element Update
15
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
16
3 Environmental Checklist
Housing Element Update
17
3.1 Aesthetics
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
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?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
18
3.2 Agriculture Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
Housing Element Update
19
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
20
Housing Element Update
21
3.3 Air Quality
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
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)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
22
Housing Element Update
23
3.4 Biological Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
the California Department of Fish 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, or regulations or by the
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 resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of 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
Conservation Community Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
24
Housing Element Update
25
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
26
3.5 Cultural Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource on site or
unique geologic features?
d. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Housing Element Update
27
3.6 Geology and Soils
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
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 wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
28
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
Housing Element Update
29
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
30
Housing Element Update
31
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
likely 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 miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the 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 in a 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 the risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
32
Housing Element Update
33
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
34
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
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 (i.e., 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 course of a stream or
river, 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
river, 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 drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year floodplain 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?
Housing Element Update
35
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
36
3.10 Land Use and Planning
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans,
policies, or regulations 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 on environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Housing Element Update
37
3.11 Mineral Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
38
3.12 Noise
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Housing Element Update
39
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 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?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
40
3.13 Population and Housing
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
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?
Housing Element Update
41
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
42
3.14 Public Services
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Housing Element Update
43
3.15 Recreation
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 on the environment?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
44
Housing Element Update
45
3.16 Transportation and Circulation
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards 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
features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
46
Housing Element Update
47
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment 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 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 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 regulations related to solid waste?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
48
Housing Element Update
49
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important 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?
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
50
Housing Element Update
51
4 References
South San Francisco Housing Element Initial Study and Negative Declaration
52
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT RESOLUTION
6
RESOLUTION NO. ________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN (GPA14-0001) TO ADOPT THE 2015-2023
HOUSING ELEMENT, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2014
HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65580 of the State Planning and Zoning Law
requires every city to adopt a housing element; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code,
“Housing element content,” the City of South San Francisco has prepared a General Plan
Housing Element Update, which provides detailed background information, an assessment of
housing needs, an analysis of adequate sites, resources, and constraints 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 1,864 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 policies contained in each of the South San Francisco General Plan
elements; 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 a public workshop on February 11, 2014 with housing advocates and
stakeholders, providing information on the Housing Element update at the Housing Resources
Fair on May 10, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City also conducted a publically noticed study session with the Planning
Commission on November 6, 2014 and with the City Council on December 10, 2014 to consider
the draft Housing Element; 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, and
e. Worked toward community consensus; and
7
WHEREAS, the City presented the Project to the Airport Land Use Commission/ C/CAG
and it was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the City prepared the attached Initial Study/
Negative Declaration and distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate
responsible agencies and interested parties on February 27, 2015 for a 30-day public review
period; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on March
19, 2015 to consider and evaluate the General Plan Housing Element Update, and at the
conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration and General Plan Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2015 to
consider and evaluate the General Plan Housing Element Update, and the Housing Element
Annual Progress Report for 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and
based on the entirety of the record concluded that there is no substantial evidence that this project
will have a significant environmental impact, and has therefore adopted the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration by separate resolution; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of the record is the City’s Chief Planner, and the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration and the General Plan Housing Element Update, as well as other
materials comprising the record for these proceedings, are available and may be reviewed at the
offices of the South San Francisco Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, 94080.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,
including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners;
the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update for 2015-2023, prepared by
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners; all comments and testimony received at
stakeholders interviews and public workshops; all reports, minutes, and public testimony
submitted as part of the Airport Land Use Commission meeting held on January 8, 2015; all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission Study
Session on November 6, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
City Council Study Session on December 10, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony
submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed March 19, 2015 meeting; all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed April
8, 2015 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code
§21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as
follows:
8
1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Public Hearing Draft Housing
Element Update 2015-2023 (attached as Exhibit A) and the 2014 Housing Element Annual
Progress Report (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference as part of this
Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby adopts the Public Hearing Draft Housing Element Update 2015-2023 (attached as Exhibit
A) and amends the South San Francisco General Plan (GPA14-0001) to update the Housing
Element.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby accepts the 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the
2007-2014 Housing Element of the General Plan (attached as Exhibit B) and directs staff to
submit the 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, in accordance with State law.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 8th day of April, 2015 by the following
vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Public Hearing Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
Exhibit B: 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress Report
2421304.1
9
EXHIBIT A
2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
10
South San Francisco
HOUSING ELEMENT
Prepared by
March 2015
2015-2023
heari
n
g
draft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Role and Content of Housing Element ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Relationship with General Plan ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Related Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Organization of Housing Element ................................................................................................. 4
2 Review of Housing Element Past Performance ....................................................... 6
2.1 Promote New Housing Development ......................................................................................... 6
2.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development ........................................................................ 8
2.3 Conserve Existing Housing and Neighborhoods ....................................................................... 8
2.4 Maintain and Improve the Quality of Life ................................................................................... 9
2.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs ..................................................................... 9
2.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing ................................................................................................ 10
2.7 Energy Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.8 Housing Element Changes ........................................................................................................... 11
3 Housing Needs Assessment ..................................................................................... 12
3.1 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Population and Household Trends ............................................................................................ 12
3.3 Employment Trends ...................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 18
3.5 Market Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Housing Affordability .................................................................................................................... 30
3.7 Projected Housing Needs ............................................................................................................ 35
3.8 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................................. 36
4 Housing Constraints ................................................................................................. 49
4.1 Government Constraints ............................................................................................................. 49
4.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ....................................................................................... 73
4.3 Non-Governmental Constraints ................................................................................................ 76
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
ii
4.4 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints ........................................................................... 78
4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation .................................................................................. 78
5 Housing Resources .................................................................................................... 80
5.1 Available Sites for Housing .......................................................................................................... 80
5.2 Financial Resources ....................................................................................................................... 97
5.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 98
6 Housing Plan ............................................................................................................ 100
6.1 Promote New Housing Development .................................................................................... 101
6.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development ................................................................... 105
6.3 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods ..................................................................... 108
6.4 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life ...................................................................................... 112
6.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs ................................................................ 114
6.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing .............................................................................................. 119
6.7 Energy Conservation ................................................................................................................... 121
6.8 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................................. 123
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments ..................................... 124
Table of Contents
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2014 .................................................... 33
Figure 2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area ................................................................. 84
Figure 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area ...................................................................... 91
LIST OF TABLES1
Table 1.4-1: 21 Elements Meetings - Panels of Experts ............................................................................. 4
Table 2.1-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2007 – 2014 ............................................................... 7
Table 2.1-2: Housing Production by Income Level, 2007 – 2014 ........................................................... 7
Table 3.2-1: Population and Household Trends, 2000 to 2012 ............................................................ 14
Table 3.2-2: Age Distribution, 2012 ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 3.2-3: Household Income Distribution, 2012 ................................................................................ 15
Table 3.3-1: Jobs by Sector 2012 .................................................................................................................. 16
Table 3.3-2: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2012 .................................................................... 17
Table 3.3-3: Employment Trends, 2005 to 2010 ...................................................................................... 17
Table 3.3-4: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2010 to 2040 ........................................... 18
Table 3.4-1: Housing Conditions by Neighborhood ................................................................................ 19
Table 3.4-2: Housing Structures, Year Built .............................................................................................. 20
Table 3.4-3: Housing Conditions, 2012 ...................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.4-4: Housing Units By Type, 2000 to 2013 ................................................................................. 21
Table 3.4-5: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 2002 to 2012 ....................... 22
Table 3.4-6: Overcrowded Households, 2012 .......................................................................................... 23
Table 3.4-7: Inventory of Deed-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2014 ................................... 24
Table 3.4-8: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis ................................................................................ 26
Table 3.5-1: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco ........... 27
Table 3.5-2: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco ....................................................................... 29
Table 3.5-3: Units Sold and Median Price, South San Francisco, 1990-2013 ..................................... 29
Table 3.6-1: Household Income Limits - San Mateo County, 2014 ..................................................... 30
Table 3.6-2: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2013 ....................... 32
Table 3.6-3: Maximum Funds Available for Housing, by Income Category........................................ 34
1 Tables are numbered according to the section of the text in which they appear.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
iv
Table 3.6-4: Housing Need by Income Level, 2010 ................................................................................. 35
Table 3.7-1: Projected Housing Need by Income .................................................................................... 36
Table 3.8-1: Household Size by Tenure, 2012 .......................................................................................... 37
Table 3.8-2: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2012 ............................. 37
Table 3.8-3: Family Characteristics, 2012 ................................................................................................... 38
Table 3.8-4: Housing Needs of Extremely Low-Income Households, South San Francisco,
2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 3.8-5: Households by Age and Tenure, 2012 ................................................................................. 40
Table 3.8-6: Household Income of Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2010....................... 40
Table 3.8-7: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2010 ......................................... 41
Table 3.8-8: Persons with Disability by Age, 2012 ................................................................................... 42
Table 3.8-9: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2012 ....................................................... 42
Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012 ............................................. 43
Table 3.8-11: Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Type of Residence and Age ..................... 45
Table 3.8-12: Homeless Population, San Mateo County, January 2013 .............................................. 47
Table 3.8-13: Farm workers in San Mateo County, 2012 ...................................................................... 47
Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2014................................... 49
Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts ................................................................................. 53
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014 ................... 59
Table 4.1-4: Residential Parking Requirements ......................................................................................... 62
Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements ................................................... 63
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014 .......................... 65
Table 4.1-7: Typical Application Processing Time, 2014 ........................................................................ 71
Table 4.1-8: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type, 2014 .................................................... 72
Table 4.3-1: Disposition of Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, 2012 .............. 77
Table 5.1-1: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development Capacity Under Existing
Zoning and Under Adoption of Proposed Downtown Plan .......................................... 80
Table 6.8-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives, 2015-2023 ............................................................... 123
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments ........................................................................ 126
1
1 Introduction
Housing is of critical importance to the City of South San Francisco. The long-term vitality of
the South San Francisco community and local economy depend on a full range of housing
types to meet the needs of all segments of the City’s population. As South San Francisco
looks towards the future, the increasing range and diversity of housing options will be an
integral aspect of the City’s growth and development. Consistent with South San Francisco’s
long-term commitment to providing suitable, decent, and affordable housing for its
residents, this plan sets forth a vision for guiding future residential development, as well as
for preserving and enhancing existing residential areas.
1.1 Role and Content of Housing Element
The purpose of this Housing Element is to adopt a comprehensive, long-term plan to
address the housing needs of the City of South San Francisco. The State mandates the
inclusion of seven elements in all General Plans; one of these is the Housing Element. The
Housing Element is South San Francisco’s primary policy document regarding the
development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the
population within the City’s boundaries. Accordingly, this Housing Element identifies and
analyzes the existing and projected housing needs of the City and states goals, policies,
quantified objectives, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement,
and development of housing, including a discussion of available financial resources.
The Housing Element must also identify sites for housing development that are adequate to
accommodate the City’s allocation of the regional housing need. South San Francisco intends
to implement a set of programs and projects to meet the goals, policies, and objectives
included herein. The City will also coordinate its housing efforts with those occurring within
the other areas of San Mateo County and the broader Bay Area region.
AUTHORITY
All California localities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections
65580-65590) to adopt Housing Elements as part of their general plans, and submit draft
and adopted elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
for review with compliance with State law. HCD is required to review Housing Elements and
report its written findings within 60 days for a draft Housing Element (Government Code
Section 65585(b)) and within 90 days for an adopted Housing Element (Government Code
Section 65585(h)). In addition, Government Code Section 65585(c) requires HCD to
consider written comments from any group, individual, or public agency regarding the
Housing Element under review.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
2
STATUS
This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco
General Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by
the State in 2010, and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on
October 13, 1999. This updated Housing Element corresponds to the planning period of
January 31, 2015 to January 31, 2023 and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
projection period of January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2022, which are the periods established
by State law for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions.
1.2 Relationship with General Plan
State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements “comprise an integrated,
internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” This implies that all elements
have equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The
Housing Element must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land
Use Element, and it must be closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General
Plan. The Housing Element must also be consistent with area Specific Plans including those
currently being developed in South San Francisco. As part of the implementation process for
this Housing Element, the City of South San Francisco will initiate and complete
amendments to the City’s General Plan as necessary to achieve internal consistency.
1.3 Related Planning Efforts
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
The City adopted (February 2015) the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), which
is a twenty-year plan that will guide development in the half-mile radius of the City’s
Downtown Caltrain Station. The DSASP aims to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse
Downtown core. It includes strategies to enhance connectivity and improve accessibility to
the Downtown and the Caltrain station area for all community members and various modes
of transportation, including pedestrians and bicycles. The DSASP identifies opportunities
for development near the transit station, and it includes design guidelines and standards for
all types of development in the planning area.
Introduction
3
1.4 Public Participation
This Draft Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members
of the South San Francisco community, as well as housing advocates, developers, and other
interested parties. The City hosted a Stakeholders Workshop on February 11, 2014. This
workshop was primarily intended for housing service providers, housing developers
(market rate and affordable), stakeholders, and representative organizations to take part in
an open discussion about the City’s long-term housing goals, needs, and polices. Attendees
included representatives from the Sierra Club, Rotary Club, San Mateo County Union
Community Alliance, Office of Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, the Housing Leadership
Council, and neighborhood organizations. In conducting outreach for the workshop, care
was taken to recruit potential participants who would reflect the City’s full ethnic and
economic diversity. The public outreach efforts for the Stakeholder Meeting included:
Newspaper advertisement printed 10-days prior to the meeting;
Direct mail flyer to 21 Elements Stakeholder list-65 recipients;
Direct mail flyer to HOAs, Chamber, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural
organizations, and community members-65 recipients;
Public television notice;
Facebook posting (on Library page);
Flyers posted at 10 kiosks along Centennial Trail;
Flyers posted at both libraries, City Hall, Annex;
E-blast with Parks & Recreation (approximately 8,000 subscribers);
21 Elements website posting;
Nextdoor webpage posting; and
City website posting.
In addition, the City of South San Francisco participated in the 21 Elements project, a
collaborative effort of the 21 jurisdictions within San Mateo County to share resources,
ideas, data, policy direction, and outreach for the fifth Housing Element cycle. At the request
of local jurisdictions, 21 Elements organized four panels of experts to provide information
and policy suggestions on affordable housing and special needs populations. As shown in
the table below, the four panels focused on the needs and perspectives of people with
developmental disabilities; developers (for-profit and non-profit, as well as architects);
advocates and funders; and special needs and sustainability.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
4
Table 1.4-1: 21 Elements Meetings - Panels of Experts
Activity/Meeting Description Date
21 Elements Meeting Stakeholder Meeting - Golden Gate Regional Center's
info on needs and services for people with
developmental disabilities
June 13, 2013
21 Elements Meeting Developer Panel -- addressed concerns in housing
development, such as community politics, growing
senior population, and need for more workforce
housing
December 5, 2013
21 Elements Meeting Advocates and Funders Panel -- answering questions
about greatest housing needs in the County
February 6, 2014
21 Elements Meeting Stakeholder Meeting - Special Housing Needs
Advocates
April 10, 2014
These panels were well-attended by housing advocates, city representatives, and other
stakeholders from throughout San Mateo County, and provided valuable insight for South
San Francisco into the most pressing needs and constraints that developers and other
service providers face in the area. Several themes emerged from all the panels. Many
speakers talked about the importance of multi-family housing in mixed use, transit-oriented
neighborhoods. This type of development is necessary because it accommodates seniors
and people with disabilities who cannot depend on cars for transportation. The reduced
dependence on cars and increased density also helps meet sustainability goals. Additionally,
many jurisdictions in San Mateo County have little or no vacant land and therefore cannot
meet their RHNA requirements without rezoning. Panelists also discussed the importance
of adding predictability to the development process and the necessity of removing excessive
regulations to encourage development.
Finally, the South San Francisco Planning Commission discussed housing needs, constraints,
and proposed policies at a study session held on November 6, 2014. The City Council held a
similar study session to discuss housing needs, constraints, and proposed policies at a
meeting on December 10, 2014. Their comments have collectively been incorporated into
the draft Housing Element.
As a result of the public outreach process, the City heard from a number of individuals and
organizations on the draft Housing Element, including the Housing Leadership Council. In
response to the public comments received, a number of issues were carefully considered by
the City and incorporated into the Housing Element Update. Changes to the Housing
Element as a result of public comments include the addition of 11 programs to the Housing
Plan, such as Policy 3-4 and Program 3-4B to address displacement, as well as additional
programs to preserve and maintain affordable and market-rate units in the city.
1.5 Organization of Housing Element
Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components:
Introduction
5
A review of the prior Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production
over the previous Housing Element planning period (2007-2014).
An analysis of the City’s current and future housing needs.
An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing
production.
An inventory and analysis of housing resources.
A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to
address the City’s housing needs.
6
2 Review of Housing Element Past
Performance
A key component of each Housing Element update is a review of performance under the
previous Housing Element, including a quantitative and qualitative description of outcomes,
a comparison of outcomes against stated goals, and an evaluation of the continued
appropriateness of existing goals, objectives, policies, and programs.
Accordingly, this chapter reviews progress under the previous Housing Element, which
covered the period from 2007 to 2014. This review is organized around the following seven
overarching goals of the previous Housing Element:
Promote new housing development;
Remove constraints to housing development;
Conserve existing housing and neighborhoods;
Maintain and improve the quality of life;
Support development of special housing needs;
Assure equal access to housing; and
Energy conservation.
Summarized below are key findings of this review of past performance. Analysis includes
the progress on implementation, effectiveness of the element, and the appropriateness of
the goals, objectives, and performance. A more detailed review of each of the 45 policies
adopted under the previous Housing Element is included in Appendix A.
2.1 Promote New Housing Development
The first goal of the previous Housing Element was to promote the provision of new
housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community, a
goal that the City actively pursued during the previous Housing Element cycle. The City’s
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) acquired property within the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan and in the Downtown area before the Agency was eliminated in 2011. The
City is continuing to work with developers on potential projects; however, due to the
dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, funding is limited and depends on the ultimate
outcome of distribution of funds and property.
Review of Housing Element Past Performance
7
In 2010, the City adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update. It incorporated a
variety of tools and measures to encourage a variety of residential unit sizes, a mix of
housing types, mixed-use development, and more intense mixed-use development in the
South El Camino Real Corridor and in the Downtown. The updated Zoning Ordinance
expanded permissions for residential and mixed-use development, and it included Design
Guidelines and an EIR for a General Plan Amendment for the South El Camino Real corridor.
The City also supported the development of secondary dwelling units through provisions in
its Zoning Ordinance and with brochures at the Permit Center Counter.
Detailed land use and design guidelines were created in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area
Plan, which was adopted in 2011 and included regulations for some of the Redevelopment
Agency’s Successor Agency properties. In addition, the City received a grant in 2012 and
began work on the Downtown Station Area Plan. This plan increased residential and mixed
use densities near the Caltrain Station and was adopted in early 2015.
A number of new residential development projects were completed under the previous
Housing Element between 2007 and 2014. Park Station, a residential project near the City’s
BART station completed in 2007, added to the City’s housing stock and included seven new
low income units and eight new moderate income units. A total of seven secondary units
were constructed between 2007 and 2012. The recently completed the 636 El Camino Real
affordable housing development project provided 108 affordable units, including 40 three-
bedroom units to accommodate large families.
The following section evaluates the City’s progress in accommodating its “fair share” of the
region wide need for additional housing, also referred to as the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA), including an examination of new construction activity. As shown in
Table 2.1-1, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined a need for 1,635
additional housing units in South San Francisco during the prior Housing Element cycle
from 2007 to 2014, including a need for 956 units for extremely low, very low, low, and
moderate income households.
Table 2.1-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2007 – 2014
Income Category RHNA 2007-2014 Percent of Total
Extremely Low (0-30% AMI) 187 11%
Very Low (31-50% AMI) 186 11%
Low (51-80% AMI) 268 16%
Moderate (81-120% AMI) 315 19%
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI) 679 42%
Total Units 1,635 100%
Source: ABAG, 2014; Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
The “Great Recession” of 2008 greatly affected the housing market in South San Francisco
during the RHNA period of 2007 to 2014. As shown in Table 2.1-2, within the last planning
period, the City issued a total of 251 permits. In addition, the City approved but has not yet
issued permits for three other development projects totaling 330 units.
Table 2.1-2: Housing Production by Income Level, 2007 – 2014
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
8
Income Category
RHNA
2007 –
2014
Permitted Approved but not Permitted
Number of
Units
Percent of
RHNA
Number of
Units
Percent of
RHNA
Extremely Low
and Very Low
373 108 29.0% 0 0.0%
Low 268 7 2.6% 1 0.3%
Moderate 315 8 2.5% 3 0.9%
Above Moderate 679 128 18.9% 326 48.0%
Total 1,635 251 15.6% 330 20.2%
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
While the dissolution of the City’s Redevelopment Agency and the economic recession did
impact the ability of the City to meet their RHNA for housing production during this housing
cycle, progress was still made towards producing South San Francisco’s “fair share” of
housing.
2.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development
The City has taken a number of actions during the previous Housing Element period to
remove constraints to housing development, the second goal of the previous Housing
Element. To provide support for private market construction, the City’s One Stop Permit
Center continues to provide accessible services by the departments of Planning, Building,
and Public Works in one building. The One Stop Permit Center is operated by accessible
staff from 8am to 5pm, and permit processing is efficient and timely. To ensure timely
processing of applications, the Planning Commission meets twice each month, and the
Design Review Board meets once a month.
To encourage residential development, the City strives to ensure the availability of adequate
public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout residential
areas. For specific development projects, the City collects “sewer impact fees” to support the
ongoing maintenance and upgrading of the City’s infrastructure. In addition, the City
adopted a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget that included several projects to
repair and upgrade infrastructure to support added populations. To ensure that new
development promotes quality design and harmonizes with existing neighborhood
surroundings, the City adopted a Residential Design Guide and design standards in the El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Plan.
The City continually provides material to the public regarding affordable housing
opportunities, programs, and inclusionary units, including at the City’s Economic
Development and Housing Division, City’s Community Learning Center, on community
calendars, on the City’s website, and at the Citizen’s Academy.
2.3 Conserve Existing Housing and Neighborhoods
The third goal of the previous Housing Element was to conserve existing housing and
neighborhoods. Related to this goal, the City has continued to encourage private residential
Review of Housing Element Past Performance
9
reinvestment in older neighborhoods and fund lower-income housing rehabilitation. The
Economic Development and Housing Division manages the Community Development Block
Grants Program, which provides funding for a number of housing rehabilitation activities
for low income residents. These activities include the following: low interest loans and/or
grants through the City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program; free accessibility
modifications to houses through the Center for Independence of Individuals with
Disabilities’ (CID) Housing Accessibility Modification Program; free home repairs to South
San Francisco households through Rebuilding Together Peninsula programs; and through
2012, free home repairs to households through the now-disbanded North Peninsula
Neighborhood Services Center House Helpers.
The City aggressively enforces housing, building, and safety codes. The City’s Code
Enforcement Division is operated through the Fire Department, and Building Division staff
members also enforce the codes when they are out on inspections. To upgrade and maintain
housing, streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems, the City’s CIP budget includes
projects in older neighborhoods. The City also strives to limit the number of apartment
units that are converted to condominium units and the number of subsidized units that are
converted to market rate units, through regulations in the zoning code.
2.4 Maintain and Improve the Quality of Life
The fourth goal of the previous Housing Element strived to maintain and improve the
quality of life in South San Francisco, and the City accomplished this goal in several ways.
The City has adopted policies to prohibit residential development in areas with major
environmental hazards, to abate existing hazards, and to mitigate airport noise for
residents. These policies continue to be implemented through the CEQA process as well as
the City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program, minor home repair program, and
airport noise insulation program.
The City’s General Plan has been updated to be consistent with the SFO Airport Land Use
Plan and its aircraft noise contours. Disclosures are provided to potential buyers of homes
that are located in the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour areas, and there are added
restrictions placed on new homes within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour. In
addition, the updated Zoning Ordinance includes a Special Environmental Studies Overlay
District that applies to areas of the City that the General Plan identifies as ecologically
sensitive habitats or susceptible geologic hazards.
2.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs
The fifth goal of the previous Housing Element was to provide housing for people with
special needs. Through its policies and programs, the City has worked to address the needs
of special needs populations in the City, particularly large families with children, seniors,
persons with disabilities, and people who are homeless or in need of transitional housing.
The City accomplishes its goal of serving special needs populations in several ways.
Housing that serves special needs populations continues to be constructed in South San
Francisco. The recently completed affordable housing development at 636 El Camino Real
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
10
includes 108 units, including 40 three-bedroom units to accommodate large families and 20
units for San Mateo County Mental Health clients. The City provides annual grant funds to
the Center of Independence of Individuals with Disabilities to allow for disabled access to
homes.
The Zoning Ordinance allows for requests for parking reductions for senior housing
developments and developments near transit. The updated Zoning Ordinance also provides
provisions for reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to housing by allowing
the Chief Planner authority to grant relief from zoning requirements. The Zoning Update
also included a district where an emergency shelter is permitted by right and subject only to
the same development and management standards applicable to other uses in the zone.
Similarly, transitional and supportive housing are also subject only to those restrictions that
apply to other residential uses of the same type in the zone.
The City’s support for various non-profit organizations varies each year based on the
amount of funding available and the organizations’ capacity and need. To serve South San
Francisco residents who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, the City provided funding
to a variety of San Mateo County service agencies, including Samaritan House, which
operates a 90-bed year-round shelter for the homeless in South San Francisco. The City also
supported the not-for-profits Shelter Network, which provides emergency and transitional
housing for homeless individuals and families, and Community Overcoming Relationship
Abuse (CORA), which provides emergency shelter for battered women.
2.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing
The sixth goal of the previous Housing Element was 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. In conjunction with San Mateo County, Daly City, Redwood City, and San
Mateo, the City developed the Analysis of Impediments for Fair Housing Choice. It was
adopted by the City Council in 2013.
To support equal housing opportunities in South San Francisco, the City contracts with
Project Sentinel, a fair housing provider and tenant/landlord service organization, to
address fair housing complaints and resolve landlord/tenant disputes in the City. In
addition, City staff provides referrals regarding fair housing to appropriate agencies and
advocacy groups.
2.7 Energy Conservation
The final goal under the previous Housing Element related to energy conservation. To
incorporate energy and water conservation in construction and rehabilitation projects, the
City adopted a Green Building Ordinance. City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan on
February 12, 2014, which will promote energy information and sharing. The City’s
rehabilitation and repair programs have benefited numerous low-income households with
weatherization projects. The City also continues to implement Title 24 requirements for
Review of Housing Element Past Performance
11
energy conservation in residential development, and it encourages residential developers to
employ the use of solar access, landscaping, building siting, lot configuration, and street
design energy conservation measures.
2.8 Housing Element Changes
As presented above, the City of South San Francisco has been successful at promoting
housing development consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the prior Housing
Element. Given the patterns of land use and development in the city, this Housing Element
continues the approach of its predecessor by promoting medium- and high-density housing
development on infill sites. In South San Francisco, these sites will be located mainly in
mixed-use zones near transit, providing the City with the opportunity to promote high-
quality transit and pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods that include a full range of housing
types and affordability levels.
For the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element planning period, the Housing Plan has been
organized to complement the City’s planning efforts in medium-density, high-density, and
mixed-use zones, particularly in the Transit Village and in Downtown. In addition, the
guiding policy framework has been simplified by consolidating and eliminating
redundancies wherever possible, ultimately resulting in a more efficient and
straightforward plan to encourage high-quality residential development, as well as to
ensure a full range of affordable housing.
The proposed Goals, Policies, and Programs contained in this Housing Element Update have
been modified from the prior Housing Element in light of the findings discussed above, and
also based on the Housing Needs Assessment, Constraints Analysis, and Housing Resources
inventory contained within the document. Most of the programs that have been modified
for this Housing Element Update were previously funded and operated by the City’s
Redevelopment Agency, which was eliminated in 2011. A more detailed description of
changes to programs based on their previous successes can also be found in Appendix A.
12
3 Housing Needs Assessment
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and
demographic conditions in South San Francisco, assess the demand for housing for
households at all income-levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various
special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist South San
Francisco in developing housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address
local housing needs.
To facilitate an understanding of how the characteristics of South San Francisco are similar
to, or different from the larger area in which it is situated, this Housing Needs Assessment
presents data for South San Francisco alongside comparable data for all of San Mateo
County and, where appropriate, for the San Francisco Bay Area and the state of California.
This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous sources, including the United
States Census; American Community Survey; the Association of Bay Area Governments; and
the State of California, Department of Finance.
3.1 Regional Context
Located in northern San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula, the City of South San
Francisco is known as the birth place of the biotechnology industry. The City measures 9.6
square miles and was incorporated in 1908. Its population has tripled since the Second
World War, but population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has
become increasingly developed. The City is served by Highway 101, Interstate 280,
Interstate 380, BART, and Caltrain. In addition, the City is adjacent to the San Francisco
International Airport and is served by a Ferry Terminal that began operating in June 2012.
South San Francisco is adjacent to the cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, and San
Bruno, as well as portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. The City is home to a
collection of compact neighborhoods, including an active and walkable downtown. The area
east of Highway 101 contains research and development, office, and industrial uses, and is
where many of the City’s biotechnology businesses are located, as well as the Oyster Point
Marina, situated on the San Francisco Bay.
3.2 Population and Household Trends
POPULATION
With a population of nearly 64,000 residents, South San Francisco is the fourth largest city
in San Mateo County. As shown in Table 3.2-1, between 2000 and 2010, the City’s
population grew at a faster rate than San Mateo County, averaging an increase of 0.50
Housing Needs Assessment
13
percent per year. Since 2010, growth in the City has slowed substantially, reflecting its
increasingly developed character. Between 2010 and 2012, average annual population
growth in the City was just 0.09 percent, about half the population growth rate for San
Mateo County (0.19 percent).
HOUSEHOLDS
According to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, there were 21,436 households in
South San Francisco in 2012, a total increase of approximately 1,300 households since 2000
or approximately 100 households per year.2 Consistent with population growth trends,
since 2000 the City has added new households at a faster rate than the county —
approximately 0.40 percent per year compared to -0.10 percent per year.
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND TYPE
Average household size is a function of the number of people living in households divided
by the number of occupied housing units in the area. In South San Francisco, the average
household size in 2012 was 3.0 persons per household, indicating significantly larger
households compared to the countywide average of 2.8.
Consistent with a larger average household size, the City of South San Francisco has a high
proportion of family households. As of 2012, 72 percent of South San Francisco households
contained related individuals, compared to 68 percent countywide.
HOUSEHOLD TENURE
Households in South San Francisco have about the same homeownership rate compared to
the county. Approximately 59 percent of households living in the City owned their own
homes in 2012, compared to 60 percent countywide.
2 A household is defined as a person or group of persons living in a housing unit, as opposed to persons living in
group quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent homes, or prisons.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
14
Table 3.2-1: Population and Household Trends, 2000 to 2012
2000 2010 2012
Avg. Annual %
Change 2000-2010
Avg. Annual %
Change 2010-2012
South San Francisco
Population 60,552 63,632 63,742 0.50% 0.09%
Households 20,138 20,938 21,436 0.39% 1.18%
Average Household Size 3.1 3.0 3.0
Household Type
Families 74% 73% 72%
Non-Families 26% 27% 28%
Tenure
Owner 63% 60% 59%
Renter 37% 40% 41%
San Mateo County
Population 707,163 718,451 721,183 0.16% 0.19%
Households 260,578 257,837 257,369 -0.11% -0.09%
Average Household Size 2.7 2.8 2.8
Household Type
Families 67% 68% 68%
Non-Families 33% 32% 32%
Tenure
Owner 61% 59% 60%
Renter 39% 41% 40%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Table 3.2-2 presents the age distribution and median age of South San Francisco and San
Mateo County. South San Francisco has a median age of 38.1 years compared to 39.3
countywide. Similarities are also considerable in the age distribution of these jurisdictions.
Persons under the age of 18 years account for approximately 22 percent of the population
for both geographies, and persons age 18 to 24 years account for about 8 percent of each.
Adults, age 25 to 44 years and age 45 to 64 years, account for a similar share of the
population in each geography, ranging from 26 to 30 percent. Seniors, age 65 years and
older, account for nearly 14 percent of the population in each geography.
Housing Needs Assessment
15
Table 3.2-2: Age Distribution, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Age Cohort Number Percent Number Percent
Under 18 14,268 22.4% 159,384 22.1%
18 to 24 5,250 8.2% 55,413 7.7%
25 to 44 19,033 29.9% 209,011 29.0%
45 to 64 16,549 26.0% 199,775 27.7%
65 + 8,642 13.6% 97,600 13.5%
Total 63,742 100.0% 721,183 100.0%
Median Age 38.1 39.3
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
As shown in Table 3.2-3, South San Francisco households tend to have less income than
households living elsewhere in the County. As of 2012, the median household income in
South San Francisco was $73,568, substantially below the countywide median of $87,751.
Similarly, per capita incomes for South San Francisco residents were lower. In 2012, the per
capita income in South San Francisco was $31,466, compared to $45,458 at the county-level.
On a per capita basis, South San Francisco residents earned 31 percent less than the average
County resident.
Despite lower median and per capita incomes, South San Francisco had a relatively high
proportion of households earning in the middle income range. The majority (53 percent) of
South San Francisco households were estimated to earn between $50,000 and $150,000 in
2012, compared to 47 percent in the County. However, South San Francisco households
were less likely to earn over $150,000 compared with San Mateo County; only 15 percent of
City households earned more than $150,000, compared to 26 percent of County households.
Table 3.2-3: Household Income Distribution, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Household Income Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $15,000 1,393 6.5% 15,185 6%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,501 7.0% 14,155 6%
$25,000 to $34999 1,629 7.6% 16,214 6%
$35,000 to $49,999 2,208 10.3% 24,707 10%
$50,000 to $74,999 4,223 19.7% 40,664 16%
$75,000 to $99,999 2,808 13.1% 31,914 12%
$100,000 to $149,999 4,373 20.4% 48,385 19%
$150,000 to $199,999 1,758 8.2% 25,994 10%
$200,000 or more 1,543 7.2% 40,407 16%
Total 21,436 100.0% 257,369 100%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
16
3.3 Employment Trends
South San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area’s biotechnology and life science industry,
including the headquarters location for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotech firms.
Genentech and other biotech and pharmaceutical companies account for an important share
of local jobs and offer well-paying careers for persons with advanced scientific, business,
and technical training. Proximate to the San Francisco International Airport, the City is also
home to a cluster of “blue collar” jobs, including logistics and shipping operations and a
manufacturing cluster that includes various food processors.
JOBS BY SECTOR
Table 3.3-1 presents a distribution of employment in South San Francisco by broad
industrial classifications. As shown, Educational, Health, and Social Services accounts for the
largest share of jobs (21 percent), followed by Arts, Entertainment, Recreation,
Accommodation, and Food Services (13 percent); Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services (12 percent); Manufacturing, including pharmaceutical and food manufacturing
(10 percent); and Retail Trade (10 percent). Rounding out the top 10 categories are Other
Service; Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing; Transportation,
Warehousing and Utilities; Construction; and Wholesale Trade.
Table 3.3-1: Jobs by Sector 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Industry Sector Jobs Percent Jobs Percent
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting and Mining 0 0.0% 1,767 0.5%
Construction 1,577 5.1% 21,287 5.6%
Manufacturing 2,942 9.5% 27,785 7.3%
Wholesale Trade 1,238 4.0% 8,788 2.3%
Retail Trade 2,768 8.9% 36,990 9.8%
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 1,962 6.3% 19,160 5.1%
Information 433 1.4% 12,991 3.4%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and
Leasing 2,309 7.4% 26,929 7.1%
Professional, Scientific, Management,
Administrative, and Waste Management Services
3,581 11.5% 66,453 17.5%
Educational, Health and Social Services 6,425 20.7% 83,940 22.1%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation,
and Food Services 3,980 12.8% 37,845 10.0%
Other Service (Except Public Administration) 2,633 8.5% 22,543 5.9%
Public Administration 1,195 3.8% 12,719 3.4%
Total 31,043 100.0% 379,197 100.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Housing Needs Assessment
17
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Table 3.3-2 lists major employers in the City of South San Francisco. These include biotech
and medical device companies such as Genentech, Life Technologies Corporation, Amgen
San Francisco, and a range of other companies including a security firm, retailer, food
manufacturers, a janitorial service company, and a beverage distributor.
Table 3.3-2: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2012
Name of Employer Type of Business Number of Employees
Genentech Biotechnology 7,777
Life Technologies Corporation Biotechnology 650
Costco Wholesalers (2 stores) Retail 508
Amgen San Francisco LLC Biotechnology 419
Successfactors, Inc. Technology 400
Guardsmark LLC Security 351
American Etc Inc/ Royal Laundry Service 318
The New French Bakery, Inc Food Manufacturing 300
DBI Beverage Beverage Distributor 232
Oroweat/Entenmann's Food Manufacturing 230
Source: South San Francisco Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 2013.
EMPLOYED RESIDENTS
Table 3.3-3 presents recent trends in employment for the City of South San Francisco and
San Mateo County. South San Francisco is a “jobs rich” city with substantial in -commuting
from other jurisdictions. As shown, in 2010 there were approximately 30,000 employed
residents in the City compared to 44,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.4 jobs per every working resident
of the City. By comparison, San Mateo County has a much closer balance between the
number of employed residents and total jobs, with approximately 342,000 employed
residents and 345,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.0 jobs per every working resident of the county.
Since 2005, job growth in South San Francisco has been faster than that of the county,
increasing at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent, adding substantially to a need to
provide additional housing opportunities to support a fast-growing economy.
Table 3.3-3: Employment Trends, 2005 to 2010
South San Francisco San Mateo County
2005 2010
Average Annual
Rate of Change
2005 to 2010 2005 2010
Average Annual
Rate of Change
2005 to 2010
Employed Residents 26,240 30,100 2.8% 318,600 342,060 1.4%
Total Jobs 42,240 43,550 0.6% 337,350 345,190 0.5%
Total Jobs/Employed Residents 1.6 1.4
1.1 1.0
Unemployment Rate 5.3% 10.3% 4.3% 8.8%
Source: ABAG 2009 and 2013 Projections; California Employment Development Department, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
18
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects South San Francisco’s
population to increase from 63,632 to 87,700 between 2010 and 2040, a 38 percent
increase over 30 years. Household growth is expected to be slightly lower, rising from
20,938 households to 27,900, a gain of 33 percent. These projections reflect the growing
need for residential development in South San Francisco.
As illustrated in Table 3.3-4, South San Francisco will continue to contain more jobs than
households over this 30-year period, deepening its reputation as a “jobs-rich” community.
Compared with San Mateo County and Bay Area figures, South San Francisco’s jobs-housing
imbalance is disproportional; 2040 estimates for both the county and the region hover
around 1.4 jobs per household compared to 1.9 in South San Francisco.
Table 3.3-4: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2010 to 2040
2010 2020 2030 2040
Total Change
2010-2040
Percent Change
2010-2040
South San Francisco
Population 63,632 71,000 78,800 87,700 24,068 37.8%
Households 20,938 23,250 25,570 27,900 6,962 33.3%
Jobs 43,550 51,510 52,020 53,790 10,240 23.5%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.9
San Mateo County
Population 718,451 775,100 836,100 904,400 185,949 25.9%
Households 257,837 277,200 296,280 315,100 57,263 22.2%
Jobs 345,190 407,550 421,500 445,070 99,880 28.9%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4
Bay Area
Population 7,150,739 7,786,800 8,496,800 9,299,100 2,148,361 30.0%
Households 2,608,023 2,837,680 3,072,920 3,308,090 700,067 26.8%
Jobs 3,385,300 3,987,150 4,196,580 4,505,230 1,119,930 33.1%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4
Source: ABAG Projections, 2013.
3.4 Housing Characteristics
HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS
The last comprehensive survey of the condition of the City’s housing stock was completed in
the 1990s. While much has changed since this time, the general findings of this survey,
presented below, are still considered to be generally applicable. At the time of this survey,
Irish Town, located north of the downtown commercial area, had 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
Housing Needs Assessment
19
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.
Table 3.4-1: Housing Conditions by Neighborhood
Structures
Surveyed
Housing Condition
Neighborhood Good Fair Poor
Avalon/Brentwood 198 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
Buri-Buri/Serra Highlands 193 93.0% 7.0% 0.0%
Grand Avenue Area 103 88.4% 11.6% 4.8%
Irish Town 277 73.3% 26.7% 10.1%
Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace 119 82.4% 17.6% 0.0%
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%
Source: Economic and Community Development Department Windshield Survey, May 1990.
To supplement this first-hand survey data, the following section presents data gathered
from the 2008-2012 American Community Survey regarding the condition of the City’s
housing stock.
The age of South San Francisco’s housing stock is similar to that of San Mateo County. As
shown in Table 3.4-2 the largest proportion of homes (27 percent) was built between 1950
and 1959 in South San Francisco. According to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey,
nearly half (45 percent) of the City’s housing stock was built before 1960, indicating a
relatively old housing inventory. Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can
create health, safety, and welfare problems for occupants. Even with normal maintenance,
dwellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate, requiring significant rehabilitation.
Despite the presence of older homes in South San Francisco, virtually all housing units
contain complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. As shown in Table 3.4-2, less than one
percent of homes lack these facilities.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
20
Table 3.4-2: Housing Structures, Year Built
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Year Built Number Percent Number Percent
1939 or earlier 1,659 7.4% 24,412 9.0%
1940 to 1949 2,403 10.8% 30,815 11.4%
1950 to 1959 6,080 27.2% 65,210 24.1%
1960 to 1969 3,519 15.8% 46,746 17.3%
1970 to 1979 3,774 16.9% 47,152 17.4%
1980 to 1989 1,554 7.0% 25,762 9.5%
1990 to 1999 1,525 6.8% 16,273 6.0%
2000 to 2009 1,790 8.0% 13,672 5.1%
2010 or later 22 0.1% 625 0.2%
Total: 22,326 100.0% 270,667 100.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Table 3.4-3: Housing Conditions, 2012
Facility Number Percent
Plumbing Facilities
Owners
Complete plumbing facilities 12,647 99.6%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 50 0.4%
Total Owners 12,697 100.0%
Renters
Complete plumbing facilities 8,635 100.0%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 104 0.0%
Total Renters 8,739 100.0%
Kitchen Facilities
Owners
Complete plumbing facilities 12,625 99.4%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 72 0.6%
Total Owners 12,697 100.0%
Renters
Complete plumbing facilities 8,525 97.6%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 214 2.4%
Total Renters 8,739 100.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE
As shown in Table 3.4-4, a majority of housing units in South San Francisco are single-family
detached homes; 60 percent of homes were single-family detached dwelling units in 2013.
Both South San Francisco and San Mateo County maintained a constant share of single-
Housing Needs Assessment
21
family detached units since 2000, when the City and County’s shares made up 59 and 58
percent of the overall housing stock, respectively. Large multifamily housing units (defined
as units in structures containing five or more dwellings) represent the second largest
housing category in South San Francisco and have experienced the most rapid growth
between 2000 and 2013. The number of large multifamily housing units grew by 17 percent
while single-family detached dwellings grew by 11 percent between 2000 and 2013. At 20
percent in 2013, however, South San Francisco still has a smaller proportion of large
multifamily housing units compared to San Mateo County, where over a quarter (26
percent) of all housing was in large multifamily structures.
Single-family attached homes comprised the third largest housing category in South San
Francisco at 13 percent in 2012, a higher figure than San Mateo County, at 9 percent. The
remaining housing categories, small multifamily homes (defined as units in structures
containing 2 to 4 dwellings) and mobile homes, represented relatively small proportions of
South San Francisco’s housing stock in 2013 and have experienced little or no growth since
2000.
Table 3.4-4: Housing Units By Type, 2000 to 2013
2000 2013 Percent Change
2000-2013
Number
of Units
Percent
of Total
Number of
Units
Percent of
Total
South San Francisco
Single Family Detached 11,815 59% 13,064 60% 11%
Single Family Attached 2,485 12% 2,798 13% 13%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 1,668 8% 1,336 6% -20%
Multifamily 5+ Units 3,761 19% 4,404 20% 17%
Mobile Home 409 2% 331 2% -19%
Total 20,138 100% 21,933 100% 9%
San Mateo County
Single Family Detached 150,286 58% 155,475 57% 3%
Single Family Attached 22,702 9% 25,079 9% 10%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 18,252 7% 17,510 6% -4%
Multifamily 5+ Units 65,854 25% 71,247 26% 8%
Mobile Home 3,484 1% 3,166 1% -9%
Total 260,578 100% 272,477 100% 5%
Bay Area
Single Family Detached 1,376,861 54% 1,505,153 54% 9%
Single Family Attached 224,824 9% 258,633 9% 15%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 266,320 10% 278,450 10% 5%
Multifamily 5+ Units 623,388 24% 705,899 25% 13%
Mobile Home 61,011 2% 59,673 2% -2%
Total 2,552,404 100% 2,807,808 100% 10%
Source: California Department of Finance, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
22
Building Permit Trends
Building permit trends in South San Francisco support the evident growth in multifamily
units experienced between 2000 and 2012. Since 2002, large multifamily units have made
up the majority of new development. Since 2002, South San Francisco issued 857 building
permits for these larger complexes, while only 279 permits were issued for new single
family development, leading to a relatively small increase in the city’s single-family housing
stock (see Table 3.4-5).
Table 3.4-5: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 2002 to 2012
Building Type 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Single Family 71 126 18 6 30 12 3 0 10 0 3 279
2 Units 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9
3 & 4 Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 or More Units 0 1 360 96 192 99 0 0 0 109 0 857
Total 71 130 380 102 222 111 5 2 10 109 3 1,145
Notes:
Includes only reported building permits. U.S. Bureau of the Census provides construction statistics by permit-issuing
place and by county on new privately-owned residential housing units authorized by building permits. Data updated
monthly.
Source: U.S. Census, Building Permit Estimate 2012.
OVERCROWDING
Overcrowding refers to a household with an average of 1.01 or more persons per room,
with those rooms including all rooms in a house except bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and
closets. Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered to be severely
overcrowded. As shown in Table 3.4-6, South San Francisco households were as likely to be
overcrowded as San Mateo County households in 2012. Of all households in South San
Francisco, 7 percent of households were overcrowded or severely overcrowded, equal to
San Mateo County with 7 percent. Overcrowding was more common in South San
Francisco’s renter-occupied households, with 10 percent overcrowded, while only 5 percent
of owner-occupied households in South San Francisco were overcrowded.
Housing Needs Assessment
23
Table 3.4-6: Overcrowded Households, 2012
Owners Renters Total
Persons Per Room Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent
South San Francisco
2.01 or more 10 0% 35 0% 45 0%
1.51 to 2.00 86 1% 259 3% 345 2%
1.01 to 1.50 496 4% 575 7% 1,071 5%
1.00 or less 12,105 95% 7,870 90% 19,975 93%
Total 12,697 100% 8,739 100% 21,436 100%
Percent Overcrowded
by Tenure 5% 10% 7%
San Mateo County
2.01 or more 359 0% 1,435 1% 1,794 1%
1.51 to 2.00 748 0% 4,217 4% 4,965 2%
1.01 to 1.50 3,923 3% 7,978 8% 11,901 5%
1.00 or less 148,626 97% 90,083 87% 238,709 93%
Total 153,656 100% 103,713 100% 257,369 100%
Percent Overcrowded
by Tenure 3% 13% 7%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE UNITS
As presented in Table 3.4-7, the City of South San Francisco is home to 994 deed-restricted
affordable housing units, including 650 family units and 344 senior units. South San
Francisco contributed $9,989,000 towards the construction of 108 new affordable units at
636 El Camino Real by MidPen Housing. In addition, the City leases the land, valued at
$4.5M, for $1.00 per year to MidPen. The project was completed in 2012 and is now fully
occupied.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
24
Table 3.4-7: Inventory of Deed-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2014
Name of Development Location
Number of
Affordable Units
Family
206 Grand Ave 206 Grand Ave 6
260 Hillside Blvd 260 Hillside Blvd 1
310-314 Miller Ave 310-314 Miller Ave 8
317-321 Commercial Ave 317-321 Commercial Ave 15
339-341 Commercial Ave 339-341 Commercial Ave 4
440 Commercial Ave 440 Commercial Ave 4
636 El Camino Real 636 El Camino Real 108
714 Linden Ave 714, 716, 718 Linden Ave 3
90 Oak Ave 90 Oak Ave 2
Archstone South (Solaire) 101 McLellan Dr 72
Fairway Apartments 77 Westborough Blvd 74
Grand Hotel 731 Airport Blvd 24
Grand Oaks 99 Oak Ave 43
Greenridge Housing 1565 El Camino Real 33
Metropolitan Hotel 220 Linden Ave 65
Oak Farms Oak and Grand Aves 5
Park Station 1488 El Camino Real 15
South City Lights Gellert & Westborough Blvds 41
SSF Housing Authority 350 C Street 80
Sundial Apartments 215 4th Ln 11
Willow Gardens Willow Gardens 36
Senior Housing
Chestnut Creek Senior Apartments 65 Chestnut Ave 40
Magnolia Plaza 630 Baden Ave 125
Rotary Plaza 433 Alida Way 179
Total Affordable Housing Units 994
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION DURING NEXT TEN YEARS
The California Housing Partnership Corporation identifies one affordable housing
development in South San Francisco at “very high” risk for conversion to market rate
housing during the next 10 years. The Fairway Apartments, located at 77 Westborough
Boulevard, contains 74 nonelderly units and is a development that is owned by a private,
for-profit entity and was financed using Section 221(d)(4) funds with Project-Based Section
8; its affordability restrictions were set to expire in December 2014. Since the time that the
California Housing Partnership Corporation was contacted, the affordability restrictions on
Housing Needs Assessment
25
the Fairway Apartments were extended for another five years; however, this leaves the
development still at risk of conversion within the next 10 years.
Given the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the City's ability to acquire such at risk
units is hampered. Options for retaining these affordable housing resources in the
community include preserving the units by working with nonprofit and other public
agencies, or replacing them. An analysis of options to preserve affordable housing resources
is as follows.
Preserving Affordability
In Project-Based Section 8 properties, such as the Fairway Apartments, the owner of the
building receives rent from each unit equal to the HUD-established Fair Market Rent (FMR)
for the area.3 Where the FMR is less than actual market rents, the owner realizes less
income from the property than he or she would without affordability restrictions. Hence, in
order to incentivize a property owner to continue to contract out his or her buildings as a
Project-Based Section 8 property once mortgage restrictions expire, an ongoing subsidy is
required to make up for the gap between FMR and actual market rent. As shown in Table
3.4-8, there is a gap of approximately $504 per unit per month between FMR and actual
market rent in South San Francisco. Hence, for a 74-unit development, the average monthly
gap is $37,300. If the property owner were willing to enter into a rental subsidy agreement
with the City or some other entity that would subsidize the rents on behalf of the lower-
income renters, this would require an ongoing annual payment of approximately $448,000.
Currently there is no funding available for the City to implement a rental subsidy program.
In previous years (and in the most recent renewal), HUD worked with the owner of the
Fairway Apartments to extend the affordability period. Another option would be for the City
to work with a nonprofit housing provider to negotiate the purchase of the building;
however, the City acknowledges that this option is unlikely given the lack of available
funding sources required for the acquisition.
Replacing Affordable Units
As an alternative to providing ongoing monthly rent subsidies, the City or another entity
could attempt to purchase or develop replacement housing units that could be rented to the
displaced lower-income households at similar rents. In order to make this possible, it would
be necessary to provide a subsidy for the purchase or construction of the replacement units
that would be the equivalent of $448,000 per year in current dollars. The initial investment
in existing or new housing units that would be necessary to allow a $448,000 reduction in
annual rent can be estimated by calculating the net present value of mortgage payments
equal to $37,300 per month, on the theory that if the owner (e.g., a non-profit housing
organization) can reduce its required mortgage payments by $37,300 per month, it could
then reduce the rents that it needs to charge its tenants by a similar amount. Hence, as
shown in Table 3.4-8, based on a 30-year mortgage term at 7.5 percent interest rate, it
would take an initial investment of approximately $5.3 million to reduce the monthly debt
service by $37,300 per month.
3 FMRs are defined by HUD as the 40th percentile rent drawn from the distribution of rents of all units occupied
by recent movers.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
26
This analysis likely understates the true cost of preserving or replacing the units, as it
would be quite difficult to assemble an appropriate combination of subsidies to acquire the
property or develop a similar project with the same mix of unit sizes and affordability
levels.
Table 3.4-8: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis
# Units FMR1 Market Rent2 Per Unit Gap3 Total Gap4
74 $1,956 $2,460 $504 $37,296
Annual Preservation Cost5 $447,552
Total Replacement Cost6 $5,285,762
Notes:
1. 2014 Fair Market Rent for 2-bedroom apartment in San Mateo County established by HUD.
2. Prevailing market rent for 2-bedroom apartment in South San Francisco per RealFacts.
3. Difference between FMR and market rent per unit.
4. Total difference between FMR and market rent if all units were rented at market rents.
5. Annual rent subsidy needed to preserve current affordability levels in current 2009 dollars, equals
total monthly gap multiplied by 12.
6. Net present value of the annual rent subsidy based on a 30-year mortgage at an interest rate of 7.5
percent.
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014; RealFacts, 2014;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
Financial Resources Available to the City to Assist in Preservation
Clearly, the costs are substantial to preserve or replace housing units that currently rent
below market rates, yet the City has access to a range of different funds that could
potentially assist in a preservation effort, including the following:
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
State Grant Programs, such as the Affordable Housing Innovation Program and the
Transit Oriented Development Housing Program
Federal Grant Programs (Section 202 funds only- Supportive Housing for the
Elderly)
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
HUD Section 8 “Mark to Market” Program
Where affordable units are at risk of conversion to market rate, it is the City’s policy to work
to preserve them, if possible. However, with the dissolution of the City’s Redevelopment
Agency, the City is no longer able to acquire such at-risk units. Some properties are less at
risk of conversion than others in the City; for example, the owner of the Rotary Plaza
property has a motivation to keep the units affordable. Therefore, the City has focused its
efforts on working with county and federal agencies to secure housing vouchers for tenants
in properties at higher risk of conversion to subsidize keeping them in place or to assist
with relocation.
Housing Needs Assessment
27
To monitor the status of affordable housing properties and advocate for tenants, South San
Francisco Economic Development and Housing staff has met with Congresswoman Jackie
Speier; Ophelia Basgal, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Regional
Administrator; and William Lowell, the Executive Director of the San Mateo County Housing
Authority. Key potential partners in this effort include HUD as well as a range of affordable
housing developers and property managers who have expressed an interest in working
with local communities on preservation of affordable housing projects, including such well-
known affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., EAH, Inc., BRIDGE Housing
Corporation, the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and Eden Housing. Numerous other
organizations working to preserve affordable housing units are listed in a database
maintained by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
3.5 Market Conditions
This section of the Needs Assessment provides information on market conditions for
housing in South San Francisco and San Mateo County. This information is important
because it reveals the extent to which the private housing market is providing for the needs
of various economic segments of the local population. The information on housing market
condition is combined with local demographic and employment information to identify
those segments of the population that face difficulties in securing housing in South San
Francisco at costs that do not place them under excessive housing cost burden.
RENTAL MARKET OVERVIEW
A review of rental market trends in South San Francisco was conducted for this Housing
Element by reviewing data from RealFacts, a commercial database service that tracks rental
apartment occupancy statistics and rents within South San Francisco and other California
cities. Data from RealFacts focuses on large, professionally-managed apartment complexes
with 50 units or more, which accounts for approximately 11 percent of the total rental
market in South San Francisco. There are approximately 7,500 renter-occupied housing
units in the City. As shown in Table 3.5-1, RealFacts reports rents for studio units in South
San Francisco averaging $1,279 per month; one-bedroom, one-bath units averaging $2,293
per month; two-bedroom, two-bath units averaging $3,076 per month; and three-bedroom
townhouses averaging $2,695 per month. Asking rents fluctuate frequently; therefore, the
data presented here represent one point in time that may or may not be indicative of long-
term trends. Typically, three-bedroom units rent at higher rates than two-bedroom units;
however, the fact that two-bedroom units are renting at higher prices than three-bedroom
units in South San Francisco at the point in time at which the data were collected may
reflect lower inventory of two-bedroom units and/or lower quality housing stock of three-
bedroom units.
Table 3.5-1: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes,
South San Francisco
Current Market Data, 4Q 2013
Unit Type Number Percent of Mix Avg. Sq. Ft Avg. Rent ($)
Avg. Rent/
Sq. Ft.
Studio 55 6.50% 400 $1,279 $3.20
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
28
Table 3.5-1: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes,
South San Francisco
1 BR/1 BA 327 38.50% 798 $2,293 $2.87
1 BR Townhouse 10 1.20% 1,112 $3,102 $2.79
2 BR/1BA 90 10.60% 798 $2,142 $2.68
2 BR/1.5 BA 12 1.40% 920 $1,650 $1.79
2 BR/2 BA 188 22.10% 1,134 $3,076 $2.71
2 BR Townhouse 144 16.90% 950 $1,916 $2.02
3 BR Townhouse 24 2.80% 1,200 $2,695 $2.25
Totals 850 100% 889 $2,332 $2.62
Average Rent History
Unit Type 4Q 2011 4Q 2012
2011-2012
% Change 4Q 2013
2011-2013
% Change
Studio $1,175 $1,176 0% $1,279 9%
1 BR/1 BA $1,869 $2,328 25% $2,293 23%
2 BR/1BA $1,959 $1,967 0% $2,142 9%
2 BR/2 BA $2,529 $3,025 20% $3,076 22%
2 BR Townhouse $1,896 $1,863 -2% $1,916 1%
3 BR Townhouse $2,595 $2,495 -4% $2,695 4%
Average Annual
Rent $2,013 $2,296 14% $2,332 16%
Occupancy Rate
Year
Average
Occupancy Rate
2009 91.70%
2010 94.40%
2011 96.60%
2012 95.80%
2013 97.60%
4Q 2013 97.50%
Source: RealFacts, Inc., 2013.
Consistent with trends elsewhere in the Peninsula and in San Francisco, RealFacts reports
that rental rates rose sharply between 2011 and 2013. Overall rents increased 16 percent
between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2013. One-bedroom, one-
bathroom units registered a particularly steep increase during this period, with monthly
rents jumping from $1,869 to $2,293, a 23 percent increase. RealFacts reported a relatively
low vacancy rate of approximately 2.5 percent among large apartment complexes in the City
in 2013, a marked decrease compared to 2009 when the vacancy rate was 8.3 percent,
indicating that demand continues to outpace supply.
As RealFacts focuses on large apartment complexes, Dyett & Bhatia also reviewed online
listings for all rental units posted to Craigslist during April of 2014. These data show
Housing Needs Assessment
29
average asking rates that are substantially lower than for just the subset of large,
professionally-managed complexes. Among all units listed for rent in the City during this
period, average asking rents were $1,674 per month for one-bedroom units, $2,226 for two-
bedroom units, $3,173 for three-bedroom units, and $3,470 for four-bedroom units.
Table 3.5-2: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco
Unit Type Number Percent of Mix Avg. Asking Rent
Studio 5 10% $1,161
1 Bedroom 6 13% $1,674
2 Bedroom 16 33% $2,226
3 Bedroom 16 33% $3,173
4 Bedroom 5 10% $3,470
Total 48 100% $2,491
Source: Craigslist Apartment Listings, April 2014.
OWNERSHIP MARKET OVERVIEW
A review of for-sale housing market conditions in South San Francisco was also conducted
for this Housing Element by reviewing data from Data Quick, a commercial database service
that tracks sales statistics in South San Francisco and other California cities. As shown in
Table 3.5-3, the median sale price of a single-family home was $625,000 as of 2013. This
was off substantially from a peak of $745,000 in 2006, but nonetheless represents a more
than doubling of price since 1990. For condominiums, the median sale price stood at
$414,500 in 2013, down from a high of $555,000 in 2006, but still more than double the
price in 1990.
Examining the for-sale residential market as a whole, including condominiums and single-
family homes, Data Quick reported a median home sale price of $580,000 in South San
Francisco during 2013, well below the countywide median of $738,250.4
Consistent with the recent drop in prices has been a notable decline in sales. During 2013,
only 406 homes sold in South San Francisco, one of the lowest levels in approximately 20
years. Similarly, with only 124 sold during 2013, condominium sales volumes were also
near a 20-year low.
As described in the following section, while sale prices have dropped from their 2006 peak,
they nonetheless have escalated much faster than wages across the past 20 years, meaning
that finding affordable housing remains a pressing challenge for many South San Francisco
households.
Table 3.5-3: Units Sold and Median Price, South San
Francisco, 1990-2013
Condos Single Family Homes
4 Source: California Home Sale Activity by City Recorded in the Year 2013, DQnews.com.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
30
Year # Units Sold Median Price # Units Sold Median Price
1990 154 $185,500 465 $262,500
1991 111 $181,000 438 $250,000
1992 104 $175,000 422 $237,500
1993 63 $165,750 409 $230,000
1994 89 $158,500 444 $232,500
1995 96 $169,000 402 $233,000
1996 101 $155,000 458 $230,000
1997 171 $171,000 660 $260,000
1998 145 $185,500 838 $302,850
1999 189 $225,000 815 $354,750
2000 136 $285,000 734 $445,000
2001 132 $339,000 542 $450,000
2002 179 $349,000 730 $485,000
2003 182 $370,000 805 $535,000
2004 197 $415,000 815 $630,000
2005 194 $535,000 618 $723,500
2006 163 $555,000 513 $745,000
2007 78 $495,000 329 $713,500
2008 140 $390,000 334 $555,000
2009 282 $350,000 418 $515,000
2010 139 $344,000 372 $510,000
2011 108 $300,000 375 $480,000
2012 159 $300,000 471 $490,000
2013 124 $414,500 406 $625,000
Source: Dataquick, DQNews.com, 2014.
3.6 Housing Affordability
According to the federal government, housing is considered “affordable” if it costs no more
than 30 percent of the household’s gross income. Often, affordable housing is discussed in
the context of affordability to households with different income levels. Households are
categorized as very low income, low income, moderate income, or above moderate income
based on percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Income limits vary
by household size. Table 3.6-1 provides the maximum income limits for households ranging
from one to four people in size in San Mateo County in 2014. Very low- and low-income
households are eligible for federal, State, and local affordable housing programs. Moderate-
income households are eligible for some State and local housing programs. These income
categories are also used by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in their
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Table 3.6-1: Household Income Limits - San Mateo County, 2014
Housing Needs Assessment
31
Number of Persons per Household:
Income Category Definition 1 2 3 4
Extremely Low 0% to 30% $23,750 $27,150 $30,550 $33,950
Very Low 31% to 50% $39,600 $45,250 $50,900 $56,550
Low 51% to 80% $63,350 $72,400 $81,450 $90,500
Median 81% to 100% $72,100 $82,400 $92,700 $103,000
Moderate 101% to 120% $86,500 $98,900 $111,250 $123,600
Source: "Memorandum: Official State Income Limits for 2014." California Department of Housing
and Community Development, February 28, 2014.
INCOMES BY OCCUPATION
As a way to illustrate the types of jobs available in South San Francisco and the typical wage
paid by each, Table 3.6-2 presents average wages for the top 20 occupations for the Census
Metropolitan Division comprised of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties. As
shown, the top 20 occupations include a range of well-paid jobs in the fields of law,
management, engineering, health, and business as well as lower-paid jobs as security
guards, clerks, cashiers, and janitors.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
32
Table 3.6-2: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2013
Top 20 Occupations Average Annual Wage
Lawyers $176,820
General and Operations Managers $150,364
Computer Software Engineers, Applications $114,211
Registered Nurses $112,137
Market Research Analysts $89,492
Business Operations Specialists, All Other $87,487
Accountants and Auditors $86,642
Sales Representatives, Services, All Other $82,994
First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Office and Administrative Support Workers $67,160
Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants $66,281
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $49,710
Secretaries, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $44,579
Customer Service Representatives $43,632
Office Clerks, General $36,475
Security Guards $32,354
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $28,955
Retail Salespersons $28,427
Cashiers $26,906
Waiters and Waitresses $25,009
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food $23,880
Source: BLS Occupation Employment Statistics Survey, 2013.
Housing Needs Assessment
33
Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2014
Notes:
Above figure is based on a figure presented in The Face of Inclusionary Housing, a report prepared by the Nonprofit
Housing Association of Northern California.
Wages are the average wage per occupation in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties as of August 2008.
Social Security income is based on the national average retiree benefit as of August 2008.
Sources: NPH, 2007; California EDD and BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2008; Social Security Administration,
2008; BAE, 2008.
Based on these wage data, Figure 1 shows representative households, with hypothetical
jobs and family compositions.
AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING
Households earning the 2012 median income for South San Francisco ($73,568) could
afford to spend up to $22,070 a year, or $1,839 per month, on housing without being
considered “overpaying.” For renters, this is a straightforward calculation, but home
ownership costs are less transparent. A household can typically qualify to purchase a home
that is 2.5 to 3.0 times the annual income of that household, depending on the down
payment, the level of other long-term obligations (such as a car loan), and interest rates. In
practice, the interaction of these factors allows some households to qualify for homes priced
at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be limited to
purchasing homes no more than two times their annual incomes. Table 3.6-3 below
Moderate-Income Family Profile:
Dad works as a carpenter, mom works
as a bookkeeping clerk; they have two children.
Estimated annual income:$104,000
Low-Income Family Profile:
Dad works as an security guard, mom works
as a customer service representative; they have one child.
Estimated annual income: $71,000
Very-Low-Income Family Profile:
Mom works as a retail sales person and is the only source
of financial support in her family; she has one child.
Estimated annual income: $29,000
Extremely-Low-Income Family Profile:
A grandparent living alone on Social Security.
Estimated annual income:$13,000
Note: Above figure is based on a figure presented in The Face of Inclusionary Housing , a reported prepared by the
Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California.
Wages are the average wage per occupation in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties as of August 2008.
Social Security income is based on the national average retiree benefit as of August 2008.
Sources: NPH, 2007; California EDD and BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2008; Social Secuirty
Administration, 2008; BAE, 2008.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
34
calculates the estimated maximum affordable purchase price by household income
category.
Table 3.6-3: Maximum Funds Available for Housing, by Income Category
Household Income Category
Annual
Income1
Maximum
Affordable Rent²
Maximum Affordable
Purchase Price³
30 percent of county median $33,950 $849 $138,822
50 percent of county median $56,550 $1,414 $231,233
80 percent of county median $90,500 $2,263 $347,655
100 percent of county median $103,000 $2,575 $370,055
120 percent of county median $123,600 $3,090 $505,402
Notes:
1. HCD's 2014 Limits. Assumes a four-person household.
2. Assumes 30 percent of income available for housing cost.
3. Assumes interest rate of 30-year fixed rate loan, 4.5%, interest rate, down payment of 50%
of yearly salary, 1% property tax, and 5% insurance rate.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013; 21 Elements, 2014.
As noted earlier, the median purchase price of a home in South San Francisco was $580,000
in 2013. This purchase price is too high for all but the highest of household income
categories listed in Table 3.6-1 to afford. Indeed, households must have an income that is
more than 120 percent of the county median ($123,600) to afford the median home price.
This is consistent with the fact that over 45 percent of renters in South San Francisco spend
more than 30 percent of their income on housing (see Table 3.6-4).
OVERPAYMENT
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes that a household is
“cost-burdened” (i.e., overpaying for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross
income on housing-related costs. A “severe housing cost burden” occurs when a household
pays more than 50 percent of its income on housing costs. The prevalence of overpayment
varies significantly by income, tenure, household type, and household size. The
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provides detailed information
in this regard for different types of households.
In general, overpayment disproportionately affects lower-income households. Table 3.6-4
shows the relationship between low-income households and the varying degrees of cost
burden. The data show that renter households are much more likely to be overpaying than
owners. The 2006-2010 American Community Survey provides the most recent data on
overpayment by tenure for South San Francisco. According to these data, 61 percent of
extremely low-income, 44 percent of very low-income, and 57 percent of low-income
homeowners were cost-burdened. At the same time, 84 percent of extremely low-income,
72 percent of very low-income, and 42 percent of low-income renter households were cost
burdened.
Housing Needs Assessment
35
Table 3.6-4: Housing Need by Income Level, 2010
Total Renters Total Owners Total Households
Extremely Low 1730 940 2,670
% with any housing problems 1,295 75% 475 51% 1,770 66%
% Cost Burden 30-49% 195 11% 130 14% 325 12%
% Cost Burden >50% 1,255 73% 445 47% 1,700 64%
Very Low 1,425 1,255 2,680
% with any housing problems 670 47% 470 37% 1,140 43%
% Cost Burden 30-49% 430 30% 95 8% 525 20%
% Cost Burden >50% 600 42% 455 36% 1,055 39%
Low 2,100 2,680 4,780
% with any housing problems 425 20% 850 32% 1,275 27%
% Cost Burden 30-49% 820 39% 760 28% 1,580 33%
% Cost Burden >50% 60 3% 755 28% 815 17%
Moderate and Above Moderate 2,905 7,790 10,695
% with any housing problems 280 9.6% 940 12.1% 1,220 11.4%
% Cost Burden 30-49% 310 10.7% 1,620 20.8% 1,930 18.0%
% Cost Burden >50% 0 0.0% 625 8.0% 625 5.8%
Source: 2006-2010 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, May 2013.
3.7 Projected Housing Needs
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of
government (in this case, ABAG), and local governments must collectively determine each
locality's share of regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing
Element update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their Housing Elements
by January 31, 2015, ABAG allocated housing unit production needs for each county within
the Bay Area and, with the exception of San Mateo County, also allocated housing unit
production need to the city level. These allocations set housing production goals for the
RHNA projection period that runs from January 1, 2014 through October 31, 2022.
In the case of San Mateo County, the county formed a subregion in partnership with all
twenty cities in its jurisdiction for the purposes of conducting the RHNA, as allowed by State
law. The San Mateo subregion designated the City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG) as the entity responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA
process. Their process paralleled, but was separate from, the Bay Area’s RHNA process. San
Mateo County created its own methodology, issued draft allocations, and handled the
revision and appeal processes. They also issued final allocations to members of the
subregion. Although the subregion worked independently of the regional RHNA process, the
final allocation methodology was ultimately similar to ABAG’s methodology.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
36
Shown below in Table 3.7-1, the countywide RHNA process determined a need for 1,864
housing units in South San Francisco between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2022. This
need is divided among various income categories with 15 percent of the need identified for
extremely low-income households, 15 percent for very low-income households, 15 percent
for low-income households, 17 percent for moderate-income households, and the
remaining 38 percent for above moderate-income households.
Table 3.7-1: Projected Housing Need by Income
Income Category Projected Need Percent of Total
Extremely Low (less than 30% AMI) 282 15%
Very Low (30-49% AMI) 283 15%
Low (50-79% AMI) 281 15%
Moderate (80-120% AMI) 313 17%
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI) 705 38%
Total Units 1,864 100%
Source: ABAG, 2013.
3.8 Special Housing Needs
This section of the needs assessment profiles populations with special housing needs,
including large families, single parent families, extremely low income households, persons
with disabilities, elderly households, farm workers, and homeless persons and families. The
end of the section addresses resources available to address special housing needs in South
San Francisco.
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
In 2012, South San Francisco contained a greater proportion of large households (defined
as five or more persons) than San Mateo County as a whole. As shown in Table 3.8-1, 15.4
percent of South San Francisco’s households contained five or more persons in 2012, versus
San Mateo County’s 11.8 percent. Large households were equally common among owners
and renters in South San Francisco, with 15.4 percent of homeowner households and 15.3
percent of renter households having five or more persons.
Housing Needs Assessment
37
Table 3.8-1: Household Size by Tenure, 2012
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
South San Francisco
1-4 persons 10,742 84.6% 7,403 84.7% 18,145 84.6%
5+ Persons 1,955 15.4% 1,336 15.3% 3,291 15.4%
Total 12,697 100.0% 8,739 100.0% 21,436 100.0%
San Mateo County
1-4 persons 135,794 88.4% 91,295 88.0% 227,089 88.2%
5+ Persons 17,862 11.6% 12,418 12.0% 30,280 11.8%
Total 153,656 100.0% 103,713 100.0% 257,369 100.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
While the prevalence of large households was relatively similar between renters and
owners, as shown in Table 3.8-2, renters were much less likely to live in housing units with
four or more bedrooms. Only 4 percent of South San Francisco renter households lived in
units with four or more bedrooms, despite the fact that 15 percent of renter households had
five or more members. By comparison, 23 percent of owner households lived in units with
four or more bedrooms, while 15 percent of owner households had five or more members.
Overall, these data point to the need for additional rental housing opportunities for large
households in South San Francisco.
Table 3.8-2: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2012
Owner Households Renter Households Total Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
South San Francisco
Studio 68 1% 443 5% 511 2%
1 bedroom 612 5% 2,499 29% 3,111 15%
2 bedrooms 1,880 15% 3,590 41% 5,470 26%
3 bedrooms 6,549 52% 1,793 21% 8,342 39%
4 bedrooms 2,863 23% 333 4% 3,196 15%
5 or more bedrooms 725 6% 81 1% 806 4%
Total 12,697 100% 8,739 100% 21,436 100%
San Mateo County
Studio 921 1% 7,735 7% 8,656 3%
1 bedroom 5,747 4% 35,292 34% 41,039 16%
2 bedrooms 28,846 19% 38,549 37% 67,395 26%
3 bedrooms 70,019 46% 16,620 16% 86,639 34%
4 bedrooms 37,332 24% 4,290 4% 41,622 16%
5 or more bedrooms 10,791 7% 1,227 1% 12,018 5%
Total 153,656 100% 103,713 100% 257,369 100%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
38
FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Single female-headed households with children tend to have a higher need for affordable
housing than family households in general. Single female-headed households with children
often need larger houses than other populations who need affordable housing, such as the
elderly. In addition, such households are more likely to need childcare since the mother is
often the sole source of income and the sole caregiver for children within the household.
Table 3.8-3 shows that in 2012, there were 1,177 single female households with children in
South San Francisco. As a proportion of all families, such households represented 5 percent
of all households in South San Francisco and 8 percent of family households.
San Mateo County contained a similar proportion of female-headed households, totaling
12,004 households in 2012, or 5 percent of all households present in the county. In addition,
both South San Francisco and San Mateo County contained a significantly smaller
proportion of male households with children; this household type made up 2 percent of
both the city and the county. At the city level, there were 265 single female-headed
households with children living in poverty in South San Francisco in 2012.
Table 3.8-3: Family Characteristics, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Number Percent Number Percent
1-Person Household: 4,757 22% 65,999 26%
Male-Headed Household 2,240 10% 28,435 11%
Female-Headed Household 2,517 12% 37,564 15%
2 or More Person Household: 16,679 78% 191,370 74%
Family Households 15,423 72% 173,782 68%
Married-couple family 11,857 55% 135,302 53%
With own children under 18 years 5,656 26% 62,702 24%
Other Family: 3,566 17% 38,480 15%
Male-headed household, no wife present 1,038 5% 12,316 5%
With own children under 18 years 334 2% 4,648 2%
Female-headed household, no husband present 2,528 12% 26,164 10%
With own children under 18 years 1,177 5% 12,004 5%
Non-Family Households 1,256 6% 17,588 7%
Male-Headed Household 710 3% 8,915 3%
Female-Headed Household 546 3% 8,673 3%
Total Households 21,436 100% 257,369 100%
Total Households Under Poverty Level 735 100% 8,509 100%
Female-Headed Households Under Poverty Level 265 36% 3,758 44%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Housing Needs Assessment
39
EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Extremely low income households are defined as households earning less than 30 percent
of area median income (AMI). These households may require specific housing solutions
such as deeper income targeting for subsidies, housing with supportive services, single-
room occupancy units, or rent subsidies or vouchers.
In 2010, 2,675 South San Francisco households earned less than 30 percent of AMI.
Extremely low-income (ELI) households represented 21 percent of all renter households
and 7 percent of all owner households in the City. A majority of extremely low-income
households were severely overpaying for housing; 72 percent of renters and 47 percent of
homeowners paid more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing.
Table 3.8-4: Housing Needs of Extremely Low-Income Households,
South San Francisco, 2010
Renters Owners Total
Total Number of ELI Households 1,735 940 2,675
Percent with Any Housing Problems 86% 65% 79%
Percent with Cost Burden (30% to 49% of Income) 11% 14% 12%
Percent with Cost Burden (>50% of income) 72% 47% 64%
Total Number of Households 8,160 12,670 20,830
Percent ELI Households 21% 7% 13%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Special Tabulations from 2006-2010
American Community Survey.
SENIORS
Generally, senior households tend to have higher rates of homeownership than other
households, but also tend to earn less and in many instances face a significant housing cost
burden.5 Shown in Table 3.8-5, 77 percent of senior-headed households in South San
Francisco owned their own home, compared to 54 percent of younger households.
5 Refers to a household whose householder identified him/herself to the US Census Bureau as being 65 or older.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
40
Table 3.8-5: Households by Age and Tenure, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Number Percent Number Percent
Householder 15-64 years
Owner 8,973 54.0% 109,578 54.3%
Renter 7,654 46.0% 92,172 45.7%
Total 16,627 100.0% 201,750 100.0%
Householder 65 years and over
Owner 3,724 77.4% 44,078 79.2%
Renter 1,085 22.6% 11,541 20.8%
Total 4,809 100.0% 55,619 100.0%
Total Households 21,436 100.0% 257,369 100.0%
Percent Households 65 plus years 22.4% 21.6%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Table 3.8-6: Household Income of Elderly Households,
South San Francisco, 2010
Number Percent
Elderly Renter Households
30% MFI or Less 695 45%
30% to 50% MFI 375 24%
50% to 80% MFI 295 19%
80% MFI or Greater 183 12%
Total 1,548 100%
Elderly Owner Households
30% MFI or Less 690 13%
30% to 50% MFI 935 17%
50% to 80% MFI 1,290 24%
80% MFI or Greater 2,465 46%
Total 5,380 100%
Total Elderly Households
30% MFI or Less 1,385 20%
30% to 50% MFI 1,310 19%
50% to 80% MFI 1,585 23%
80% MFI or Greater 2,648 38%
Total 6,928 100%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). Special Tabulations
from 2006-2010 American Community Survey.
Housing Needs Assessment
41
Among elderly households, most earn well below the county Median Family Income (MFI).
Shown in Table 3.8-6, only 12 percent of elderly renter households and 46 percent of
elderly owner households earn 80 percent of MFI or more. 6
For elderly residents, homeownership provides some level of security against increasing
housing costs. Shown in Table 3.8-7, approximately 28 percent of elderly homeowners paid
30 percent or more of their income toward housing costs. This compares to 39 percent of
homeowners in South San Francisco overall. While elderly homeowners are less likely than
younger homeowners to face a cost burden, elderly renters are much more likely to overpay
for housing. Overall, 52 percent of elderly renter households paid 30 percent or more of
their income toward housing, compared to 45 percent of renters citywide.
Table 3.8-7: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2010
Extremely Low Very Low Low
Moderate and
Above Moderate
All Elderly
Households
Elderly Renter Households 625 290 80 145 1,140
% with any housing problems 74% 53% 13% 0% 55%
% Cost Burden >30% 15% 17% 0% 0% 13%
% Cost Burden >50% 59% 26% 0% 0% 39%
Elderly Owner Households 675 830 930 1,290 3,725
% with any housing problems 56% 24% 38% 12% 29%
% Cost Burden >30% 19% 8% 19% 9% 13%
% Cost Burden >50% 33% 16% 18% 3% 15%
Total Elderly Households 1,300 1,120 1,010 1,435 4,865
% with any housing problems 65% 32% 36% 11% 35%
% Cost Burden >30% 17% 10% 18% 8% 13%
% Cost Burden >50% 45% 19% 17% 3% 21%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Special Tabulations from 2006-2010 American Community
Survey.
PERSONS WITH DISABILITY
Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding
employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. Based on the
2008-2012 American Community Survey, approximately 10 percent of South San Francisco
residents were affected by one or more disability, compared to 8 percent of people
countywide.
As shown in Table 3.8-8, among the adult population with a disability, there was a much
higher likelihood of not having a job than among the general population. This high rate of
joblessness remains a contributing factor affecting the ability to find affordable housing.7
6 As distinguished from a senior-headed households (age 65 or older), an “elderly household” as defined by HUD
is a household with one or more member who is 62 years of age or older.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
42
Table 3.8-8: Persons with Disability by Age, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Population
with
Disability
Total
Population
Percent
with
Disability
Population
with
Disability
Total
Population
Percent
with
Disability
Age 5 to 17 371 10,359 3.6% 3,569 112,877 3.2%
Age 18 to 34 510 14,699 3.5% 4,523 154,474 2.9%
Age 34 to 64 2,139 26,096 8.2% 18,871 307,474 6.1%
Age 65 to 74 1,127 4,468 25.2% 8,656 50,337 17.2%
Age 75 and Over 1,915 4,037 47.4% 20,095 44,465 45.2%
Total Over Age 5 6,062 59,659 10.2% 55,714 669,627 8.3%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Table 3.8-9: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Number Percent Number Percent
Working Age Population with Disability1
Employed 1,121 44% 9,210 40%
Not Employed2 1,431 56% 13,532 60%
Total 2,552 100% 22,742 100%
Working Age Population with no Disability
Employed 28,753 78% 333,660 79%
Not Employed2 8,229 22% 90,215 21%
Total 36,982 100% 423,875 100%
Percent of Working Age
Population with Disability 6% 5%
Notes:
1. Working age population refers to persons age 20 to 64.
2. Not employed persons include persons not currently part of the active labor force (e.g.,
full-time students, stay-at-home parents, other people not currently seeking employment).
The unemployment rate is calculated based on the active labor force and would be a lower
number than presented above.
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Table 3.8-10 provides an inventory of the licensed community care facilities in South San
Francisco that serve some of the City’s special needs groups. Residential Care Facilities for
the Elderly (RCFE), also known as “assisted living” or “board and care” facilities, provide
assistance with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more
7 It should be noted that the percentage of people who are not employed is not the same as the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate refers to the percentage of people actively seeking employment who are not
currently employed. Where people are not actively seeking employment (e.g., full-time students or persons
unable to work due to a disability), they are not considered to be part of the labor force and are not counted in
the unemployment rate.
Housing Needs Assessment
43
independent than in most nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities, also known as nursing
homes, offer a higher level of care, with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day. Adult
residential facilities offer 24-hour non-medical care for adults, ages 18 to 59 years old, who
are unable to provide for their daily needs due to physical or mental disabilities. Group
homes, such as small residential facilities that serve children or adults with chronic
disabilities, provide 24-hour care by trained professionals.
Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012
Name Location Capacity
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly
Aegis Assisted Living of San Francisco 2280 Gellert Blvd 100
Alhambra Home 498 Alhambra Road 6
Alta Mesa Care Home 306 Alta Mesa Drive 6
Araville Residential Care Home 744 Palm Avenue 6
Araville Residential Care Home II 106 Sycamore Ave 6
Bautista Board and Care I 708 Circle Court 6
Bel Amor II 608 Theresa Drive 6
Bel Amor III 169 San Felipe Avenue 6
Bel Amor IV 648 Joaquin Drive 6
Chad Corner Assisted Living 2901 Shannon Drive 6
Chester's Home 2315 Tipperary Avenue 6
Damenik's Home 851 Baden Avenue 15
Delia's Retirement Home 52 Arlington Drive 6
Double Happiness Care Home 859 Camarita Circle 6
Elizabeth's Care Home 2530 Olympic Drive 6
Elizabeth's Care Home VII 2530 Wentworth Drive 6
Ellen's Board and Care 1242 Mission Road 5
Family Affair Care Home 264 Southcliff Avenue 6
Fook Hong Care Home 117 Arroyo Drive 6
Friendly Neighbors Residential Care 2675 Shannon Drive 6
Garrison Care Home 7 Hermosa Lane 6
Gentry Home 2725 Shannon Drive 6
Harrison Care Home 706 Palm Avenue 6
Heirloom Gardens 2305 Tipperary Avenue 6
House of Love Care Home 675 Shannon Drive 6
JBA Residential Care Home 2585 Ardee Lane 6
Lilies Care Home 2535 Shannon Drive 6
Lilies Care Home 2505 Tipperary Ave 6
Manalo's Board and Care III 853 Newman Drive 6
Manalo's Board and Care IV 840 Camaritas Circle 6
Manalo's Board and Care 807 Byron Drive 6
Manalo's Board and Care V 840 Alta Loma Drive 6
Mccaffrey's Care Home 2381 Olympic Drive 6
Nobis Care Home 505 Palm Avenue 6
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
44
Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012
Name Location Capacity
Noralyn's Care Home 2780 Tipperary Avenue 6
Oikos Care Home 2311 Tipperary Avenue 6
Olympic Residential Care Home 2470 Olympic Drive 6
Savali's Residential Care Home 419 Hazelwood Drive 6
St. Catherine Home 2530 Ardee Lane 6
Sta Ines Care Home 779 Parkway Street 6
Sunvill Board and Care Home 409 Holly Avenue 6
Sunvill Board and Care Home II 771 Camaritas Avenue 6
Victoria 1252 Crestwood Drive 5
Westborough Royale 89 Westborough Blvd 99
Winston Manor Home 20 Elkwood Drive 6
Adult Residential Facilities
Albright Home 2501 Albright Way 6
Care Plus Residential Care Facility 34 Capay Circle 6
Chester's Home 2315 Tipperary Avenue 6
Gentry Home 2725 Shannon Drive 6
Healthy Lifestyles - Sherwood Way 108 Sherwood Way 6
Lexy's Adult Residential Facility 108 Greenwood Avenue 4
Rainbow Bright Adult Residential Facility 29 Duval Drive 6
Group Homes
Mac's Children and Family Services, Inc. 403 West Orange Avenue 6
Tipperary Home 2465 Tipperary Avenue 6
Source: California Department of Social Services, 2008; California Healthcare Foundation, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Developmentally Disabled Persons
According to Section 4512 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code a “developmental
disability” is a disability that originates before an individual reaches adulthood (18 years
old), continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial
disability for that individual. This includes intellectual disabilities (characterized by
significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning), cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and
autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to other
intellectual disabilities or that require treatment (i.e., care and management) similar to that
required by individuals with intellectual disabilities; however, it does not include other
handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a
conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group
living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals
may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are
provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in
supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s
living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
Housing Needs Assessment
45
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) supports approximately
216,000 children and adults with developmental disabilities and 29,000 infants at risk of
developmental delay or disability throughout the state. Services are provided through state-
operated developmental centers and community facilities, as well as through contracts with
21 non-profit agencies called regional centers. The regional center is a private, non-profit
community agency that contracts with local business to offer a wide range of services to
individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.
Table 3.8-11 below summarizes the number of persons with development disabilities and
their place of residence. The majority of the people with developmental disabilities in this
area reside with their parents through age 29. People with autism comprise more than 30
percent of all those with developmental disabilities for the ages 4 through 14 years and
approximately 17 percent of all those with developmental disabilities for ages 15 through
29 years. Due to improvements in health care prevention, treatment, and maintenance,
people with developmental disabilities are expected to live much longer than in the recent
past.
Table 3.8-11: Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Type of Residence and Age
Residence Age 0-3
Age
4-14
Age
15-29
Age
30-44
Age
45-59
Age
60-74
Age
75-89
Age
90-104 Total
Home of Parent
or Guardian
56 78 93 34 18 6 2 - 287
Own Home - - 1 6 9 5 - - 21
Licensed Group
Home
- 2 20 13 34 21 4 - 95
Licensed Health
Care Facility
- - 7 7 17 25 4 - 60
Foster-type
Care
1 - - 2 2 - - - 5
Homeless - - 1 - - - - - 1
Subtotal of
Autism Only
(No diagnosis
yet)
25 21 1 6 1 - - 54
Total of all Diagnoses 57 80 121 62 80 57 10 1 468
Source: Golden Gate Regional Center, 2014.
There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a development
disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary
housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962
homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and
transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of
considerations that are important in serving the needs of this group. Incorporating ‘barrier-
free’ design in all, new multi-family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair
Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled
residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as
people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
46
FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS OR
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
According to the 2013 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, there were 2,281
homeless people reported in San Mateo County on the night of January 24, 2013. This point-
in-time study counted 1,299 homeless people living either on the street or in vehicles, a
population referred to as “unsheltered.” An additional 982 homeless people were staying in
shelters, transitional housing, jails, hospitals, or treatment facilities or were using a voucher
to stay in a motel, a population referred to as “sheltered.” Using an annualization formula,
the County’s survey estimated 7,151 homeless people in San Mateo County on an annual
basis. The Homeless Census and Survey did not provide an estimate of homeless people in
San Mateo County on a seasonal basis.
Within this dataset, 260 homeless individuals were counted in South San Francisco,
including 172 unsheltered persons and 88 sheltered persons. With a total population of
approximately 63,742 residents as of 2012, South San Francisco contained approximately 9
percent of the San Mateo County population. By comparison, it was home to 13 percent of
the county’s unsheltered persons and 9 percent of the sheltered population.
Government Code Section 65583(a) requires that each city must include sufficient capacity
to accommodate the need for emergency shelters. According to an inventory of shelter
capacity in the county, there are 168 emergency beds.8 Accordingly, the Safe Harbor Shelter
in South San Francisco, which provided 90 beds, accounts for 53 percent of emergency
shelter capacity countywide, far exceeding the City’s share of countywide general and
homeless populations. Hence, the City goes well beyond its obligation to provide for a share
of the countywide emergency shelter facilities. It also supports not-for-profit organizations
that provide emergency shelter, counseling, and housing referral services, such as the
organizations Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) and the Shelter
Network.
8 Shelter and Safety Net Service Report. County of San Mateo Human Services Agency. January 2009.
Housing Needs Assessment
47
Table 3.8-12: Homeless Population, San Mateo County, January 2013
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Number Percent Number Percent
Homeless Population
Sheltered 88 33.8% 982 43.1%
Unsheltered 172 66.2% 1,299 56.9%
Total Homeless Population 260 100.0% 2,281 100.0%
Homeless Households
Without Dependent Children
1,646 90.1%
With Dependent Children
180 9.9%
Total Homeless Households 1,826 100.0%
Source: San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, 2013.
Farm Workers
Farm workers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned
through seasonal agricultural labor. Most jurisdictions in San Mateo County have no farms
or farm workers; however, there are 334 farms and 1,722 farm workers in the county,
primarily located in coastal communities. Of these 1,722 farm workers, 88 are migrant
workers and 329 work less than 150 days annually (and are therefore considered to be
“seasonal labor”). Farm workers who are migrant or seasonal workers have special housing
needs because of their relatively low income and the unstable nature of their job (i.e. having
to move throughout the year from one harvest to the next). These workers generally face
higher rates of overcrowding and other substandard housing conditions. Continued efforts
to provide affordable housing, especially affordable housing suitable for families, will help
meet the needs of these farm workers.
Table 3.8-13: Farm workers in San Mateo County, 2012
2007 2012
Total Number of Farms 329 334
Acres of Farm Land 57,089 48,160
Hired Farm Labor - 1,722
Migrant labor - 88
Working > 150 days annually - 718
Working <150 days annually - 329
Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 2012.
AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
The City and the County provide funding and subsidies, with support from State, federal,
local, and private resources, for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of housing
units to support those with special housing needs in South San Francisco. Many of these
programs are described in greater detail in Section 5.2 of this Housing Element.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
48
The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local
governments for a wide range of housing and community development activities through
the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The City of South San Francisco
expects to receive CDBG funds during the 2014 to 2022 period, which can be used for site
acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, emergency and transitional
shelters, and fair housing/housing counseling activities. In particular, CDBG funds have
been used in South San Francisco to provide free accessibility modifications to houses
through the Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities’ Housing Accessibility
Modification Program.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program is a federal program that has been
used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and
rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households in South San Francisco. The
HOME Investment Partnership Act, which is under the National Affordable Housing Act,
provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing projects. The City
of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME
Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the Consortium’s annual grant
allocation. The Section 8 Program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to
very-low income persons in need of affordable housing, and the program is administered
locally by the San Mateo County Housing Authority.
South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART),
which raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San
Mateo County. In addition, the City provides financial support for the not-for-profit
organization Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which provides
emergency shelter for battered women, and two agencies that provide housing referral and
counseling services, the Shelter Network and the Human Investment Project.
49
So
u
t
h
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
4 Housing Constraints
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element
must analyze “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.” Where constraints are
identified, the City is required to take action to mitigate or remove them.
In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may
constrain the production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. These include
infrastructure availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and
public opinion regarding affordable housing development.
4.1 Government Constraints
Government regulations affect housing costs, standards and allowable densities for
development, and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. With
respect to the housing market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are
often passed on to consumers in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential
regulatory constraints include local land use policies (as defined in a community’s general
plan), zoning regulations and their accompanying development standards, subdivision
regulations, urban limit lines, and development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy
approval and processing times also may be regulatory constraints.
GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1999 and has
been amended since to incorporate the 2001 BART Transit Village Plan, the 2007-2014
Housing Element Update, the 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, and the
2011 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which allowed residential land use
through mixed-use development. In early 2015, the General Plan was amended to
incorporate the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP).
As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable
uses and densities at various locations in the City. Listed below are the primary residential
land use designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential
development. Under existing designations, the City permits the construction of a range of
housing types, including opportunities for higher density housing up to 100 dwelling units
per acre.
Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
50
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Residential Low Density 8 du/acre
Residential Medium Density 18 du/acre
Residential High Density 30 du/acre
Downtown Residential Low Density 15 du/acre
Downtown Residential Medium Density 25 du/acre
Downtown Residential High Density 40 du/acre
Downtown Commercial No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors
Transit Village Residential Medium Density 30 du/acre
Transit Village Residential High Density 50 du/acre
Transit Village Commercial 30 du/acre
Transit Village Retail 50 du/acre
El Camino Real Mixed Use 60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with density bonus and incentives)
Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre
(up to 120 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Grand Avenue Core 60 du/acre
(up to 100 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Downtown Residential Core 80 du/acre
(up to 125 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Neighborhood Center 60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Commercial Center 40 du/acre
Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing
opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below.
In order to balance community interests and assure continued support for medium- and
high-density housing in South San Francisco, the City established Policy 2-G-1, which calls
for the preservation of “the scale and character of established neighborhoods” and the
protection of “residents from changes in non-residential areas.” Consistent with this policy,
the General Plan Land Use map designates medium-and high-density residential areas along
major transit corridors and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts with existing
neighborhoods. The City’s political leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent
multi-family housing development with minimal opposition from neighborhood or other
interest groups.
Policy 2-G-6 calls for the maximization of “opportunities for residential development,
including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or
creating conflicts with industrial operations.” Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of
“mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support
transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that
currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster
Housing Constraints
51
identity and vitality.” The City has worked to realize these policies in recent years with
several key developments along El Camino Real in the Transit Village area. The City
continues to encourage development of high density housing near transit with the recent
adoption (February 2015) of the DSASP, partially funded by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). The major goals of the plan are to:
Revitalize downtown South San Francisco - encourage the retention of existing and
local business while also promoting new improvements to bring a focus back to the
historic downtown;
Promotes new residential development downtown-primarily on underutilized or
vacant parcels, while retaining the existing land use and density standards for
residential neighborhoods outside of the Downtown Core; and
Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown
with the East Employment area.
The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the siting or design of housing.
Those policies that do exist include Policy 2-I-2, which establishes height limits within the
downtown and along major commercial corridors. These height limits range from 50 to 80
feet and are consistent with residential development of 30 dwelling units per acre and
higher and are not considered an impediment to housing development. However, with the
adoption of the DSASP in February 2015, the height limits in downtown have increased to
promote higher densities. Policy 2-I-19 limits the allowable density of housing development
on steep slopes by up to 50 percent compared to existing land use designations to prevent
excessive grading. While this policy does work to limit the amount of housing development,
it applies to a relatively small area of the city (only parcels with a slope greater than 20
percent) and provides some certainty as the minimum amount of housing development that
will be allowed on steep sites, consistent with the General Plan. Finally, Policy 2-1-18
specifically allows for senior housing development in the City to be at a density of up to 50
dwelling units per acre regardless of underlying land use designations and allows for
reduced parking standards to be applied to this type of development. With the adoption of
the DSASP, qualifying affordable senior housing will be allowed densities limits in excess of
50 dwelling units per acre to upwards of 125 dwelling units per acre.
Based on a review of the General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including
developers, the General Plan is not an obstacle to housing development and is supportive of
the development of a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for
medium- and-high density residential development. The General Plan does not constitute an
obstacle to housing development for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed
households, persons with disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing
supportive and transitional housing, and those needing factory-built housing.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The City updated the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to ensure that current standards and
guidelines support the implementation of the General Plan, including the 2010 Housing
Element Update. Shown below is a list of existing districts that allow housing development,
along with existing development standards.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
52
The City’s main residential districts are the Single Family Districts in RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, and
RL-8; Medium Density Residential Districts in RM-10, RM-15, and RM-17.5; and Multiple
Family Residential Districts in RH-30 and RH-35. Residential development is also allowed
the Transit Village (TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH) Districts, El Camino Real Mixed Use
District (ECRMX), and Downtown Districts (DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, and DRH), as well as in the
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX) District. The district that corresponds with the adopted El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan – El Camino Real/Chestnut District – includes
three districts that allow mixed-use residential development (ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXM,
ECR/MXH). There are five districts that correspond to the DSASP area and permit
residential development (DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, and LNC). The Parks and Recreation (PR)
and Open Space (O-S) districts cover a very small portion of the city, and are intended for
the preservation of open-space and/or the rural character of certain unincorporated areas;
residential development is not allowed in these districts.
The Zoning Ordinance does not constrain or unreasonably limit the types of housing that
can be developed in South San Francisco. It supports populations with special housing
needs by permitting many supportive and transitional residential uses across many zones.
These uses include multiple-unit developments, group residences, residential care facilities,
mobile homes, elder and long-term care facilities, family day care, and shelters. These uses
are supported in Medium Density Residential Districts, Multiple Family Residential
Districts, Transit Village Districts, Downtown Districts, DSASP Districts, the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Districts, and the El Camino Real Mixed Use District.
Table 4.1-2 shows the various residential uses permitted in the city and lists whether they
are permitted (P) or permitted subject to a conditional use permit (C) or minor use permit
(MUP). This table is followed by a narrative discussion of each residential use and its
permitting requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance does not impede housing development and enables development of a
wide range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high
density residential development. The Zoning Ordinance is not an obstacle to housing
development for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons
with disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and
transitional housing, and those needing factory-built housing.
53
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditionally Permitted Use; MUP=Use Permitted with Minor Use Permit
Use
Classification
RL-
1.3
RL-
5,6,
and 8
RM-
10, 15,
and
17.5
RH-30
and 35 DC DMX DRL DRM DRH TV-C TC-R
TV-
RM
TV-
RH ECRMX CMX
ECR/C-
MXH
ECR/C-
MXM
ECR/C-
RH DTC GAC DRC LCC LNC
Single-Unit Dwelling
Single Unit
Detached
P P P P - - P P C - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Second
Unit
P P P P - - P P P - - - - - P - - - - - - - -
Single Unit
Semi-
Attached
- C P P - - P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Single-Unit
Attached
- - P P - MUP1 P P P - - P P P1 C P1 P P - - - - -
Multiple-Unit Residential
Duplex - - P P - MUP1 P P P P1 P1 P P - C - - - - - - - -
Multi Unit - - P1 P C1 P/
MUP1
P P P P1 P1 P P P1 P1 P1 P P P P P P P
Senior
Citizen
Residential
C C C MUP C1 P/
MUP1
P P P P1 P1 P P P1 P1 P1 P P P - P P P
Elderly and
Long-term
Care
- C C C - - - - - - - C C P1 C C1 C C - - - - -
Domestic
Violence
Shelter
- - P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 - - - - MUP1 MUP1 - - - - - P1 - -
54
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
1
5
Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditionally Permitted Use; MUP=Use Permitted with Minor Use Permit
Use
Classification
RL-
1.3
RL-
5,6,
and 8
RM-
10, 15,
and
17.5
RH-30
and 35 DC DMX DRL DRM DRH TV-C TC-R
TV-
RM
TV-
RH ECRMX CMX
ECR/C-
MXH
ECR/C-
MXM
ECR/C-
RH DTC GAC DRC LCC LNC
Family Day Care Home
Large P P P P MU
P1
MUP P P P - - P P - P - - - - - P - -
Small P P P P - P P P P - - P P P1 P P1 P P P - P P P
Group
Residential
- - - MUP - MUP - - C P1 P1 - C MUP1 MUP1 - - - - - C - -
Mobile Home
Park
- C C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Residential Care Facilities
General - - C C MU
P1
C C C C P1 P1 P P C1 C - C C C1 - C1 - -
Limited P1 P1 P1 P1 - C1 P1 P1 P1 C - - C C1 C1 P1 P P C1 - C1 - -
Senior - - C MUP C1 MUP C C MUP - - C C P1 P1 - C C MUP1 - MUP1 C1 C1
Notes:
1. Subject to additional regulations in Zoning Ordinance.
Housing Constraints
55
Single-Unit Dwelling. A dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one household, and located
on a separate lot from any other unit (except second living units, where permitted). This
classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation
system pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Zoning
Ordinance permits various types of single-unit dwellings in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8,
RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, DRL, and
DRM zones.
Detached. A single-unit dwelling, on a single lot, within which all rooms are
internally accessible and that is not attached to any other dwelling unit.
Attached. A single-unit dwelling on a single lot that is attached through common
vertical walls to one or more dwellings on abutting lots. An attached single-unit
dwelling is sometimes called a “townhouse.”
Semi-Attached. A single-unit dwelling with only the garage wall abutting, or in
common with, the garage of the dwelling unit on the adjacent lot.
Multiple-Unit Residential. Two or more dwelling units on a single lot. Multi-unit
development types include townhouses, single-unit groups, garden apartments, senior
citizen residential developments, multi-story apartment buildings, and transitional
residential development. The Zoning Ordinance permits multiple-unit developments in the
RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-C, TC-
R, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX, ECRMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Duplex. A single building on a separate lot that contains two dwelling units or two
single-unit dwellings on a single lot. This use is distinguished from a Second
Dwelling Unit, which is an Accessory residential unit as defined by State law and this
ordinance.
Multi-Unit. Three or more dwelling units on a site or lot. Types of multiple family
dwellings include townhouses, garden apartments, senior housing developments,
and multi-story apartment buildings.
Senior Citizen Residential. A multi-unit development in which individual units are
occupied exclusively by one or more persons 62 years of age or older.
Caretaker Unit. A dwelling unit occupied by employees or caretakers of the primary use on
the site. Caretaker units are conditionally permitted in the employment district MI.
Domestic Violence Shelter. A facility where victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse are
provided temporary housing, food, and other specialized services in compliance with
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18290 et seq. The Zoning Ordinance
permits domestic violence shelters in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DC, DMX,
DRL, DRM, DRH, and DRC zones.
Elderly and Long-term Care. Establishment that provides 24-hour medical, convalescent or
chronic care to individuals who, by reason of advanced age, chronic illness or infirmity, are
unable to care for themselves. The facility is licensed as a skilled nursing facility, and
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
56
includes but is not limited to, rest homes and convalescent hospitals, but not Residential
Care, Hospitals, or Clinics. These facilities are permitted in the ECRMX zone and permitted
conditionally in the RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, TV-RM, TV-
RH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Family Day Care. A day-care facility licensed by the State of California that is located in a
single-unit residence or other dwelling unit where an occupant of the residence provides
care and supervision for children under the age of 18 for periods of less than 24 hours a
day. These facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5,
RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX, ECR/C-RH,
ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Small. A facility that provides care for 8 or fewer children, including children under
the age of 10 who reside at the home.
Large. A facility that provides care for 7 to 14 children, including children under the
age of 10 who reside at the home.
Group Residential. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for
each room or unit, offered for rent for permanent or semi-transient residents on a weekly
or longer basis. This classification includes rooming and boarding houses, dormitories and
other types of organizational housing, private residential clubs, and residential hotels
intended for long-term occupancy (30 days or more) but excludes Hotels and Motels, and
Residential Care Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance permits these facilities in the TV-C and
TC-R zones, and conditionally permits them in the DRH, DRC, and TV-RH zones.
Organizational Housing. A residential facility operated by a membership
organization for its members and not open to the general public that typically
provides individual sleeping quarters together with common dining and living
areas. This use type includes fraternity and sorority houses, convents, student
dormitories and similar residential accommodations.
Mobile Home Parks. A development designed and occupied by mobile homes including
development with facilities and amenities used in common by occupants who rent, lease, or
own spaces for mobile homes through a subdivision, cooperative, condominium or other
form of resident ownership. Mobile home parks are only conditionally permitted in the RL-
5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35 zones.
Residential Care Facilities. Facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide
permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision
for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for
sustaining the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters
with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This
classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by
public or not-for- profit institutions, including hospices, nursing homes, convalescent
facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery
from alcohol or drug additions (supportive housing). This category excludes transitional
housing and community social service facilities. The Zoning Ordinance permits general
residential care facilities in the TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH zones and conditionally
Housing Constraints
57
permits them in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DMX, DRL, DRM, DRH, ECRMX,
CMX, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, DTC, and DRC zones. Limited residential care facilities are
permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL,
DRM, DRH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones; they are conditionally
permitted in the DMX, DTC, DRC, TV-C, TC-RH, ECRMX, and CMX zones. Senior residential
care facilities are permitted in the CMX and ECRMX zones and conditionally permitted in the
RM-10, RM-15, 4M-17.5, DC, DRL, DRM, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, LCC and
LNC zones.
Residential Care, General. A facility that requires a State license or is licensed by the
State to provide 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for more than
6 persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for
sustaining the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living
quarters with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or
unit. This classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those
operated by public or not-for-profit institutions, including hospices. This category
excludes transitional residential, foster family homes and any facilities supervised
by or under contract with the State Department of Corrections.
Residential Care, Limited. A facility that requires a State license or is State licensed
and provide 24-hour non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in
need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the
activities of daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family
or persons employed as facility staff. Living accommodations are shared living
quarters with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or
unit. This classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those
operated by public or not-for-profit institutions, including hospices. Residential care
facilities for 6 or fewer persons are considered a single-unit residential use.
Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident,
the resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person; where residents
are 60 years of age or older and where varying levels of care and supervision are
provided as agreed to at time of admission or as determined necessary at
subsequent times of reappraisal. Any younger residents must have needs
compatible with other residents, as provided in Health & Safety Code § 1569.316 or
a successor statute. This classification includes continuing care retirement
communities and lifecare communities licensed for residential care by the State of
California.
Second Unit. A dwelling unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or
more persons that is located on a lot with another primary, single-unit dwelling. A second
unit may be within the same structure as the primary unit, in an attached structure, or in a
separate structure on the same lot. Second units are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-
8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, and CMX zones.
Table 4.1-3 below shows the residential development standards for each district, including
minimum and maximum density of units per acre. Based on a review of applicable
development standards, including building heights, lot coverage standards, maximum FARs
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
58
and setbacks, it is feasible for developers to achieve maximum allowable residential
densities within each district, while complying with other applicable development
standards.
59
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
RL-1.3 30 40
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 20 10 10 20 32,600 120 (none) 1.3 32,600
RL-5 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 5 8,710
RL-6 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 6 7,260
RL-8 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 8 5,445
RM-10 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 10 4,360
RM-15 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 15 2,904
60
60
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
1
5
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
RM-17.5 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 17.5 2,500
RH-30 50 65
1.0 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 (none) 30 1,452
RH-35 50 65
1.0 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 (none) 35 1,090
DC 60 100 3.0 0 0-10 0 0-10 5,000 50 14.1 (none) (none)
DMX 50 50 (none) 0 0-10 0 0-10 5,000 50 14.1 40 (none)
DRL 23 80
0.7 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft., whichever
is great 15 5 0 20 5,000 50 5.1 15 (none)
DRM 35 90 1.25 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 15.1 25 (none)
DRH 50 90 (none) 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 20.1 40 (none)
TV-C 25-55 100 (none) 0-16 0 0 6 10,000 (none) (none) 30 1,000
TV-R 55 100 (none) 0-16 0 0 6 5,000 (none) (none) 50 1,000
TV-RM 23-35 75 (none) 0-16 5 10 6 5,000 (none) (none) 30 1,500
TV-RH 45-55 75 (none) 0-16 5 10 6 5,000 (none) (none) 50 1,000
ECRMX 80-120 90 2.5-3.5 12 0-10 10 15 20,000 50 (none) 60-80 (none)
61
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
CMX 50 50 (none) 10 0-10 10 0-10 15,000 50
1,432; 2,000
on lots
30; 21.8
on lots
less than
10,000 sqft
1,452; 2,000
on lots less
than 10,000
ECR/C-
MXH (varies) 90 (none) 0-15 0-10 0-10 0 20,000 50 (none) 80 (none)
ECR/C-
MXM (varies) 90 (none) 0-15 0-10 0-10 0 20,000 50 (none) 40 (none)
ECR/C-
RH (varies) 90 (none) 0-10 10 10 0 20,000 50 80 120 (none)
DTC 85 100 8.0 (varies) 0-10 (varies) 0-10 5,000 50 80 100 (none)
GAC 45-65 100 4.0 (none) 0 (none) 0 5,000 50 14 60 (none)
DRC 65 90 3.25 (varies) 0-10 (varies) 20 5,000 50 40 80 (none)
LCC 50 75 (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) 5,000 50 20.1 40 (none)
LNC 50 90 (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) 5,000 50 40 60 (none)
O-S 30 25 (none) 20 10 10 0-10 43,560 (none) (none)
1 per 20
acres (none)
Note:
1. Densities expressed are as-of-right. Does not include the maximum density that may be achieved with incentive or bonus programs.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
Housing Constraints
62
PARKING
Developers and other key stakeholders identified the City’s multi-family parking standard
as an obstacle to housing development. The Zoning Ordinance includes the following
parking requirements in Table 4.1-4 for residential uses in all zones except Downtown
districts, which are shown in Table 4.1-5.
Table 4.1-4: Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 2,500 square feet
and less than 5 bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit General Requirements for all Single-unit
Residential Parking:
At least one space must be within a garage.
A carport shall not be substituted for a
required garage except for existing dwellings
on lots adjacent to a lane.
2,500 to 2,999 square feet or
5 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit
3,000 square feet or more or
more than 5 bedrooms
4 spaces per dwelling unit
Second Unit 1 space for each
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit General Requirements for all Multi-unit
Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be designated for
each unit.
One additional guest parking space must be
provided for every 4 units for projects
greater than 10 units.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1.5 spaces per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to
1,100 sq ft
1.8 spaces per unit
Three or more bedrooms
and 1,101 sq ft or larger
2 plus an additional 0.5 space
for each additional sleeping
room over 3
Small Family Day Care None in addition to what is required for the residential use.
Large Family Day Care 1 per employee plus an area for loading and unloading children, on or off-site.
(Required spaces and the residential driveway for the primary residential use
may be counted toward meeting these requirements).
Elderly and Long Term Care 1 for every 7 residents plus 1 for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more
than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and
doctor on-site at any one time.
Group Residential 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus 1 for every 5 beds and 1 for each non-
resident employee.
Mobile Home Park 2 on-site spaces for each dwelling unit. At least one required space must be in
a carport or garage.
Residential Care, Limited None in addition to what is required for the residential use.
Residential Care, General 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus 1 for every 5 beds and 1 for each non-
resident employee.
Residential Care, Senior 1 for every 7 residents plus 1 for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more
than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and
doctor on-site at any one time.
Housing Constraints
63
Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 900 sq ft and less
than 3 bedrooms
1 space per dwelling unit, 2
spaces maximum per unit
General Requirements for all Single-
unit Residential Parking:
For new construction, required
parking up to 2 spaces must be
within a garage. For existing
development, all existing garage
spaces, up to a maximum of two
spaces, must be maintained.
A carport shall not be substituted
for a required garage except for
existing dwellings on lots adjacent to
a lane.
900 to 2,500 sq ft or 3 or 4
bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
2,501 sq ft or more or more
than 4 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
Second Unit 1 space for each.
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi-
unit Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be
designated for each unit.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1 space minimum, 1.5
spaces maximum per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100
sq ft
1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8
spaces maximum per unit
Three or more bedrooms and
1,101 sq ft or larger
1.5 spacies minimum, 2
spaces maximum per unit
According to the 2010 Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement may be reduced through
a Conditional Use Permit, if it meets the criteria for approval, including reduced parking
demand as evaluated by a parking demand study. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a
reduced parking requirement for any land use except residential single-unit and duplex
development; if any portion of the lot is located within a quarter mile of a BART or CalTrain
station, the number of required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the
normally required number of spaces with Conditional Use Permit approval. This reduction
does not apply in the TV or Downtown districts. Additionally, under certain conditions and
with a Conditional Use Permit, the provision of a shared parking facility can result in a
reduction of up to 50 percent of the number of parking spaces normally required.
FEES AND EXACTIONS
The City charges residential developers fees for planning and construction services
performed by the City. Developers of new residential projects also pay various impact fees
to finance improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve new housing
in the city.
In order to determine fees charged by the City of South San Francisco and other jurisdiction
in San Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all
jurisdictions in the County, asking that each provide fee information for the following three
different developments:
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
64
Development 1 - Single Family Infill: A new home on an empty lot in an existing
neighborhood, with no significant grading or other complicating factors. The two-
story home is 2,400 square feet with a 500 square foot garage, and it has four
bedrooms and three bathrooms.
Development 2 - Single Family Home Development: A new development consisting of
50 units, each on their own lot, on an 8-acre parcel. There are three models of
homes in the development: Model A (20 units total) is 1,600 square feet and 2
stories tall, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage;
Model B (15 units total) is 2,000 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3 bedrooms and
2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model C (15 units) is 2,400
square feet and 2 stories tall, with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, as well as a 500
square foot garage. All units have HVAC systems. The project would result in 98,000
total square feet of development, with public streets and no sprinklers. It is
estimated the development would generate 50 peak hour trips.
The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned
development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of
medium complexity. It would require significant grading work (10,000 CY), with
Type 1 erosion/sediment control. The construction of public streets would cost
about $1,300,000 in public improvements (no public landscaping or traffic signal
work).
Development 3 - Multi-family Development: A new development consisting of 96
units in 16 buildings on 8 acres. There are three models of units in the development:
Model A (28 units) is 1,250 square feet and 2 stories, with 2 bedrooms and 2
bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model B (34 units) is 1,500 square
feet and 2 stories, and it has 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square
foot garage; Model C (34 units) is 1,750 square feet and 2 stories, with 3 bedrooms
and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage. All units have HVAC
systems. It would result in a total of 145,000 square feet, without sprinklers, and
generate 72 peak hour trips.
The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned
development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of high
complexity. It would require significant grading work (5,000 CY) and Type 1
erosion/sediment control. On the existing public street frontage, $400,000 of
frontage improvements would be required, and $600,000 in private improvements
would be required for construction of new private streets. No public landscaping or
traffic signal work would be involved.
Fees for the City for each of these hypothetical developments are listed below in Table 4.1-6.
As shown, planning, construction, and impact fees would be nearly $17,000 per unit for a
single family unit as described above; approximately $390,000 for the development project
with 50 single family homes; and approximately $369,000 for the multi-family development
project with 96 units.
Housing Constraints
65
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
Entitlement Fees
Planned
Development
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 + actual cost +
$2,000.00 deposit
Tentative
Subdivision Map
$0.00 $1,250.00 +
$800=$2,050
$3,200.00
General Plan
Amendment
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Fish and Game $0.00 $2,101.50 $2,101.50
Design Review $300.00 $0.00 $1,000.00
Legal Notice $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
Cat Ex $20.00 $0.00 $20.00
San Mateo
County CEQA
Handling Fee
$50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Entitlement Fee
Subtotal
$670.00 $9,801.50 $10,671.50
Construction Fees
CBSC (California
Building Standards
Commission)
$17.00 $637.00 $942.00
Energy PC
Residential In
$0.00 $9,279.60 $0.00
COM – Building
Fee
$0.00 $0.00 $97,247.00
General Plan
Maintenance Fee
$605.78 $23,872.80 $35,322.00
Microfilm
Commercial or
Residential
$149.58 $2,734.68 $4,862.35
PC Commercial In $1,944.48 $35,550.78 $63,210.55
Permit Program
Maintenance Fee
$25.00 $25.00 $25.00
RES – Building
Permit Fee
$2,991.50 $54,693.50 $0.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge Non-Res
per Fx U
$3,381.72 $158,004.00 $158,004.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge
Residential per Fx
U
$264.21 $13,210.50 $25,364.16
SMIP Residential $0.00 $1,591.52 $2,354.80
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
66
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
State-Mandated
Training
$10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Valuation based
Electrical
$351.56 $2,640.63 $4,226.56
Valuation based
Mechanical
$250.00 $2,598.75 $437.50
Valuation Based
Plumping
$250.00 $2,598.75 $2,187.50
Waste
Management 1%
Fee – Residential
$19.44 $0.00 $0.00
Construction Fee
Subtotal
$10,260.27 $307,447.51 $394,193.42
Impact Fees
Schools $6,312.00 $257,740.00 $381,350.00
Public Safety Fee
(Police and Fire)2
$1,285.00 $40,500.00 $54,048.00
Childcare $0.00 $98,950.00 $178,368.00
Impact Fee Subtotal $7,597.00 $397,190.00 $613,766.00
Total $17,857.27 $704,637.51 $1,007,959.42
Notes:
1. In addition to the above fees, the City requires parkland dedication in accordance with Quimby Act and
requires the provision of affordable housing units on site through its inclusionary housing ordinance. Developers
have the option to pay in-lieu fees to avoid these exactions.
2. Per City Resolution 97-2012 Public Safety Fee, calculation assumes Development 1 is Low Density Residential
($1,285 per unit), Development 2 is Medium Density Residential ($810 per unit), and Development 3 is High
Density Residential ($563 per unit).
3. Does not include fees that may result because of Inclusionary Housing policy. The City is currently
considering adjusting the in-lieu fee calculation to encourage more use of the in-lieu fee; this may result in a
reduced in-lieu fee.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett and Bhatia, 2015.
Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, South San Francisco’s fees were found
to be comparatively low, and they do not to pose a significant constraint to housing
development in the city.9
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Revised in 2010, Chapter 20.380 of the Zoning Ordinance details the City’s inclusionary
housing regulations. The City’s objective is to ensure that all residential development
provides a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the
9 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
Housing Constraints
67
population, including low- and moderate-income households. The inclusionary housing
regulations require that all approved residential development projects with four or more
units have a minimum of 20 percent of the units restricted to and affordable to low- and
moderate-income households. Additionally, the City requires that at least 20 percent of all
new dwelling units are restricted to and affordable to low- or moderate-income households.
Development projects must provide affordable units on-site, although under certain
conditions, alternatives are provided to this requirement as a means of providing affordable
units in the City. Housing developments can pay an in-lieu fee as an alternative to the
requirement of constructing inclusionary units. These requirements apply to all residential
market-rate dwelling units that are newly constructed for sale as well as the conversion of
apartments to condominiums that will be for sale.
Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate
homes, studies have shown evidence to the contrary. One school of thought is that the cost
of an inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers
through a lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other
homeowners through higher market rate sale prices. Another significant body of research
and analysis suggests that in fact the cost of inclusionary housing and any other
development fee “will always be split between all players in the development process.”10
Some academics have pointed out that over the long term, it is probable that landowners
will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other homeowners or the developer
(Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985).
The most definitive empirical study on inclusionary housing was completed in 2008 by the
Furman Center of New York University working for the Center for Housing Policy of the
National Housing Conference. Entitled “The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing
Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas,” this
study measured the impact of inclusionary housing ordinances on median homes sale prices
and residential development activity in these three regions. While findings for the DC and
Boston regions were mixed, the study found definitive evidence that inclusionary
ordinances do not lead to higher home prices or a decrease in building activity in the Bay
Area. This is attributed in large part to the more flexible nature of the ordinances in the Bay
Area region and to the number of options that developers have to meet inclusionary
requirements.
In addition to this study, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in
communities throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs
evidences that inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing
production. In fact, the study found that housing production actually increased after
passage of local inclusionary housing ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad,
and Sacramento.11
10 W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1999.
11 David Rosen. “Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets.” NHC Affordable Housing
Policy Review 1(3). 2004
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
68
In keeping with the Furman Center study findings cited above, the City of South San
Francisco recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain
production. In order to ensure maximum flexibility so as not to constrain production, the
City’s Zoning Ordinance allows alternatives to constructing new affordable units on-site as a
means of providing affordable units in the City. If the City Council finds that new
construction of affordable housing units would be infeasible or present unreasonable
hardship for a developer, an alternative may be approved (for example, acquisition and
rehabilitation of affordable units or the construction of special needs housing projects or
programs). Additionally, under certain circumstances, developers may satisfy the affordable
housing requirement with off-site combined inclusionary housing projects or in-lieu fees.
The City also offers a series of developer incentives, per State Density Bonus Law, that help
offset the added cost of the inclusionary units. Finally, the City’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance allows for developers to seek modification of the requirements due to undue
hardship. These policies are in line with recommendations in On Common Ground: Joint
Principles on Inclusionary Housing Policies, published by the Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern California (NPH) and the Home Builders Association of Northern
California (HBA) in 2005. The report points to the need for flexible inclusionary housing
requirements, such as those established by South San Francisco, to allow for financially
feasible residential development.
PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of
development applications adding to financing costs, in particular. The City has worked to
establish transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting
development applications.
Explained below are the typical processing and permit procedures for a single family
housing development in a single family district and for a multi-family housing development
in a multi-family district.
Single Family Residential Procedure
For single family homes proposed in a residential district (RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10,
RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35) steps in the permit and approvals process are as listed
below:
1. Pre-application meeting with staff (required)
2. Application submittal
3. Review of application by City staff
4. Design Review Board review/recommendation
5. Decision by Chief Planner
6. Appeal to Planning Commission (if applicable)
7. Building permit issuance
Housing Constraints
69
As listed above, approvals for single family development in a single family district do not
generally require action by the Planning Commission or City Council. The process does,
however, require review by the Design Review Board (DRB), which makes a
recommendation to the Chief Planner to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the
application.
Design review is required of all new construction in South San Francisco, including single
family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial development. For residential
development of three or fewer units, design review is limited to height, bulk, lot coverage,
and general compatibility with the neighborhood. If the DRB recommends approval of a
project and the Chief Planner approves the project, it may proceed without requiring any
action by the Planning Commission or City Council.
Design review applications submitted before the submittal deadline at the end of a given
month are generally heard during the Design review meeting scheduled for the following
month. Depending on the outcome of the Design Review Board meeting and the specific
timing when an application is submitted (whether toward the beginning or end of a month),
the typical timeframe for approval of a single family residential unit and issuance of
building permits varies between eight and 18 weeks.
Multi-Family Residential Procedure
For a typical multi-family housing development of 20 or more units proposed in a multi-
family district (RM-30, RM-35, TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, DRC, and ECRMX) steps in the
permit and approvals process are as listed below:
1. Pre-application meeting with staff
2. Application submittal
3. Review of application by City staff
4. Design Review Board review/recommendation
5. Planning Commission Hearing
6. City Council Hearing (if applicable)
7. Building permit issuance
As listed above, approval of multi-family housing requires action by the Design Review
Board to recommend the project to the Planning Commission for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial. Design review may address any of the following topics: exterior
design, materials, textures, colors, means of illumination, landscaping, irrigation, height,
shadow patterns, parking, access, security, safety, and other usual on-site development
elements.
Design review is typically completed within four weeks for simple projects and can take up
to twelve weeks if plans require revision. The submittal requirements are clearly delineated
in an application check list, with some latitude given to the Planning Division to waive
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
70
certain requirements for small projects or to add additional requirements, such as a shadow
study where taller development will be located adjacent to single-story residential uses.
Following the Design review process, the Planning Commission reviews the project. For
smaller projects not involving an affordable housing agreement or a development
agreement, the Planning Commission is the final decision making body for the development.
However, more typically in South San Francisco, larger scale multi-family housing
developments require an affordable housing agreement and/or utilize a development
agreement, requiring action by the City Council.
In total the typical approval time for a multi-family development application from the time
the application is submitted to the Planning Division until issuance of building permits is
between 18 and 36 weeks, depending on the complexity of the project and the outcome of
the design review process and Planning Commission meeting.
Other Permit Processing Times and Procedures
Listed below are the typical processing times for various types of planning actions. Where
possible, when multiple planning approvals are required for a single project (e.g., a Zoning
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit), both approvals are considered together as part of
the same hearing, such that times listed below are not necessarily additive.
In general, South San Francisco’s processing and permit procedures are reasonable and
comparable to those in other San Mateo County communities. The permit process only
increases in complexity and duration when the circumstances of individual projects
warrant extra consideration on the part of local staff and officials. This is especially true of
the environmental review component of the process. However, the City has little flexibility
to change this, since the California Environmental Quality Act specifies procedures that local
jurisdictions must observe in reviewing the impacts of development projects.
Housing Constraints
71
Table 4.1-7: Typical Application Processing Time, 2014
Typical Processing Time in weeks
(straight-forward proposal)
Typical Processing Time in weeks
(complicated proposal)
Permit/Procedure
Ministerial Review 1 2
Conditional Use Permit 6 12
Zoning Amendment 4 12
General Plan Amendment 34 72
Site Plan Review 2 3
Architectural/Design Review 4 12
Tract Maps 24 48
Parcel Maps 24 48
Initial Environmental Study 4 8
Environmental Impact Report 34 72
Specific Plan Amendment 4 12
Specific Plan 8 24
Precise Plan Amendment 6 12
Precise Plan 10 48
Master Plan 96 96
Developments
Single Family Unit 8 18
Second Unit 6 10
Subdivision 48 48
Multi-family less than 20 units 12 20
Multi-family more than 20 units 18 36
PUD 8 36
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
72
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
72
Table 4.1-8: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type, 2014
Subdivision Single Family Home Second Unit Multi-family < 20 Units Multi-family 20+ Unit+
Step 1 Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting
Step 2 Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal
Step 3 Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review
Step 4
Begin Environmental
Review Design Review Board2 Design Review Board2 Begin Environmental Review Begin Environmental Review
Step 5 Planning Commission Building Permit Building Permit Design Review Board Design Review Board
Step 6 City Council
Planning Commission Planning Commission
Step 7
City Council City Council
Step 8 Building Permit Building Permit
Notes:
1. A Use Permit may be required depending on the Zoning District. Use Permits are subject to Planning Commission review and approval.
2. Decisions of the DRB can be appealed to the Chief Planner and then to the Planning Commission.
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
Housing Constraints
73
CODES AND ENFORCEMENT AND ON/OFF SITE IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS
New construction in South San Francisco must comply with the California Building Codes
(2013). Thus, there are no extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect
the ability to construct housing in the city.
The City requires that developers complete certain minimum site improvements in
conjunction with new housing development. Required on-site improvements include
grading and installation of water, sewer, storm drainage, gas, electricity, and cable utilities.
Required off-site improvements include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, full street sections, and
street lighting.
Based on conversations with local developers, these site improvement standards are typical
of many communities, and do not adversely affect housing production in the city.
EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
As described above, current regulations, standards, and procedures in the City reflect
several efforts to accommodate all housing types and promote housing production,
including the following:
Diverse housing and development types and uses allowed in the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance;
Provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the amount of parking required;
Comparatively low fees and exactions for San Mateo County;
Inclusionary housing regulations to provide a range of housing opportunities for all
identifiable economic segments of the population;
Transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting
development applications; and
No extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect housing
production in South San Francisco.
4.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Consistent with State Law, the following section analyzes governmental constraints to
housing for persons with disabilities and describes ongoing and needed future actions to
remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for such housing.
STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
The City’s standards and processes are analyzed below, within several categories identified
by HCD as potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
74
Reasonable Accommodations. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make
reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such
accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with
disabilities. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular
policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for
wheelchair access structures or reductions to parking requirements.
ZONING AND LAND USE
The 2010 Zoning Ordinance included updates to Chapter 20.510 Waivers and Modifications,
to facilitate compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It provides reasonable
accommodation to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through
modification of the application of the City’s Zoning Ordinances. Chapter 20.510 allows the
Chief Planner to grant relief from the Zoning Ordinance’s dimensional requirements when
necessary to provide access to housing. It also allows the Planning Commission to grant
exceptions and waivers when necessary to accommodate religious uses protected by the
Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Below is a discussion
of existing zoning and land use policies in the City affecting the development of housing for
persons with disabilities.
Provision for Group Homes. Consistent with State law, the City allows for Limited
Residential Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning
districts, as well as DRL, DRM, DRH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, districts, without
a special use permit and not subject to any special restrictions.1 These facilities are also
conditionally permitted in the DMX, TV-C, TC-RH, CMX, DTC, DRC, and ECRMX zones. The
City also permits General Residential Care Facilities serving six or more persons in the TV-C,
TV-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH districts. General Residential Care Facilities are conditionally
permitted in all multi-family districts, the ECRMX district, the DTC and DRC districts, and all
Downtown districts except the DC district. These are not subject to any minimum distance
requirements in relationship to other special needs housing nor subject to any other special
land use requirements.
Broad Definition of Family. Consistent with State Law, the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides
for a broad definition of family as “one or more persons living together as a si ngle nonprofit
housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities.
Members of a ‘family’ need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group
occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house.” (Section 20.630) This definition of
family does not limit the number of people living together in a household and does not
require them to be related.
1 A Limited Residential Care Facility is a facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and provides 24-
hour non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of personal services, supervision,
protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the
licensee’s family or persons employed as facility staff. See SSFMC 20.080 and 20.630.002.
Housing Constraints
75
Reasonable Accommodation. The City’s Zoning Ordinance facilitates the development of
housing and residential parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities by allowing
waivers and modifications to required dimensional requirements, such as encroachments
into front, side, and rear yards for wheelchair access structures. Section 20.330.111
establishes procedures for private residential handicap parking, while Chapter 20.510
establishes the rules and procedures for requests for reasonable accommodation to ensure
access to housing.
BUILDING CODE AND PERMITTING
Uniform Building Code. In 2014, the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2013 California
Administrative Code and the 2013 California Building Code published by the International
Conference of Building Officials. In addition, the City adopted and implemented the 1997
Uniform Housing Code, which provides requirements for the conservation and
rehabilitation of housing. The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the
California Administrative Code, California Building Code, or Uniform Housing Code that
might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.2
Site and Building Accessibility. The City complies with all State and federal standards and
laws pertaining to the accessibility of sites and buildings for disabled persons.
Permitting. The City does not require special permitting that could impede the development
of group homes for six people or fewer. As discussed above, Residential Care Facilities are
permitted uses in all residential zoning districts. Furthermore, there are no siting
requirements or minimum distances between facilities that apply to Residential Care
Facilities or Group Care Facilities.
EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
As described above, current regulation standards and procedures in the City reflect several
efforts to accommodate housing for persons with disabilities, including the following:
Provision for small group homes in all residential zones by right;
Use of a broad definition of family;
Provisions to allow encroachment into required setbacks for wheelchair access
structures and waivers and modifications to other dimensional requirements when
necessary to provide reasonable accommodation; and
Provision of alternative parking requirements for special needs housing; and
Implementation of the Uniform Building Code.
2 As a practical matter the City has been following the 2013 California Building Code in evaluating projects,
which was formally adopted in December 2013.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
76
4.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors that may
constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions
such as land and construction costs as well as public opinion toward new development.
CONSTRUCTION & LAND COSTS
Land costs in San Mateo County are high, due in part to the desirability of housing in the
county and because available land is in short supply. These costs vary both between and
within jurisdictions based on factors like the desirability of the location and the permitted
density.
The following land costs are approximate, and derived from conversations with local
developers.3 For a typical multi-family construction project in San Mateo County, land costs
add approximately $90,000 per unit. Land for a single family home often costs $400,000 or
more per lot.
Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such
as architectural and engineering services, development fees and insurance. For multi-family
homes in San Mateo County, hard costs account of 60-65 percent of the building cost and
soft costs average around 15-20 percent (the remaining 15-20 percent is land costs). For
single family homes, hard costs often are roughly 40 percent of the total cost, soft costs are
20 percent, and land is 40 percent.
According to housing developers in San Mateo County, construction costs for multi-unit
buildings vary based on the form of parking (structured vs. surface) in addition to other
environmental factors such as topography, pre-existing structures, etc. For a larger, multi-
unit building, costs can vary from $185,000/unit to as high as $316,000/unit. The cost per
square foot ranges from $172-$200.
For the least expensive production single family homes, the cost of preparing the vacant
land is around $100,000/lot, and the cost of construction is approximately $145/sf. For
more expensive, custom homes, however, the construction costs can be higher than
$435/sf. In general, soft costs add another approximate third to the subtotal.
MORTGAGE FINANCING
Until mid-2008, home mortgage financing was readily available at attractive rates
throughout San Mateo County and California. Rates vary, but ranged around 6.25 percent to
seven percent from 2006-2008 for a 30 year fixed rate loan (HSH Associates Financial
Publishers). However, rates have been as high as ten or 12 percent in the last decade.
As part of the aftermath of the subprime crisis in 2008, interest rates are very low. In San
Mateo County, rates range from 4.0-4.5 percent for a fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage. One
3 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
Housing Constraints
77
remaining challenge is that many mortgages in San Mateo County are for more than
$417,000, meaning they qualify as jumbo loans and often have higher interest rates.
The data in the table below is from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and
represents loan applications in 2012 for one- to four-unit properties, as well as
manufactured homes, for the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and metropolitan division
(MD) that includes South San Francisco (MSA/MD: 41884 – San Francisco – San Mateo –
Redwood City, CA). More than 65 percent of the loan applications were filed by households
earning above a moderate income (greater than 120 percent of AMI). Moderate income
households (80-120 percent of AMI) represented 18 percent of loan applicants, low income
households (50-80 percent of AMI) represent 12 percent, and very low income households
(less than 50 percent of AMI) only 4 percent. Almost 75 percent of all loans were approved
and accepted by the applicants, and 10 percent were denied. Above moderate-income
households had the highest rates of approval of any group. Loan approval rates have
improved since the subprime crisis.
Table 4.3-1: Disposition of Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, 2012
Income Level
Number of
Loan
Applications
Percentage
of All Loans
Percentage
of Loans
Originated
Percentage
of Loan
Applications
Denied
Percentage
Other1
Less than 50% AMI (Very
Low Income) 700 4% 57% 22% 21%
50-79% AMI (Low Income) 1,968 12% 67% 14% 20%
80-120% AMI (Moderate
Income) 3,017 18% 73% 11% 17%
120%+ 11,381 67% 76% 8% 16%
All 17,066 100% 74% 10% 17%
Notes:
1. Includes loans applications approved but not accepted, loan applications withdrawn, and incomplete files.
Source: HMDA Data, 2012 for San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City MSA.
CONSTRUCTION FINANCING
Construction loans for new housing are difficult to secure in the current market. In past
years, lenders would provide up to 80 percent of the cost of new construction (loan to value
ratio). In recent years, due to market conditions and government regulations, banks require
larger investments by the builder.
Due to federal and State budget cuts, affordable housing developers have had a much harder
time securing funding. Since 2009, the federal government has cut programs such as
Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and HOPE VI funding by 27-50 percent
(ABAG). Traditionally, these programs have been a large source of affordable housing funds.
In addition to federal cuts, the State dissolved Redevelopment Agencies in 2012, leaving San
Mateo County with a loss of $25.5 million in funds for affordable housing.4 However, some
4 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
78
funding opportunities remain from the federal and state governments, such as the federal
Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, which still provides an important source of
funding for developers.
PUBLIC OPINION
In some communities, public opinion is a significant constraint to the production of higher
density and affordable housing. To date, housing developers, City staff, and elected officials
do not report significant public opposition to recent multi-family housing developments. As
key to this success, elected officials stress the need to continue to work with neighbors to
address concerns and the importance of the City’s policies to protect single family
neighborhoods from significant change, while finding opportunities for multi-family
housing development along key transit corridors and in the downtown area. In addition,
city officials and developers can work to assuage these concerns by requiring design review,
emphasizing management of new developments, and engaging in public education to
address myths about high density, low-income, and supportive housing (HUD).5
4.4 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints
South San Francisco is a largely developed community with sufficient infrastructure in place
to accommodate anticipated levels of development on most sites. A more detailed analysis
of specific sites is included in the review of Housing Opportunity sites. The City Engineer
reports that there are no significant issues related to the capacity of water, stormwater, or
sewer systems that would preclude future housing development as anticipated by the
General Plan.
As a largely urbanized community, most housing sites in South San Francisco are infill in
nature and present few environmental issues. In recent years, developers of multi-family
housing have submitted Negative Declarations rather than EIRs for their projects, e.g., Park
Station Lofts development. An Environmental Impact Report was recently published to
analyze the proposed development under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which
contemplates a 25 percent build out over a 20-year span.
Looking forward, certain sites in the downtown area are thought to have some level of
environmental contamination. Overall, such sites represent a small portion of the land
available for development in the City. These sites are discussed in more detail in the
Housing Opportunity sites section of this document.
4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and
green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and
renters. In addition, these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced
dependence on vehicles, and can significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gases.
5 Ibid.
Housing Constraints
79
South San Francisco has been a leader in the promotion of green building techniques in new
residential construction and residential rehabilitation. The City renovated a formerly vacant
residential unit to transform it into a model demonstration project for green building
materials and techniques. This home is known as the Green X-Ray House and is used as an
educational tool for local homeowners and members of the local builders community to
create healthier, more energy-efficient homes.
At a minimum, new housing construction in South San Francisco 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 2013 with amended standards going into
effect in 2014. 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 City funds various minor housing rehabilitations programs using CDBG funds. As part of
these rehabilitation projects the City incorporates green retrofit improvements including
insulated windows, roof insulation, tankless water heaters, and other weatherization
techniques. Currently the City provides funding to CID (Center of Independence for
Individuals with Disabilities), Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and El Concilio of San Mateo
County.
The City adopted a Green Building Ordinance, in line with the State standards, in 2014. This
ordinance applies to residential development as well as non-residential development and
requires new homes or substantial remodels to be constructed using sustainable building
practices to reduce environmental impacts. In addition to the design and construction of
individual buildings, the development industry is becoming increasingly aware of
opportunities for energy conservation at the site planning level and even at the community
planning level. New developments are increasingly being planned so that building
orientations will take advantage of passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use
planning is increasingly considering benefits of compact urban form (i.e., higher densities)
as a means to reduce auto dependency for transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use
land use patterns to make neighborhoods more self-contained so that residents can walk or
bicycle to places of work, shopping, or other services. Compact urban development patterns
are also necessary to improve the effectiveness of buses and other forms of public transit. If
effective public transit is available and convenient, energy will be conserved through
reduced auto use. In the future, the City will consider incorporating these and/or other
sustainable development principles into new developments that are planned within South
San Francisco.
In addition, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2014, which supports
these ideas as well. The CAP includes a Program of Reduction Strategies that promote
energy conservation. It also includes implementation tools that will be used by the City to
track greenhouse gas reductions. A Development Review Checklist will be used on a project-
by-project basis to track project-level contributions to the CAP target including energy
conservation.
80
5 Housing Resources
5.1 Available Sites for Housing
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that the City of South San
Francisco has a sufficient amount of land to accommodate its fair share of the region’s
housing needs during this planning period. The State Government Code requires that the
Housing Element include an “inventory of land suitable for residential development,
including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment.” (Section
65583(a)(3)) It further requires that the Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on
these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the planning period.
Demonstrating an adequate supply of vacant or underutilized land is only part of the task of
the adequate sites analysis. The City must also show that this supply is capable of
supporting housing demand from all economic segments of the community and for various
housing types, including multi-family rental, manufactured housing, group housing, and
transitional housing. High land costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand
for affordable housing on sites that are designated for low densities. The State has generally
held that the most appropriate way to demonstrate adequate capacity for low and very low
income units is to provide land zoned for multiple-family housing with an allowed density
of 30 dwelling units per acre or more. Hence this analysis focuses on the identification of
sites that could accommodate this level of density, in order to accommodate the need for
lower-income housing units.
For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in South San Francisco have been grouped
into two geographic areas. Each of these areas is described below, with accompanying maps
and tables to identify sites and quantify development potential. The following analysis of
sites in South San Francisco indicates the potential to develop 2,169 units of new housing
with the adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) (in February 2015).
Nearly all opportunity sites would support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater,
providing favorable prospects for affordable units. As discussed before, the City has a
determined need of 1,864 units during the planning period. Compared against the RHNA,
the City’s housing opportunity sites offer a development capacity that exceeds the needs
determination by more than 300 units.
Table 5.1-1: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development
Capacity Under Existing Zoning
Area Acreage Unit Capacity Percent of Total
Housing Resources
81
Transit Village 16.9 1,731 80%
Downtown 6.1 438 20%
Total Capacity 23.0 2,169 100%
RHNA Target 1,864
Excess Capacity 305 116%
The available sites inventory conducted for the Housing Element focuses on sites with near-
term development potential, where the site is currently vacant, highly underutilized, or
where developers have come forward with plans to redevelop existing uses. There may be
additional sites in South San Francisco with housing potential, including individual vacant
lots and developed sites with marginally viable existing uses.
Approximately 80 percent of the City’s near-term residential development potential is in the
Transit Village area, which is already zoned for medium (30 dwelling units per acre) to high
(120 dwelling units per acre) density residential development.
Almost 20 percent of near-term residential development potential is in the Downtown
area.The City was engaged in preparation of the DSASP over the past two years, and it was
adopted in February 2015. The DSASP focuses on properties within 0.5 mile of the City’s
Caltrain station. The overarching aim of the Plan is to create a successful and vibrant
downtown, including new high-density, mixed-use development in areas that are best
poised to take advantage of improved access to the City’s Caltrain station and SamTrans bus
routes; affirming the historic Grand Avenue Corridor as the focus of the community; and
providing improved connections to the East of Highway 101 employment district. The
DSASP includes pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly upgrades, landscaped green spaces,
widened sidewalks, new streets, and mass transit connections designed to improve the
business and residential quality of life in the City. The DSASP is a twenty year policy
document that is intended to govern development in the Downtown area. Under the new
Plan, residential development potential in the Downtown area has increased to 60 dwelling
units per acre, with up to 100 dwelling unit per acre allowed depending on the zoning
district. FARs have increased to range from 3.0 to 6.0 depending on the zoning district.
TRANSIT VILLAGE SITES
The Transit Village is located in the heart of South San Francisco, and it is well connected
with to transit services, regional crossroads, and I-280. This area has been a focus of some
of the City’s recent planning efforts, in support of the General Plan’s vision of the area as a
distinct, vibrant district and a regional destination. With the adoption of the BART Transit
Village Plan in 2001, the City of South San Francisco established zoning standards and
design guidelines to promote a vibrant mixed-use district consistent with the area’s role as
an important transit hub. A key element of the plan was to up zone various parcels to allow
for more intensive residential development, and since the plan’s adoption, much housing
has been built in the area. Additional regulations were adopted in 2010 for a specific area in
the Transit Village; the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, Zoning, and Design
Guidelines targeted higher intensities and mixed-use development in the Transit Village
area along El Camino Real.
The City adopted the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in 2011, which focused on
another area within the Transit Village. This plan provided specific principles, policies,
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
82
design standards and guidelines, and recommendations for implementation to guide the
development of the area into a vibrant, mixed use district. It included locations for land
uses, a classification system, density/intensity standards, and total development potential
for each land use type. This plan included detailed block-by-block development projections
for a focus area in the Transit Village to determine probable environmental impacts and
infrastructure needs, but they were not adopted as part of the plan. To the extent that any
future development project is consistent with the plan’s land use designations and
development intensities and standards, any necessary environmental review will be limited
to site-specific impacts, rather than cumulative and area-wide impacts (which were fully
evaluated in the program EIR prepared on the plan).
Many of the sites in and around the Transit Village area are vacant or underutilized parcels
that present an excellent opportunity for housing development. The sites are composed of
combinations of vacant and underutilized parcels, and the table that follows takes their
current status into account in determining realistic capacity. The fact that many of these
sites are owned by a single entity makes them especially good candidates for housing
development during the planning period. The largest property owners in the area are the
City, Kaiser Permanente, and BART. Listed in Table 5.1-2 and shown in Figure 2, these five
sites in the Transit Village contain 16.9 acres of land with combined capacity for 1,731 units
of housing.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
83
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
83
Table 5.1-2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area
Site APN Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses Zoning
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
Estimated Actual
Dwelling Units
Per Acre Units
1 011-171-500 0.1 Vacant SFR SFR, MFR TV-RM 30 30 3
1 011-171-330 1.5 Vacant BART TV-RM 30 30 44
Site 1 Total 1.6 47
2 010-292-130 1.3 Vacant motel Hospital, MFR ECR/C-MXH 80 80 104
2 010-292-280 1.3 Vacant
ECR/C-MXH 80 80 104
2 010-292-270 3.1 Lumber yard ECR/C-MXH 80 80 248
Site 2 Total 5.7 456
3-Block A 093-312-060 Vacant
MFR, Colma Creek,
Public uses ECR/C-RH 120 108 419
3-Block B
Vacant MFR, Colma Creek ECR/C-MXH 80 76 43
3-Block C
Vacant MFR, Colma Creek ECR/C-MXH 80 72 94
3-Block D
Commercial,
vacant MFR, Colma Creek ECR/C-MXH 80 64 139
3-Block E
Commercial,
vacant MFR, Colma Creek ECR/C-MXH 80 54 150
3-Block H 093-312-050 Commercial Vacant, public uses ECR/C-MXH 80 70 223
3-Block J
Commercial Vacant, public uses ECR/C-MXH 80 39 45
Site 3 Total1 7.6 1,113
4 011-327-050 0.3 Utility MFR RH-30 30 23 7
Site 4 Total 0.3 7
5 011-322-030 1.7 Commercial MFR ECR/C-MXH 80 64 108
Site 5 Total 1.7 108
Total 16.9 1,731
Notes:
1. Includes blocks A, B, C, D, E, H, and J from the Focus Area of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan. Buildout assumptions reflect those in the Are a Plan.
84
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
1
5
84
Figure 2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area
Housing Resources
85
Capacity Analysis
This section contains analysis of the realistic development capacity of the five housing
opportunity sites in the Transit Village area. This analysis considers factors including vacant
and underutilized site status, recent regulatory changes and development trends, lot size,
physical constraints, and infrastructure.
The recently updated Zoning Ordinance (2010) includes four districts specific to the Transit
Village area: Transit Village Commercial (TV-C), Transit Village Retail (TV-R), Transit
Village Residential High Density (TV-RH), and Transit Village Residential Medium Density
(TV-RM). One key housing opportunity site is in the TV-RM district. The High Density
Residential (RH-30) district covers one key housing site in the Transit Village area as well.
In addition, the El Camino Real/Chestnut District in the updated Zoning Ordinance provides
regulations, standards, and development review procedures to implement the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. There are several sub districts in this zone: the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use Medium Density District (ECR/C-MXM), the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High Density District (ECR/C-MXH), and the El Camino Real
Residential High Density District (ECR/C-RH). The ECR/C-MXH and ECR/C-RH districts
include three key housing sites in the Transit Village area.
The five key housing sites in the Transit Village total 16.9 acres and would accommodate
1,731 housing units.
Transit Village Residential Medium Density Zone
The TV-RM district permits multi-unit residential uses, with a maximum density of 30 units
per acre. The minimum site area per unit is 1,500 square feet and the maximum lot
coverage is 75 percent. Setbacks of 5 feet on the side and 10 feet on the street side are
required, as is a rear yard. There are also controls over the pedestrian orientation and
vehicle accommodations.
Site 1 is the housing site located in the TV-RM zone. It is composed of two parcels: one is 0.1
acres in size and has a vacant single family home, and one is 1.5 acres in size and is vacant.
The low density residential district RL-8 is adjacent to Site 1. At the TV-RM density of 30
units per acre, Site 1 can comfortably accommodate 47 units.
El Camino Real/Chestnut District
The ECR/C-MXH designates sites for mixed-use development at high intensities, and it
permits single-unit attached and multi-unit residential development, except at the ground
floor level along key rights-of-way. The maximum FAR is 2.0, but can increase to 3.0 with
the incentive program. The maximum residential density is 80 units per acre, and the
maximum can increase to 110 units per acre with the incentive program. There is no
minimum residential density in the ECR/C-MXH zone.
The ECR/C-RH zone provides for high density residential development in the form of high
rises and townhomes near the BART station. It permits single-unit attached and multi-unit
residential development, and it has no minimum or maximum FAR. The minimum
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
86
residential density is 80 units per acre, and the maximum density is 120 units per acre, and
up to 180 units per acre with the incentive program.
The building envelopes for both the ECR/C-MXH and ECR/C-RH zones are controlled by
minimum and maximum street wall heights, front building setbacks, and build-to lines.
Minimum setbacks apply to building walls with windows and facing side or rear yards, to
provide light and air for residential units. The maximum lot coverage is 90 percent for both
zones, and maximum tower dimension is 125 feet, with a minimum separation of 30 feet
between towers.
Site 2 is 5.7 acres and is composed of three parcels, which are each zoned ECR/C-MXH. Two
of the parcels are vacant, while another is occupied by a lumber yard. Eighty dwelling units
are allowed per acre in this zone, and Site 2 would accommodate 456 residential units.
Site 3 was included in the Focus Area of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan.
Detailed development projections were calculated for the Focus Area block-by-block, based
on the application of land use, density, and intensity regulations. This Housing Element
relies on those block-by-block projections for the build out assumptions. Site 3 is composed
of seven parcels; six are zoned ECR/C-MXH, while one is zoned ECR/C-RH. Together, these
parcels total 7.6 acres and would comfortably accommodate 1,113 housing units.
Site 5 contains one parcel that is 1.7 acres and zoned ECR/C-MXH, and it would
accommodate 108 units.
Together, Sites 2, 3, and 5 in the ECR/C District would accommodate 1,677 units.
RH-30 Zone
The RH-30 is a residential zoning district that provides for high residential density at 30
units per acre, with no minimum or maximum FAR. Single unit dwellings and multi-unit
dwellings are permitted in the RH-30 zone. The maximum building height is 50 feet, with a
maximum of 4 building stories. Setbacks are required on all sides of the building. The
maximum lot coverage is 65 percent is allowed. The only site in the Transit Village in the
RH-30 zone, Site 4 is a small parcel of 0.3 acres and is currently occupied by utilities. It is
adjacent to multi-family residential uses, and it is expected to accommodate 7 housing units.
Ownership
Publicly-Owned. Sites 3 and 5 were owned by the City’s Redevelopment Agency before it
was dismantled in 2012. In the Long Range Property Management Plan, the dissolution plan
of the City’s Redevelopment Agency, a number of the properties have been transferred to
the City’s Successor Agency, including Sites 3 and 5. These sites are among the best near-
term opportunities for housing development in South San Francisco, as they are primarily
vacant and have been identified for future housing and mixed-use development through the
General Plan, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.
The City has expressed an intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize
residential mixed-use development on the sites. In total these sites measure 9.5 acres with a
capacity for 1,215 dwelling units.
Housing Resources
87
Privately-Owned. Site 2 is owned by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. This site is
composed of three parcels and is currently occupied by a vacant motel, a lumberyard, and a
vacant lot. Site 1 is privately owned.
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
There are no known environmental issues that would limit development of the identified
sites in the Transit Village area. Recent residential developments in the area have submitted
negative declarations. The sites are outside of the airport noise contours, and no sites in the
area are listed with the State as having known or potential contamination.1 Periodic
flooding occurs in certain areas along Colma Creek in South San Francisco, which runs
through the Transit Village; however, improvement projects in this area have greatly
reduced the concern of flooding, such that it is not an issue that would limit development in
this area.
The City Engineer has confirmed that infrastructure in the area is sufficient to support
identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer, water, and wastewater
treatment facilities. As is common practice in the City, developers may be required to pay
for intersection or other infrastructure improvements to offset project-specific impacts.
DOWNTOWN SITES
Downtown South San Francisco is situated just west of Highway 101 and has retained a
historic character with fine-grained, mixed-use development. The City’s General Plan seeks
to reinforce the Downtown’s identity and role as the physical and symbolic center of South
San Francisco. General Plan strategies include increased residential development in the
Downtown and better connections to surrounding areas. The comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance update has provided zoning districts and development regulations to support
this vision. Much of the Downtown neighborhood is located within a half-mile of the City’s
Caltrain commuter rail station, which is located on the east side of Highway 101. As
discussed above, the City adopted the DSASP, which identifies further development
opportunities and allows higher densities.
The City’s historic Downtown area encompasses a range of underutilized publicly- and
privately-owned parcels that are suitable for either mixed-use or residential development.
Even before adoption of the DSASP, through the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update in
2010 and related efforts, the City has paved the way for housing on key parcels in the
Downtown area in keeping with the long-term goal of creating a vibrant and sustainable
urban center. The DSASP will continue to support those goals and will enhance this vision
further. For this Housing Element, the City has identified 12 key sites in the Downtown with
near-term redevelopment potential. The sites are composed of combinations of vacant and
underutilized parcels, and the table that follows takes their current status into account in
determining realistic capacity. Listed below in Table 5.1-3 and shown in Figure 3, all of
these sites are owned by the City of South San Francisco Successor Agency. In total, these
sites represent 6.1 acres with a combined development capacity for 438 units under the
DSASP.
1 Source: Department of Toxic Control Substances, March 2009.
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
88
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
1
5
88
Table 5.1-3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area
Site APN Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses
Under DSASP Regulations
Zoning
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
Estimated Actual1
Dwelling Units
Per Acre3 Total Units
6 012-145-370 0.3 Vacant
SFR, MFR,
Commercial
Linden Neigh-
borhood Center 60 48 14
Site 6 Total 0.3 14
7 012-174-300 0.3 Parking Lot
SFR, MFR,
Commercial
Linden Neigh-
borhood Center 60 48 14
Site 7 Total 0.3 14
8 012-314-010 0.3 Vacant
SFR, MFR,
Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 24
Site 8 Total 0.3 24
9 012-311-330 0.3 Parking Lot
Hotel, MFR,
Public
Downtown
Residential Core 80 64 19
Site 9 Total 0.3 19
10 012-311-260 0.3 Parking Lot
Hotel, MFR,
Public
Downtown
Residential Core 80 64 19
10 012-311-250 0.1 Parking Lot MFR
Downtown
Residential Core 80 64 6
10 012-311-240 0.1 Parking Lot MFR
Downtown
Residential Core 80 64 6
10 012-311-230 0.1 Parking Lot MFR
Downtown
Residential Core 80 64 6
Site 10 Total 0.6 38
11 012-334-130 0.3 Office Building Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 24
11 012-334-160 0.2 Parking Lot Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 16
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
89
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
89
Table 5.1-3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area
Site APN Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses
Under DSASP Regulations
Zoning
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
Estimated Actual1
Dwelling Units
Per Acre3 Total Units
11 012-334-030 0.1 Office Building Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 8
11 012-334-040 0.2 Retail Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 16
Site 11 Total 0.8 64
12 012-316-100 0.1 Parking Lot Commercial
Grand Avenue
Core 80 64 6
12 012-316-110 0.1 Parking Lot Commercial
Grand Avenue
Core 80 64 6
12 012-316-090 0.2 Parking Lot Commercial
Grand Avenue
Core 80 64 13
12 012-316-080 0.1
Commercial
Building Commercial
Grand Avenue
Core 80 64 6
12 012-316-060 0.1 Vacant Commercial
Grand Avenue
Core 80 64 6
12 012-316-040 0.2 Parking Lot Commercial
Grand Avenue
Core 80 64 13
Site 12 Total 0.8 51
13 012-335-100 0.2
Vacant Fire
Station Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 16
13 012-335-110 0.3 Parking Lot Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 24
Site 13 Total 0.5 40
14 012-318-080 0.5
Commercial
Building Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 41
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
90
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
1
5
90
Table 5.1-3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area
Site APN Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses
Under DSASP Regulations
Zoning
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
Estimated Actual1
Dwelling Units
Per Acre3 Total Units
Site 14 Total 0.5 41
15 012-314-220 0.4 Parking Lot Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 32
Site 15 Total 0.4 32
16 012-317-110 Parking Lot Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80
16 012-317-100
Commercial
(vacant?) Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80
16 012-317-090 Parking Lot Commercial
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80
Site 16 Total 1.1 85
17 012-314-100 0.2 Parking Lot
Commercial,
Parking
Downtown Transit
Core 100 80 16
Site 17 Total 0.2 16
Total 6.1 438
Notes:
1. Numbers may not sum precisely due to rounding.
2. Estimated actual density does not include density bonuses and incentives that may be achievable.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett & Bhatia, 2015.
Housing Resources
91
Figure 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
92
Capacity Analysis
This section contains an analysis of the realistic development capacity of housing
opportunity sites in the Downtown area. This analysis considers factors including vacant
and underutilized status, recent development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and
infrastructure.
Under the adopted DSASP, there are four new districts that cover the Downtown
opportunity sites identified in Figure 9: Linden Neighborhood Center, Downtown Transit
Core, Downtown Residential Core, and the Grand Avenue Core. Two of the sites would be in
the Linden Neighborhood Center, seven of the sites would be in the Downtown Transit Core,
two of the sites would be in the Downtown Residential Core, and one of the sites would be
in the Grand Avenue Core. In total, the opportunity sites total approximately 6.1 acres and
would accommodate 438 housing units.
Downtown Transit Core
The Downtown Transit Core (DTC) district allows for multi-unit residential construction,
with a minimum density of 80 units per acre and a maximum density of 100 units. The
minimum FAR is 2.0 and the maximum FAR is 6.0. Within the DTC district, the main
development standards controlling the building envelope are maximum lot coverage of 100
percent and a maximum building height of 85 feet. There is no setback requirement except
for lots that abut a residential district, which requires a 10 foot setback.
Sites 8, 11, and 13-17 are individual parcels or groups of assembled parcels that range from
0.2 acres to 1.1 acres in size in the DTC district. Surface parking lots or vacant buildings
occupy many of the sites, and no site is adjacent to a residential zoning district. Site 14 and
Site 16 are adjacent to the Public/Quasi Public District on Airport Boulevard. Based on the
following development standards for Site 17, which is representative of the sites in the DTC
district, all of the sites in the DTC district could comfortably accommodate approximately
80 dwelling units per acre:
Lot size: 0.2 acres or 7,596 square feet
Minimum Setback Requirement: 0 feet (No abutting of Residential districts)
FAR: 6.0
Maximum Building Size: 45,576 square feet (Lot size multiplied by FAR)
Gross Residential Square Footage: 31,903 square feet (Assumes 70 percent of
building is residential)
Net Residential Square Footage: 22,332 square feet (Assumes 70 percent of gross
residential square footage, with 30 percent of gross residential space devoted to
common spaces)
Average Unit Size: 1,400 square feet (Typical for a two-bedroom unit)
Expected Number of Units: 16 units (Net residential square footage divided by
average unit size)
Maximum Density: 80 units per acre (Lot size divided by number of units)
Housing Resources
93
When this density is applied to all of the sites in the DTC district, 302 housing units could be
accommodated in the zone.
Downtown Residential Core
The Downtown Residential Core district (DRC) allows for multi-family residential
construction. The maximum FAR is 3.0, exclusive of structured parking. A minimum of 40
residential units per acre is required, with a maximum density of 80 units per acre (up to
100 or 125 under the incentive program). The main development standards controlling the
building envelope are maximum lot coverage of 90 percent and maximum building height of
65 feet. Setbacks are required in the rear yard (20-foot setback) and when the lot abuts a
residential district (10-foot setback on the interior side).
Sites 9 and 10 are existing parking lots in the DRC district near City Hall in Downtown.
These sites are adjacent to residential and hotel uses. Site 9 is about 0.3 acres, while Site 10
is composed of several smaller lots totaling 0.6 acres. Under the current density standards
for the DRC district, it is estimated that Site 9 would accommodate 19 units, while Site 10
would accommodate 38 units.
Linden Neighborhood Center
The Linden Neighborhood Center district (LNC) allows for multi-family residential
construction (except on the ground floor), with a minimum density of 40 units per acre and
a maximum density of 60 units per acre. The maximum FAR is 3.0 for development,
exclusive of structured parking. Within the LNC district, the main development standards
controlling the building envelope are maximum lot coverage of 90 percent and a maximum
building height of 50 feet. There are no setback requirements.
Both in the LNC Zone, Site 6 is a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface parking lot. These sites are
corner lots at the intersection of Pine and Linden avenues, each situated on opposite sides
of Pine Avenue. These lots are adjacent to existing single and multi-family homes. Each site
is about 13,000 square feet, and under the current density standards for the LNC Zone, it is
estimated that each site would accommodate 14 units.
Grand Avenue Corridor
The Grand Avenue Corridor district (GAC) allows for multi-family residential construction
(except on the ground floor). The required minimum density is 14 units per acre, with a
maximum density of 60 units per acre. The maximum FAR is 3.0 for development, exclusive
of structured parking, and the minimum required FAR is 1.5. The main development
standards controlling the building envelope in the GAC district are maximum lot coverage of
100 percent and a maximum building height ranging from 45 to 65 feet. There are no
setback requirements.
Site 12 is in the GAC district and is composed of multiple sites, which are currently vacant,
parking lots, or occupied by a commercial building. a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface
parking lot. These lots are on Grand Avenue, which is intended to be the “main street” of
Downtown. These lots are adjacent to commercial uses, and they total about 0.8 acres.
Under the current density standards for the GAC district, it is estimated that Site 12 would
accommodate 51 units.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
94
Ownership
Publicly-Owned. Many of these sites were owned by the City’s Redevelopment Agency
before it was dismantled in 2012. In the Long Range Property Management Plan, Sites 6, 7,
11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 have been transferred to the City’s Successor Agency for
ownership. These sites are among the best near-term opportunities for housing
development in South San Francisco. Sites 8, 9, 10, and 13 in the Downtown are owned by
the City of South San Francisco. Under the DSASP, the goals support creating a vibrant,
transit-supportive, diverse downtown, and these sites can provide opportunities for dense
housing construction to contribute to the vitality of downtown. These sites fall into three
categories: vacant, occupied by surface parking lots, or occupied by vacant buildings.
Regardless of their present state, these sites have been identified for future housing and
mixed-use development through the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as in the
DSASP. The City has expressed an intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize
residential and mixed-use development on the sites. In total, these sites measure 6.1 acres
with a capacity for 438 dwelling units under the DSASP.
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
The Downtown area is outside of the airport noise contours and any flooding hazard zones.
However, certain sites within the Downtown area have been suspected of environmental
contamination, which may require clean up, in order to facilitate housing development.
These include Site 14, which has undergone Phase I Environmental Site Assessments; Site
16, which has undergone Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments; and Sites 6 and 7,
which have not undergone environmental site assessments.
As with the Transit Village area, the City Engineer indicated that infrastructure in the
Downtown area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the
capacity of sewer, water, and wastewater treatment facilities.
In the past, one obstacle to development of public parking lots has been the need to first
develop a replacement garage. The City opened such a project, the Miller Avenue Garage, in
2010, thus creating the potential for the redevelopment of City-owned parking lots in this
planning period.
ANALYSIS OF ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES
As described, housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village and Downtown areas are able
to accommodate a range of housing types.
Lower Income Multi-family Residential. Nearly all sites identified can realistically
accommodate densities of 30 dwelling units per acre or greater, which is a level of
density that the State acknowledges is consistent with providing lower-income
multi-family housing. Thirty dwelling units per acre is the “default density”
assigned by HCD to jurisdictions with more than 25,000 people in San Mateo
County. Housing sites that are zoned for a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre
are assumed to be able to accommodate lower-income housing.
Residential Care Facilities, including Supportive Housing. This housing type would be
permitted with conditional use permits and minor use permits on the housing
Housing Resources
95
opportunity site identified in the Transit Village area in the RH-30 zone and in the
Downtown area sites in the DC and DMX zones.
Elderly and Long-term Care Facilities. These facilities would be permitted with a
conditional use permit on the housing opportunity site in the Transit Village area
located in RH-30 zone.
Transitional Housing. As part of the Zoning Ordinance update, the City explicitly
addressed transitional and supportive housing to assure it is allowed subject only to
those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same
zone. Thus, transitional housing would be a permitted use on all of the housing
opportunity sites.
Group Residential. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Group Residential uses
would be permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the RH-30 zone in the Transit
Village and the DMX zone in the Downtown area. Group Residential is a broad
category encompassing housing that is occupied by persons not defined as a family
on a weekly or longer basis.
ANALYSIS OF ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE EMERGENCY SHELTER
FACILITIES
In accordance with the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City already has satisfied
requirements regarding emergency shelters by providing an existing emergency shelter
facility within its jurisdiction that can accommodate more than the City’s individual need for
emergency shelter space (see Gov’t Code, § 65583(a)(4)(C)). South San Francisco’s existing
emergency shelter provides 90 beds, accounting for more than half of emergency shelter
capacity countywide. In addition, as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City identified
the Mixed Industrial (MI) district as a zone in the City where an emergency shelter would be
permitted as an allowed use, subject only to the same development standards applicable to
other uses in the zone. Emergency shelter facilities are also permitted with a Minor Use
Permit in the Business Commercial district.
The MI combines the City’s previous industrial zoning districts to provide an area that is
appropriate for a range of uses, including manufacturing and related uses, small-scale retail
and service uses, live-work uses, and social service uses. The western portion of the MI
district, west of 101, is adjacent to the City’s Downtown area, which allows residential,
commercial, and retail uses. The eastern portion of the MI district is adjacent to Business
Commercial, Business Technology Park, Freeway Commercial, and Public/Quasi Public
districts. The City’s existing shelter is located immediately adjacent to the MI district on a
parcel zoned as Public/Quasi Public, where the zoning does not allow new emergency
shelters, but allows existing emergency shelters to remain.
Adjacent to the Downtown, the MI district is situated near a full range of retail services and
is located near existing social service providers, including the San Mateo County Human
Services Office, Salvation Army, the St. Vincent De Paul Society, and the North Peninsula
Neighborhood Services office. Moreover, the district is served by several public transit
routes, providing good accessibility to local and regional destinations.
The MI district is large and provides numerous sites that are underutilized and could
potentially accommodate an emergency shelter. Conversations with commercial brokers in
South San Francisco indicate that there are several industrial properties for sale in the
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
96
district, many of which are marketed as “redevelopment opportunities.” This finding was
confirmed through a search of the LoopNet.com website, a commercial listing service for
properties for sale, which showed multiple properties for sale with substantial additional
built out potential or potential to replace warehouse buildings with different uses.
A more detailed capacity analysis of sites in the MI district reveals that there are numerous
vacant and underutilized sites that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency
shelter. The Needs Assessment in Chapter 3 determined that the unsheltered homeless
population in South San Francisco is 172 people. The existing emergency shelter in South
San Francisco has 90 beds and is in a single-story building that is estimated to be about
8,600 square feet in size. Thus, two additional shelters of the same size as the existing
shelter would be needed to provide beds for the city’s unsheltered homeless population.
Under current development standards in the MI district, an additional emergency shelter
that is the same size as the city’s existing shelter would fit comfortably on a parcel that is
about a half-acre in size. Table 5.1-4 shows the current vacant and underutilized parcels in
the MI district that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency shelter and
accommodate the city’s need for two additional shelters.
Housing Resources
97
Table 5-1.4: Vacant or Underutilized Sites in MI District with Potential Capacity for
Emergency Shelter
APN Address Existing Use on Parcel Size in Acres
014091060 146 S Maple Avenue Open Storage 1.0
014091070 146 S Maple Avenue Light Manufacturing 1.34
014091110 434 Victory Avenue Vacant 0.27
014091100 124 S Maple Avenue Warehouse 1.5
014102080 70 S Linden Avenue Open Storage/Vacant 0.98
014212030 123 S Linden Avenue Mini Warehouse 0.42
014091120 170 S Maple Avenue Warehouse/Vacant 0.52
015164070 326 Shaw Road Food Processing 1.15
014092180 141 S Maple Avenue Warehouse 1.53
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett & Bhatia, 2015.
5.2 Financial Resources
The City of South San Francisco has access to a variety of existing and potential funding
sources available for affordable housing activities, including programs from federal, State,
local and private resources.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS
Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the U.S Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments for a wide
range of housing and community development activities for low-income persons.
Based on previous allocations, South San Francisco expects to receive approximately $2.8
million in CDBG funds during the 2014 to 2022 period. In accordance with the policies
established by the City Council, South San Francisco is committed to increasing and
maintaining affordable housing in the City. CDBG funds can be used for site acquisition,
rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, emergency and transitional shelters, and
fair housing/housing counseling activities. Additionally, funds can be used for activities that
support the new construction of affordable housing such as site clearance and the financing
of related infrastructure and public facility improvements.
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ACT FUNDS
The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National
Affordable Housing Act provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable
housing projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San
Mateo County HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the Consortium’s
annual grant allocation. Funds are distributed on a competitive basis through a request for
proposals process administered by San Mateo County. HOME funds may be used by the City
for direct expenditure or may be issued as low-interest loans to a private or not-for-profit
developer to jointly undertake the production of housing units that will be affordable to
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
98
low-income residents. Under the program, 30-year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded
with the property to ensure future affordability.
HEART
South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART),
which raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San
Mateo County. Formed in 2003 as a public/private partnership among the cities, the County,
and the business, nonprofit, education, and labor communities, to date, HEART has received
over $12 million in funding gifts and pledges to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo
County.
LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS
Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program
has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction
and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households. The program allows
investors an annual tax credit over a ten-year period, provided that the housing meets the
following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20 percent of the units must be
affordable to households at 50 percent of area median income (AMI), or 40 percent of the
units must be affordable to those at 60 percent of AMI. The total credit over the ten-year
period has a present value equal to 70 percent of the qualified construction and
rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication
value.
SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE
The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low
income persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the
difference between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30
percent of their gross income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost
above the payment standard but the tenant must pay the extra cost. This program is
administered by the San Mateo County Housing Authority.
5.3 Summary
Consistent with the City’s long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential
development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing
production. These include primarily sites for housing development, and a variety of funding
sources, as summarized below:
South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of
the regional housing need in the planning period. The City has no carryover
obligation because it was able to identify adequate sites to meet its RHNA for the
2007-2014 Housing Element. There is sufficient land to support the production of
2,169 new housing units.
Nearly all of the City’s development capacity consists of higher density housing sites
(densities exceeding 30 units per acre), and all are located within developed areas
Housing Resources
99
already served with needed infrastructure, including sewer, water, stormwater, and
transportation facilities.
The City’s housing capacity is found primarily in two areas: the Transit Village and
the Downtown area.
South San Francisco has a variety of financial resources to support affordable
housing production.
100
6 Housing Plan
Based on the needs, constraints and resources identified above, the following section of the
Housing Element sets forth South San Francisco’s housing plan for the 2015 to 2023
planning period. The City has established this plan in consideration of its own local needs
and priorities, as well as its obligations under State Housing Element law.
The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related implementing policies.
Accompanying each implementing policy are one or more programs that the City will
implement over the 2015 to 2023 planning period. These programs are summarized in an
eight-year Action Plan, which presents the programs together with implementing agencies,
funding sources and time frames for implementation. Finally, the Housing Plan sets forth
quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation and conservation for the
Housing Element planning period.
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.
Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature.
Implementing Policies: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment.
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 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
timeframe of the Housing Element. Quantified objectives for the housing plan overall are
summarized in a table at the end of this chapter, rather than being attributed to individual
policies or programs.
Housing Plan
101
6.1 Promote New Housing Development
GOAL 1: PROMOTE THE PROVISION OF HOUSING BY BOTH THE PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC SECTORS FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY
Implementing Policies
Policy 1-1: The City shall implement zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of land to
meet its 2014 to 2022 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 565 very low
income units, 281 low income units, 313 moderate income units, and 705 above moderate
income units.
Program 1-1A - Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory: The City shall periodically
update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels identified in this Housing
Element. The City shall also conduct a periodic review of the composition of the
housing stock, the types of dwelling units under construction or expected to be
constructed during the following year, and the anticipated mix, based on
development proposals approved or under review by the City, of the housing to be
developed during the remainder of the period covered by the Housing Element. This
analysis will be compared to the City’s remaining 2014-2022 Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any changes in land use policy are
warranted.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: Staff time
Policy 1-2: The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Program 1-2A – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The City shall continue to
implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with State law,
requiring new for sale residential development over four units to provide a
minimum of twenty (20) percent low- and moderate-income housing.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Staff time
Program 1-2B - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Review: The City shall periodically
review the success of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SSFMC 20.380, to
determine if the objectives of the ordinance are being met. Consideration shall be
made to revising provisions of the ordinance to ensure that a range of housing
opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including
households of low-and moderate incomes, are provided.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
102
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Housing
and Economic Development Division and Planning Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: Staff time
Policy 1-3: As feasible, the City will investigate new sources of funding for the City’s
affordable housing programs.
Program 1-3A – Investigate Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee: Through
participation in the 21 Elements group, the City will investigate the feasibility of
commercial and housing linkage fees to support affordable housing.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; City Council
Time Frame: 2015
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 1-4: The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers to promote the
development of housing for extremely low-, very low-, and lower-income households.
Program 1-4A - Site Acquisition: The City shall work with for-profit and nonprofit
housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or developed with
underutilized, blighted, and/or nonconforming uses for the development of
affordable housing. As needed, the City will meet with developers to discuss and
identify development opportunities and potential funding sources.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division and Planning Division; Planning Commission;
City Council
Time Frame: Annually and Ongoing
Funding Source: Various
Program 1-4B – Support and Pursue Funding Applications for Affordable Housing:
Consistent with existing practice, the City shall continue to support funding
applications for federal and state funds to promote the development of affordable
housing.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Annually and Ongoing
Housing Plan
103
Funding Sources: Various. Directory of funding provided in the HCD Financial
Assistance Program Directory.
Program 1-4C – Consider Waivers or Deferrals of Planning, Building and Impact
Fees for Affordable Housing Development: Consistent with SSFMC section
20.310.004, the City shall continue to consider the waiver of application and
development fees for affordable housing development in order to support the
financial viability of affordable housing development. Waiver of such fees will be on
a case-by-case basis at the City Council’s discretion and will balance the goal of
affordable housing production with the need to collect fee revenues to support
other City goals.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; City Manager; City Council
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Sources: NA
Program 1-4D - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, SSFMC
19.36: The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires a minimum of 5 units in
order to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit
requirements with the intent of promoting home ownership.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning
Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: Staff time
Policy 1-5: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses in the
areas designated as Planned Development Areas (PDAs), properties located in the South
San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and in proximity to BART and Caltrain
stations and along El Camino Real, consistent with the Grand Boulevard Initiative.
Program 1-5A - Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area: Through
implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, support increased
residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in the
downtown area to realize the objectives of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
and General Plan policies.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Planning Commission; City Council
Time Frame: Specific Plan adopted in February 2015; ongoing as development
projects are proposed in the planning area
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
104
Funding Source: Staff time; possible support from One Bay Area Grant funding for
projects in PDAs consistent with adopted specific plans
Program 1-5B – Support Grand Boulevard Initiative Polices: Continue to support the
guiding principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which encourages the provision
of medium- and high-density housing along El Camino Real in Peninsula
communities, in order to create an environment that is supportive of transit,
walkable, and mixed-use. The City shall reference this policy direction when
considering future land use and zoning changes along El Camino Real, and assess the
opportunity for housing development along this key corridor as development
proposals arise.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Policy 1-6: The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single-
family designated and zoned parcels.
Program 1-6A - Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units
and educate the community about this program: Actively promote community
education on second units, as permitted in SSFMC 20.350.035, by posting
information regarding second units on the City’s website and providing brochures at
the public counter in the Centralized Permit Center.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Planning Commission
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Staff time to promote program; second units developed by private
property owners
Policy 1-7: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill
and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or
creating conflicts with industrial operations.
Program 1-7A – Continue to identify opportunities for residential development
through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites: Through completion and
implementation of the Downtown Specific Area Plan and ongoing implementation of
the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Specific Plan, the BART Transit Village Plan, the
El Camino Real Mixed Use Zoning Districts the City will maintain an inventory of
residential development opportunities on infill and underutilized sites with proper
zoning to support both affordable and market rate housing development.
Housing Plan
105
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division, Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds (planning) and private funds (development)
6.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development
GOAL 2: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO
REMOVE GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS TO
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, AND
PERMIT STREAMLINING.
Implementing Policies
Policy 2-1: The City shall continue to operate the centralized “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 housing development consistent
with local needs.
Program 2-1A - Expedite Permit Review: To support affordable and market rate
housing construction, the City shall work with property owners, project sponsors,
and developers to expedite the permit review process; promote housing design and
projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element;
provide timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental review
requirements, and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project
approval; and interface with community groups and local residents to ensure public
support of major new housing developments.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division, Building Division, and Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 2-2: The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including
streets, water, sewer, 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 or planned. All dwelling units will have adequate
public or private access to public rights-of-way.
Program 2-2A – Ensure coordination among departments: Early in the development
application process, the Planning Division shall work with the applicant and consult
with other departments and divisions to ensure that necessary infrastructure is
planned or is in place to support the proposed project.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
106
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division, Building Division, and Economic Development and Housing Division;
Public Works Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 2-3: 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
efforts such as the San Mateo County Sub RHNA effort, which seeks to bring the 21
jurisdictions of San Mateo County together to address common housing and planning needs.
Program 2-3A – Support regional funding programs: The City shall continue to
participate with other government agencies to support regional funding programs,
such as participating with San Mateo County in its Housing Revenue Bond and
Mortgage Credit Certificate programs.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: California Debt Limit Allocation Committee
Policy 2-4: The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and
harmonizes with existing neighborhood character and surroundings.
Program 2-4A – Continue to implement adopted design guidelines: Implementation
of design guidelines applies to rehabilitation and renovation of existing structures
as well as to new construction.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Design Review Board
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 2-5: The City shall ensure that developers and city residents are made aware of key
housing programs and development opportunities.
Program 2-5A – Disseminate Information on Affordable Housing Programs: To
widen the availability of information to interested residents, the City will continue
to update its website and other promotional/informational materials to include
information on affordable housing, housing programs, and inclusionary units.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development –
Economic Development and Housing Division
Housing Plan
107
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
108
6.3 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods
GOAL 3: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL STRIVE TO MAINTAIN AND
PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING RESOURCES, INCLUDING BOTH AFFORDABLE AND
MARKET-RATE UNITS.
Implementing Policies
Policy 3-1: Encourage reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and rehabilitation of
housing, especially housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income households. As
appropriate, the City shall use local, State, and Federal funding assistance to the fullest
extent these subsidies exist to facilitate housing rehabilitation.
Program 3-1A – Minor Home Repair: The City will provide funds to non-profit
organizations providing free minor home repairs to assist extremely low- to low-
income homeowners to bring houses into a good state of repair and maintain them
as viable units in the local housing stock.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Program 3-1B – Funding Prioritization: The City shall continue to give housing
rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds. Funds shall be targeted towards older housing stock and to
families earning less than 80 percent of AMI.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Program 3-1C - Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation: The City shall
provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family
housing by supporting the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued
CDBG funding.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Housing Plan
109
Program 3-1D – Financial Assistance for SROs: The City shall provide financial
assistance, when feasible, for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms
and Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: CDBG, as available
Policy 3-2: 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 such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or
Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck’s Lots.
Program 3-2A - Enforce Housing, Building and Safety Codes: The City shall continue
to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes as well as
eliminate incompatible uses or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods
through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures.
Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department; Department of Economic and
Community Development - Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 3-3: 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.
Program 3-3A - Capital Improvement Program for Older Neighborhoods: The City
shall maintain its capital improvement program to upgrade infrastructure in older
neighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or
Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck’s Lots.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development; Public
Works Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 3-4: The City shall support the preservation of public affordable housing stock.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
110
Program 3-4A - Support SSF Public Housing Authority (PHA): The City shall support
the South San Francisco PHA in its continued operation and rental of 80 units of
public housing.
Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents
Program 3-4B – Examine Displacement of Affordable Housing and Lower-Income
Households: The City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County,
under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop
and evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income
residents. The City will use this analysis, in addition to other analysis, to develop
potential measures and programs and the City will implement those programs, as it
considers and deems appropriate, to address the risk of displacement of existing
lower income residents. Displacement might be direct, caused by the
redevelopment of sites with existing residential properties, or indirect, caused by
increased market rents as an area becomes more desirable. The City shall monitor
any such implemented programs annually for effectiveness and make adjustments
as necessary.
Responsibility: 21 Elements, Department of Economic and Community
Development – Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: At least annually
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 3-5: The City shall strive to limit the conversion of apartment units to condominiums.
Program 3-5A – Condominium Conversion Limitations: The City shall continue to
enforce limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified
in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are allowed only
if they meet the following general criteria:
a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists;
b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City’s available housing
stock;
c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting
condominium projects;
d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at
the time of conversion;
e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan; and
f. The conversion creates at least five (5) condominium units.
Housing Plan
111
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Policy 3-6: The City shall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing
units at risk of converting to market rate housing.
Program 3-6A – Monitor At-Risk Units: The City shall monitor its supply of
subsidized affordable housing to know of possible conversions to market rate,
including taking the following actions:
a. Publicize existing State and federal notice requirements to nonprofit developers
and property owners of at-risk housing.
b. Respond to any federal and/or State notices including Notice of Intent to Pre-
Pay, owner Plans of Action, or Opt-Out Notices filed on local projects.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Program 3-6B – Assist Tenants: The City shall assist tenants displaced by the
conversion of at risk units by providing information about tenants’ rights, providing
referrals to relevant social service providers, endeavoring to establish a funding
source to assist nonprofit organizations that support tenants, and facilitating other
support as appropriate.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
112
6.4 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life
GOAL 4: THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE,
SAFETY AND HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS IS A HIGH
PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO.
Implementing Policies
Policy 4-1: 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.
Program 4-1A - Review Projects for Major Environmental Hazards during the
Environmental Review Process: The City shall review residential projects for major
environmental hazards during the environmental review process. The City shall not
approve the projects unless the hazards are adequately mitigated.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 4-2: The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply
with adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property-related
crimes.
Program 4-2A - Administer Minimum Building Security Standards: The City shall
continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security Standards, of the
Municipal Code by continuing to route all new development applications and
additions to both the Police and Fire Departments to ensure compliance with the
code and to ensure that security measures are considered during the design process.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Police Department; Fire Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 4-3: The City shall not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in the 70
dB+ CNEL areas impacted by the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) operations and
shall require aviation easements for new residential development in the area between 65
and 69 dB CNEL SFO noise contours.
Program 4-3A – Ensure that applications for new residential land uses proposed
within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study: The City
shall require that the acoustical study be prepared by a professional acoustic
Housing Plan
113
engineer and specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the
design and construction of the new units, to achieve an interior noise level of not
more than 45 dB, based on measured aircraft noise events at the land use location.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
114
6.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs
GOAL 5: SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SAFE,
DECENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR GROUPS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING
NEEDS.
Implementing Policies
Senior Housing
Policy 5-1: The City shall encourage developers and non-profits 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.
Program 5-1A – Density Bonus for Senior Housing: The City shall include density
bonus incentives specifically targeted for senior housing projects and permit
reduced parking standards.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning
Division and Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Program 5-1B – Reduced Parking Requirement for Board and Care Facilities:
Encourage development of residential board and care facilities for seniors by
continuing to allow reduced parking requirements for these types of facilities.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Housing for the Disabled
Policy 5-2: 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 five percent of the units constructed be fully accessible to the
physically disabled.
Program 5-2A - Ensure Consistency with State Accessibility Laws: The City shall
review development plans to ensure consistency with state handicap and
accessibility laws and require modifications for accessibility as needed.
Responsibility: Fire Department - Fire Prevention Division; Department of Economic
and Community Development - Building Division
Housing Plan
115
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Program 5-2B – Promote Disabled Housing Resources and Programs: The City shall
ensure that its website and handout materials regarding housing resources,
requirements, and services for the disabled are updated regularly and made
available to the public.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division and Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds, Staff time
Policy 5-3: The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better
serve the needs of disabled citizens.
Program 5-3A – Accessibility Modification Programs: The City shall continue to
support programs that provide modifications that make housing units accessible to
the disabled.
Responsibility: Department Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Policy 5-4: The City shall provide reasonable accommodation, as per SSFMC 20.510, 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
accommodations in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws,
rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City.
Program 5-4A – Reasonable accommodations: The City shall create a public
information brochure on reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and
provide that information on the City’s website.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Program 5-4B – Resources for the developmentally disabled: The City shall support
the Golden Gate Regional Center in its mission to serve those with developmental
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
116
disabilities, disseminate information about the Center and its services, and make
referrals as appropriate.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Source: Staff time
Housing for Large Families
Policy 5-5: The City shall encourage provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for
large families.
Program 5-5A – Support a variety of housing unit designs, including larger housing
units that can accommodate large families: The City shall seek to broaden the
diversity of its housing stock that is affordable to extremely low, very low, and low
income households to include more units that are suitable to large families.
Currently, much of South San Francisco’s affordable housing consists of single-room
occupancy units and one- and two-bedroom units. The City shall work with housing
developers during the entitlement process and encourage them to provide a unit
mix with at least 10 percent of units having three or more bedrooms.
Housing and Emergency Shelter for the Homeless
Policy 5-6: The City shall assist the homeless and those at risk of being homeless by being an
active participant in the County of San Mateo Continuum of Care, the county-wide planning
body that coordinates the federal funding for emergency shelters, temporary housing,
transitional programs, and general housing assistance and services for the homeless.
Program 5-6A – Support Continuum of Care Planning: The City shall continue to be
an active participant in the Continuum of Care planning process and support its
efforts to address the needs of South San Francisco residents in need of emergency
shelter or temporary housing.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development -
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff Time
Program 5-6B - Support non-profits that offer housing solutions and services for
homeless: The City shall continue to support non-profit organizations that offer
solutions to solving homelessness and/or provide housing related services for the
homeless or at-risk homeless.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development -
Economic Development and Housing Division
Housing Plan
117
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG, as available
Program 5-6C - Support Ongoing Operation of 90-Bed Emergency Shelter in South
San Francisco: The City shall continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year
round homeless shelter within the city limits.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development -
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG, as available
Program 5-6D - Social Services for Housing and Homeless Prevention. The City shall
continue to provide referrals to organizations helping families with social services
for housing and homeless prevention.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development -
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Fund/Staff Time
Home Sharing
Policy 5-7: The City shall support Home Sharing as part of a collection of policies, programs
and practices for addressing the housing needs of those at the lowest income levels
including seniors, those living with disabilities, those at risk of homelessness and female
head of households.
Program 5-7A – Support and Promote Home Sharing: The City shall support the
efforts and services of the HIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternative
housing solution for extremely low and very low income individuals and families;
female-headed households; those at risk of homelessness; and others in need. The
Economic Development and Housing Division will provide information about the
HIP program, provide referrals, and support residents of South San Francisco who
are interested in participating.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development -
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
118
Housing for Veterans
Policy 5-8: The City shall support programs to assist Veterans with housing needs.
Program 5-8A – Provide referrals to Veterans who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness: The City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate
families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Resources for referrals
include the Veteran’s Administration (VA) National Call Center of Homeless
Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint effort
between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the VA Supportive
Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to move Veterans and their families out of
homelessness and into permanent housing through a voucher program that allows
homeless Veterans to rent privately owned housing.
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development – Economic Development
and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
Housing for Employees
Policy 5-9: The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to comply with Health and Safety
Code Section 17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees.
Program 5-9A – Amend the Zoning Code to comply with Health and Safety Code
Section 17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees. The City
shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow employee housing in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5, to permit and encourage the development
and use of sufficient numbers and types of employee housing facilities as are
commensurate with local needs.
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development; Planning Commission; City
Council
Time Frame: Within 18 months of adoption of the Housing Element Update
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
Housing Plan
119
6.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing
GOAL 6: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VALUES DIVERSITY AND STRIVES TO ENSURE
THAT ALL HOUSEHOLDS HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE CITY’S HOUSING
RESOURCES.
Implementing Policies
Policy 6-1: The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in
housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic
background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain
decent housing.
Program 6-1A – Support Equal Housing Opportunity Laws: The City shall require
that all recipients of locally-administered housing assistance funds and other means
of support from the City acknowledge their understanding of fair housing law and
affirm their commitment to the law. The City shall provide materials to help with the
understanding of and compliance with fair housing law.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development -
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Program 6-1B – Regional Cooperation: The City shall participate with other
jurisdictions in San Mateo County to periodically update the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County, a report that helps jurisdictions
identify impediments to fair housing and develop solutions.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development -
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Policy 6-2: The City shall provide fair housing information and referrals regarding fair
housing complaints, tenant-landlord conflicts, habitability, and other general housing
assistance.
Program 6-2A - Legal Counsel and Advocacy Assistance: The City shall support non-
profits providing legal counseling and advocacy assistance 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 groups for legal services.
Consistent with existing practice, brochures providing information on fair housing
and tenants’ rights are available at City Hall, public libraries and on the City’s
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
120
website. The brochures are also available at nonprofit organizations serving low-
income residents. The brochures are available in English and Spanish. As funding
allows, the City shall provide funding assistance to organizations that provide fair
housing, tenant/landlord, and habitability counseling and other general housing
assistance.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development -
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG or HOME Administrative funds, as available
Housing Plan
121
6.7 Energy Conservation
GOAL 7: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL PROMOTE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY, INCLUDING
REDUCTION OF ENERGY USE THROUGH BETTER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
IN INDIVIDUAL HOMES, AND ALSO THROUGH ENERGY EFFICIENT URBAN DESIGN.
Implementing Policies
Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all
new and existing residential structures.
Program 7-1A - Assist with energy/weatherization and water conserving
modifications/ features in existing residential rehabilitation projects: The City will
continue to provide funds to non-profit organizations that provide energy efficiency
upgrades and/or weatherization improvements for very low- and low-income
households.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Policy 7-2: When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to
respond to climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shadow patterns.
Program 7-2A - Continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for
residential buildings: The City shall promote the use of passive and active solar
systems in new and existing residential buildings to ensure that State residential
energy conservation building standards are met. The City’s Climate Action Plan
(CAP), adopted in February 2014, also includes measures to promote energy
efficiency, which will be actively implemented.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Building
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 7-3: 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).
Program 7-3A - Title 24: The City shall continue to enforce State requirements,
including Title 24 requirements, for energy conservation in residential development
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
122
and encourage residential developers to consider employing additional energy
conservation measures with respect to the following:
1. Street and driveway design
2. Lot pattern and configuration
3. Siting of buildings
4. Landscaping
5. Solar access
Responsibility: Fire Department- Fire Prevention; Department of Economic and
Community Development - Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Program 7-3B – Promote Green Building Features: The City will utilize the following
tools to promote green building and energy conserving features in new and existing
residential construction.
In 2009, the City completed the Green X-Ray House, transforming an existing
single-family home into an energy efficient model home. The City will use
the Green X-Ray House as a public outreach tool to disseminate information
regarding energy-saving opportunities, offering regular tours to
homeowners and homebuilders as well as for promotional events. This
home features an array of products including solar panels, radiant floor
heating and recycled glass tiles.
Staff has adopted the Green Building Ordinance.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2014 and ongoing
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Housing Plan
123
6.8 Quantified Objectives
The following table summarizes quantified objectives for the construction, rehabilitation,
and conservation of housing in the City of South San Francisco for this Housing Element.
Table 6.8-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives, 2015-2023
Income Category
RHNA 2014-
2022
New
Construction Rehabilitation
Conservation/
Preservation Total1
Extremely Low
(Less than 30% of
AMI)2
282 250 30 20 300
Very Low (30-50%
of AMI)
283 250 30 20 300
Low (50-80% of
AMI)
281 230 30 40 300
Moderate (80-
120% of AMI)
313 390 10 0 400
Above Moderate
(Greater than
120% of AMI)
705 800 0 0 800
Total 1,864 1,920 100 80 2,100
Notes:
1. Totals in each category are estimated based on site inventory, income category of existing units to be conserved,
past performance in rehabilitation, and current and projected funding availability in the absence of redevelopment
funding.
2. The “extremely low income” category is not formally included in the RHNA. However, cities are charged with
addressing the housing needs of this population in the Housing Element. The extremely low income totals are based
on an estimated average of 50 percent of all very low income households, per HCD direction.
124
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element
Accomplishments
Appendix A: Accomplishments Table
125
This page intentionally left blank.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
126
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
Housing Element
Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements
Program Evaluation and
Recommendation
Goal 1 Promote New Housing Development
1-1A Inventory Vacant and
Underutilized Land and Progress
toward the RHNA. Ensure Land
Use Policies will Enable
Accomplishment of RHNA Goals.
Annually update the inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels. In addition,
annually review the composition of the housing stock as well as of units under
construction or expected to be constructed during the planning period. Compare
this analysis to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine
if any changes in land use policy are warranted to ensure an adequate supply of land
to meet RHNA target of 373 very low income, 268 low income, 315 moderate
income, and 679 above moderate units.
Due to the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency this task was not completed. Retain program
1-2A Implement the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance
Continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance with the aim of
constructing 40 low-income and 60 moderate-income units by 2014.
Goal 40 low-income/60 moderate income by 2014;
Park Station constructed in 2007 resulted in 7 new low-income units and 8 new
moderate income units.
Retain program
1-3A Investigate a Commercial Linkage
Fee for Affordable Housing
By 2010, investigate the feasibility of a commercial linkage fee to support affordable
housing.
The City continues to explore funding options for affordable housing. As part of the
21 Elements group Cities are looking at cost to share in a nexus study for a
commercial linkage fee to support affordable housing.
Retain program; update date and
status
1-4A Acquire Sites for Affordable
Housing Development
The Redevelopment Agency shall acquire or work with nonprofit housing
developers to acquire vacant or underutilized land or sites with blighted and/or
nonconforming uses to ensure sufficient capacity for the development of 60
affordable housing units by 2014.
During this housing cycle (2007-2014) the Redevelopment Agency acquired property
within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and in the Downtown area.
The City continues to work with developers on potential projects. However, due to
dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency in 2011, funding for property acquisition is
limited and the future depends on the ultimate outcome of the Successor Agency to
the Redevelopment Agency.
Retain but recognize limitations.
City will consider acquisition as
feasible, but focus on facilitation.
1-4B Consult with Non-Profit Housing
Developers to Identify
Development Opportunities
The Redevelopment Agency shall continue to meet with nonprofit housing
developers annually to discuss and identify development opportunities, including
opportunities for the reuse of publicly-owned parcels, for affordable housing.
Policy 1-4 Achievements above. Retain program but consider
combining with others to reduce
redundancy.
1-4C Pursue Funding and Support
Funding Applications for
Affordable Housing
The Redevelopment Agency shall continue to apply on an annual basis for federal
and State funds to promote the development of affordable housing and support
funding applications by non profit housing developers.
Policy 1-4 Achievements above. Amend to clarify that City is not
applying for funding but rather
supporting those who do.
1-4D Consider Fee Waivers for
Affordable Housing
Continue to consider waiver of fees on a case by case basis for affordable housing
development.
Policy 1-4 Achievements above. Retain program
1-5A Complete the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance Update
By December 2009, complete the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update to
ensure consistency with General Plan policies, appropriate zoning for the Housing
Opportunity Sites, and incorporation of the tools and flexibility needed to
encourage: 1) a variety of unit sizes; 2) a mix of housing types; 3) mixed use
development; and 4) more intense mixed use development in the South El Camino
Real corridor. Measures to accomplish these goals include expanding permissions
for residential and mixed use development in new areas, Design Guidelines and an
EIR for a General Plan Amendment for the South El Camino Real corridor, and
potentially reducing parking requirements for areas near transit. In addition, the
Update will designate a district where an emergency shelter is permitted by right
and subject only to the same development and management standards applicable to
other uses in the zone. It will also ensure that transitional and supportive housing
are subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the
same type in the zone.
Updated Zoning Ordinance was adopted August 2010. Accomplished; remove program
1-6A Review the Density Bonus
Ordinance
By December 2009 and in conjunction with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
Update, review the Density Bonus Ordinance and make modifications as necessary
to construct 50 additional units by 2014 and for consistency with State law.
SSFMC 20.380-Inclusionary Housing Regulations was updated to be consistent with
State law as part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update adopted in August
2010.
Accomplished; remove program
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
127
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
Housing Element
Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements
Program Evaluation and
Recommendation
1-7A Increase Residential Densities in
Downtown
Explore increased residential densities and modified development standards for
parcels in the downtown area to support the objectives of the Downtown Strategy
and General Plan policies.
The Zoning Ordinance was updated in 2010 and includes changes that encourage a
mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the Downtown and near transit. In
2012 the City received a grant and began work on the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan, which was adopted in February 2015 and increased densities near the
Caltrain Station.
Retain program; ongoing, update
target dates
1-8A Support the development of
secondary dwelling units
Support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family designated
and zoned parcels with the goal of developing 20 second units by 2014.
Brochures are provided at the Permit Center Counter; in addition staff explores
second unit options during counter discussions and during building permit plan
checks. A total of 7 second units have been constructed from 2007-2012 (2 for the
2012 calendar year) and have been recorded with the County to reflect the legal
second unit.
Retain but combine with 1-8B
1-8B Promote Second Dwelling Unit
Education
Actively promote community education on second units by posting information on
the City’s website and providing brochures at the One Stop Permit Center public
counter.
See Policy 1-8 Achievements above. Retain but combine with 1-8A
1-9A Identify Residential Development
Opportunities on Infill and
Underutilized Sites
Identify residential development opportunities on infill and underutilized sites as
part of the Zoning Ordinance update, South El Camino Real General Plan update,
and the El Camino Real / Chestnut Specific Plan process.
The South El Camino Real Plan was adopted in April 2010 and the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Area Plan was adopted in May 2011 to promote infill and
redevelopment projects.
Retain program but revise to
reflect new opportunity site areas
Goal 2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development
2-1A Provide Support for Private
Market Construction through
Expedited Review and Other
Means
Support private market construction by:
working with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite
the permit review process;
designing 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
for major new housing developments.
The One Stop Permit center continues to provide accessible services by Planning,
Building and Public Works in one building. The One Stop Permit Center hours are
from 8am-5pm. Permit processing is efficient and timely, with accessible staff. Our
Planning Commission meets twice a month and our Design Review Board meets
once a month to ensure the timely processing of applications.
Revise to clarify that the City will
not be designing projects itself,
rather supporting good design of
housing projects
2-2 Ensure Adequate Public Facilities Ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water,
sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the City in order to
encourage residential development to support population growth and fulfill
improvement commitments.
On specific development projects the City collects "sewer impact fees" to help
support the ongoing maintenance and upgrading of the City's infrastructure. The
City of SSF adopted a CIP budget of approximately $99million dollars for fiscal year
2011-2012, and a CIP budget of approximately $33 million dollars for fiscal year
2012-2013, with several projects slated for the repair and upgrade of infrastructure
to support added populations.
Retain policy; add specific
program to implement
2-3A Advance the Housing Revenue
Bond and Mortgage Credit
Certificate Programs
Cooperate with the County to implement its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage
Credit Certificate programs with the goal of assisting 20 moderate income
households with home purchases.
The City continues to participate in the 21 Elements TAC meetings. The City also
collaborates with HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) of San Mateo
County as well as the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County. The
Housing Rehab Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate Programs were not utilized
because the new construction of the Park Station project (2007) had purchase prices
so low that it was unnecessary to implement these programs.
Retain but revise to clarify the
City's role better
2-4A Implement Design Guidelines By 2010, implement design guidelines as part of the Zoning Ordinance update in
order to ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes
with existing neighborhood surroundings.
Residential Design Guide was adopted by the Planning Commission by Resolution
No. 2471. In addition, the adopted El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Plan includes
Design Standards and Guidelines.
Accomplished; can retain as
"continue to…"
2-5 Support Excellent Design &
CEQA Review While Ensuring
Expeditious Permit Processing
Support excellent design through the continued use of the design review board
and/or staff as well as adherence to CEQA while ensuring an efficient process.
Our Design Review Board meets once a month to provide comments on new
construction and additions to residential development.
Remove; redundant
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
128
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
Housing Element
Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements
Program Evaluation and
Recommendation
2-6A Disseminate Affordable Housing
Program Information
Update the City's website to include information on affordable housing, housing
programs, and inclusionary units.
The City continually provides material to the public regarding affordable housing
programs and inclusionary units including at the City's Community Learning Center,
on our community calendars, on the City's website, and at our Citizen's Academy.
We also regularly send information to local non-profits that serve low income
residents in SSF, including the North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Cen ter. The
Housing and Community Development Department provides the public with
affordable housing resource packets that contain specific information on how to find
affordable housing programs, along with listings of affordable housing locations and
properties with open wait lists.
Retain; revise to update a few
details
Goal 3 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods
3-1 Encourage Private Residential
Reinvestment in Older
Neighborhoods
Encourage private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and private
rehabilitation of housing.
The Department of Housing and Community Development manages Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG) Programs which provides funding to Rebuilding
Together Peninsula (RTP). RTP rehabilitates housing in older neighborhoods. Project
funding ranges from replacement of water heaters to the repair of leaky roofs.
Remove; combine with 3-2
3-2A Fund Lower Income Housing
Rehabilitation
By 2014, provide funds to assist 40 very low and low income owner and renter
households to undertake repairs and maintain their dwellings as viable units.
CDBG funds were used for the following housing rehabilitation activities
• City sponsored Housing Rehab Program FY 12-13:
o Issued 3 Housing Rehab Loans
o Issued 3 emergency home repair vouchers
o Issued 2 debris box vouchers
o Covered emergency gas/sewer line repairs at 7 city-owned affordable rental units
• Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID) – The City uses
CDBG funds to support CID’s Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program.
FY 12-13 the HAM program has provided accessibility modifications to 8 South San
Francisco households.
• Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP) – The City uses CDBG funds to support two
RTP programs: National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home. FY 12-13 the two
programs provided free home repairs to 18 South San Francisco households;
• North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) House Helpers –
Although NPNSC disbanded this program in December 2012, the program did
provide free home repairs to 9 South San Francisco households.
Retain; combine with other
relevant programs (see below)
3-3 Prioritize Funding for Acquisition
and Rehabilitation of Lower
Income Units in Older
Neighborhoods
Prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds for the acquisition and
rehabilitation of units in older residential neighborhoods that house low income
families earning less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI).
See 3-2A achievements above. Combine with 3-2 and 3-7A
3-4A Enforce Housing, Building and
Safety Codes
Continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes. The City operates a Code Enforcement Division through the Fire Department. For
2012 there were 5 enforcement officers on staff that enforce housing, building and
safety codes. Building Division staff enforces these codes as well when they are out
on inspections. Incompatible uses are addressed in zoning code section 20.320.
Retain but combine with 3-4B
3-4B Eliminate Blight in Residential
Neighborhoods
Seek to eliminate incompatible land uses and blight in residential neighborhoods
through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures.
See Policy 3-4 Achievements above. Retain but combine with 3-4A
3-5A Create a Capital Improvement
Program for Older
Neighborhoods
Create a capital improvement program to upgrade and keep in good repair housing,
streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in older neighborhoods such as
Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (Old Town), Irish Town,
and Peck’s Lots.
The City of SSF adopted a CIP budget of approximately $99 million dollars for fiscal
year 2011-2012, and a CIP budget of approximately $33 million dollars for fiscal year
2012-2013, with projects set for street repairs and sidewalk and municipal upgrades
in the older residential neighborhoods of SSF.
Accomplished; keep as "maintain"
rather than "create"
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
129
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
Housing Element
Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements
Program Evaluation and
Recommendation
3-6 Ensure High Quality Design in
Rehabilitation
Ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with
existing neighborhood surroundings.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2471 adopted the Design Review Guide for
residences and additions to homes in SSF. Staff works with architects and home
owners to ensure that proposed designs complement and blend in with the
character of the existing neighborhood. In addition, staff consults the City's historic
resource list to ensure that any design changes are consistent with the architectural
character of existing historic structures.
Remove; state in other design
policy that it applies to new
construction and rehab as well.
(2-4A and 2-5)
3-7A Provide Low Interest Loans for
Housing Rehabilitation
Provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing
through the Housing Rehabilitation Program and with CDBG funds. Give priority to
homes in the Downtown Target Area with a goal of rehabilitating 40 units by 2014.
CDBG Housing Rehab Loan Program issued 1 loan during FY 11-12 and 3 loans to
date during FY 12-13.
Retain; combine with 3-2 and 3-3
3-7B Work with the Housing
Authority to Preserve Public
Housing
The City shall support the South San Francisco Housing Authority in the continued
operation and rental of 80 units of public housing.
See Policy 3-7 Achievements above. Retain program
3-8A Improve and Preserve Boarding
Houses and SRO Developments
Provide financial assistance for physical improvements to boarding houses and single
room occupancy developments in the Downtown area in order to ensure
preservation of these resources.
There have been no loans/grants issued in 2012 for the preservation or
improvement to existing boarding houses or SROs.
Retain; combine with other
housing rehabilitation programs
3-9A Enforce Condominium
Conversion Limitations
Continue to enforce limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums.
As specified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are
allowed only if they meet the following general criteria:
a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists;
b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City’s available housing
stock;
c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting
condominium projects;
d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at
the time of conversion; and
e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan.
SSFMC section 19.80 sets forth the regulations for condominium conversions, all
requirements must be met for conversions. In addition, zoning code section
20.390.004 has additional regulations for condominium conversions which are quite
stringent and require that a minimum of 33% of the total units be affordable low or
moderate-income units, and 15% must be set aside for lower-income units.
Retain program
3-10A Monitor and Address Potential
Conversion of Subsidized Units
to Market Rates
Monitor the supply of subsidized affordable housing to anticipate possible
conversions. Publicize State and federal notice requirements to nonprofit
developers and property owners of at-risk housing. Respond to any federal and/or
State notices including Notice of Intent to Pre-Pay, owner Plans of Action, or Opt-
Out Notices filed on local projects.
Currently according to the California Housing Partnership Corporation there are
two properties in SSF that are at risk of converting to market rate housing. Given
the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency the City's ability to acquire such at
risk units is hampered. However, one of the properties is owned by Rotary
International (Rotary Club), a nonprofit organization, that has a motivation to keep
the units affordable.
Retain program
3-10B Provide Assistance to Maintain
Affordability of At-Risk Units
Prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds and support funding
applications to preserve at-risk units through acquisition, rehabilitation, or
refinancing by nonprofit housing developers.
See Policy 3-10 Achievements above. No longer feasible; delete
3-10C Assist Tenants Displaced or At-
Risk for Displacement from
Affordable Housing
Prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds to assist tenants
displaced by the conversation of at-risk units and provide referrals to relevant social
service providers for affected tenants.
See Policy 3-10 Achievements above. Retain but revise to clarify City's
role: City can only advocate,
provide referrals, etc.
Goal 4 Maintain and Improve the Quality of Life
POL 4-
1
Prohibit Residential Development
on Environmentally Hazardous
Sites
Prohibit new residential development in areas containing major environmental
hazards (such as floods and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation
measures are taken.
SSF zoning code section 20.160 provides a Hillside (HS) Overlay District for
properties that have an average slope of 15% or more and sets forth specific
standards for safe development. In addition, zoning code section 20.170 has a
Special Environmental Studies (ES) Overlay District that applies to areas of the City
that the General Plan identifies as ecology sensitive habitats or susceptible to
geologic hazards.
Retain policy; move Program 4-
3A under here to implement
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
130
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
Housing Element
Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements
Program Evaluation and
Recommendation
4-2A Administer Minimum Building
Security Standards
Continue to ensure that all new residential units comply with the Minimum Building
Security Standards contained in Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code to decrease
burglary and other property-related crimes.
All new development applications and additions are routed to both the Police and
Fire Departments to ensure that SSFMC Chapter 15.48 is implemented and that
security measures are considered during the design process. Specific attention is paid
to landscaping to make sure lines of sight are retained.
Retain program
4-3A Review Residential Project Sites
for Major Environmental Hazards
and Prohibit Development on
Hazardous Sites
Review residential projects for major environmental hazards during the
environmental review process, and prohibit the development of projects on sites
containing such hazards unless adequately mitigated.
During the CEQA review process staff looks at all potential hazards to residential
development. In addition, the Code Enforcement and Building Divisions both work
with property owners to address unsafe building conditions.
Move to be a program under
Policy 4-1
4-4A Require Mitigation Measures for
All Housing Development in the
65 to 69 dB CNEL SFO Aircraft
Noise Contour
Require an acoustical study conducted by a professional acoustic engineer for all
new residential project applications in the 65 to 69 dB CNEL SFO aircraft noise
contour. Noise mitigation measures are required to achieve an interior noise level
of not more than 45 dB for all new units.
The SSF General Plan is updated to be consistent with the SFO Airport Land Use
Plan. Prior to purchase of new homes located in the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise
contour area, disclosures are provided to potential buyers. There are added
restrictions placed on new homes that disclose locations that within the 65 to 69
CNEL aircraft contour.
Retain, but check consistency
with Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan.
Goal 5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs
5-1 Prioritize Special Needs Housing 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.
The new development at 636 El Camino Real has 20 units set aside for San Mateo
County Mental Health clients and onsite case management for those clients.
Additionally the development at 636 El Camino Real has 40 three-bedroom units for
large families.
Remove; redundant with the rest
of this section
5-2 Encourage Housing Development
for the Elderly
Encourage the development of housing for elderly. The City has been in discussions with representatives of Rotary Plaza (an existing
senior housing complex with 181 units) with regards to a potential new
development project for seniors housing. However, the future of these discussions is
uncertain at this time given the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency.
Combine policies 5-2, 5-3, and 5-
4; remove program 5-3B as it is
redundant and not specific to
seniors
5-3A Grant Density Bonuses for Senior
Housing
With the aim of building 10 senior housing units over the 2007-2014 planning
period, continue to grant density bonuses for senior housing projects, allowing up
to 50 units per acre. Permit reduced parking requirements as well.
There were 28 SSF seniors served by the City's Minor Housing Repair Program for
Seniors in FY 12-13 including the following:
Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID) served 6 elderly heads
of households
Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP)
National Rebuilding Day served 1 elderly head of household
Safe @ Home Program served 14 elderly heads of households
North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) House Helpers served 7
elderly heads of households
Combine under a single policy
with 5-3B and 5-4A
5-3B Fund Minor Housing Repairs for
Senior Homeowners
Continue to provide funding for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by
low-income senior citizens. Aim to assist 100 units over the 2007-2014 planning
period with repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs,
and masonry work.
See Policy 5-5 Achievements above. Combine; see above
5-4A Allow Reduced Parking
Requirement for Residential
Board and Care Facilities
In order to encourage a range of housing types for seniors, continue to allow
reduced parking requirements for residential board and care facilities.
The SSF zoning code allows for requests for parking reductions for senior housing
developments and developments near transit.
Combine; see above
5-5A Ensure Development Plans
Comply with Accessibility
Requirements
Review development plans to ensure consistency with State and federal handicap
and accessibility laws, making modifications for accessibility as necessary.
During the review of all new development projects and applications for
modifications to existing buildings, the Building Division staff plan checks projects to
ensure that all State Accessibly Laws are met in accordance with California Building
Code Section 1134B.
Retain policy
5-5B Ensure Housing Access for
People with Disabilities in the
Zoning Code and Permit
Procedures
Complete a review of 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. By December 2009, amend its
Zoning Ordinance and change permit processing procedures, as needed, to
facilitate accessibility for disabled persons.
See Policy 5-5 Achievements above. Remove; accomplished
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
131
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
Housing Element
Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements
Program Evaluation and
Recommendation
5-6A Modify Housing to Accommodate
the Needs of People with
Disabilities
Continue to fund programs to modify existing housing units to make them
accessible to people with disabilities, with the goal of modifying 125 units during the
2007-2014 period.
The City provides annual grant funds to the Center of Independence of Individuals
with Disabilities (CID), which has a Housing Accessibly Modification (HAM) Program
that provides financial assistance to people that need to make modifications to their
home to allow for disabled access.
Retain; update target dates/goals
5-7A Ensure Equal Housing Access in
the City Code
Amend the Municipal Code as necessary to provide individuals with disabilities
reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures to ensure
equal access to housing.
The zoning ordinance update in 2010 included the addition of SSFMC section 20.510,
Waivers and Modifications, that provides provisions for reasonable accommodations
to ensure equal access to housing by allowing the Chief Planner authority to grant
relief from zoning requirements.
Remove; accomplished
5-7B Provide Reasonable
Accommodation Information
Provide information on reasonable accommodation for the disabled through a
brochure and on the City’s website.
See Policy 5-7 Achievements above. Retain policy
5-8 Encourage Affordable Housing for
Large Families
Encourage provision of affordable housing suitable for large families. The recently completed affordable housing development at 636 El Camino Real
includes 40 three bedrooms units to accommodate large families. In addition, at pre-
application meetings staff discusses providing a range of housing sizes with
developers during the planning stages of residential development projects prior to
the submittal of a formal application.
Retain policy
5-9 Assist the Homeless and Maintain
Operation of an Emergency
Shelter
Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. At least one site shall
remain available in the City for the operation of an emergency shelter.
There is a County run homeless shelter located in South San Francisco on North
Access Road. The former Redevelopment Agency regularly fund provided funding to
the County for the operation of the shelter.
Retain; combine with policies
below to reduce redundancy
5-10A Support Continuum of Care
Planning
Continue to actively participate in the Continuum of Care planning process in
order to address emergency shelter or temporary housing needs.
HCD staff attends regular quarterly Continuum of Care meetings with the County.
The City continues to provide referrals to families and individuals for social services
including case management and referrals for housing and homeless prevention.
Retain policy
5-10B Fund Organizations Offering
Solutions and Services for the
Homeless
Continue to fund non-profit organizations that offer creative solutions to solving
homeless and/or provide housing related services for the homeless or at-risk
homeless.
See Policy 5-10 Achievements above. Retain; revise to say "support"
rather than "fund"
5-10C Fund Transitional Housing
Organizations
Continue to fund organizations that provide transitional housing, with the goal of
200 placements of families and/or individuals between 2007 and 2014.
See Policy 5-10 Achievements above. Retain; revise to say "support"
rather than "fund"
5-10D Support Emergency Shelter
Operation
Continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year round homeless shelter within
the city limits.
See Policy 5-10 Achievements above. Retain policy
5-10E Fund and Provide Referrals to
Housing and Homeless Prevent
Case Management Organizations
Continue to fund and make referrals to organizations providing social services
including case management for housing and homeless prevention. Aim to deliver
case management and referrals for 500 individuals and families per year from 2007
to 2014.
See Policy 5-10 Achievements above. Retain; revise to say "support"
rather than "fund"
Goal 6 Assure Equal Access to Housing
6-1 Eliminate Unlawful Discrimination Work to eliminate all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race,
sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical
condition, or other arbitrary factors.
The City, in conjunction with San Mateo County, Daly City, Redwood City and San
Mateo developed the Analysis of Impediments (AI) for Fair Housing Choice. This
was developed in 2012 and was adopted by the SSF City Council on May 1, 2013 by
Resolution #36-2013.
Retain; fund as available
6-2A Ensure Legal Counsel and
Advocacy Assistance for Fair
Housing and Landlord-Tenant
Cases
Provide access to and referrals to organizations that provide legal counseling and
advocacy concerning fair housing laws, rights, and remedies for those who believe
they have been discriminated against. Aim to pursue 5 discrimination cases an d 10
tenant-landlord cases per year from 2007 and 2014.
The City provides an annual grant to a fair housing service provider using its HOME
Administrative funds. For FY 12-13 the City provided funds to Project Sentinel (a fair
housing provider and tenant/landlord service organization). Project Sentinel served
50 SSF residents in 2012. In prior years (2007-2011) the City funded the Legal Aid
Society (tenant/landlord services) but due to funding cuts, the City no longer funds
this organization.
Retain; fund as available; combine
with 6-2D and 6-2E
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
132
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
Housing Element
Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements
Program Evaluation and
Recommendation
6-2B Provide Funding to Address
Housing Habitability Cases
Fund organizations that provide counseling on tenant-landlord issues and habitability
as well as other general housing assistance, with the goal of pursuing 100 habitability
cases per year from 2007 and 2014.
See Policy 6-2 Achievements above. Retain; fund as available
6-2C Work with Other Jurisdictions to
Update the Impediments to Fair
Housing Report
Work with other jurisdictions in the County to periodically update the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County report as a means of identifying
impediments and development solutions.
See Policy 6-2 Achievements above. Retain policy
6-2D Disseminate Fair Housing
Information
Disseminate fair housing information through the City website, in public locations,
and through nonprofit organizations serving low-income residents. Brochures will
continue to be available in English and Spanish.
See Policy 6-2 Achievements above. Combine with 6-2A
6-2E Promote and Overcome
Impediments to Fair Housing
Fund and work with nonprofit organizations to promote fair housing and to identify
and overcome impediments to fair housing.
See Policy 6-2 Achievements above. Combine with 6-2A
Goal 7 Energy Conservation
7-1A Incorporate Energy and Water
Conservation in Residential
Rehabilitation
Assist with energy and water conserving modifications and features in 10 residential
rehabilitation projects annually.
Staff is currently working on a Green Building Ordinance that is slated for
implementation in January 2014. During residential rehabilitation projects, like
Rebuilding Together, replacement of appliances/utilities includes energy and water
conserving models.
Retain; combine with 7-3A and 7-
4A
7-1B Promote Green Building and
Energy Conserving Features
Use the Green X-Ray House and the Green Corp training program to promote
green building and energy conserving features in new and existing residential
construction. Provide tours to homeowners and homebuilders of the Green X-Ray
House, a project funded by the Redevelopment Agency and Community
Development Block Grant Recovery funds, in order to provide education about
energy saving features and products. Through the Green Corps training program,
by 2009, train 12 low income and/or disadvantaged youth to perform energy audits
and weatherization of homes and support them to provide services and community
education for the remainder of the planning period.
See policy 7-1 Achievements above. Retain; update to reflect
accomplishments (see above)
7-2A Provide Residential Energy
Efficiency Information
Provide information to promote the use of passive and active solar systems in new
and existing residential buildings in order to meet State residential conservation
standards.
The City promotes the use of solar panels. In addition, the staff is currently working
on a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that sets forth reduction measures that will apply to
residential development. Draft measure 3-5 in the CAP promotes energy
information and sharing, and educating the community about energy-efficiency
behaviors and construction.
Retain; update to reflect
implementation of CAP
7-3A Fund the Housing Energy Efficiency
Rehabilitation Program
Continue to fund a non-profit organization to conduct home repairs for very low-
and low-income owner and renter households and to weatherize homes. 30% of
the Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant funds will be used for energy
conservation retrofits and weatherization, including an attic insulation program, for
120 homeowners by 2014.
Through our loan and grant programs, the use of weatherization programs is
included in part of the overall funding for rehabilitation.
Retain; combine with 7-1A and 7-
4A; revise to reflect new
goals/timeframe
7-4A Enforce Title 24 and Encourage
Additional Energy Conservation
Measures
Enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation in residential development,
and encourage residential developers to employ additional solar access, landscaping,
building siting, lot configuration, and street design energy conservation measures.
The CAP will include a reduction measures that encourages the integration of
higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and
community faculties, and to reduce the dependents on autos through smart parking
practices. In addition, the City continues to implement Title 24 requirements.
Retain; combine as indicated
above
2337434.1
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments
133
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT B
2014 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
11
-
AN
N
U
A
L
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
5
§
6
2
0
2
)
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
Pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
G
C
6
5
4
0
0
l
o
c
a
l
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
m
u
s
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
y
A
p
r
i
l
1
o
f
e
a
c
h
y
e
a
r
t
h
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
ca
l
e
n
d
a
r
y
e
a
r
t
o
t
h
e
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
b
o
d
y
,
t
h
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
(
O
P
R
)
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
H
C
D
)
.
B
y
c
h
e
c
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
“
F
i
n
a
l
”
b
u
t
t
o
n
a
n
d
c
l
i
c
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
“
S
u
b
m
i
t
”
b
u
t
t
o
n
,
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
y
o
u
r
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
H
C
D
o
n
l
y
.
O
n
c
e
f
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
,
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
l
l
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
b
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g
.
Th
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
m
u
s
t
b
e
p
r
i
n
t
e
d
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
y
o
u
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
l
a
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
t
o
O
P
R
a
t
t
h
e
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
li
s
t
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
:
G
o
v
e
r
n
o
r
’
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
P
.
O
.
B
o
x
3
0
4
4
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
,
C
A
9
5
8
1
2
-
3
0
4
4
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
01
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
(9
)
T
o
t
a
l
o
f
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
A
b
o
v
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
A
3
2
0
(1
0
)
T
o
t
a
l
b
y
I
n
c
o
m
e
T
a
b
l
e
A
/
A
3
0
0
2
0
(1
1
)
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
L
o
w
-
I
n
c
o
m
e
Un
i
t
s
*
0
-
AN
N
U
A
L
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
5
§
6
2
0
2
)
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
b
y
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
s
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
(m
a
y
b
e
A
P
N
N
o
.
,
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
n
a
m
e
o
r
ad
d
r
e
s
s
)
Un
i
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Note below the number of units determined
to
b
e
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
o
r
d
e
e
d
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
t
t
a
c
h
a
n
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
h
o
w
th
e
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
e
u
n
i
t
s
w
e
r
e
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
.
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
8Housing without Financial Assistance or Deed Restrictions
4
Ta
b
l
e
A
5a
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
De
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
67
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
5
3
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
-
In
c
o
m
e
Ab
o
v
e
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
-
In
c
o
m
e
To
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
pe
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
Te
n
u
r
e
R=
R
e
n
t
e
r
O=
O
w
n
e
r
2
De
e
d
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Un
i
t
s
Es
t
.
#
I
n
f
i
l
l
Un
i
t
s
*
Se
e
In
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
Se
e
In
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
fo
r
E
a
c
h
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
An
n
u
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
-
N
e
w
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
-
,
L
o
w
-
,
a
n
d
M
i
x
e
d
-
I
n
c
o
m
e
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
01
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
*
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
s
e
f
i
e
l
d
s
a
r
e
v
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
-
AN
N
U
A
L
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
5
§
6
2
0
2
)
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
(3
)
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
(2
)
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
A
t
-
R
i
s
k
(5
)
T
o
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
b
y
I
n
c
o
m
e
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
T
y
p
e
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
An
n
u
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
-
U
n
i
t
s
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
,
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
a
n
d
A
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
G
C
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
5
5
8
3
.
1
(
c
)
(
1
)
(1
)
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
b
y
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
s
Pl
e
a
s
e
n
o
t
e
:
U
n
i
t
s
m
a
y
o
n
l
y
b
e
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
b
e
l
o
w
w
h
e
n
a
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
t
i
t
s
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
,
pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
o
r
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
a
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
t
s
R
H
N
A
w
h
i
c
h
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
i
n
G
C
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
5
5
8
3
.
1
(
c
)
(
1
)
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
*
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
f
i
e
l
d
i
s
v
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
(4
)
T
h
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
h
o
w
e
a
c
h
u
n
i
t
c
o
m
p
l
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
su
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
c
)
(
7
)
o
f
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
5
5
8
3
.
1
TO
T
A
L
UN
I
T
S
Ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
*
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
01
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
0
0
1
1
1
1
S
u
n
d
i
a
l
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
C
D
B
G
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
0
0
7
4
7
4
F
a
i
r
w
a
y
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
5
y
r
H
U
D
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
5
8
5
-
AN
N
U
A
L
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
5
§
6
2
0
2
)
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
6. Total
No
.
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
fo
r
Ab
o
v
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
1.
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
No
.
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
fo
r
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
2
.
2
-
4
U
n
i
t
s
3
.
5+
U
n
i
t
s
7. Number of infill units*
5.
Mo
b
i
l
e
H
o
m
e
s
An
n
u
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
f
o
r
A
b
o
v
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
-
I
n
c
o
m
e
U
n
i
t
s
(n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
o
s
e
u
n
i
t
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
o
n
T
a
b
l
e
A
)
4
.
Se
c
o
n
d
U
n
i
t
Ta
b
l
e
A
3
*
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
f
i
e
l
d
i
s
v
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
01
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
0
0
0
2
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
00
-
AN
N
U
A
L
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
5
§
6
2
0
2
)
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ye
a
r
8
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
5
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
s
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
f
o
r
R
H
N
A
P
e
r
i
o
d
►
►
►
►
►
Ye
a
r
1
Total Units to Date
(a
l
l
y
e
a
r
s
)
Lo
w
No
n
-
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
De
e
d
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
No
n
-
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Ye
a
r
4
No
t
e
:
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
e
x
t
r
e
m
l
y
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
t
a
l
s
.
To
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
►
►
►
De
e
d
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
En
t
e
r
C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
Y
e
a
r
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
y
e
a
r
of
t
h
e
R
H
N
A
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
S
e
e
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
.
Ye
a
r
3
A
b
o
v
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
Ye
a
r
2
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
n
i
t
s
I
s
s
u
e
d
b
y
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
RH
N
A
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
In
c
o
m
e
L
e
v
e
l
Total Remaining RHNA by Income Level
Ye
a
r
9
Ye
a
r
6
To
t
a
l
R
H
N
A
b
y
C
O
G
.
En
t
e
r
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
:
In
c
o
m
e
L
e
v
e
l
Ta
b
l
e
B
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
01
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
37
3
10
8
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
108265
26
5
7 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
7258
31
5
8
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
10305
67
9
10
4
0
16
4
2
0
0
0
-
126553
16
3
2
22
7
0
16
4
2
2
0
0
0
251 1381
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
1
:
V
a
c
a
n
t
&
U
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
L
a
n
d
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
f
v
a
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
A
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
re
v
i
e
w
o
f
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
.
An
n
u
a
l
T
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
c
y
c
l
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
Th
e
H
E
h
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
v
a
c
a
n
t
o
r
u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
w
i
t
h
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
R
H
N
A
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
2
c
y
c
l
e
.
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
2
:
I
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
I
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
¿
n
e
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
%
l
o
w
a
n
d
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
-
in
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
N
o
n
e
w
B
M
R
u
n
i
t
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
.
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
3
:
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
f
o
r
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
fo
r
C
i
t
y
¿
s
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
;
in
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
li
n
k
a
g
e
f
e
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
FY
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
0
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
A
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
th
e
2
1
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
g
r
o
u
p
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
i
s
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
G
r
a
n
d
Ne
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
t
h
e
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
a
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
i
n
k
a
g
e
f
e
e
to
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
D
r
a
f
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
o
r
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
c
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
d
u
e
i
n
Ma
y
2
0
1
5
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
4
:
S
i
t
e
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
s
h
a
l
l
w
o
r
k
t
o
ac
q
u
i
r
e
o
r
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
b
o
t
h
f
o
r
p
r
o
f
i
t
a
n
d
no
n
p
r
o
f
i
t
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
t
o
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
20
0
7
-
2
0
1
4
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
y
c
l
e
(
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
1
4
)
t
h
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
r
e
a
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
o
n
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
-
AN
N
U
A
L
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
5
§
6
2
0
2
)
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
(B
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
a
m
e
s
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
5
5
8
3
.
De
s
c
r
i
b
e
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
o
f
a
l
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
l
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
t
o
r
e
m
o
v
e
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
Na
m
e
o
f
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
in
H
.
E
.
St
a
t
u
s
o
f
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
u
s
Ta
b
l
e
C
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
01
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
an
d
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
s
i
t
e
s
f
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
mu
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
G
o
a
l
of
6
0
u
n
i
t
s
b
y
2
0
1
4
.
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
d
u
e
t
o
d
i
s
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
i
n
2
0
1
1
,
fu
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
p
e
n
d
s
o
n
t
h
e
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
A
g
e
n
c
y
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
.
Ac
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
L
o
n
g
-
r
a
n
g
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
b
y
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
h
a
s
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
y
e
t
,
t
o
d
a
t
e
.
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
5
:
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
w
e
r
c
o
s
t
u
n
i
t
s
b
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
2
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
,
de
n
s
i
t
y
b
o
n
u
s
e
s
,
l
o
f
t
-
s
t
y
l
e
u
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d
ho
m
e
s
Re
v
i
s
e
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
d
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
i
z
e
s
a
n
d
m
i
x
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
ty
p
e
s
De
c
-
0
9
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
0
.
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
6
:
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
B
o
n
u
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Re
v
i
e
w
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
m
o
d
i
f
y
t
o
m
a
k
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
S
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
De
c
-
0
9
S
S
F
M
C
2
0
.
3
9
0
-
B
o
n
u
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
w
a
s
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
of
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
0
t
o
b
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
S
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
.
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
7
:
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
m
i
x
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
u
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
a
r
e
a
,
ne
a
r
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
w
a
s
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
h
a
t
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
a
m
i
x
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
u
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
an
d
n
e
a
r
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
i
n
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
o
f
2
0
1
5
,
w
h
i
c
h
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
C
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
st
a
t
i
o
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
U
n
i
t
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
se
c
o
n
d
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
;
g
o
a
l
2
0
u
n
i
t
s
b
y
20
1
4
.
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
a
n
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
b
o
u
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
a
d
d
se
c
o
n
d
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
De
c
-
0
9
B
r
o
c
h
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
e
r
;
i
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
f
f
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
s
se
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
p
l
a
n
ch
e
c
k
s
.
A
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
1
2
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
1
4
(
2
fo
r
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
c
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
y
e
a
r
)
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
th
e
l
e
g
a
l
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
.
Po
l
i
c
y
1
-
9
:
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
i
n
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
x
i
m
i
z
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
i
n
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
s
i
t
e
s
,
wi
t
h
o
u
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
n
g
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
or
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
S
o
u
t
h
EC
R
P
l
a
n
,
E
C
R
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
P
l
a
n
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
Re
a
l
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
r
e
a
P
l
a
n
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
1
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
i
n
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
s
w
e
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
,
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
o
f
2
0
1
5
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2
-
1
:
O
n
e
S
t
o
p
P
e
r
m
i
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
E
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d
P
e
r
m
i
t
Re
v
i
e
w
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
O
n
e
S
t
o
p
P
e
r
m
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
;
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
O
n
e
S
t
o
p
P
e
r
m
i
t
c
e
n
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
b
y
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
i
n
o
n
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
O
n
e
S
t
o
p
P
e
r
m
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
h
o
u
r
s
a
r
e
f
r
o
m
7
a
m
-
5
p
m
.
P
e
r
m
i
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
i
s
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
a
n
d
t
i
m
e
l
y
,
w
i
t
h
ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
s
t
a
f
f
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
m
e
e
t
s
t
w
i
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
a
n
d
t
h
e
De
s
i
g
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
m
e
e
t
s
o
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
l
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
o
f
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2
-
2
:
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
E
n
s
u
r
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
w
a
t
e
r
,
s
e
w
a
g
e
,
an
d
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
On
g
o
i
n
g
F
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
s
"
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
"
t
o
h
e
l
p
su
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
S
F
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
C
I
P
b
u
d
g
e
t
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
F
4
9
,
w
i
t
h
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
ar
e
a
s
a
n
d
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
d
d
e
d
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
s
l
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
o
f
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
d
d
e
d
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2
-
3
:
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
ot
h
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
t
o
s
e
e
k
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
to
a
r
e
a
-
w
i
d
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
i
n
i
t
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
B
o
n
d
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
Cr
e
d
i
t
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
;
g
o
a
l
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
20
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
w
i
t
h
ho
m
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
2
1
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
A
C
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
al
s
o
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
H
E
A
R
T
(
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
n
d
o
w
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
u
s
t
)
o
f
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
Co
u
n
t
y
.
T
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
h
a
b
B
o
n
d
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
C
r
e
d
i
t
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
we
r
e
n
o
t
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
2
0
0
7
)
ha
d
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
p
r
i
c
e
s
s
o
l
o
w
t
h
a
t
i
t
w
a
s
t
o
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
s
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2
-
4
:
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
Zo
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
.
20
0
9
/
2
0
1
0
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
b
y
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
2
4
7
1
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
Av
e
n
u
e
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2
-
5
:
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
&
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
C
E
Q
A
wh
i
l
e
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
i
o
u
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
i
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
th
r
o
u
g
h
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
an
d
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
C
E
Q
A
w
h
i
l
e
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
s
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
u
t
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
i
o
u
s
l
y
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
m
e
e
t
s
o
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
ne
w
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
a
r
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
,
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
i
m
e
l
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2
-
6
:
K
e
e
p
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
&
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
p
p
r
i
s
e
d
o
f
k
e
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ed
u
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
b
o
u
t
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
u
n
i
t
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
u
n
i
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Le
a
r
n
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
,
o
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
s
,
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
.
S
t
a
f
f
a
l
s
o
re
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
s
e
n
d
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
l
o
c
a
l
n
o
n
-
p
r
o
f
i
t
s
t
h
a
t
s
e
r
v
e
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
in
S
S
F
.
T
h
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
h
e
pu
b
l
i
c
w
i
t
h
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
p
a
c
k
e
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
h
o
w
t
o
f
i
n
d
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
,
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
o
f
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
o
p
e
n
w
a
i
t
l
i
s
t
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
1
:
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
o
l
d
e
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
ol
d
e
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
s
t
h
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
G
r
a
n
t
s
(
C
D
B
G
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
w
h
i
c
h
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
fu
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
R
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
(
R
T
P
)
.
R
T
P
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
s
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
f
u
n
d
s
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
l
a
b
o
r
t
o
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
o
l
d
e
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
r
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
h
e
a
t
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
of
l
e
a
k
y
r
o
o
f
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
2
:
U
t
i
l
i
z
e
C
D
B
G
f
u
n
d
s
t
o
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
t
i
l
i
z
e
S
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
f
u
l
l
e
s
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
t
o
re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
u
n
d
s
t
o
as
s
i
s
t
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
-
a
n
d
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
an
d
r
e
n
t
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
t
o
d
o
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
m
a
s
v
i
a
b
l
e
u
n
i
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
C
D
B
G
f
u
n
d
s
w
e
r
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
F
Y
13
-
1
4
:
Ci
t
y
-
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
S
u
n
d
i
a
l
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
1
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
s
t
u
d
i
o
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
-
I
s
s
u
e
d
3
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
h
o
m
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
v
o
u
c
h
e
r
s
-
I
s
s
u
e
d
4
d
e
b
r
i
s
b
o
x
v
o
u
c
h
e
r
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
C
I
D
)
-
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
4
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
Re
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
(
R
T
P
)
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
a
y
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
3
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
-
S
a
f
e
a
t
H
o
m
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
1
5
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
3
:
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
u
s
e
o
f
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
,
S
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
f
u
n
d
s
t
o
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
a
n
d
re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
o
l
d
e
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Ta
r
g
e
t
f
u
n
d
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
l
d
e
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
a
n
d
f
o
r
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
ea
r
n
i
n
g
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
8
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
m
e
d
i
a
n
in
c
o
m
e
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
C
D
B
G
f
u
n
d
s
w
e
r
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
F
Y
13
-
1
4
:
Ci
t
y
-
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
S
u
n
d
i
a
l
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
1
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
s
t
u
d
i
o
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
-
I
s
s
u
e
d
3
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
h
o
m
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
v
o
u
c
h
e
r
s
-
I
s
s
u
e
d
4
d
e
b
r
i
s
b
o
x
v
o
u
c
h
e
r
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
C
I
D
)
-
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
4
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
Re
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
(
R
T
P
)
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
a
y
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
3
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
-
S
a
f
e
a
t
H
o
m
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
1
5
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
4
:
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
En
f
o
r
c
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
co
d
e
s
.
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
b
l
i
g
h
t
/
i
n
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
u
s
e
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
d
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
s
a
C
o
d
e
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
F
i
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
Fo
r
2
0
1
4
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
u
p
t
o
6
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
o
n
s
t
a
f
f
t
h
a
t
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
c
o
d
e
s
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
a
f
f
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
s
t
h
e
s
e
co
d
e
s
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
o
u
t
o
n
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
n
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
u
s
e
s
a
r
e
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
zo
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
0
.
3
2
0
.
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
5
:
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
l
d
e
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
by
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
i
n
go
o
d
r
e
p
a
i
r
Wh
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
C
r
e
a
t
e
a
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
t
o
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
o
l
d
e
r
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
S
F
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
C
I
P
b
u
d
g
e
t
o
f
$
3
7
.
3
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
f
o
r
f
i
s
c
a
l
y
e
a
r
20
1
3
-
2
0
1
4
a
n
d
$
5
0
.
9
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
f
o
r
f
i
s
c
a
l
y
e
a
r
s
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
1
5
,
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
se
t
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
n
d
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
o
l
d
e
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
o
f
S
S
F
.
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
6
:
E
n
s
u
r
e
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
qu
a
l
i
t
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
h
a
r
m
o
n
i
z
e
w
i
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
Ma
k
e
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
l
d
e
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
a
n
d
bl
e
n
d
s
i
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
2
4
7
1
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
t
h
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
u
i
d
e
fo
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
h
o
m
e
s
i
n
S
S
F
.
S
t
a
f
f
w
o
r
k
s
w
i
t
h
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
b
l
e
n
d
i
n
w
i
t
h
th
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
s
t
a
f
f
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
l
i
s
t
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
n
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
7
:
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
a
n
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
l
o
w
-
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
l
o
a
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
fa
m
i
l
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
b
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
CD
B
G
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
;
w
i
t
h
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
T
a
r
g
e
t
A
r
e
a
s
.
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
S
S
F
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
r
e
n
t
a
l
o
f
8
0
u
n
i
t
s
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
On
g
o
i
n
g
I
n
F
Y
1
3
-
1
4
,
t
h
e
C
D
B
G
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
L
o
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
s
u
e
d
o
n
e
(
1
)
mu
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
a
n
t
o
M
i
d
P
e
n
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
t
o
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
t
h
e
S
u
n
d
i
a
l
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
1
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
s
t
u
d
i
o
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
)
un
i
t
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
8
:
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
/
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
s
an
d
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
o
o
m
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
(
S
R
O
)
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
s
an
d
S
R
O
s
i
n
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
a
r
e
a
.
20
0
7
-
2
0
1
4
T
h
e
r
e
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
n
o
l
o
a
n
s
/
g
r
a
n
t
s
i
s
s
u
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
4
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
s
o
r
S
R
O
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
9
:
L
i
m
i
t
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
co
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
En
f
o
r
c
e
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
n
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
un
i
t
s
t
o
c
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
;
o
n
l
y
a
l
l
o
w
co
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
i
f
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
of
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
1
9
.
8
0
a
r
e
m
e
t
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
S
S
F
M
C
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
9
.
8
0
s
e
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
c
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
,
al
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
m
e
t
f
o
r
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
20
.
3
9
0
.
0
0
4
h
a
s
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
c
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
w
h
i
c
h
,
i
n
re
t
u
r
n
f
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
B
o
n
u
s
,
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
3
3
%
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
be
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
l
o
w
o
r
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
,
o
r
1
5
%
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
ar
e
s
e
t
a
s
i
d
e
f
o
r
l
o
w
e
r
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
3
-
1
0
:
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
f
r
o
m
r
i
s
k
of
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
t
o
m
a
r
k
e
t
r
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
u
s
e
i
t
s
b
e
s
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
t
o
t
r
y
t
o
en
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
ar
e
n
o
t
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
t
o
m
a
r
k
e
t
r
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
R
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
,
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
t
w
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
S
S
F
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
a
t
r
i
s
k
o
f
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
t
o
ma
r
k
e
t
r
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
H
U
D
e
x
p
i
r
i
n
g
.
G
i
v
e
n
t
h
e
di
s
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
s
u
c
h
a
t
ri
s
k
u
n
i
t
s
i
s
h
a
m
p
e
r
e
d
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
d
b
y
R
o
t
a
r
y
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
(
R
o
t
a
r
y
C
l
u
b
)
,
a
n
o
n
p
r
o
f
i
t
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
a
w
a
r
d
e
d
l
o
w
-
in
c
o
m
e
t
a
x
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
a
s
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
.
T
h
e
ot
h
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
F
a
i
r
w
a
y
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
h
a
s
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
y
r
e
n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
d
a
n
e
w
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
H
U
D
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4
-
1
:
P
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
n
e
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
h
e
r
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
Un
l
e
s
s
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
,
ne
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
i
n
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
ha
z
a
r
d
s
On
g
o
i
n
g
S
S
F
z
o
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
0
.
1
6
0
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
H
i
l
l
s
i
d
e
(
H
S
)
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
f
o
r
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
l
o
p
e
o
f
1
5
%
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
n
d
s
e
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
s
a
f
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
0
.
1
7
0
h
a
s
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
(
E
S
)
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
h
a
t
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
s
a
s
e
c
o
l
o
g
y
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
h
a
b
i
t
s
o
r
s
u
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
l
e
to
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4
-
2
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
n
e
w
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
t
o
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
u
r
g
l
a
r
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
cr
i
m
e
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
1
5
.
4
8
,
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
A
l
l
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
r
o
u
t
e
d
t
o
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
an
d
F
i
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
S
S
F
M
C
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
5
.
4
8
i
s
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
an
d
t
h
a
t
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
at
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
a
i
d
t
o
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
t
o
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
s
i
g
h
t
a
r
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4
-
3
:
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
a
b
a
t
e
u
n
s
a
f
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
an
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
E
Q
A
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
s
t
a
f
f
l
o
o
k
s
a
t
a
l
l
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
o
d
e
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
b
o
t
h
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
u
n
s
a
f
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4
-
4
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
al
l
o
w
e
d
i
n
7
0
d
B
+
C
N
E
L
a
r
e
a
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
b
y
S
F
O
Ne
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
6
5
t
o
69
C
N
E
L
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
t
o
u
r
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
y
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
n
o
i
s
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
o
f
n
o
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
4
5
d
B
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
A
l
l
n
e
w
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
u
s
t
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
no
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
4
5
d
b
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
n
e
w
h
o
m
e
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
6
5
t
o
6
9
CN
E
L
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
n
o
i
s
e
c
o
n
t
o
u
r
a
r
e
a
,
d
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
y
s
.
Th
e
r
e
a
r
e
a
d
d
e
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
p
l
a
c
e
d
o
n
n
e
w
h
o
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
d
i
s
c
l
o
s
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
6
5
t
o
6
9
C
N
E
L
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
t
o
u
r
.
T
h
e
n
o
i
s
e
c
o
n
t
o
u
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
S
F
O
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
(
C
A
L
U
P
)
w
e
r
e
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
a
n
d
n
o
w
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
o
m
e
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
f
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
no
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
f
7
0
d
B
.
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
-
20
2
3
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
1
:
C
i
t
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
s
h
a
l
l
g
i
v
e
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
to
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
g
r
o
u
p
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
th
e
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
,
l
a
r
g
e
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
,
t
h
e
e
l
d
e
r
l
y
,
an
d
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
6
3
6
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
h
a
s
2
0
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
t
a
s
i
d
e
f
o
r
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
Co
u
n
t
y
M
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
c
a
s
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
o
s
e
c
l
i
e
n
t
s
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
6
3
6
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
h
a
s
4
0
t
h
r
e
e
-
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
un
i
t
s
f
o
r
l
a
r
g
e
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
2
:
E
l
d
e
r
l
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
l
d
e
r
l
y
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
o
f
R
o
t
a
r
y
P
l
a
z
a
(
a
n
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
n
i
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
w
i
t
h
1
8
1
u
n
i
t
s
)
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
s
t
o
a
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
o
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
T
h
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
St
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
l
l
o
w
s
u
p
1
2
0
u
n
i
t
s
/
a
c
r
e
f
o
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
in
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
z
o
n
i
n
g
s
u
b
-
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
90
u
n
i
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
O
v
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
B
o
a
r
d
(p
o
s
t
R
D
A
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
)
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
t
o
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
s
e
n
i
o
r
s
.
A
fo
r
m
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
S
u
m
m
e
r
o
f
2
0
1
5
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
3
:
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
n
o
n
-
p
r
o
f
i
t
g
r
o
u
p
s
to
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
l
d
e
r
l
y
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
,
i
d
e
a
l
l
y
i
n
h
i
g
h
e
r
de
n
s
i
t
y
a
r
e
a
s
n
e
a
r
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
g
r
a
n
t
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
bo
n
u
s
e
s
f
o
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
;
g
o
a
l
o
f
1
0
se
n
i
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
1
4
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
fo
r
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
s
e
n
i
o
r
h
o
m
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
F
Y
1
3
-
1
4
-
2
4
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
e
n
i
o
r
a
s
t
h
e
h
e
a
d
o
f
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
w
e
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
by
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
C
I
D
'
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
o
r
R
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
4
:
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
a
r
a
n
g
e
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
ty
p
e
s
f
o
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
o
a
r
d
a
n
d
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Su
p
p
o
r
t
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
se
n
i
o
r
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
o
a
r
d
a
n
d
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
;
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
o
a
r
d
a
n
d
ca
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
S
S
F
z
o
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
a
l
l
o
w
s
f
o
r
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
n
e
a
r
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
t
h
e
S
S
F
zo
n
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
s
m
a
l
l
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
b
y
r
i
g
h
t
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
z
o
n
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
5
:
A
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
S
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
,
h
a
n
d
i
c
a
p
p
e
d
ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
u
n
i
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
a
l
l
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
;
5
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
u
n
i
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
5
%
o
f
a
l
l
u
n
i
t
s
fu
l
l
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
.
En
s
u
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
w
i
t
h
S
t
a
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
y
La
w
s
.
R
e
v
i
s
e
t
h
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
t
o
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
20
0
9
&
On
g
o
i
n
g
Du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
a
l
l
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
t
h
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
a
f
f
p
l
a
n
c
h
e
c
k
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
S
t
a
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
y
L
a
w
s
a
r
e
m
e
t
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
1
3
4
B
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
6
:
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
o
m
o
d
i
f
y
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
se
r
v
e
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
to
m
a
k
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
di
s
a
b
l
e
d
;
g
o
a
l
o
f
1
2
5
u
n
i
t
s
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
7
-
20
1
4
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
n
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
o
f
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
o
f
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
w
i
t
h
D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
C
I
D
)
w
h
o
h
a
s
a
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
y
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(H
A
M
)
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
h
a
t
n
e
e
d
t
o
m
a
d
e
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
h
o
m
e
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
7
:
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
l
i
m
i
t
th
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
c
o
n
d
o
s
Am
e
n
d
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
r
u
l
e
s
,
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
t
o
en
s
u
r
e
e
q
u
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
sh
a
l
l
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
r
o
c
h
u
r
e
on
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
i
n
2
0
1
0
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
S
F
M
C
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
20
.
5
1
0
,
W
a
i
v
e
r
s
a
n
d
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
e
q
u
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
b
y
a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
h
i
e
f
Pl
a
n
n
e
r
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
g
r
a
n
t
r
e
l
i
e
f
f
r
o
m
z
o
n
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
di
s
a
b
l
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
8
:
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
i
s
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
l
a
r
g
e
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
la
r
g
e
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
6
3
6
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
4
0
t
h
r
e
e
be
d
r
o
o
m
s
u
n
i
t
s
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
l
a
r
g
e
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
t
p
r
e
-
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
s
t
a
f
f
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
a
r
a
n
g
e
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
i
z
e
s
w
i
t
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
s
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
o
f
a
f
o
r
m
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
9
:
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
t
h
o
s
e
at
r
i
s
k
o
f
b
e
c
o
m
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
.
At
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
th
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
sh
e
l
t
e
r
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
r
u
n
h
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
o
n
No
r
t
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
.
T
h
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
fu
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
.
A
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
u
p
d
a
t
e
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
f
o
r
n
e
w
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
z
o
n
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5
-
1
0
:
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
Ma
t
e
o
'
s
"
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m
o
f
C
a
r
e
"
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
i
n
th
e
"
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m
o
f
C
a
r
e
"
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
to
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
,
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
,
a
n
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
a
t
t
e
n
d
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m
o
f
C
a
r
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s
t
o
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
f
o
r
so
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
a
s
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s
f
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
6
-
1
:
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
u
n
l
a
w
f
u
l
d
i
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
w
o
r
k
t
o
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
a
l
l
un
l
a
w
f
u
l
d
i
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
a
c
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
ba
s
i
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
t
o
a
g
e
,
r
a
c
e
,
s
e
x
,
s
e
x
u
a
l
or
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
m
a
r
i
t
a
l
o
r
f
a
m
i
l
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
,
et
h
n
i
c
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
,
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
o
r
ot
h
e
r
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
n
t
t
o
a
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
u
s
i
n
g
i
t
s
HO
M
E
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
f
u
n
d
s
.
F
o
r
F
Y
1
3
-
1
4
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
u
n
d
s
t
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Se
n
t
i
n
e
l
(
a
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
a
n
d
t
e
n
a
n
t
/
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
Po
l
i
c
y
6
-
2
:
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
re
f
e
r
r
a
l
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
,
t
e
n
a
n
t
-
la
n
d
l
o
r
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
,
h
a
b
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
l
e
g
a
l
c
o
u
n
s
e
l
a
n
d
ad
v
o
c
a
c
y
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
u
n
s
e
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
te
n
a
n
t
-
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
t
o
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
of
I
m
p
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
F
a
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
D
a
l
y
C
i
t
y
,
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
t
h
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
I
m
p
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
(
A
I
)
f
o
r
F
a
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Ch
o
i
c
e
.
T
h
i
s
w
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
a
n
d
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
S
S
F
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
on
M
a
y
1
,
2
0
1
3
b
y
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
#
3
6
-
2
0
1
3
.
A
l
s
o
a
s
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
f
u
n
d
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
e
n
t
i
n
e
l
,
a
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
.
Po
l
i
c
y
7
-
1
:
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
i
n
n
e
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
w
i
t
h
e
n
e
r
g
y
a
n
d
wa
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
Gr
e
e
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
s
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
ne
w
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
On
g
o
i
n
g
&
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
0
9
fo
r
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
a
f
f
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
s
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
G
r
e
e
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
d
e
f
o
r
a
l
l
n
e
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
l
i
k
e
R
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
,
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
/
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
e
n
e
r
g
y
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
m
o
d
e
l
s
.
re
m
o
d
e
l
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
g
r
e
e
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
7
-
2
:
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
b
e
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
so
l
a
r
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
i
n
d
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
d
o
w
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
en
e
r
g
y
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
;
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
p
a
s
s
i
v
e
a
n
d
ac
t
i
v
e
s
o
l
a
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
i
n
n
e
w
a
n
d
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
S
t
a
t
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
en
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
ar
e
m
e
t
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
s
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
s
o
l
a
r
p
a
n
e
l
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
f
e
e
s
a
n
d
st
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
C
A
P
)
i
n
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
,
t
h
a
t
s
e
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
3
-
5
i
n
t
h
e
C
A
P
pr
o
m
o
t
e
s
e
n
e
r
g
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
b
o
u
t
en
e
r
g
y
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
7
-
3
:
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
we
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
,
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
a
m
o
n
g
l
o
w
-
in
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
C
D
B
G
s
u
b
r
e
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
gr
a
n
t
s
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
n
e
r
g
y
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
7
-
4
:
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
e
n
e
r
g
y
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
a
n
d
co
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
o
n
a
l
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
;
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
h
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
T
i
t
l
e
2
4
)
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
T
i
t
l
e
2
4
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
l
o
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
a
n
d
co
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
i
t
i
n
g
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
o
l
a
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
h
e
C
A
P
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
i
g
h
e
r
-
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
n
e
a
r
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
fa
c
u
l
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
o
n
a
u
t
o
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
m
a
r
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
T
i
t
l
e
2
4
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
To
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
R
H
N
A
u
n
i
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
a
l
f
o
r
C
y
c
l
e
4
(
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
1
4
)
,
Y
e
a
r
1
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
t
o
t
a
l
s
(
m
i
n
u
s
a
n
y
o
n
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
i
n
su
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
y
e
a
r
s
)
.
T
h
i
s
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
f
o
r
y
e
a
r
s
w
h
e
n
o
n
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
w
a
s
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
r
n
o
t
u
s
e
d
b
y
S
S
F
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
.
To
t
a
l
R
H
N
A
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
S
S
F
=
2
5
1
U
n
i
t
s
-
AN
N
U
A
L
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
(C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
5
§
6
2
0
2
)
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
:
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
01
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
ATTACHMENT 3
HCD APPROVED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
12
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
2
addition, Government Code Section 65585(c) requires HCD to consider written comments from
any group, individual, or public agency regarding the Housing Element under review.
STATUS
This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco General
Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in
2010, and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on October 13, 1999.
This updated Housing Element corresponds to the planning period of January 31, 2015 to January
31, 2023 and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projection period of January 1,
2014 to October 31, 2022, which are the periods established by State law for San Francisco Bay
Area jurisdictions.
1.2 Relationship with General Plan
State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements “comprise an integrated,
internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” This implies that all elements have
equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element
must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and it must
be closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element
must also be consistent with area Specific Plans including those currently being developed in
South San Francisco. As part of the implementation process for this Housing Element, the City of
South San Francisco will initiate and complete amendments to the City’s General Plan as
necessary to achieve internal consistency.
1.3 Related Planning Efforts
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
The City is currently in the process of creatinghas recently adopted (JanuaryFebruary 2015) the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), which is a twenty-year plan that will guide
development in the half-mile radius of the City’s Downtown Caltrain Station. The Plan DSASP
aims to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtown core. It will includes strategies to
enhance connectivity and improve accessibility to the Downtown and the Caltrain station area for
all community members and various modes of transportation, including pedestrians and bicycles.
The Plan DSASP will identifiesy opportunities for development near the transit station, and it will
includes design guidelines and standards for all types of development in the planning area. The
City anticipates that the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan will be adopted in February 2015.
13
Introduction
3
1.4 Public Participation
This Draft Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members of
the South San Francisco community, as well as housing advocates, developers, and other
interested parties. The City hosted a Stakeholders Workshop on February 11, 2014. This
workshop was geared toprimarily intended for housing service providers, housing developers
(market rate and affordable), stakeholders, and representative organizations to take part in an
open discussion about the City’s long-term housing goals, needs, and polices. Attendees included
representatives from the Sierra Club, Rotary Club, San Mateo County Union Community
Alliance, Office of Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, the Housing Leadership Council, and
neighborhood organizations. In conducting outreach for the workshop, care was taken to recruit
potential participants who would reflect the City’s full ethnic and economic diversity. The public
outreach efforts for the Stakeholder Meeting included:
Newspaper advertisement printed 10-days prior to the meeting;
Direct mail flyer to 21 Elements Stakeholder list-65 recipients;
Direct mail flyer to HOAs, Chamber, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural
organizations, and community members-65 recipients;
Public television notice;
Facebook posting (on Library page);
Flyers posted at 10 kiosks along Centennial Trail;
Flyers posted at both libraries, City Hall, Annex;
E-blast with Parks & Recreation (approximately 8,000 subscribers);
21 Elements website posting;
Nextdoor webpage posting; and
City website posting.
In addition, the City of South San Francisco participated in the 21 Elements project, a
collaborative effort of the 21 jurisdictions within San Mateo County to share resources, ideas,
data, policy direction, and outreach for the fifth Housing Element cycle. At the request of local
jurisdictions, 21 Elements organized four panels of experts to provide information and policy
suggestions on affordable housing and special needs populations. As shown in the table below, the
four panels focused on the needs and perspectives of people with developmental disabilities;
developers (for-profit and non-profit, as well as architects); advocates and funders; and special
needs and sustainability.
14
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
4
Table 1.4-1: 21 Elements Meetings -Panelsof Experts
Activity/Meeting Description Date
21 Elements Meeting Stakeholder Meeting - Golden Gate Regional
Center's info on needs and services for
people with developmental disabilities
June 13, 2013
21 Elements Meeting Developer Panel -- addressed concerns in
housing development, such as community
politics, growing senior population, and need
for more workforce housing
December 5, 2013
21 Elements Meeting Advocates and Funders Panel -- answering
questions about greatest housing needs in the
County
February 6, 2014
21 Elements Meeting Stakeholder Meeting - Special Housing Needs
Advocates
April 10, 2014
These panels were well-attended by housing advocates, city representatives, and other
stakeholders from throughout San Mateo County, and provided valuable insight for South San
Francisco into the most pressing needs and constraints that developers and other service
providers face in the area. Several themes emerged from all the panels. Many speakers talked
about the importance of multi-family housing in mixed use, transit-oriented neighborhoods. This
type of development is necessary because it accommodates seniors and people with disabilities
who cannot depend on cars for transportation. The reduced dependence on cars and increased
density also helps meet sustainability goals. Additionally, many jurisdictions in San Mateo County
have little or no vacant land and therefore cannot meet their RHNA requirements without
rezoning. Panelists also discussed the importance of adding predictability to the development
process and the necessity of removing excessive regulations to encourage development.
Finally, the South San Francisco Planning Commission discussed housing needs, constraints, and
proposed policies at a study session held on November 6, 2014. The City Council held a similar
study session to discuss housing needs, constraints, and proposed policies at a meeting on
December 10, 2014. Their comments have collectively been incorporated into the draft Housing
Element.
As a result of the public outreach process, the City heard from a number of individuals and
organizations on the draft Housing Element, including the Housing Leadership Council. In
response to the public comments received, a number of issues were carefully considered by the
City and incorporated into the Housing Element Update. Changes to the Housing Element as a
result of public comments include the addition of 11 programs to the Housing Plan, such as
Policy 3-4 and Program 3-4B to address displacement, as well as additional programs to preserve
and maintain affordable and market-rate units in the city.
Formatted: H
15
Review of Housing Element Past Performance
7
In 2010, the City adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update. It incorporated a variety
of tools and measures to encourage a variety of residential unit sizes, a mix of housing types,
mixed-use development, and more intense mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real
Corridor and in the Downtown. The updated Zoning Ordinance expanded permissions for
residential and mixed-use development, and it included Design Guidelines and an EIR for a
General Plan Amendment for the South El Camino Real corridor. The City also supported the
development of secondary dwelling units through provisions in its Zoning Ordinance and with
brochures at the Permit Center Counter.
Detailed land use and design guidelines were created in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan,
which was adopted in 2011 and included regulations for some of the Redevelopment Agency’s
Successor Agency properties. In addition, the City received a grant in 2012 and began work on the
Downtown Station Area Plan. This plan is exploring increased residential and mixed use densities
near the Caltrain Station and is targeted for adoption in February 2015. was adopted in early
2015.
A number of new residential development projects were completed under the previous Housing
Element between 2007 and 2014. Park Station, a residential project near the City’s BART station
completed in 2007, added to the City’s housing stock and included seven new low income units
and eight new moderate income units. A total of seven secondary units were constructed between
2007 and 2012. The recently completed the 636 El Camino Real affordable housing development
project provided 108 affordable units, including 40 three-bedroom units to accommodate large
families.
The following section evaluates the City’s progress in accommodating its “fair share” of the region
wide need for additional housing, also referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), including an examination of new construction activity. As shown in Table 2.1-1, the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined a need for 1,635 additional housing
units in South San Francisco during the prior Housing Element cycle from 2007 to 2014,
including a need for 956 units for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households.
Table 2.1-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2007 –2014
Income Category RHNA 2007-2014 Percent of Total
Extremely Low (0-30% AMI) 187 11%
Very Low (31-50% AMI) 186 11%
Low (51-80% AMI) 268 16%
Moderate (81-120% AMI) 315 19%
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI) 679 42%
Total Units 1,635 100%
Source: ABAG, 2014; Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
The “Great Recession” of 2008 greatly affected the housing market in South San Francisco during
the RHNA period of 2007 to 2014. As shown in Table 2.1-2, within the last planning period, the
16
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - February 2015
26
its tenants by a similar amount. Hence, as shown in Table 3.4-8, based on a 30-year mortgage
term at 7.5 percent interest rate, it would take an initial investment of approximately $5.3 million
to reduce the monthly debt service by $37,300 per month.
This analysis likely understates the true cost of preserving or replacing the units, as it would be
quite difficult to assemble an appropriate combination of subsidies to acquire the property or
develop a similar project with the same mix of unit sizes and affordability levels.
Table 3.4-8: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis
# Units FMR1 Market Rent2 Per Unit Gap3 Total Gap4
74 $1,956 $2,460 $504 $37,296
Annual Preservation Cost5 $447,552
Total Replacement Cost6 $5,285,762
Notes:
1. 2014 Fair Market Rent for 2-bedroom apartment in San Mateo County established by HUD.
2. Prevailing market rent for 2-bedroom apartment in South San Francisco per RealFacts.
3. Difference between FMR and market rent per unit.
4. Total difference between FMR and market rent if all units were rented at market rents.
5. Annual rent subsidy needed to preserve current affordability levels in current 2009 dollars, equals
total monthly gap multiplied by 12.
6. Net present value of the annual rent subsidy based on a 30-year mortgage at an interest rate of 7.5
percent.
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014; RealFacts, 2014;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
Financial Resources Available to the City to Assist in Preservation
Clearly, the costs are substantial to preserve or replace housing units that currently rent below
market rates, yet the City has access to a range of different funds that could potentially assist in a
preservation effort, including the following:
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
State Grant Programs, such as the Affordable Housing Innovation Program and the
Transit Oriented Development Housing Program
Federal Grant Programs (Section 202 funds only- Supportive Housing for the Elderly)
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
HUD Section 8 “Mark to Market” Program
Where affordable units such as the Fairway Apartments are at risk of conversion to market rate, it
is the City’s policy to work to preserve them, if possible. However, with the dissolution of the
City’s Redevelopment Agency, the City is no longer able to acquire such at-risk units. Some
properties are less at risk of conversion than others in the City; for example, the owner of the
17
Housing Needs Assessment
27
Rotary Plaza property has a motivation to keep the units affordable. Therefore, the City has
focused its efforts on working with county and federal agencies to secure housing vouchers for
tenants in properties at higher risk of conversion , such as Fairway Apartments, to subsidize
keeping them in place or to assist with relocation.
To monitor the status of affordable housing properties and advocate for tenants, South San
Francisco Economic Development and Housing staff has met with Congresswoman Jackie Speier;
Ophelia Basgal, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Regional
Administrator; and William Lowell, the Executive Director of the San Mateo County Housing
Authority. Key potential partners in this effort include HUD as well as a range of affordable
housing developers and property managers who have expressed an interest in working with local
communities on preservation of affordable housing projects, including such well-known
affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., EAH, Inc., BRIDGE Housing Corporation,
the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and Eden Housing. Numerous other organizations
working to preserve affordable housing units are listed in a database maintained by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development.
3.5 Market Conditions
This section of the Needs Assessment provides information on market conditions for housing in
South San Francisco and San Mateo County. This information is important because it reveals the
extent to which the private housing market is providing for the needs of various economic
segments of the local population. The information on housing market condition is combined with
local demographic and employment information to identify those segments of the population that
face difficulties in securing housing in South San Francisco at costs that do not place them under
excessive housing cost burden.
RENTAL MARKET OVERVIEW
A review of rental market trends in South San Francisco was conducted for this Housing Element
by reviewing data from RealFacts, a commercial database service that tracks rental apartment
occupancy statistics and rents within South San Francisco and other California cities. Data from
RealFacts focuses on large, professionally-managed apartment complexes with 50 units or more,
which accounts for approximately 11 percent of the total rental market in South San Francisco.
There are approximately 7,500 renter-occupied housing units in the City. As shown in Table 3.5-
1, RealFacts reports rents for studio units in South San Francisco averaging $1,279 per month;
one-bedroom, one-bath units averaging $2,293 per month; two-bedroom, two-bath units
averaging $3,076 per month; and three-bedroom townhouses averaging $2,695 per month. Asking
rents fluctuate frequently; therefore, the data presented here represent one point in time that may
or may not be indicative of long-term trends. Typically, three-bedroom units rent at higher rates
than two-bedroom units; however, the fact that two-bedroom units are renting at higher prices
than three-bedroom units in South San Francisco at the point in time at which the data were
18
49
4 Housing Constraints
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must
analyze “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.” Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take
action to mitigate or remove them.
In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the
production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. These include infrastructure
availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion
regarding affordable housing development.
4.1 Government Constraints
Government regulations affect housing costs, standards and allowable densities for development,
and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. With respect to the housing
market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to consumers
in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land
use policies (as defined in a community’s general plan), zoning regulations and their
accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, urban limit lines, and
development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may
be regulatory constraints.
GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1999 and has been
amended since to incorporate the 2001 BART Transit Village Plan, the 2007-2014 Housing
Element Update, the 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, and the 2011 El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which allowed residential land use through mixed-use
development. In early 2015, the General Plan was amended to incorporate the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (DSASP).
As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses
and densities at various locations in the City. Listed below are the primary residential land use
designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential development.
19
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - February 2015
50
Under existing designations, the City permits the construction of a range of housing types,
including opportunities for higher density housing up to 60 100 dwelling units per acre.
Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 20145
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Residential Low Density 8 du/acre
Residential Medium Density 18 du/acre
Residential High Density 30 du/acre
Downtown Residential Low Density 15 du/acre
Downtown Residential Medium Density 25 du/acre
Downtown Residential High Density 40 du/acre
Downtown Commercial No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors
Transit Village Residential Medium Density 30 du/acre
Transit Village Residential High Density 50 du/acre
Transit Village Commercial 30 du/acre
Transit Village Retail 50 du/acre
El Camino Real Mixed Use 60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with density bonus and incentives)
Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre
(up to 120 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Grand Avenue Core 60 du/acre
(up to 100 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Downtown Residential Core 80 du/acre
(up to 125 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Neighborhood Center 60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Commercial Center 40 du/acre
Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing
opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below.
In order to balance community interests and assure continued support for medium- and high-
density housing in South San Francisco, the City established Policy 2-G-1, which calls for the
preservation of “the scale and character of established neighborhoods” and the protection of
“residents from changes in non-residential areas.” Consistent with this policy, the General Plan
Land Use map designates medium-and high-density residential areas along major transit
corridors and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts with existing neighborhoods. The City’s
political leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent multi-family housing development
with minimal opposition from neighborhood or other interest groups.
20
Housing Constraints
51
Policy 2-G-6 calls for the maximization of “opportunities for residential development, including
through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts
with industrial operations.” Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of “mixed-use residential,
retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where
they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in
corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality.” The City has worked
to realize these policies in recent years with several key developments along El Camino Real in the
Transit Village area. The City continues to encourage development of high density housing near
transit with the recent development adoption (JanuaryFebruary 2015) of the DSASPa Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan, partially funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC). The major goals of the plan are to:
Revitalize downtown South San Francisco - encourage the retention of existing and local
business while also promoting new improvements to bring a focus back to the historic
downtown;
Promotes new residential development downtown-primarily on underutilized or vacant
parcels, while retaining the existing land use and density standards for residential
neighborhoods outside of the Downtown Core; and
Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown with
the East Employment area.
This plan is anticipated for adoption in February 2015.
The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the siting or design of housing. Those
policies that do exist include Policy 2-I-2, which establishes height limits within the downtown
and along major commercial corridors. These height limits range from 50 to 80 feet and are
consistent with residential development of 30 dwelling units per acre and higher and are not
considered an impediment to housing development. However, with the adoption of the
Downtown Station Area Specific PlanDSASP (anticipated in February 2015), the height limits in
downtown will have increased to promote higher densities. Policy 2-I-19 limits the allowable
density of housing development on steep slopes by up to 50 percent compared to existing land use
designations to prevent excessive grading. While this policy does work to limit the amount of
housing development, it applies to a relatively small area of the city (only parcels with a slope
greater than 20 percent) and provides some certainty as the minimum amount of housing
development that will be allowed on steep sites, consistent with the General Plan. Finally, Policy
2-1-18 specifically allows for senior housing development in the City to be at a density of up to 50
dwelling units per acre regardless of underlying land use designations and allows for reduced
parking standards to be applied to this type of development. With the adoption of the Downtown
Station Area Specific PlanDSASP, qualifying This policy will be revised upon adoption of the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, given that affordable senior housing will be allowed
densities limits in excess of 50 dwelling units per acre to upwards of 125 125 dwelling units per
acre.
21
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - February 2015
52
Based on a review of the General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including developers,
the General Plan is not an obstacle to housing development and is supportive of the development
of a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density
residential development. The General Plan does not constitute an obstacle to housing
development for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with
disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional
housing, and those needing factory-built housing.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The City updated the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to ensure that current standards and guidelines
support the implementation of the General Plan, including the 2010 Housing Element Update.
Shown below is a list of existing districts that allow housing development, along with existing
development standards.
The City’s main residential districts are the Single Family Districts in RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, and RL-
8; Medium Density Residential Districts in RM-10, RM-15, and RM-17.5; and Multiple Family
Residential Districts in RH-30 and RH-35. Residential development is also allowed the Transit
Village (TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH) Districts, El Camino Real Mixed Use District
(ECRMX), and Downtown Districts (DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, and DRH), as well as in the
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX) District. The district that corresponds with the adopted El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan – El Camino Real/Chestnut District – includes three
districts that allow mixed-use residential development (ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/MXH).
There are five districts that correspond to the Downtown Station Area Specific PlanDSASP area
and permit residential development (DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, and LNC). The Parks and
Recreation (PR) and Open Space (O-S) districts cover a very small portion of the city, and are
intended for the preservation of open-space and/or the rural character of certain unincorporated
areas; residential development is not allowed in these districts.
The Zoning Ordinance does not constrain or unreasonably limit the types of housing that can be
developed in South San Francisco. It supports populations with special housing needs by
permitting many supportive and transitional residential uses across many zones. These uses
include multiple-unit developments, group residences, residential care facilities, mobile homes,
elder and long-term care facilities, family day care, and shelters. These uses are supported in
Medium Density Residential Districts, Multiple Family Residential Districts, Transit Village
Districts, Downtown Districts, Dowtnwon Station Area Specific PlanDSASP Districts, the El
Camino Real/Chestnut Districts, and the El Camino Real Mixed Use District.
Table 4.1-2 shows the various residential uses permitted in the city and lists whether they are
permitted (P) or permitted subject to a conditional use permit (C) or minor use permit (MUP).
This table is followed by a narrative discussion of each residential use and its permitting
requirements.
22
54
South San Francisco Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft - January 2015
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
1
-
2
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
P=
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
s
e
;
C
=
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
s
e;
M
U
P
=
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
M
i
n
o
r
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
Us
e
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
RL
-
1.
3
RL
-
5,
6
,
an
d
8
RM
-
1
0
,
15
,
a
n
d
17
.
5
RH
-
3
0
an
d
3
5
DC
DM
X
DR
L
DR
M
DR
H
TV
-
C
TC
-
R
TV
-
RM
TV
-
R
H
EC
R
MX
CM
X
EC
R
/
C
-
MX
H
EC
R
/
C
-
MX
M
EC
R
/
C
-
RH
DTC GAC DRC LCC LNC
Si
n
g
l
e
-
U
n
i
t
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
Si
n
g
l
e
U
n
i
t
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
P
P
P
P
-
-
P
P
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
Se
c
o
n
d
Un
i
t
P
P
P
P
-
-
P
P
P
-
-
-
-
-
P
-
-
-
- - - - -
Si
n
g
l
e
U
n
i
t
Se
m
i
-
At
t
a
c
h
e
d
-
C
P
P
-
-
P
P
P
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
Si
n
g
l
e
-
Un
i
t
At
t
a
c
h
e
d
-
-
P
P
-
MU
P
1
P
P
P
-
-
P
P
P1
C
P1
P
P
- - - - -
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
-
U
n
i
t
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Du
p
l
e
x
-
-
P
P
-
MU
P
1
P
P
P
P1
P1
P
P
-
C
-
-
-
- - - - -
Mu
l
t
i
U
n
i
t
-
-
P1
P
C1
P/
M
U
P
1
P
P
P
P1
P1
P
P
P1
P1
P1
P
P
P P P P P
Se
n
i
o
r
Ci
t
i
z
e
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
C
C
MU
P
C1
P/
M
U
P
1
P
P
P
P1
P1
P
P
P1
P1
P1
P
P
P - P P P
El
d
e
r
l
y
a
n
d
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Ca
r
e
-
C
C
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C
C
P1
C
C1
C
C
- - - - -
Do
m
e
s
t
i
c
Vi
o
l
e
n
c
e
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
-
-
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
-
-
-
-
MU
P
1
MU
P
1
-
-
-
- - P1 - -
23
Housing Constraints
55
Housing Constraints
55
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
1
-
2
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
P=
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
s
e
;
C
=
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
s
e;
M
U
P
=
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
M
i
n
o
r
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
Us
e
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
RL
-
1.
3
RL
-
5,
6
,
an
d
8
RM
-
1
0
,
15
,
a
n
d
17
.
5
RH
-
3
0
an
d
3
5
DC
DM
X
DR
L
DR
M
DR
H
TV
-
C
TC
-
R
TV
-
RM
TV
-
R
H
EC
R
MX
CM
X
EC
R
/
C
-
MX
H
EC
R
/
C
-
MX
M
EC
R
/
C
-
RH
DTC GAC DRC LCC LNC
Fa
m
i
l
y
D
a
y
C
a
r
e
H
o
m
e
La
r
g
e
P
P
P
P
MU
P
1
MU
P
P
P
P
-
-
P
P
-
P
-
-
-
- - P - -
Sm
a
l
l
P
P
P
P
-
P
P
P
P
-
-
P
P
P1
P
P1
P
P
P - P P P
Gr
o
u
p
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
-
-
-
MU
P
-
MU
P
-
-
C
P1
P1
-
C
MU
P
1
MU
P
1
-
-
-
- - C - -
Mo
b
i
l
e
H
o
m
e
Pa
r
k
-
C
C
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
a
r
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
-
-
C
C
MU
P
1
C
C
C
C
P1
P1
P
P
C1
C
-
C
C
C1 - C1 - -
Li
m
i
t
e
d
P1
P1
P1
P1
-
C1
P1
P1
P1
C
-
-
C
C1
C1
P1
P
P
C1 - C1 - -
Se
n
i
o
r
-
-
C
MU
P
C1
MU
P
C
C
MU
P
-
-
C
C
P1
P1
-
C
C
MUP1- MUP1C1 C1
No
t
e
s
:
1.
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
24
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
56
Single-Unit Dwelling. A dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one household, and located on
a separate lot from any other unit (except second living units, where permitted). This
classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system
pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Zoning Ordinance
permits various types of single-unit dwellings in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15,
RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, DRL, and DRM zones.
Detached. A single-unit dwelling, on a single lot, within which all rooms are internally
accessible and that is not attached to any other dwelling unit.
Attached. A single-unit dwelling on a single lot that is attached through common vertical
walls to one or more dwellings on abutting lots. An attached single-unit dwelling is
sometimes called a “townhouse.”
Semi-Attached. A single-unit dwelling with only the garage wall abutting, or in common
with, the garage of the dwelling unit on the adjacent lot.
Multiple-Unit Residential. Two or more dwelling units on a single lot. Multi-unit development
types include townhouses, single-unit groups, garden apartments, senior citizen residential
developments, multi-story apartment buildings, and transitional residential development. The
Zoning Ordinance permits multiple-unit developments in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30,
RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX,
ECRMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Duplex. A single building on a separate lot that contains two dwelling units or two single-
unit dwellings on a single lot. This use is distinguished from a Second Dwelling Unit,
which is an Accessory residential unit as defined by State law and this ordinance.
Multi-Unit. Three or more dwelling units on a site or lot. Types of multiple family
dwellings include townhouses, garden apartments, senior housing developments, and
multi-story apartment buildings.
Senior Citizen Residential. A multi-unit development in which individual units are
occupied exclusively by one or more persons 62 years of age or older.
Caretaker Unit. A dwelling unit occupied by employees or caretakers of the primary use on the
site. Caretaker units are conditionally permitted in the employment district MI.
Domestic Violence Shelter. A facility where victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse are
provided temporary housing, food, and other specialized services in compliance with California
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18290 et seq. The Zoning Ordinance permits domestic
violence shelters in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, and
DRH, and DRC zones.
25
Housing Constraints
57
Elderly and Long-term Care. Establishment that provides 24-hour medical, convalescent or
chronic care to individuals who, by reason of advanced age, chronic illness or infirmity, are
unable to care for themselves. The facility is licensed as a skilled nursing facility, and includes but
is not limited to, rest homes and convalescent hospitals, but not Residential Care, Hospitals, or
Clinics. These facilities are permitted in the ECRMX zone and permitted conditionally in the RL-
5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-
MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Family Day Care. A day-care facility licensed by the State of California that is located in a single-
unit residence or other dwelling unit where an occupant of the residence provides care and
supervision for children under the age of 18 for periods of less than 24 hours a day. These
facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35,
DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH,
and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Small. A facility that provides care for 8 or fewer children, including children under the
age of 10 who reside at the home.
Large. A facility that provides care for 7 to 14 children, including children under the age
of 10 who reside at the home.
Group Residential. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for
each room or unit, offered for rent for permanent or semi-transient residents on a weekly or
longer basis. This classification includes rooming and boarding houses, dormitories and other
types of organizational housing, private residential clubs, and residential hotels intended for long-
term occupancy (30 days or more) but excludes Hotels and Motels, and Residential Care
Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance permits these facilities in the TV-C and TC-R zones, and
conditionally permits them in the DRH, DRC, and TV-RH zones.
Organizational Housing. A residential facility operated by a membership organization
for its members and not open to the general public that typically provides individual
sleeping quarters together with common dining and living areas. This use type includes
fraternity and sorority houses, convents, student dormitories and similar residential
accommodations.
Mobile Home Parks. A development designed and occupied by mobile homes including
development with facilities and amenities used in common by occupants who rent, lease, or own
spaces for mobile homes through a subdivision, cooperative, condominium or other form of
resident ownership. Mobile home parks are only conditionally permitted in the RL-5, RL-6, RL-8,
RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35 zones.
Residential Care Facilities. Facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide
permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for
26
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
58
persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the
activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without
separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities
that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-for- profit institutions,
including hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons
with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug additions (supportive housing).
This category excludes transitional housing and community social service facilities. The Zoning
Ordinance permits general residential care facilities in the TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH
zones and conditionally permits them in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DMX,
DRL, DRM, DRH, ECRMX, CMX, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, DTC, and DRC zones.; Llimited
residential care facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5,
RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones; they are
conditionally permitted in the DMX, DTC, DRC, TV-C, TC-RH, ECRMX, and CMX zones. Sand
senior residential care facilities are permitted in the CMX and ECRMX zones and conditionally
permitted in the RM-10, RM-15, 4M-17.5, DC, DRL, DRM, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-MXM,
ECR/C-RH, LCC and LNC zones. .
Residential Care, General. A facility that requires a State license or is licensed by the
State to provide 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for more than 6
persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining
the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or
without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification
includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-
for-profit institutions, including hospices. This category excludes transitional residential,
foster family homes and any facilities supervised by or under contract with the State
Department of Corrections.
Residential Care, Limited. A facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and
provide 24-hour non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of
personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of
daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons
employed as facility staff. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or
without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification
includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-
for-profit institutions, including hospices. Residential care facilities for 6 or fewer persons
are considered a single-unit residential use.
Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the
resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person; where residents are 60 years
of age or older and where varying levels of care and supervision are provided as agreed to
at time of admission or as determined necessary at subsequent times of reappraisal. Any
younger residents must have needs compatible with other residents, as provided in
27
South San Francisco Housing Element Update September 2014
62
South San Francisco Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft - January 2015
62
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
1
-
3
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
n
d
a
rd
s
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
2
0
1
4
He
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
B
u
l
k
Se
t
b
a
c
k
s
Lo
t
S
i
z
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Max
i
m
u
m
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
He
i
g
h
t
(
f
t
)
Max
i
m
u
m
Lo
t
C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
(%
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
A
R
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Fr
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
(f
t
)
Min
i
m
u
m
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
Si
d
e
Y
a
r
d
(f
t
)
Min
i
m
u
m
St
r
e
e
t
Si
d
e
Y
a
r
d
(f
t
)
Min
i
m
u
m
Re
a
r
Y
a
r
d
(f
t
)
Min
i
m
u
m
Lo
t
A
r
e
a
(s
q
f
t
)
Min
i
m
u
m
Lo
t
W
i
d
t
h
(f
t
)
Min
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
(U
n
i
t
s
p
e
r
Ac
r
e
)
Maximum Density (Units per Acre)Minimum Site Area per Dwelling Unit (sqft)
CM
X
50
50
(n
o
n
e
)
10
0-
1
0
10
0-
1
0
15
,
0
0
0
50
1,
4
3
2
;
2
,
0
0
0
on
l
o
t
s
30; 21.8 on lots less than 10,000 sqft1,452; 2,000 on lots less than 10,000
EC
R
/
C
-
MX
H
(v
a
r
i
e
s
)
90
(n
o
n
e
)
0-
1
5
0-
1
0
0-
1
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
50
(n
o
n
e
)
80(none)
EC
R
/
C
-
MX
M
(v
a
r
i
e
s
)
90
(n
o
n
e
)
0-
1
5
0-
1
0
0-
1
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
50
(n
o
n
e
)
40(none)
EC
R
/
C
-
RH
(v
a
r
i
e
s
)
90
(n
o
n
e
)
0-
1
0
10
10
0
20
,
0
0
0
50
80
120(none)
DT
C
85
10
0
(n
o
n
e
)
8
.
0
(v
a
r
i
e
s
)
0-
1
0
(v
a
r
i
e
s
)
0-
1
0
5,
0
0
0
50
80
100(none)
GA
C
45
-
6
5
10
0
(n
o
n
e
)
4
.
0
(n
o
n
e
)
0
(n
o
n
e
)
0
5,
0
0
0
50
14
60(none)
DR
C
65
90
(n
o
n
e
)
3
.
2
5
(v
a
r
i
e
s
)
0-
1
0
(v
a
r
i
e
s
)
20
5,
0
0
0
50
40
80(none)
LC
C
50
75
(n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
5,
0
0
0
50
20
.
1
40(none)
LN
C
50
90
(n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
5,
0
0
0
50
40
60(none)
O-
S
30
25
(n
o
n
e
)
20
10
10
0-
1
0
43
,
5
6
0
(
n
o
n
e
)
(n
o
n
e
)
1 per 20 acres(none)
No
t
e
:
1.
D
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
-
o
f
-
r
i
g
h
t
.
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
mu
m
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
o
r
b
o
n
u
s
p
r
o
g
r
am
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
2
0
1
4
.
28
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
64
Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 900 sq ft and less
than 3 bedrooms
1 space per dwelling unit, 2
spaces maximum per unit
General Requirements for all Single-
unit Residential Parking:
For new construction, required
parking up to 2 spaces must be
within a garage. For existing
development, all existing garage
spaces, up to a maximum of two
spaces, must be maintained.
A carport shall not be substituted
for a required garage except for
existing dwellings on lots adjacent to
a lane.
900 to 2,500 sq ft or 3 or 4
bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
2,501 sq ft or more or more
than 4 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
Second Unit 1 space for each.
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi-
unit Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be
designated for each unit.
One additional guest parking space
must be provided for every 4 units
for projects greater than 10 units.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1 space minimum, 1.5
spaces maximum per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100
sq ft
1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8
spaces maximum per unit
Three or more bedrooms and
1,101 sq ft or larger
1.5 spacies minimum, 2
spaces maximum per unit 2
plus an additional .5 space
for each additional sleeping
room over 3
According to the 2010 Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement may be reduced through a
Conditional Use Permit, if it meets the criteria for approval, including reduced parking demand
as evaluated by a parking demand study. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a reduced parking
requirement for any land use except residential single-unit and duplex development; if any
portion of the lot is located within a quarter mile of a BART or CalTrain station, the number of
required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the normally required number of spaces
with Conditional Use Permit approval. This reduction does not apply in the TV or Downtown
districts. Additionally, under certain conditions and with a Conditional Use Permit, the provision
of a shared parking facility can result in a reduction of up to 50 percent of the number of parking
spaces normally required.
FEES AND EXACTIONS
The City charges residential developers fees for planning and construction services performed by
the City. Developers of new residential projects also pay various impact fees to finance
improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve new housing in the city.
29
Housing Constraints
67
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
Entitlement Fees
Planned
Development
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 + actual cost +
$2,000.00 deposit
Tentative
Subdivision Map
$0.00 $1,250.00 +
$800=$2,050
$3,200.00
General Plan
Amendment
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Fish and Game $0.00 $2,101.50 $2,101.50
Design Review $300.00 $0.00 $1,000.00
Legal Notice $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
Cat Ex $20.00 $0.00 $20.00
San Mateo
County CEQA
Handling Fee
$50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Entitlement Fee
Subtotal
$670.00 $9,801.50 $10,671.50
Construction Fees
CBSC (California
Building Standards
Commission)
$17.00 $637.00 $942.00
Energy PC
Residential In
$0.00 $9,279.60 $0.00
COM – Building
Fee
$0.00 $0.00 $97,247.00
General Plan
Maintenance Fee
$605.78 $23,872.80 $35,322.00
Microfilm
Commercial or
Residential
$149.58 $2,734.68 $4,862.35
PC Commercial In $1,944.48 $35,550.78 $63,210.55
Permit Program
Maintenance Fee
$25.00 $25.00 $25.00
RES – Building
Permit Fee
$2,991.50 $54,693.50 $0.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge Non-Res
per Fx U
$3,381.72 $158,004.00 $158,004.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge
Residential per Fx
U
$264.21 $13,210.50 $25,364.16
SMIP Residential $0.00 $1,591.52 $2,354.80
30
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
68
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
State-Mandated
Training
$10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Valuation based
Electrical
$351.56 $2,640.63 $4,226.56
Valuation based
Mechanical
$250.00 $2,598.75 $437.50
Valuation Based
Plumping
$250.00 $2,598.75 $2,187.50
Waste
Management 1%
Fee – Residential
$19.44 $0.00 $0.00
Construction Fee
Subtotal
$10,260.279,996.06 $307,447294,237.5101 $394,193.4268,829.26
Impact Fees
Schools $6,312.00 $257,740.00 $381,350.00
Public Safety Fee
(Police and Fire)2
$1,285.00 $40,500.00 $54,048.00
Childcare $0.00 $98,950.00 $178,368.00
Impact Fee Subtotal $7,5976,312.00 $397,19056,640.00 $613,766559,718.00
Total $17,857.276,978.06 $704,637.51650,877.01 $1,007,959.42928,547.26
Notes:
1. In addition to the above fees, the City requires parkland dedication in accordance with Quimby Act and
requires the provision of affordable housing units on site through its inclusionary housing ordinance. Developers
have the option to pay in-lieu fees to avoid these exactions.
2. Per City Resolution 97-2012 Public Safety Fee, calculation assumes Development 1 is Low Density Residential
($1,285 per unit), Development 2 is Medium Density Residential ($810 per unit), and Development 3 is High
Density Residential ($563 per unit).
3. Does not include fees that may result because of Inclusionary Housing policy. The City is currently
considering adjusting the in-lieu fee calculation to encourage more use of the in-lieu fee; this may result in a
reduced in-lieu fee.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 20154; Dyett and Bhatia, 20154.
Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, South San Francisco’s fees were found to
be comparatively low, and they do not to pose a significant constraint to housing development in
the city.9
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Revised in 2010, Chapter 20.380 of the Zoning Ordinance details the City’s inclusionary housing
regulations. The City’s objective is to ensure that all residential development provides a range of
9 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
Formatted: S
31
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - February 2015
76
STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
The City’s standards and processes are analyzed below, within several categories identified by
HCD as potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities.
Reasonable Accommodations. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make
reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are
necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable
accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal
access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or
reductions to parking requirements.
ZONING AND LAND USE
The 2010 Zoning Ordinance included updates to Chapter 20.510 Waivers and Modifications, to
facilitate compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It provides reasonable accommodation to
persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through modification of the application of
the City’s Zoning Ordinances. Chapter 20.510 allows the Chief Planner to grant relief from the
Zoning Ordinance’s dimensional requirements when necessary to provide access to housing. It
also allows the Planning Commission to grant exceptions and waivers when necessary to
accommodate religious uses protected by the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000. Below is a discussion of existing zoning and land use policies in the City
affecting the development of housing for persons with disabilities.
Provision for Group Homes. Consistent with State law, the City allows for Limited Residential
Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning districts, as well as DRL,
DRM, and DRH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, districts, without a special use permit
and not subject to any special restrictions.1 These facilities are also conditionally permitted in the
DMX, TV-C, TC-RH, CMX, DTC, DRC, and ECRMX zones. The City also permits General
Residential Care Facilities serving six or more persons in the TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH
districts. General Residential Care Facilities are conditionally permitted in all multi-family
districts, the ECRMX district, and the DTC and DRC districts, and all Downtown districts except
the DC district. These are not subject to any minimum distance requirements in relationship to
other special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use requirements.
1 A Limited Residential Care Facility is a facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and provides 24-hour
non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or
assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or
persons employed as facility staff. See SSFMC 20.080 and 20.630.002.
32
Housing Constraints
81
submitted Negative Declarations rather than EIRs for their projects, e.g., Park Station Lofts
development. An Environmental Impact Report was recently published to analyze the proposed
development under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which contemplates a 25 percent
build out over a 20-year span.
Looking forward, certain sites in the downtown area are thought to have some level of
environmental contamination. Overall, such sites represent a small portion of the land available
for development in the City. These sites are discussed in more detail in the Housing Opportunity
sites section of this document.
4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green
building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In
addition, these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced dependence on vehicles,
and can significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gases.
South San Francisco has been a leader in the promotion of green building techniques in new
residential construction and residential rehabilitation. The City renovated a formerly vacant
residential unit to transform it into a model demonstration project for green building materials
and techniques. This home is known as the Green X-Ray House and is used as an educational tool
for local homeowners and members of the local builders community to create healthier, more
energy-efficient homes.
At a minimum, new housing construction in South San Francisco 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 2013 with amended standards going into effect in 2014. 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 City funds various minor housing rehabilitations programs using CDBG funds. As part of
these rehabilitation projects the City incorporates green retrofit improvements including
insulated windows, roof insulation, tankless water heaters, and other weatherization techniques.
Currently the City provides funding to CID (Center of Independence for Individuals with
Disabilities), Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and El Concilio of San Mateo County.
The City recently adopted a Green Building Ordinance, in line with the State standards, in 2014.
This ordinance applies to residential development as well as non-residential development and
requires new homes or substantial remodels to be constructed using sustainable building practices
to reduce environmental impacts. In addition to the design and construction of individual
buildings, the development industry is becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy
33
83
5 Housing Resources
5.1 Available Sites for Housing
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that the City of South San Francisco
has a sufficient amount of land to accommodate its fair share of the region’s housing needs during
this planning period. The State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an
“inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the
potential for redevelopment.” (Section 65583(a)(3)) It further requires that the Element analyze
zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the
planning period.
Demonstrating an adequate supply of vacant or underutilized land is only part of the task of the
adequate sites analysis. The City must also show that this supply is capable of supporting housing
demand from all economic segments of the community and for various housing types, including
multi-family rental, manufactured housing, group housing, and transitional housing. High land
costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing on sites that are
designated for low densities. The State has generally held that the most appropriate way to
demonstrate adequate capacity for low and very low income units is to provide land zoned for
multiple-family housing with an allowed density of 30 dwelling units per acre or more. Hence this
analysis focuses on the identification of sites that could accommodate this level of density, in
order to accommodate the need for lower-income housing units.
For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in South San Francisco have been grouped into
two geographic areas. Each of these areas is described below, with accompanying maps and tables
to identify sites and quantify development potential. The following analysis of sites in South San
Francisco indicates the potential to develop 2,089 units of new housing during the current
planning period, and up to 2,169 units of new housing with the adoption of the proposed
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) (in FebruaryJanuary 2015).
Nearly all opportunity sites would support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater,
providing favorable prospects for affordable units. As discussed before, the City has a determined
need of 1,864 units during the planning period. Compared against the RHNA, the City’s housing
opportunity sites offer a development capacity that exceeds the needs determination by more than
3200 units.
34
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - February 2015
84
With the adoption of the proposed Downtown Plan, which includes higher densities on sites in
the downtown, the development capacity exceeds the needs determination by over 300 units.
Table 5.1-1: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development
Capacity Under Existing Zoning and Under Adoption of
Proposed Downtown Plan
Area AcreageUnit CapacityPercent of Total
Under Existing Zoning Regulations
Transit Village 16.9 1,731 83%
Downtown 6.1 358 17%
Total Capacity 23.0 2,089 100%
RHNA Target 1,864
Excess Capacity 225 112%
Under Adoption of Proposed Downtown Plan
Transit Village 16.9 1,731 80%
Downtown 6.1 438 20%
Total Capacity 23.0 2,169 100%
RHNA Target 1,864
Excess Capacity 305 116%
The available sites inventory conducted for the Housing Element focuses on sites with near-term
development potential, where the site is currently vacant, highly underutilized, or where
developers have come forward with plans to redevelop existing uses. There may be additional sites
in South San Francisco with housing potential, including individual vacant lots and developed
sites with marginally viable existing uses.
Approximately 80 percent of the City’s near-term residential development potential is in the
Transit Village area, which is already zoned for medium (30 dwelling units per acre) to high (120
dwelling units per acre) density residential development.
Almost 20 percent of near-term residential development potential is in the Downtown area,
which is currently zoned for mixed-use residential development up to 40 dwelling units per acre
or an FAR of 3.0. .The City was engaged in has been working onpreparation of thea Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan (Downtown Plan)DSASP over the past two years, and it was is nearing
the adoption of the Plan in Februaryrecently adopted in JanuaryFebruary 2015. The Plan DSASP
focuses on properties within 0.5 mile of the City’s Caltrain station. The overarching aim of the
Plan is to create a successful and vibrant downtown, including new high-density, mixed-use
development in areas that are best poised to take advantage of improved access to the City’s
Caltrain station and SamTrans bus routes; affirming the historic Grand Avenue Corridor as the
focus of the community; and providing improved connections to the East of Highway 101
employment district. The Plan DSASP includes pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly upgrades,
landscaped green spaces, widened sidewalks, new streets, and mass transit connections designed
to improve the business and residential quality of life in the City. The Plan DSASP is a twenty year
35
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
90
identified for future housing and mixed-use development through the General Plan, the El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. The City has expressed an
intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize residential mixed-use development on
the sites. In total these sites measure 9.5 acres with a capacity for 1,215 dwelling units.
Privately-Owned. Site 2 is owned by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. This site is composed of
three parcels and is currently occupied by a vacant motel, a lumberyard, and a vacant lot. Site 1 is
privately owned.
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
There are no known environmental issues that would limit development of the identified sites in
the Transit Village area. Recent residential developments in the area have submitted negative
declarations. The sites are outside of the airport noise contours, and no sites in the area are listed
with the State as having known or potential contamination.1 Periodic flooding occurs in certain
areas along Colma Creek in South San Francisco, which runs through the Transit Village;
however, improvement projects in this area have greatly reduced the concern of flooding, such
that it is not an issue that would limit development in this area.
The City Engineer has confirmed that infrastructure in the area is sufficient to support identified
levels of development, including the capacity of sewer, water, and wastewater treatment facilities.
As is common practice in the City, developers may be required to pay for intersection or other
infrastructure improvements to offset project-specific impacts.
DOWNTOWN SITES
Downtown South San Francisco is situated just west of Highway 101 and has retained a historic
character with fine-grained, mixed-use development. The City’s General Plan seeks to reinforce
the Downtown’s identity and role as the physical and symbolic center of South San Francisco.
General Plan strategies include increased residential development in the Downtown and better
connections to surrounding areas. The comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update has provided
zoning districts and development regulations to support this vision. Much of the Downtown
neighborhood is located within a half-mile of the City’s Caltrain commuter rail station, which is
located on the east side of Highway 101. As discussed above, the City is also nearing the
completion and adoption of a has recently adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
(Downtown Plan),DSASP, which will identifiesy further development opportunities and allows
higher densities. However, as the Downtown Plan has not been adopted at the time that this
Housing Element is being prepared, current zoning and site conditions are used in this analysis.
Adoption of the Downtown Station Area Plan is anticipated in February 2015, and the changes
anticipated under the draft Downtown Plan are shown in Table 5.1-3 for reference.
1 Source: Department of Toxic Control Substances, March 2009.
36
Housing Resources
91
The City’s historic Downtown area encompasses a range of underutilized publicly- and privately-
owned parcels that are suitable for either mixed-use or residential development. Even without
before adoption of the Downtown PlanDSASP, through the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
update in 2010 and related efforts, the City has paved the way for housing on key parcels in the
Downtown area in keeping with the long-term goal of creating a vibrant and sustainable urban
center. The Downtown PlanDSASP will continue to support those goals and will enhance this
vision further. For this Housing Element, the City has identified 12 key sites in the Downtown
with near-term redevelopment potential. The sites are composed of combinations of vacant and
underutilized parcels, and the table that follows takes their current status into account in
determining realistic capacity. Listed below in Table 5.1-3 and shown in Figure 3, all of these sites
are owned by the City of South San Francisco Successor Agency. In total, these sites represent 6.1
acres with a combined development capacity for 358 units under current zoning, and up to 438
units under the draft Downtown PlanDSASP.
37
South San Francisco Housing Element Update September 2014
92
South San Francisco Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft - January 2015
92
Ta
b
l
e
5
.
1
-
3
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
ty
S
i
t
e
s
i
n
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
A
r
e
a
Si
t
e
AP
N
Ac
r
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
U
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Dr
a
f
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
l
a
n
D
S
A
S
P
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
Zo
n
i
n
g
Max
i
m
u
m
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
P
e
r
Ac
r
e
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
c
t
u
a
l
1
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Pe
r
A
c
r
e
3
Total Units
6
0
1
2
-
1
4
5
-
3
7
0
0
.
3
Va
c
a
n
t
SF
R
,
M
F
R
,
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Li
n
d
e
n
N
e
i
g
h
-
bo
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
60
48
14
Si
t
e
6
T
o
t
a
l
0.
3
14
7
0
1
2
-
1
7
4
-
3
0
0
0
.
3
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
SF
R
,
M
F
R
,
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Li
n
d
e
n
N
e
i
g
h
-
bo
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
60
48
14
Si
t
e
7
T
o
t
a
l
0.
3
14
8
0
1
2
-
3
1
4
-
0
1
0
0
.
3
Va
c
a
n
t
SF
R
,
M
F
R
,
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
24
Si
t
e
8
T
o
t
a
l
0.
3
24
9
0
1
2
-
3
1
1
-
3
3
0
0
.
3
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
Ho
t
e
l
,
M
F
R
,
Pu
b
l
i
c
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
r
e
80
64
19
Si
t
e
9
T
o
t
a
l
0.
3
19
10
01
2
-
3
1
1
-
2
6
0
0.
3
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Ho
t
e
l
,
M
F
R
,
Pu
b
l
i
c
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
r
e
80
64
19
10
01
2
-
3
1
1
-
2
5
0
0.
1
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
MF
R
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
r
e
80
64
6
10
01
2
-
3
1
1
-
2
4
0
0.
1
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
MF
R
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
r
e
80
64
6
10
01
2
-
3
1
1
-
2
3
0
0.
1
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
MF
R
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
r
e
80
64
6
Si
t
e
1
0
T
o
t
a
l
0.
6
38
11
01
2
-
3
3
4
-
1
3
0
0.
3
Of
f
i
c
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
24
11
01
2
-
3
3
4
-
1
6
0
0.
2
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
10
0
80
16
38
Housing Resources
93
Housing Resources
93
Ta
b
l
e
5
.
1
-
3
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
ty
S
i
t
e
s
i
n
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
A
r
e
a
Si
t
e
AP
N
Ac
r
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
U
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Dr
a
f
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
l
a
n
D
S
A
S
P
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
Zo
n
i
n
g
Max
i
m
u
m
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
P
e
r
Ac
r
e
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
c
t
u
a
l
1
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Pe
r
A
c
r
e
3
Total Units
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
11
01
2
-
3
3
4
-
0
3
0
0.
1
Of
f
i
c
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
8
11
01
2
-
3
3
4
-
0
4
0
0.
2
Re
t
a
i
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
16
Si
t
e
1
1
T
o
t
a
l
0.
8
64
12
01
2
-
3
1
6
-
1
0
0
0.
1
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Co
r
e
80
64
6
12
01
2
-
3
1
6
-
1
1
0
0.
1
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Co
r
e
80
64
6
12
01
2
-
3
1
6
-
0
9
0
0.
2
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Co
r
e
80
64
13
12
01
2
-
3
1
6
-
0
8
0
0.
1
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Co
r
e
80
64
6
12
01
2
-
3
1
6
-
0
6
0
0.
1
Va
c
a
n
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Co
r
e
80
64
6
12
01
2
-
3
1
6
-
0
4
0
0.
2
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Co
r
e
80
64
13
Si
t
e
1
2
T
o
t
a
l
0.
8
51
13
01
2
-
3
3
5
-
1
0
0
0.
2
Va
c
a
n
t
F
i
r
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
16
13
0
1
2
-
3
3
5
-
1
1
0
0
.
3
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
24
Si
t
e
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
0.
5
40
39
South San Francisco Housing Element Update September 2014
94
South San Francisco Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft - January 2015
94
Ta
b
l
e
5
.
1
-
3
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
ty
S
i
t
e
s
i
n
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
A
r
e
a
Si
t
e
AP
N
Ac
r
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
U
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Dr
a
f
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
l
a
n
D
S
A
S
P
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
Zo
n
i
n
g
Max
i
m
u
m
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Un
i
t
s
P
e
r
Ac
r
e
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
c
t
u
a
l
1
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Pe
r
A
c
r
e
3
Total Units
14
01
2
-
3
1
8
-
0
8
0
0.
5
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
41
Si
t
e
1
4
T
o
t
a
l
0.
5
41
15
01
2
-
3
1
4
-
2
2
0
0.
4
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
32
Si
t
e
1
5
T
o
t
a
l
0.
4
32
16
01
2
-
3
1
7
-
1
1
0
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
16
01
2
-
3
1
7
-
1
0
0
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(v
a
c
a
n
t
?
)
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
16
01
2
-
3
1
7
-
0
9
0
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
Si
t
e
1
6
T
o
t
a
l
1.
1
85
17
01
2
-
3
1
4
-
1
0
0
0.
2
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
e
10
0
80
16
Si
t
e
1
7
T
o
t
a
l
0.
2
16
To
t
a
l
6.
1
438
No
t
e
s
:
1.
N
u
m
b
e
r
s
m
a
y
n
o
t
s
u
m
p
r
e
c
i
s
e
l
y
d
u
e
t
o
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
2.
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
c
t
u
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
b
o
n
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
a
b
l
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
2
0
1
5
;
D
y
e
t
t
&
B
h
a
t
i
a
,
2
0
1
5
.
40
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
96
Capacity Analysis
This section contains an analysis of the realistic development capacity of housing opportunity
sites in the Downtown area. This analysis considers factors including vacant and underutilized
status, recent development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure.
The recently updated Zoning Ordinance (2010) includes five districts that cover the Downtown:
the Downtown Core (DC) Zone, the Downtown Mixed Use (DMX) Zone, the Downtown
Residential Low (DRL) Zone, the Downtown Residential Medium (DRM) Zone, and the
Downtown Residential High (DRH) Zone. Ten of the key housing sites are located in the DC
district, and two sites are located in the DMX district. Together, under the current zoning, the
Downtown sites across the DMX and DC zones measure about 6.1 acres and would accommodate
358 housing units.
Under the draft newly adopted Downtown PlanDSASP, there would are be four new districts that
cover the Downtown opportunity sites identified in Figure 9: Linden Neighborhood Center,
Downtown Transit Core, Downtown Residential Core, and the Grand Avenue Core. Two of the
sites would be in the Linden Neighborhood Center, seven of the sites would be in the Downtown
Transit Core, two of the sites would be in the Downtown Residential Core, and one of the sites
would be in the Grand Avenue Core. In total, with the proposed changes in the draft Downtown
Plan, the opportunity sites total approximately 6.1 acres and would accommodate 438 housing
units.
Downtown Core Transit ZoneCore
The DC Downtown Transit Core (DTC) district allows for multi-family unit residential
construction with a conditional use permit (except on the ground floor), , with a minimum
density of 14.180 units per acre and a maximum density of 100 units. The minimum FAR is 2.0
and the maximum FAR is 6.0. The maximum residential density is limited by the FAR of 3.0 for
mixed use development and development regulations. Within the DTC district, the main
development standards controlling the building envelope are maximum lot coverage of 100
percent and a maximum building height of 60 85 feet. There is no setback requirement except for
lots that abut a residential district, which requires a 10 foot setback.
Sites 8, 11, and 13- through 17 are individual parcels or groups of assembled parcels that range
from 0.2 acres to 1.1 acres in size in the DTC Zonedistrict. Surface parking lots or vacant
buildings occupy many of the sites, and no site is adjacent to a residential zoning district. Site 14
and Site 16 are adjacent to the Public/Quasi Public District on Airport Boulevard. Based on the
following development standards for Site 917, which is representative of the sites in the DTC
district, all of the sites in the DTC district could comfortably accommodate approximately 61 80
dwelling units per acre:
Lot size: 0.3 2 acres or 137,596,068 square feet
Minimum Setback Requirement: 0 feet (No abutting of Residential districts)
41
Housing Resources
97
Maximum FAR: 63.0
Maximum Building Size: 45,576 39,204 square feet (Lot size multiplied by FAR)
Gross Residential Square Footage: 27,44331,903 square feet (Assumes 70 percent of
building is residential)
Net Residential Square Footage: 21,95422,332 square feet (Assumes 780 percent of gross
residential square footage, with 320 percent of gross residential space devoted to common
spaces)
Average Unit Size: 1,4200 square feet (Typical for a two-bedroom unit)
Expected Number of Units: 1618 units (Net residential square footage divided by average
unit size)
Maximum Density: 8061 units per acre (Lot size divided by number of units)
When this density is applied to all of the sites in the DTC district, 302 334 housing units could be
accommodated in the zone.
Downtown Mixed Use ZoneResidential Core
The other district in the Downtown area with housing opportunity sites is the DMX district,
which allows for mixed use residential developmentDowntown Residential Core district (DRC)
allows for multi-family residential construction. The maximum base FAR is 1.5FAR is 3.0,
exclusive of structured parking. Aand a minimum of 14.140 residential units per acre is required,
with . aThe maximum density is of 40 80 units per acre (up to 100 or 125 under the incentive
program). , except for lots less than 10,000 square feet, where the maximum density is 21.8 units
per acre. The main development standards controlling the building envelope are maximum lot
coverage of 50 90 percent and maximum building height of 50 65 feet. There is no
setbackSetbacks are required requirement except in the rear yard (20-foot setback) and when the
lot abuts a residential district, which requires a ( 10-foot setback on the interior side).
Sites 9 and 10 are existing parking lots in the DRC district near City Hall in Downtown. These
sites are adjacent to residential and hotel uses. Site 9 is about 0.3 acres, while Site 10 is composed
of several smaller lots totaling 0.6 acres. Under the current density standards for the DRC district,
it is estimated that Site 9 would accommodate 19 units, while Site 10 would accommodate 38
units.
42
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
98
Both in the DMX Zone, Site 6 is a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface parking lot. These sites
are corner lots at the intersection of Pine and Linden avenues, each situated on opposite
sides of Pine Avenue. These lots are adjacent to existing single and multi-family homes in
the DRH zone. Each site is about 13,000 square feet, and under the current density
standards for the DMX Zone, it is estimated that each site would accommodate 12 units.
Linden Neighborhood Center
The Linden Neighborhood Center district (LNC) allows for multi-family residential construction
(except on the ground floor), with a minimum density of 40 units per acre and a maximum
density of 60 units per acre. The maximum FAR is 3.0 for development, exclusive of structured
parking. Within the LNC district, the main development standards controlling the building
envelope are maximum lot coverage of 90 percent and a maximum building height of 50 feet.
There are no setback requirements.
Both in the LNC Zone, Site 6 is a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface parking lot. These sites are
corner lots at the intersection of Pine and Linden avenues, each situated on opposite sides of Pine
Avenue. These lots are adjacent to existing single and multi-family homes. Each site is about
13,000 square feet, and under the current density standards for the LNC Zone, it is estimated that
each site would accommodate 14 units.
Grand Avenue Corridor
The Grand Avenue Corridor district (GAC) allows for multi-family residential construction
(except on the ground floor). The required minimum density is 14 units per acre, with a
maximum density of 60 units per acre. The maximum FAR is 3.0 for development, exclusive of
structured parking, and the minimum required FAR is 1.5. The main development standards
controlling the building envelope in the GAC district are maximum lot coverage of 100 percent
and a maximum building height ranging from 45 to 65 feet. There are no setback requirements.
Site 12 is in the GAC district and is composed of multiple sites, which are currently vacant,
parking lots, or occupied by a commercial building. a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface parking lot.
These lots are on Grand Avenue, which is intended to be the “main street” of Downtown. These
lots are adjacent to commercial uses, and they total about 0.8 acres. Under the current density
standards for the GAC district, it is estimated that Site 12 would accommodate 51 units.
Ownership
Publicly-Owned. Many of these sites were owned by the City’s Redevelopment Agency before it
was dismantled in 2012. In the Long Range Property Management Plan, Sites 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15,
16, and 17 have been transferred to the City’s Successor Agency for ownership. These sites are
among the best near-term opportunities for housing development in South San Francisco. Sites 8,
9, 10, and 13 in the Downtown are owned by the City of South San Francisco. Under the draft
Downtown PlanDSASP, the goals support creating a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse
downtown, and these sites can provide opportunities for dense housing construction to
43
Housing Resources
99
contribute to the vitality of downtown. These sites fall into three categories: vacant, occupied by
surface parking lots, or occupied by vacant buildings. Regardless of their present state, these sites
have been identified for future housing and mixed-use development through the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance, as well as in the draft Downtown PlanDSASP. The City has expressed an
intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize residential and mixed-use development
on the sites. In total, these sites measure 6.1 acres with a capacity for 358 dwelling units under the
existing zoning and 438 dwelling units under the proposed Downtown PlanDSASP.
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
The Downtown area is outside of the airport noise contours and any flooding hazard zones.
However, certain sites within the Downtown area have been suspected of environmental
contamination, which may require clean up, in order to facilitate housing development. These
include Site 14, which has undergone Phase I Environmental Site Assessments; Site 16, which has
undergone Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments; and Sites 6 and 7, which have not
undergone environmental site assessments.
As with the Transit Village area, the City Engineer indicated that infrastructure in the Downtown
area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer,
water, and wastewater treatment facilities.
In the past, one obstacle to development of public parking lots has been the need to first develop a
replacement garage. The City opened such a project, the Miller Avenue Garage, in 2010, thus
creating the potential for the redevelopment of City-owned parking lots in this planning period.
ANALYSIS OF ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES
As described, housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village and Downtown areas are able to
accommodate a range of housing types.
Lower Income Multi-family Residential. Nearly all sites identified can realistically
accommodate densities of 30 dwelling units per acre or greater, which is a level of density
that the State acknowledges is consistent with providing lower-income multi-family
housing. Thirty dwelling units per acre is the “default density” assigned by HCD to
jurisdictions with more than 25,000 people in San Mateo County. Housing sites that are
zoned for a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre are assumed to be able to
accommodate lower-income housing.
Residential Care Facilities, including Supportive Housing. This housing type would be
permitted with conditional use permits and minor use permits on the housing
opportunity site identified in the Transit Village area in the RH-30 zone and in the
Downtown area sites in the DC and DMX zones.
44
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
100
Elderly and Long-term Care Facilities. These facilities would be permitted with a
conditional use permit on the housing opportunity site in the Transit Village area located
in RH-30 zone.
Transitional Housing. As part of the Zoning Ordinance update, the City explicitly
addressed transitional and supportive housing to assure it is allowed subject only to those
restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Thus,
transitional housing would be a permitted use on all of the housing opportunity sites.
Group Residential. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Group Residential uses
would be permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the RH-30 zone in the Transit Village
and the DMX zone in the Downtown area. Group Residential is a broad category
encompassing housing that is occupied by persons not defined as a family on a weekly or
longer basis.
ANALYSIS OF ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE EMERGENCY SHELTER
FACILITIES
In accordance with the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City already has satisfied
requirements regarding emergency shelters by providing an existing emergency shelter facility
within its jurisdiction that can accommodate more than the City’s individual need for emergency
shelter space (see Gov’t Code, § 65583(a)(4)(C)). South San Francisco’s existing emergency shelter
provides 90 beds, accounting for more than half of emergency shelter capacity countywide. In
addition, as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City identified the Mixed Industrial (MI)
district as a zone in the City where an emergency shelter would be permitted as an allowed use,
subject only to the same development standards applicable to other uses in the zone. Emergency
shelter facilities are also permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the Business Commercial district.
The MI combines the City’s previous industrial zoning districts to provide an area that is
appropriate for a range of uses, including manufacturing and related uses, small-scale retail and
service uses, live-work uses, and social service uses. The western portion of the MI district, west of
101, is adjacent to the City’s Downtown area, which allows residential, commercial, and retail
uses. The eastern portion of the MI district is adjacent to Business Commercial, Business
Technology Park, Freeway Commercial, and Public/Quasi Public districts. The City’s existing
shelter is located immediately adjacent to the MI district on a parcel zoned as Public/Quasi
Public, where the zoning does not allow new emergency shelters, but allows existing emergency
shelters to remain.
Adjacent to the Downtown, the MI district is situated near a full range of retail services and is
located near existing social service providers, including the San Mateo County Human Services
Office, Salvation Army, the St. Vincent De Paul Society, and the North Peninsula Neighborhood
Services office. Moreover, the district is served by several public transit routes, providing good
accessibility to local and regional destinations.
The MI district is large and provides numerous sites that are underutilized and could potentially
accommodate an emergency shelter. Conversations with commercial brokers in South San
45
Housing Resources
101
Francisco indicate that there are several industrial properties for sale in the district, many of
which are marketed as “redevelopment opportunities.” This finding was confirmed through a
search of the LoopNet.com website, a commercial listing service for properties for sale, which
showed multiple properties for sale with substantial additional built out potential or potential to
replace warehouse buildings with different uses.
A more detailed capacity analysis of sites in the MI district reveals that there are numerous vacant
and underutilized sites that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency shelter. The
Needs Assessment in Chapter 3 determined that the unsheltered homeless population in South
San Francisco is 172 people. The existing emergency shelter in South San Francisco has 90 beds
and is in a single-story building that is estimated to be about 8,600 square feet in size. Thus, two
additional shelters of the same size as the existing shelter would be needed to provide beds for the
city’s unsheltered homeless population. Under current development standards in the MI district,
an additional emergency shelter that is the same size as the city’s existing shelter would fit
comfortably on a parcel that is about a half-acre in size. Table 5.1-4 shows the current vacant and
underutilized parcels in the MI district that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency
shelter and accommodate the city’s need for two additional shelters.
Table 5-1.4: Vacant or Underutilized Sites in MI District with Potential Capacity for
Emergency Shelter
APN Address Existing Use on Parcel Size in Acres
014091060 146 S Maple Avenue Open Storage 1.0
014091070 146 S Maple Avenue Light Manufacturing 1.34
014091110 434 Victory Avenue Vacant 0.27
014091100 124 S Maple Avenue Warehouse 1.5
014102080 70 S Linden Avenue Open Storage/Vacant 0.98
014212030 123 S Linden Avenue Mini Warehouse 0.42
014091120 170 S Maple Avenue Warehouse/Vacant 0.52
015164070 326 Shaw Road Food Processing 1.15
014092180 141 S Maple Avenue Warehouse 1.53
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett & Bhatia, 2015.
5.2 Financial Resources
The City of South San Francisco has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources
available for affordable housing activities, including programs from federal, State, local and
private resources.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS
Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the U.S Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments for a wide range
of housing and community development activities for low-income persons.
46
Housing Resources
103
SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE
The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income
persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference
between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30 percent of their
gross income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment
standard but the tenant must pay the extra cost. This program is administered by the San Mateo
County Housing Authority.
5.3 Summary
Consistent with the City’s long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential
development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing production.
These include primarily sites for housing development, and a variety of funding sources, as
summarized below:
South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the
regional housing need in the planning period. The City has no carryover obligation
because it was able to identify adequate sites to meet its RHNA for the 2007-2014
Housing Element. There is sufficient land to support the production of 2,089169 new
housing units, and up to 2,169 upon adoption of the draft Downtown Plan.
Nearly all of the City’s development capacity consists of higher density housing sites
(densities exceeding 30 units per acre), and all are located within developed areas already
served with needed infrastructure, including sewer, water, stormwater, and
transportation facilities.
The City’s housing capacity is found primarily in two areas: the Transit Village and the
Downtown area.
South San Francisco has a variety of financial resources to support affordable housing
production.
47
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
106
identifiable economic segments of the population, including households of low-and
moderate incomes, are provided.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Housing and
Economic Development Division and Planning Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: Staff time
Policy 1-3: As feasible, the City will investigate new sources of funding for the City’s affordable
housing programs.
Program 1-3A – Investigate Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee: Through
participation in the 21 Elements group, the City will investigate the feasibility of
commercial and housing linkage fees to support affordable housing.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; City Council
Time Frame: 2015
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 1-4: The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers to promote the
development of housing for extremely low-, very low-, and lower-income households.
Program 1-4A - Site Acquisition: The City shall work with for-profit and nonprofit
housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or developed with underutilized,
blighted, and/or nonconforming uses for the development of affordable housing. As
needed, the City will meet with developers to discuss and identify development
opportunities and potential funding sources.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division and Planning Division; Planning Commission; City
Council
Time Frame: Ongoing; developer consultation to occur as neededAnnually and Ongoing
Funding Source: Various
Program 1-4B – Support and Pursue Funding Applications for Affordable Housing:
Consistent with existing practice, the City shall continue to support funding applications
for federal and state funds to promote the development of affordable housing.
48
Housing Plan
107
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023, OngoingAnnually and Ongoing
Funding Sources: Various. Directory of funding provided in the HCD Financial
Assistance Program Directory.
Program 1-4C – Consider Waivers or Deferrals of Planning, Building and Impact Fees for
Affordable Housing Development: Consistent with SSFMC section 20.310.004, the City
shall continue to consider the waiver of application and development fees for affordable
housing development in order to support the financial viability of affordable housing
development. Waiver of such fees will be on a case-by-case basis at the City Council’s
discretion and will balance the goal of affordable housing production with the need to
collect fee revenues to support other City goals.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; City Manager; City Council
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Sources: NA
Program 1-4D - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, SSFMC
19.36: The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires a minimum of 5 units in order
to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit requirements
with the intent of promoting home ownership.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning
Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: Staff time
Policy 1-5: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses in the areas
designated as Planned Development Areas (PDAs), properties located in the South San Francisco
BART Transit Village Zoning District and in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations and along El
Camino Real, consistent with the Grand Boulevard Initiative.
Program 1-5A - Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area: Through
preparation implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, explore
support increased residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in
49
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
108
the downtown area to support realize the objectives of the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan and General Plan policies.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Planning Commission; City Council
Time Frame: Specific Plan anticipated adoptedion in FebruaryJanuaryFebruary 2015;
ongoing as development projects are proposed in the planning area
Funding Source: City funds; grant funding for Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Staff
time; possible support from One Bay Area Grant funding for projects in PDAs consistent
with adopted specific plans
Program 1-5B – Support Grand Boulevard Initiative Polices: Continue to support the
guiding principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which encourages the provision of
medium- and high-density housing along El Camino Real in Peninsula communities, in
order to create an environment that is supportive of transit, walkable, and mixed-use. The
City shall reference this policy direction when considering future land use and zoning
changes along El Camino Real, and assess the opportunity for housing development along
this key corridor as development proposals arise.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Policy 1-6: The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family
designated and zoned parcels.
Program 1-6A - Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units and
educate the community about this program: Actively promote community education on
second units, as permitted in SSFMC 20.350.035, by posting information regarding
second units on the City’s website and providing brochures at the public counter in the
Centralized Permit Center.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Planning Commission
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Staff time to promote program; second units developed by private
property owners
50
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
114
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 3-4: The City shall support the preservation of public affordable housing stock.
Program 3-4A - Support SSF Public Housing Authority (PHA): The City shall support
the South San Francisco PHA in its continued operation and rental of 80 units of public
housing.
Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents
Program 3-4B – Examine Displacement of Affordable Housing and Lower-Income
Households: The City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County,
under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop and
evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents. The City
will use this analysis, in addition to other analysis, to develop potential measures and
programs and the City will implement those programs, as it considers and deems
appropriate, to address the risk of displacement of existing lower income
residents. Displacement might be direct, caused by the redevelopment of sites with
existing residential properties, or indirect, caused by increased market rents as an area
becomes more desirable. The City shall monitor any such implemented programs
annually for effectiveness and make adjustments as necessary.
considered and deemedany implementedThe City shall support regional and local
efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower-income households and
consider programs to address identified housing needs. The City shall include in this
research any impacts on affordable housing (new and existing) in Priority Development
Areas.
Responsibility: 21 Elements, Department of Economic and Community Development –
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: OngoingAt least annually
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 3-5: The City shall strive to limit the conversion of apartment units to condominiums.
Program 3-5A – Condominium Conversion Limitations: The City shall continue to
enforce limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified in
51
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
116
Program 3-6B – Assist Tenants: The City shall assist tenants displaced by the
conversation of at risk units by providing information about tenants’ rights, providing
referrals to relevant social service providers, endeavoring to establish a funding source to
assist nonprofit organizations that support tenants, and facilitating other support as
appropriate.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
52
Housing Plan
123
households; those at risk of homelessness; and others in need. The Economic
Development and Housing Division will provide information about the HIP program,
provide referrals, and support residents of South San Francisco who are interested in
participating.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
Housing for Veterans
Policy 5-8: The City shall support programs to assist Veterans with housing needs.
Program 5-8A – Provide referrals to Veterans who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness: The City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate families
that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Resources for referrals include the Veteran’s
Administration (VA) National Call Center of Homeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET
and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint effort between the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to
move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into permanent housing
through a voucher program that allows homeless Veterans to rent privately owned
housing.
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and
Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
Housing for Employees
Policy 5-9: The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to comply with Health and Safety Code
Section 17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees.
Program 5-9A – Amend the Zoning Code to comply with Health and Safety Code Section
17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees. The City shall amend its
Zoning Ordinance to allow employee housing in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 17021.5, to permit and encourage the development and use of sufficient numbers
and types of employee housing facilities as are commensurate with local needs.
53
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
HCD Review Draft - January 2015
124
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development; Planning Commission; City
Council
Time Frame: Within 18 months of adoption of the Housing Element Update
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
54
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 133
Ta
b
l
e
A
:
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
N
a
m
e
/
N
u
m
b
e
r
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
T
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
a
n
d
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Program Evaluation and Recommendation
1-
7
A
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ex
p
l
o
r
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
pa
r
c
e
l
s
i
n
t
h
e
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
a
r
e
a
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
an
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
Th
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
w
a
s
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
h
a
t
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
a
mi
x
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
o
f
f
i
c
e
u
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
.
I
n
20
1
2
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
a
g
r
a
n
t
a
n
d
b
e
g
a
n work on the Downtown Station Area
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
5
a
n
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
P
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
ex
p
l
o
r
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
C
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
; this project is targeted for
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
/
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
i
n
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
5
.
Retain program; ongoing, update target dates
1-
8
A
Su
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
Su
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
se
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
o
n
s
i
n
g
le
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
an
d
z
o
n
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
2
0
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
b
y
2
0
1
4
.
Br
o
c
h
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
C
e
n
t
er Counter; in addition staff explores
se
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
d
i
s
c
ussions and during building permit plan
ch
e
c
k
s
.
A
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
7
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
1
2
(
2
f
o
r
t
h
e
20
1
2
c
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
y
e
a
r
)
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
l
e
g
a
l
se
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
.
Retain but combine with 1-8B
1-
8
B
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
S
e
c
o
n
d
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ac
t
i
v
e
l
y
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
b
y
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
b
r
o
c
h
u
r
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
O
n
e
S
t
o
p
P
e
r
m
i
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
co
u
n
t
e
r
.
Se
e
P
o
l
i
c
y
1
-
8
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
v
e
.
Retain but combine with 1-8A
1-
9
A
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
I
n
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
Un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
S
i
t
e
s
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
i
n
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
s
i
t
e
s
a
s
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
,
S
o
u
t
h
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
,
an
d
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
Th
e
S
o
u
t
h
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
P
l
a
n
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
Re
a
l
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
r
e
a
P
l
a
n
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
1
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
i
n
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Retain program but revise to reflect new opportunity site areas
Go
a
l
2
R
e
m
o
v
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
t
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
2-
1
A
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
Ma
r
k
e
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
Ex
p
e
d
i
t
e
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
O
t
h
e
r
Me
a
n
s
Su
p
p
o
r
t
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
:
wo
r
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
,
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
,
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
t
o
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
th
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
;
de
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
h
at
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
s
,
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
;
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
l
y
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
a
d
v
i
c
e
on
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
,
f
e
e
s
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
nt
s
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
c
o
s
t
l
y
d
e
l
a
y
s
i
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
;
a
n
d
in
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
g
r
o
u
p
s
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
fo
r
m
a
j
o
r
n
e
w
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Th
e
O
n
e
S
t
o
p
P
e
r
m
i
t
c
e
n
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
provide accessible services by Planning,
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
i
n
o
n
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
O
n
e
S
t
o
p
Permit Center hours are
fr
o
m
8
a
m
-
5
p
m
.
P
e
r
m
i
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
i
s
e
f
f
i
c
i
ent and timely, with accessible staff. Our
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
m
e
e
t
s
t
w
i
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h and our Design Review Board meets
on
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
l
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
o
f
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Revise to clarify that the City will not be designing projects itself, rather supporting good design of housing projects
2-
2
E
n
s
u
r
e
A
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
En
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
w
a
t
e
r
,
se
w
e
r
a
g
e
,
a
n
d
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
,
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
de
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
g
r
o
w
t
h
a
n
d
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
mm
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
On
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
collects "sewer impact fees" to help
su
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
ing of the City's infrastructure. The
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
S
F
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
C
I
P
b
u
dg
e
t
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$
9
9
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
f
o
r
f
i
s
c
a
l
y
e
a
r
20
1
1
-
2
0
1
2
,
a
n
d
a
C
I
P
b
u
d
g
e
t
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$
3
3
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
f
o
r
f
i
s
c
a
l
y
e
a
r
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
,
w
i
t
h
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
s
l
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
o
f
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
to
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
d
d
e
d
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Retain policy; add specific program to implement
2-
3
A
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Bo
n
d
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
C
r
e
d
i
t
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Co
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
to
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
t
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
ve
n
u
e
B
o
n
d
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
Cr
e
d
i
t
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
o
f
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
w
i
t
h
h
o
m
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
21 Elements TAC meetings. The City also
co
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
H
E
A
R
T
(
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
n
d
o
w
m
ent and Regional Trust) of San Mateo
Co
u
n
t
y
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
L
e
a
d
e
r
sh
i
p
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
T
h
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
h
a
b
B
o
n
d
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
C
r
e
d
i
t
C
e
rtificate Programs were not utilized
be
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
n
e
w
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
Station project (2007) had purchase prices
so
l
o
w
t
h
a
t
i
t
w
a
s
u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Retain but revise to clarify the City's role better
2-
4
A
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
By
2
0
1
0
,
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
i
n
or
d
e
r
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
om
o
t
e
s
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
d
e
s
i
gn
a
n
d
h
a
r
m
o
n
i
z
e
s
wi
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
the Planning Commission by Resolution
No
.
2
4
7
1
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
l
a
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
Accomplished; can retain as "continue to…"
2-
5
Su
p
p
o
r
t
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
&
CE
Q
A
R
e
v
i
e
w
W
h
i
l
e
E
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
Ex
p
e
d
i
t
i
o
u
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Su
p
p
o
r
t
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
b
o
a
r
d
an
d
/
o
r
s
t
a
f
f
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
C
E
Q
A
w
h
i
l
e
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
Ou
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
me
e
t
s
o
n
c
e
a
m
o
n
t
h
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
n
e
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Remove; redundant
55
ATTACHMENT 4
HOUSING ELEMENT IS/ND COMMENT LETTER – SFPUC
DATED MARCH 19, 2015
56
57
58
59
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION CEQA RESOLUTION
2759-2015
60
RESOLUTION NO. 2759-2015
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND14-0001) FOR THE SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE (GPA14-0001)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65580 of the State Planning and Zoning Law
requires every city to adopt a housing element; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code,
“Housing element content,” the City of South San Francisco has prepared a General Plan
Housing Element Update (“Project”), which provides detailed background information, an
assessment of housing needs, an analysis of adequate sites, resources, and constraints 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, the Project policies are internally consistent with the policies contained in
each of the South San Francisco General Plan elements; and
WHEREAS, the City presented the Project to the Airport Land Use Commission/ C/CAG
and it was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the City prepared the attached Initial Study/
Negative Declaration and distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate
responsible agencies and interested parties on February 27, 2015 for a 30-day public review
period; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on March
19, 2015 to consider and evaluate the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of the record is the City’s Chief Planner, and the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration and the General Plan Housing Element Update, as well as other
materials comprising the record for these proceedings, are available and may be reviewed at the
offices of the South San Francisco Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, 94080.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
61
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,
including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners,
and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission Study Session on November 6, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed March 19, 2015 meeting
and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2),
the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for
the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update (attached as Exhibit A) are each incorporated by
reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration (ND14-
0001) for the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update (GPA14-0001).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 19th day of March, 2015 by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Wong, Vice Chairperson Khalfin, Commissioner Faria, Commission Lujan,
Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales and Commissioner Ruiz
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Attest: /s/Alex Greenwood
Alex Greenwood
Secretary to the Planning Commission
62
ATTACHMENT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
2760-2015
63
RESOLUTION NO. 2760-2015
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA14-0001) TO
ADOPT THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65580 of the State Planning and Zoning Law
requires every city to adopt a housing element; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code,
“Housing element content,” the City of South San Francisco has prepared a General Plan
Housing Element Update, which provides detailed background information, an assessment of
housing needs, an analysis of adequate sites, resources, and constraints 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 1,864 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 policies contained in each of the South San Francisco General Plan
elements; 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 a public workshop on February 11, 2014 with housing advocates and
stakeholders, providing information on the Housing Element update at the Housing Resources
Fair on May 10, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City also conducted a publically noticed study session with the Planning
Commission on November 6, 2014 and with the City Council on December 10, 2014 to consider
the draft Housing Element; 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, and
e. Worked toward community consensus; and
64
WHEREAS, the City presented the Project to the Airport Land Use Commission/ C/CAG
and it was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the City prepared the attached Initial Study/
Negative Declaration and distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate
responsible agencies and interested parties on February 27, 2015 for a 30-day public review
period; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration and based on the entirety of the record concluded that there is no substantial
evidence that this project will have a significant environmental impact, and has therefore adopted
a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration by
separate resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on March
19, 2015 to consider and evaluate the General Plan Housing Element Update; and,
WHEREAS, the custodian of the record is the City’s Chief Planner, and the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration and the General Plan Housing Element Update, as well as other
materials comprising the record for these proceedings, are available and may be reviewed at the
offices of the South San Francisco Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, 94080.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,
including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners;
the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update for 2015-2023, prepared by
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners; all comments and testimony received at
stakeholders interviews and public workshops; all reports, minutes, and public testimony
submitted as part of the Airport Land Use Commission meeting held on January 8, 2015; all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission Study
Session on November 6, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission’s duly noticed March 19, 2015 meeting and any other evidence (within the
meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Public Hearing Draft Housing
Element Update 2015-2023 (attached as Exhibit A) are each incorporated by reference as part of
this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
65
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the amendments to the South San
Francisco General Plan (GPA14-0001) to update the Housing Element in accordance with State
law.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 19th day of March, 2015 by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Wong, Vice Chairperson Khalfin, Commissioner Faria, Commission Lujan,
Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Nagales and Commissioner Ruiz
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Attest: /s/Alex Greenwood
Alex Greenwood
Secretary to the Planning Commission
66
ATTACHMENT 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EXCERPT
MARCH 19, 2015
67
EXCERPT FROM MARCH 19, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Housing Element Update
City of South San Francisco Owner/Applicant
Citywide
P14-0012: GPA14-0001 & ND14-0001
Consideration of a Negative Declaration (ND14-0001) and Amendment to the General Plan (GPA14-
0001) to adopt the 2015-2023 Housing Element in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal
Code Chapters 20.460 and 20.540.
Chairperson Wong opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Senior Planner
Rozzi presented a brief staff report. He explained that the Housing Element is one of 7 State-
mandated elements of a General Plan which operates as the guiding document for the City. Unlike
other elements of the General Plan, the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the
State under an 8 year cycle. He further explained that the Housing Element becomes a blueprint for
future housing development in the city which includes goals, policies and programs that direct
residential development decision-making. The requirements of the Housing Element are to look at
previous accomplishments; analyze both the current and future housing needs of the City; consider
constraints of how the housing is produced on governmental (i.e. zoning) and non-governmental
(i.e. price of real estate to develop) side; look at existing housing resources and programs; conduct a
capacity analysis to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); and propose revised or
new programs that are consistent with state statutes and local or stakeholder interests. He
explained the review process to date, comments and revisions to the draft Housing Element related
to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and reviewed the housing
opportunity sites.
There being no speakers the public hearing closed.
Commission's comments/questions:
Commission inquired whether program I-4D would include already constructed multi-family
housing. Senior Planner Rozzi explained that any change to condominium construction
regulations would only apply to new construction. He further explained that there is process
for condominium conversion for existing apartments that would not be affected by this
program.
Commission asked for clarification regarding the current threshold of five units for
construction of new condominiums. Assistant City Attorney Rosenberg replied that the State
law Subdivision Map Act states that if there are 5 or more units, a final map has to be filed
and the City's local ordinance was likely related to the Subdivision Map Act.
Commission inquired if there would be any implications should the City allow less than the 5
units. Assistant City Attorney Rosenberg stated there shouldn't be any issue with allowing
condominium developments of less than four units but the City’s regulations would need to
comply with State law in terms of what type of map needs to be filed.
Commission asked for clarification regarding Planning Commission action on program I-
4D. Senior Planner Rozzi explained program I-4D was introduced to study the issue and
based on feedback from the Joint Housing Subcommittee, presented in the staff report for
68
Planning Commission’s consideration and discussion of the merits for recommendation to
the City Council. The program only commits the City to report annually on progress
but doesn't require the City to make any specific changes. Chairperson Wong gave further
explanation that at the Joint Subcommittee meeting, it was discussed that program I-4D
could give the City flexibility in the future to facilitate new ownership housing. Senior Planner
Rozzi added that one of the Committee members was concerned about losing rental housing
stock if the threshold is lowered. He further stated that his recommendation would be to
include the program and forward to City Council for their consideration.
Commission inquired about program 3-4B’s proposal to address displacement through a
regional approach, and whether there are discussions with other cities to include the same
language in their Housing Elements. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that the language the City
is proposing is also being considered by other cities since HCD is requiring similar language
from all cities. Program 3-4B has the ability to be the most effective if it involves regional
participation.
Commission expressed concern regarding difficulty with regional effort and would like
to suggest that other cities conceptually agree on a basic approach. Chairperson Wong
stated he would follow up with the subcommittee and further added that displacement was
taken very seriously. The City wants the ability to participate in regional
programs/initiatives/studies but wants the flexibility to do what is best for the City.
Commission suggested including language that the City promotes 1st time homebuyer
programs to eligible residents. Chairperson Wong stated it was discussed at the
subcommittee meeting and there is a lot of interest in developing programs to support local
workforce. Senior Planner Rozzi reminded the Commission that the City has policies in
place that promote affordable housing incentive programs. The existing language is
important because promoting programs doesn't require a commitment of funds. Funding is
the main constraint with new housing programs, given the loss of the Redevelopment
Agency.
Commission expressed concern there isn't a displacement policy in place already to address
these issues and the potential impacts on current residents. Senior Planner Rozzi agreed
this is an issue now and the introduction of proposed Housing Element programs would start
that process. Alex Greenwood, Director of ECD, added that the City Council is planning a
workshop, which would include the Planning Commission, on this issue within the next 2-3
months. One of the major strategies that have been studied is increasing the supply of new
housing units. The City has control of 32 properties as part of the Long-Range Property
Management process required by the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency. Several
properties are available for development and will be coming forward in the next few months.
Commission suggests that the reference in the Housing Element to the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan being “recently adopted” should be read that the plan was adopted in
February 2015, since the Housing Element is an eight year document.
Commission questioned how the no impact on schools was determined in the Negative
Declaration since new housing will undoubtedly impact school demand. Sophie Martin, Dyett
& Bhatia, stated that the CEQA approach recognized that the Housing Element is consistent
with other adopted policy plans that have already been evaluated for environmental impacts.
From that technical CEQA prospective, the Housing Element does not ensure that these
units will be constructed, and any new project would require separate CEQA analysis.
69
Commission advised that the issue of schools may develop in the future and expressed
concern with new residents, transit at peak commute hours, and overcrowding. Senior
Planner Rozzi stated that the impacts to school were evaluated closely with the adoption of
the Transit Village Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The environmental
documents were shared with the school district for review and comments. He further added
this has been evaluated at a program level and each project as it comes forward will be
further analyzed.
Motion--Vice Chairperson Khalfin/Second--Commissioner Martin - a Resolution recommending
the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for the Housing Element. Approved by unanimous
roll call vote (7-0).
Motion--Commissioner Ruiz/Second--Commissioner Faria - a Resolution recommending the City
Council adopt the General Plan Amendments to adopt the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Approved
by unanimous roll call vote (7-0).
70
ATTACHMENT 8
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
71
4/3/2015
1
City Council Hearing
April 8, 2015
1
2
Introduction to the Housing Element (HE)
Local Review and Input to Date
HCD Review and Revisions
Joint Housing Subcommittee Comments
CEQA –Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Recommendation to Adopt the HE and 2014
Annual Progress Report
72
4/3/2015
2
3
State required update to the General Plan:
◦Reviews prior Housing Element (2007-2014);
◦Analyzes current and future housing needs;
◦Considers constraints to housing production;
◦Inventories housing resources and programs;
◦Conducts a capacity analysis to identify zoning to
meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); &
◦Establishes a plan with revised/new programs to
satisfy State, local, and advocate requests.
4
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
◦State estimated number of needed housing units
◦1,864 units for this housing cycle
◦1,635 units for previous HE (251 units constructed)
New HE proposes zoning capacity to allow up
to 2,169 units
◦This represents 305 units above RHNA requirement
73
4/3/2015
3
5
Transit Village Area
Downtown
6
Airport Land Use Commission
◦Reviewed on January 8, 2015
◦Approved for compatibility with SFO land use plan
PC and CC Study Sessions
◦Reviewed on November 6 & December 10, 2015
◦Recommended strengthening commitment to
evaluating housing affordability and potential
resident displacement
74
4/3/2015
4
7
Sent to HCD on January 6th for preliminary
review
Comments provided January 29, 2015
City submitted revisions February 27, 2015
HCD issued written acceptance of the HE on
March 3, 2015
8
Include additional public outreach details;
Comply with State code permitting employee
housing of 6 or fewer in residential zones;
Clarify impact fees for new development;
Clarify that transitional and supportive
housing is permitted in residential zones;
Complete capacity analysis of emergency
shelters to ensure adequate zoning; and
Revise Program 3-4B re: Displacement.
75
4/3/2015
5
9
Program 3-4B -Examine Displacement of Affordable Housing and Lower-Income Households:
The City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop and evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents. The City will use this analysis, in addition to other analysis, to develop potential measures and programs and the City will implement those programs, as it considers and deems appropriate, to address the risk of displacement of existing lower income residents. Displacement might be direct, caused by the redevelopment of sites with existing residential properties, or indirect, caused by increased market rents as an area becomes more desirable. The City shall monitor any such implemented programs annually for effectiveness and make adjustments as necessary.
10
Suggested removing Program 1-4D, which would review condominium development requirements
Current zoning requires condominium developments to create 5 units or more
Could consider reducing that threshold
Program does not commit City to any changes, however
76
4/3/2015
6
11
Initial Study/Negative Declaration was
prepared by City staff and consultants
Found that Housing Element adoption would
have no impact or impacts that would be less
than significant on the environment
HE Circulated for mandatory 30 day review on
February 27th and the review period closed on
March 30th
12
Reviewed at the March 19, 2015 hearing
Recommended adoption of the Negative
Declaration and General Plan Amendments to
adopt the 2015-2023 Housing Element
update
77
4/3/2015
7
13
Annual review of the existing Housing Element
Reports housing production and progress on
Housing Element adopted programs to the
State
251 units during 2007-2014 HE cycle
Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative
Declaration (ND14-0001) for the City’s
Housing Element
Adopt a resolution amending the South San
Francisco General Plan (GPA14-0001) to
update the Housing Element and accepting
the 2014 Housing Element Annual Progress
Report
14
78
Staff Report
DATE: April 8, 2015
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.360 (SIGNS) TO REVISE REGULATIONS AND
PERMITTING FOR SIGNS CITYWIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC CHAPTER
20.550.
Case Nos.: P07-0136: ZA15-0002
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and
introduce an Ordinance making modifications to the South San Francisco Municipal Code related to
regulations and permitting for signs, and waive further reading.
BACKGROUND
March 11th Staff Report and Discussion
On March 11, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing to consider various modifications to the City’s
regulations governing signs. At that meeting, the Council was supportive of the majority of the proposed
revisions to the sign regulations; however, Council expressed concerns with the allowance of Sandwich
Board signs (also commonly referred to as A-frame signs) in the Downtown, particularly related to allowable
locations, the review and approval process, design standards and alternative sign types. Based on these
concerns, the Council continued the public hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 8, 2015 and
requested that staff provide more information related to sandwich board signs. The March 11th staff report
(excluding attachments) is attached for background.
DISCUSSION
In response to Council’s request, following is a more detailed discussion related to each of the areas of
concern, and any revisions proposed by staff.
Allowable Locations
A primary area of concern was the placement of sandwich board signs and any related impacts to pedestrian
and vehicular circulation within the vicinity. As stated in the March 11th staff report, staff is recommending
that sandwich board signs be located within a zone near the street curb that already contains street tree grates,
parking meters, sign poles, and similar installations.
To address Council’s concern related to impacts with parked vehicles, staff is recommending that the
minimum setback from the curb be increased from 6 inches to 18 inches. This modified setback would be
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - Signage
Date: April 8, 2015
Page 2 of 6
equal to or greater than the existing setback of trees, parking meters and sign poles from the street curb, and
would allow vehicles to slightly overhang the curb without hitting the sandwich board signs.
Per the proposed standards, any sandwich board sign would also be required to be located a minimum of four
feet from any other obstruction, including lighting, benches, trees, parking meters, and the like. With this
requirement, adequate pedestrian and ADA access would be provided around all obstructions.
Figures 1 and 2 show how the revised setback requirements would work in practice (see below). As shown
in Figure 1, Sandwich Board signs would only be allowed to be placed in the area shown in red. This area is
30 inches wide, and is set back 18 inches from the curb. In addition, such signs would be required to be
placed at least four feet from any other obstruction.
Figure 1 – Allowable Location Zone of Sandwich Board Signs on Grand Ave
Figure 2 – Allowable Location Zone of Sandwich Board Signs on Linden Ave
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - Signage
Date: April 8, 2015
Page 3 of 6
Staff performed site measurements along the 200 and 300 blocks of Grand Avenue, and found that only a
handful of businesses do not have adequate distance between obstructions to allow a sandwich board sign to
be placed in front of their business. In addition to allowing sandwich board signs within the public right-of-
way, the proposed regulations have been revised to also allow such signs to be placed on the private property
of the business. This would allow businesses with adequately sized entrance alcoves to place a sandwich
board sign within the alcove next to the business entrance.
Review and Approval Process
The Sign regulations currently contain three different sign application types:
Type A - Temporary and permanent signs with a maximum freestanding height of six feet or less and a
maximum surface area of 25 square feet or less. The Chief Planner reviews and approves Type A sign
applications.
Type B - Signs with a freestanding height between six feet and 10 feet and a maximum surface area of
more than 25 square feet and less than 100 square feet. The Design Review Board reviews and provides
a recommendation to the Chief Planner, who has approval authority for Type B sign applications.
Type C - Signs with a freestanding height between 10 feet and 20 feet and a maximum surface area of
more than 100 square feet and less than 300 square feet. The Design Review Board reviews and
provides a recommendation to the Planning Commission, which has approval authority for Type C sign
applications.
Under the proposed new standards, Sandwich Board signs would be processed as a Type B application,
subject to Design Review Board recommendation and Chief Planner approval. The Design Review Board
would review sandwich board sign applications to ensure that the signs are in conformance with the required
development standards and that they are in keeping with the purpose statements of the sign regulations,
including architectural compatibility and protecting the City from visual clutter and blight. The Chief
Planner’s approval must include written findings stating how the application conforms to these requirements.
Under the current Master Fee Schedule, Type B Sign applications are subject to a $300 processing fee, and
an Encroachment Permit would range from $100 to $175.
If the sandwich board regulations were adopted, staff would create a new application form specific to
sandwich board signs that would require the applicant to provide the following information at a minimum:
Existing Site Photos (showing existing business frontage)
Site Plan
o Width of building frontage
o Width of sidewalk
o Proposed location of sandwich board sign and 48 inch minimum clear distance to any
surrounding obstructions within this frontage (including trees, benches, parking meters, etc.)
Front View of Sandwich Board Sign
o Sign face design
o Sign face width and length
o Materials
Side View of Sandwich Board Sign
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - Signage
Date: April 8, 2015
Page 4 of 6
o Sign height
o Distance of base when sign is displayed
An example of a sandwich board sign application is attached for reference (see Attachment 6).
Design Standards
The proposed regulations contain standards related to the size and materials of sandwich board signs that
provide an overall intent but that do not require a uniform appearance for all sandwich board signs, in order
to allow businesses some degree of creativity in the design and appearance of their signs. Therefore,
acceptable materials such as “painted or stained wood or anodized aluminum or metal” are listed, and
unacceptable materials such as “plastic framed signs” are prohibited.
Staff is proposing minor modifications to better clarify the basic design standards related to sandwich board
signs. These minor modifications include:
Stipulating that businesses that share a common entrance within a single building are allowed one
sandwich board sign that is to be shared between all businesses.
Allowing sandwich board signs to also be placed on the private property of the business. This would
allow businesses with adequately sized entrance alcoves to place a sandwich board sign within the
alcove next to the business entrance.
Revising subsection Q.5 Materials to more clearly state that signs have a finished appearance and that
they must be able to withstand weather related events and not fall into the public way.
Alternative Sign Types
The Council inquired about other potential pedestrian-directed signage types, such as blade/shingle signs.
Under the existing Sign regulations, these types of signs would be considered either a Projecting sign or a
Shingle sign, and both are allowed in the Grand Avenue Core and Downtown Transit Core Zoning Districts.
Shingle signs have been implemented successfully at other locations within the City, such as the Southwood
Shopping Center. Staff conducted further research related to the general cost of Sandwich Board and
Projecting signs, and found that Sandwich Board signs are typically less expensive, primarily due to the fact
that such signs have no installation costs, while Projecting signs are attached to the building and therefore
need to be more structurally sound and require a building permit.
Proposed Modifications to Sandwich Board Sign Regulations
Based on the discussion above, following are the proposed modifications to the sandwich board sign
regulations. For ease of review, added text is shown underlined and in red, while deleted text is shown using
a strikethrough and in blue.
Q. Sandwich Board Signs. Sandwich board signs are a freestanding temporary sign set on the
ground in an ‘A’ frame configuration with two panels hinged at the top.
1. Zoning Districts Allowed. Sandwich board signs are only allowed in the Grand Avenue
Core and Downtown Transit Core Zoning Districts.
2. Number. Each business shall be permitted no more than one sandwich board sign. When
multiple businesses, including upper floor businesses, share a common entrance, a single
shared sign shall be used. Such signs shall be limited to one per entrance to the shared
location.
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - Signage
Date: April 8, 2015
Page 5 of 6
3. Location. Signs may be placed on the business property being advertised or on a sidewalk
directly in front of the associated business. The sign shall also be placed so as to be located
within a three foot area at least one foot, six inches from the street curb and no more than
three four feet six inches from the curb. The sign must be placed so as not to interfere with
or obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic; in any event, a minimum of four feet of passage
must be maintained on the sidewalk between the sign and any other obstructions (i.e.,
lighting, benches, trees, parking meters, etc.). Signs may not be anchored to the sidewalk,
or attached or chained to poles, newspaper vending boxes, or other structures or
appurtenances.
4. Maximum Size. Any sandwich board sign shall not exceed 30 inches in width or 42 inches
in height, with a maximum area of seven square feet. Sandwich board sign area shall not
count toward allowable sign area.
5. Materials. The sign frame shall be of professionalfinished appearance and constructed of
durable weather resistant materials such as painted or stained wood or anodized aluminum
or metal; plastic framed signs are prohibited. Stenciled or spray painted signs are
prohibited. Windblown devices, including balloons, may not be attached or otherwise made
part of the sign. Decorative sandwich board signs which complement the business type or
building architecture are encouraged. Signs must be of sufficient weighted and durability to
withstand normally occurring weather related events, such as rain and wind, and in order to
ensure that they do not fall into the public way.
6. Lighting and Display Hours. Signs may not be illuminated. The sign shall be removed at
the end of the business day and may only be displayed during regular business hours.
Failure to remove the signs after regular business hours are subject to removal by the City,
at permitee’s expense.
7. Permits Required. Any Sandwich Board sign must apply for and obtain a Type B permit,
consistent with Section 20.360.009. The permit may include reasonable conditions to ensure
consistency with this Section and the Purposes of this Chapter, including but not limited to
the requirement that the permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and
its officers and employees from and against all claims, losses, damage, injury and liability
for damages arising from the permittee’s use of the public right-of-way. The permittee shall
provide to the City, in a form and in amounts acceptable to the City Attorney, certificates of
insurance substantiating the existence of a general liability policy covering the area subject
to the permit. Additionally, sandwich board signs located in the public right-of-way are
subject to an encroachment permit.
8. Temporary Suspension of Permit. The Director of Public Works shall have the right to
suspend or prohibit use of a sandwich board sign at any time because of anticipated or
actual conflicts in the use of the sidewalk area. Such conflicts may arise from, but are not
limited to, scheduled festivals, parades, marches and similar special events; repairs to the
street, sidewalk or other public facility; or from demonstrations or emergencies occurring in
the area. To the extent possible, the City will give prior notice of any time period during
which the sign permit must be suspended and any sandwich boards not displayed.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed text amendments will remain consistent with the City’s General Plan vision for community
and economic development and will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use
designations established in the General Plan.
Attachment 1
Draft Ordinance Revision (with Sandwich Board Signs)
1
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. ________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE RELATED TO
SIGNAGE CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
(“City”) adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance, which repealed the
then-existing Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and replaced it with an
entirely new Title 20 that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards (“Zoning Ordinance”); and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010, the City has identified
areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction, including
revisions to the City’s Chapter 20.360 regulating signs in order to provide added flexibility to
accommodate signs that may not otherwise be allowed and other minor modifications; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
(“CEQA”), which IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the
environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed
established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections to the Zoning Ordinance
as they relate to signage are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the IS/ND prepared and circulated for
the Zoning Ordinance, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a
change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental
review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
2
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on February 19, 2015; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on March 11, 2015
which was continued to April 8, 2015; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public
Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because they strengthen and promote economic development objectives related to business
identification. The proposed text amendments related to the regulation of signs will remain
consistent with the City’s General Plan vision for community and economic development and
will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in
the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendments related to Signs wound not affect any
particular subject property. The proposed standards would generally be suitable in terms of
architectural compatibility, consistency with area character, legibility, readability, finish and
visibility, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City
Council because appropriate performance standards for signs have been included and would be
applied to projects on a case-by-case basis to minimize visual impacts.
3. The proposed zoning amendments related to Signs would not result in any change
of zoning districts and therefore would not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating
addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included
below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
3
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
A. Amend Section 20.360.002(B) to add real estate sales and rentals signs to the list of
signs exempt from requiring a permit, as follows:
B. Exempt Signs. The following on-premises signs are exempt from the permit
requirements of this chapter, and they do not count toward the total sign area limit
for a site, provided that they conform to the specified standards:
1. Bulletin Boards. One bulletin board not exceeding 20 square feet in area or
five feet above existing grade, for a public, or quasi-public agency,
community facility or institution, if located on the premises of the institution.
2. Flags. Flags may be erected and located in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Location. Flagpoles shall not be located within any required yard
setbacks.
b. Height. Flagpole heights shall be limited to 30 feet.
c. Number. No more than two flags per lot in residential districts, no more
than three flags per lot in all other districts.
d. Size. Maximum flag size is 24 square feet in residential districts, 35
square feet in all other districts.
3. Information Sign. Information signs not more than four square feet in sign
area. Information signs include wall or window signs that identify the name
and occupation of an occupant in a non-residential building or provide
information to patrons of an enterprise such as credit cards accepted, menus,
redemption stamps or directories and signs incorporated into displays,
machinery or equipment by a manufacturer, distributor or vendor and
identifying or advertising only the product or service dispensed by the
machine or equipment, such as signs customarily fixed to automated teller
machines (ATMs), gasoline pumps, vending machines.
4. Memorial Signs. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings or date of
building erection, when cut into any masonry surface.
5. Official Government Signs, Plaques, and Legal Notices. Official notices
issued by a court, public body or office and posted in the performance of a
public duty; notices posted by a utility or other quasi-public agent in the
performance of a public duty or by any person given due legal notice;
historical markers erected by a governmental body; or other signs required or
authorized by law.
6. Traffic, Directional, Informational, and Warning Signs. On-site traffic,
directional, informational or warning signs required or authorized by a public
utility, common carrier, or public agency and not exceeding one square foot in
area erected for the convenience of the public, such as signs identifying
restrooms, public telephones, walkways and similar features or facilities or
indicating danger and aids to service or safety. (Ord. 1445 § 2, 2011; Ord.
1432 § 2, 2010)
7. Real Estate Sales and Rental Signs. A sign, no larger than 24 square feet, that
is attached or affixed to a property or premises in a semi-permanent manner
offering property or premises for sale or lease. Temporary A-frame signs
advertising open houses are not included in this subsection.
4
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
B. Revise Section 20.360.004 “Prohibited Signs” as follows:
20.360.004 Prohibited Signs
The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained within the City of
South San Francisco.
A. Animated, Flashing, or Moving Signs. Any sign with lights or illuminations which
flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, reflect, vary in intensity, vary in color, or
use intermittent electrical pulsations.
B. Emissions. Signs that produce noise in excess of 40 decibels and signs that emit odor
or visible smoke, vapor or particles.
C. Exposed Raceway. Exposed sign raceway is prohibited.
CD. Fences Signs. Signs attached or painted on fences or freestanding walls that are not
part of a building.
E. Internally Illuminated Signs and Bare Bulbs.
DF. Obstruction of Ingress and Egress or Ventilation. Signs shall not obstruct any
door, window, or fire escape. No sign shall be attached to a standpipe, gutter drain,
handicap access or fire escape. Signs shall not interfere with any opening required for
ventilation.
EG. Off-Premises Signs. To the extent allowed by law, with the exception of off-
premises signs legally in existence at the time of adoption of this chapter, off-premises
signs are prohibited. Messages placed on transit benches or shelters sponsored or
contracted by the transit agency pursuant to contract and with its consent are exempted
from this prohibition. Legally established off-premise signs are subject to the
nonconforming sign provisions of Section 20.360.012 (“Nonconforming Signs”).
FH. Pole Signs.
GI. Portable Signs, as defined by 20.360.015, are prohibited except sandwich board
signs, as allowed pursuant to 20.360.006(Q).
HJ. Roof Signs. Signs shall not be erected or painted upon, over or above the roof of a
building or structure, or affixed to the wall of a building so that it projects above the eave
line of a roof, except as allowed in this chapter.
Figure 20.360.004(H)
Roof Signs
5
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
IK. Signs Creating Traffic Hazards. Signs that simulate in color, size or design any traffic
control sign, signal or device, or that make use of words, symbols or characters in a manner that
interferes with, misleads or confuses pedestrian or vehicular traffic. No sign, light or advertising
structure shall be located in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, or in such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision, at any location where, by reason
of the position, shape, color or movement may interfere with, obstruct the view of, or be
confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device.
JL. Signs on Public Property. No person shall paint, mark, or write on, or post or otherwise
affix any handbill or sign to or upon any sidewalk, crosswalk, curb, curbstone, street lamp post,
hydrant, tree, shrub, tree stake or guard, post, railroad crossing, electric light or power or
telephone or telegraph pole, or wire appurtenance thereof, or upon any fixture of the fire alarm or
police communications system, or upon any lighting system, public bridge, public building or
wall, drinking fountain, street sign, or traffic sign or any other public place, except:
1. Signs or handbills posted by a public officer or public employee in the performance of a
public duty;
2. Legal notices that are authorized by law;
3. Messages placed on transit shelters sponsored or contracted by the applicable transit
agency pursuant to a contract with the transit agency and with its consent; and
4. Signs, banners, or similar authorized by the City Manager to be posted by a public or non-
profit agency within the Downtown area for special events.
5. Sandwich board signs, as allowed pursuant to 20.360.006(Q).
KM. Vehicle Display Signs. Vehicle display signs as defined in Subsection 20.360.015(JJ)
(“Vehicle Display Signs”), except the following:
1. Vehicle for sale signs in locations where the sale of vehicles is permitted;
2. Any vehicle which displays advertising or business identification of its owner, so long as
such vehicle is engaged in the usual business of regular work, or personal use, of the owner and
not used merely, mainly, or primarily to display advertising;
3. Buses; or
4. Taxicabs.
6
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
C. Revise Section 20.360.006 “General Standards” as follows:
20.360.006 General Standards
This section establishes general physical standards and requirements. More detailed
standards applicable to specific zoning districts are in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for
Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential
Districts”). In addition to these general standards, all signs shall conform to all applicable the
specifications and standards of the Uniform Sign Code, National Electric Code, and California
Building Code.
A. Materials. Signs shall be made of sturdy, durable materials. Paper, cardboard and
other materials subject to rapid deterioration shall be limited to temporary signs
displayed for no more than 90 days.
B. Clearance from Utilities. Signs and their supporting structures shall maintain
clearance from and not interfere with electrical conductors, communications
equipment or lines, surface and underground facilities and conduits for water, sewage,
gas, electricity and communications equipment or lines. Signs shall not be placed in
public utility easements unless express written permission from the affected public
utility is obtained. Signs shall maintain clearance from energized electric power lines
as prescribed by the California Public Utilities Code, the regulations of the California
Public Utilities Commission, and the orders of the California Division of Industrial
Safety, as now in force and as hereafter amended.
C. Intersection and Driveway Visibility. Notwithstanding other provisions of this
section, signs and related structures must comply with Section 20.300.017 (“Visibility
at Intersections and Driveways”).
D. Exposed Raceway. Exposed sign raceway is prohibited.
DE. Illumination. Illuminated channel letters and neon signs are allowed. However,
internally illuminated signs and bare bulbs are prohibited. Lighting fixtures used to
illuminate an outdoor sign shall be mounted on the top of the sign structure, unless
approved with a Minor Use Permit, and shall be shielded according to the following
table. All sign illumination shall adhere to the performance standards for lighting and
glare in Section 20.300.010 (“Performance Standards”).
Table 20.360.006
Requirements for Shielding and Filtering
Fixture Lamp Type Shielding Required Filtering Required
Low Pressure Sodium (1) None None
High Pressure Sodium Fully None
Metal Halide Fully Yes (4)
Fluorescent Fully (5) Yes (2)
Quartz(3) Fully None
Incandescent greater than 100W Fully None
Incandescent 100W or less None None
Mercury Vapor Not permitted
Fossil Fuel None None
Glass Tubes filled with Neon, Argon, or Krypton None None
Other Sources As approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Notes:
7
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
1. This is the preferred light source to minimize undesirable light into the night sky affecting astronomical observations.
2. Warm white natural lamps are preferred to minimize detrimental effects.
3. For the purposes of this article, quartz lamps shall not be considered an incandescent light source.
4. Most glass, acrylic, or translucent enclosures satisfy these filter requirements.
5. Outdoor signs constructed of translucent materials and wholly illuminated from within do not require shielding.
EF. Substitution of Sign Message. The owner of a permitted sign may substitute a non-
commercial message for a commercial message or a commercial message for a non-
commercial message.
FG. Awning and Canopy Signs. Awning and canopy signs may be attached to or painted
on the vertical edges of awnings, canopies, arcades, or similar features or structures
Awning and canopy signs are also subject to the specific zoning district standards in
Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section
20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the following
standards:
1. Sign Height. Maximum of 25 feet.
2. Sign Clearance. Minimum of eight feet.
Figure 20.360.006(G)
Awning and Canopy Signs
GH. Projecting Signs. A sign may project horizontally from the exterior wall of a
building provided that such projection conforms to the specific zoning district
standards in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”)
and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the
following standards:
1. Sign Height. Maximum of 20 feet above the surface of the sidewalk or street or
no higher than the eave line or parapet wall, whichever is lower.
2. Sign Clearance. Minimum of eight feet.
3. Width. A projecting sign shall be no more than one foot thick.
4. Projection. A projecting sign cannot extend more than three feet from the
building to which it is attached and shall be designed and located so as to cause
no harm to street trees. Signs projecting into the public right-of-way are subject
to an encroachment permit.
HI. Shingle Signs. Signs suspended beneath a marquee, covered walkway, or canopy in
conjunction with pedestrian walkways, are allowed, subject to the specific zoning
district standards in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and
Districts”) and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”),
the requirements for projecting signs in subsection G above, and the following
standard:
8
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
1. Illumination. The sign may not be illuminated.
Figure 20.360.006(I)
Shingle Signs
IJ. Marquee Signs. Marquee signs are subject to the specific zoning district standards in
Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section
20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the following
standards:
1. Sign Height. No portion of a marquee sign shall be higher than the eave line or
parapet wall of a building.
2. Sign Clearance. Minimum of eight feet.
3. Projections. A marquee sign may extend from the building to which it is
attached subject to approval from the City Engineer. All signs that project into
the public right-of-way shall be designed and located so as to cause no harm to
street trees. Signs projecting into the public right-of-way are subject to an
encroachment permit.
4. Changeable Copy. Changeable copy may occupy up to 75 percent of the area of
a marquee sign.
JK. Wall Signs. Wall signs include any sign attached to, erected against or painted upon
the wall of a building or structure, the face of which is in a single plane parallel to the
plane of the wall. Wall signs also include signs on a false or mansard roof. No wall
sign may cover wholly or partially any required wall opening. Wall signs are also
subject to the specific zoning district standards in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign
Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign
Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the following standards:
9
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
1. Height. Wall signs shall not be mounted or placed higher than the second story
and shall not extend higher than the building wall upon which they are attached
except on a peaked, mansard, or shed roof where the sign may be placed in such
a manner that the highest point on the sign shall be no higher than the lowest
two-thirds of the roof height and providing that the vertical dimension of the
sign shall be no greater than one-third the vertical dimension of the roof.
2. Coverage. Wall sign copy shall not occupy more than 75 percent of the length
of the wall to which the sign is attached.
3. Projection. Wall signs cannot extend more than 12 inches beyond the face of
the wall to which they are attached.
KL. Window Signs. Permanent window signs painted or otherwise adhered directly onto
a window are subject to the specific zoning district standards in Section 20.360.007
(“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign
Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the following standards:
1. Height. Window signs shall not be mounted or placed on windows higher than
the second story.
2. Visibility. Window signs shall allow visibility into inside of building.
LM. Monument Signs. Freestanding signs erected on the ground or on a monument base
designed as an architectural unit are allowed, subject to the specific zoning district
standards in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”)
and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the
following standards:
1. Height. A maximum of 10 feet.
2. Landscape. All monument signs shall require automatic irrigated landscape at
the base equivalent to two times the area of the sign copy.
Figure 20.360.006(M)
Monument Signs
MN. High-Rise Building Identification Signs. High-rise building identification signs
shall be limited to buildings of at least four stories located in the Commercial and
Employment districts.
1. Location. Signs shall be located on the upper-most story of the building.
2. Sign Type. Signs shall be composed of individual, internally illuminated
channel letters.
3. Sign Copy. Sign copy shall be limited to one.
NO. Center Identification Signs. Center identification signs may be erected in all
districts, subject to the following limitations:
1. Identifiable Area. The signs must be for a development containing a minimum
of 20,000 square feet with an integrated site and design plan creating a single
unified development with one or more uses.
10
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
2. Non-Residential Districts. The maximum sign area in nonresidential districts
may be no more than one foot for each linear foot of street frontage, but in no
case shall the total sign area exceed 200 square feet. If more than one entrance
to the lot exists, the maximum sign area permitted will be divided among the
number of entryways and signs requested.
3. Residential Districts and Subdivisions. For subdivisions and other residential
area entry signs, the maximum sign area permitted is 20 square feet. Signs shall
be mounted on a fence, wall or other similar entry feature. If more than one
entrance exists, the sign area permitted will be divided between the number of
entryways and signs requested.
4. Sign Base. The sign base is to be located within a planter box or planting area,
the design and location of which is to be approved by the Chief Planner.
5. Area Not Counted. The area of the sign shall not count towards the permissible
sign area of the individual lot.
OP. Changeable Copy.
1. Changeable copy shall cover no more than 25 percent of the total sign area,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
2. Automatic changeable copy in which copy can be changed or altered by electric,
electro-mechanical, electronic, or any other artificial energy means is
prohibited, except for Automobile Service Station fuel pricing displays or signs
granted a Type C sign permit pursuant to the Special Circumstances Section
20.360.011.
3. Changeable copy signs shall not contain animation, rolling or running letters or
message, flashing lights or displays as part of the display.
PQ. Temporary Signs. Any temporary sign, banner, balloon, pennant, valance or
advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard or
other light materials, with or without frames for any event of limited duration
including, but not limited to, entertainment, sporting events, elections, construction,
and sales of goods, and real estate sales and rental may be erected and located in
accordance with the following standards:
1. Maximum Total Temporary Sign Area.
a. Residential. Six square feet, no portion of which may be higher than seven
feet above existing grade.
b. Nonresidential. 24 square feet, no portion of which may be higher than 10
feet above existing grade.
2. Distance between Signs. Minimum two feet.
3. Time Limits. Temporary signs shall be removed within 30 days after they are
placed, erected or installed, or 15 calendar days after the conclusion of the event
to which they relate occurs, whichever is later. The Chief Planner may, for good
reason, grant an extension of up to 45 days based on the sign owner’s written
application. In no case shall a temporary sign remain in place for more than 90
days or be allowed more than twice per year.
Q. Sandwich Board Signs. Sandwich board signs are a freestanding temporary sign set
on the ground in an ‘A’ frame configuration with two panels hinged at the top.
1. Zoning Districts Allowed. Sandwich board signs are only allowed in the Grand
Avenue Core and Downtown Transit Core Zoning Districts.
2. Number. Each business shall be permitted no more than one sandwich board
sign. When multiple businesses, including upper floor businesses, share a
11
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
common entrance, a single shared sign shall be used. Such signs shall be
limited to one per entrance to the shared location.
3. Location. Signs may be placed on the business property being advertised or on
a sidewalk directly in front of the associated business. The sign shall also be
placed so as to be located within a three foot area at least one foot, six inches
from the street curb and no more than four feet from the curb. The sign must be
placed so as not to interfere with or obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic; in
any event, a minimum of four feet of passage must be maintained on the
sidewalk between the sign and any other obstructions (i.e., lighting, benches,
trees, parking meters, etc.). Signs may not be anchored to the sidewalk, or
attached or chained to poles, newspaper vending boxes, or other structures or
appurtenances.
4. Maximum Size. Any sandwich board sign shall not exceed 30 inches in width
or 42 inches in height, with a maximum area of seven square feet. Sandwich
board sign area shall not count toward allowable sign area.
5. Materials. The sign frame shall be of finished appearance and constructed of
durable weather resistant materials such as painted or stained wood or anodized
aluminum or metal; plastic framed signs are prohibited. Stenciled or spray
painted signs are prohibited. Windblown devices, including balloons, may not
be attached or otherwise made part of the sign. Decorative sandwich board
signs which complement the business type or building architecture are
encouraged. Signs must be of sufficient weight and durability to withstand
normally occurring weather related events, such as rain and wind, and to ensure
that they do not fall into the public way.
6. Lighting and Display Hours. Signs may not be illuminated. The sign shall be
removed at the end of the business day and may only be displayed during
regular business hours. Failure to remove the signs after regular business hours
are subject to removal by the City, at permitee’s expense.
7. Permits Required. Any Sandwich Board sign must apply for and obtain a Type
B permit, consistent with Section 20.360.009. The permit may include
reasonable conditions to ensure consistency with this Section and the Purposes
of this Chapter, including but not limited to the requirement that the permittee
shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers and
employees from and against all claims, losses, damage, injury and liability for
damages arising from the permittee’s use of the public right-of-way. The
permittee shall provide to the City, in a form and in amounts acceptable to the
City Attorney, certificates of insurance substantiating the existence of a general
liability policy covering the area subject to the permit. Additionally, sandwich
board signs located in the public right-of-way are subject to an encroachment
permit.
8. Temporary Suspension of Permit. The Director of Public Works shall have the
right to suspend or prohibit use of a sandwich board sign at any time because of
anticipated or actual conflicts in the use of the sidewalk area. Such conflicts
may arise from, but are not limited to, scheduled festivals, parades, marches and
similar special events; repairs to the street, sidewalk or other public facility; or
from demonstrations or emergencies occurring in the area. To the extent
possible, the City will give prior notice of any time period during which the sign
permit must be suspended and any sandwich boards not displayed.
12
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
D. Revise Table 20.360.008 “Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts” as follows:
Table 20.360.008
Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning Districts
(Frontage) Sign Area Allowed
(sq. ft. per 1 linear
ft. of building
frontage)
Total Maximum
Sign Area (sq. ft.) Permitted Sign
Types Maximum Number
of Signs Maximum Sign
Area per Sign
(sq. ft.)
Downtown 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 25 60
Marquee 1 per site 1 per linear ft. of
building frontage
Projecting 1 per building or
tenant space 16; 8 under a
canopy or awning 6
Shingle 1 per building or
tenant space 6
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25
Window n/a 15% of window
space, up to 30% of
window space with
MUP approval
Monument 1 per site 25
Commercial, Office
and Mixed Use 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 60 100
Marquee 1 per site 1.5 per linear ft. of
building frontage
Projecting 1 per building or
tenant space 16; 8 under a
canopy or awning 6
Zoning Districts
(Frontage) Sign Area Allowed
(sq. ft. per 1 linear
ft. of building
frontage)
Total Maximum
Sign Area (sq. ft.) Permitted Sign
Types Maximum Number
of Signs Maximum Sign
Area per Sign
(sq. ft.)
Shingle 1 per building or
tenant space 6
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25 100
Window n/a 15% of window
space, up to 30% of
window space with
MUP approval
Monument 1 per site 60
High-Rise Building
Identification 2 per building with
at least 4 stories 1 per linear ft. of
building frontage
Employment 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 60 100
Marquee 1 per site 1.5 per linear ft. of
building frontage
Projecting 1 per building or
tenant space 16; 8 under a
canopy or awning 6
Shingle 1 per building or
tenant space 6
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25 100
Monument 1 per site 60
High-Rise Building
Identification 12 per building with
at least 4 stories 1 per linear ft. of
building frontage
PQP 1 70 Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25
Monument 1 per site 60
13
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
E. Amend Section 20.360.009 “Permits Required; Review Process” as follows:
20.360.009 Permits Required; Review Process
A. Sign Permit Type. The physical classification of signs and the review criteria are as
follows:
1. Type A. Temporary and permanent signs that are used by individual business
establishment and have a maximum freestanding height of six feet or less and
have a maximum surface area of 25 square feet or less.
2. Type B. Signs that are used by individual or multi-tenant businesses and have a
freestanding height of more than six feet and less than 10 feet and have a
maximum surface area of more than 25 square feet and less than 100 square
feet. Sandwich Board signs are also subject to Type B sign permits.
3. Type C. Signs that are used by individual or multitenant businesses and have a
freestanding height of 10 feet or more, and less than 20 feet and have a
maximum surface area of 100 square feet or more and less than 300 square feet.
Special Circumstance signs are also subject to Type C sign permits.
4. Master Sign Program. See Section 20.360.010 (“Master Sign Program”).
B. Authority. The Chief Planner shall review and approve all Type A and Type B sign
applications. The Planning Commission shall review and approve all Type C, and
Master Sign PermitProgram and Special Circumstances sign applications.
C. Design Review Required. All signs 25 square feet or more in size and sandwich
board signs are subject to the design review provisions of Chapter 20.480 (“Design
Review”).
F. Amend Chapter 20.360 to add new Section 20.360.011 “Special Circumstances” as
follows, and renumber existing Sections 20.360.011 through 20.360.014 accordingly.
20.360.011 Special Circumstances
A. Purpose. Unusual site conditions, locations, particular unique signing requirements,
or other design factors may warrant types, heights, and sizes of signs not otherwise
permitted by the regulations of this chapter. Such signs, including but not limited to
the following, shall require a type “C” permit and shall be processed in accordance
with Section 20.360.009.
1. Roof signs which extend above the highest point on the roof or of the type not
allowed by Section 20.360.006.Q Temporary Signs.
2. Any individual sign, or combination of all signs on any one property, which
exceeds the height or area limitations prescribed in this chapter.
3. Signs in the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zone District which are of a classic
design style, consistent with those designed and erected in the 1940s and 1950s.
4. Signs in the Airport/South Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 corridor areas
which have special sign needs due to the regional nature of the use, the traveler-
oriented nature of the use, or other special requirements.
5. Employee-oriented signs for multibuilding campus-like facilities in the east of
101 area, of which at least four hundred thousand total square feet of
14
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
development is occupied by a single tenant. Signs approved pursuant to this
subsection shall:
a. Be architecturally integrated with the buildings to which they are attached;
b. Be oriented toward the interior of the campus and not a public area,
including public rights-of-way and public open space;
c. Hide from view or disguise any separate structure or apparatus required to
attach the signs to buildings; and
d. Only contain copy that is directly associated with the entity for which the
sign permit is issued.
B. Review Authority. All Special Circumstances signs are subject to review and
approval of the Review Authority for the project with which the signs are associated,
but at a minimum require approval by the Planning Commission as set forth in
Section 20.360.009. A Special Circumstances sign may be submitted as part of the
Use Permit application for the project.
C. Required Findings. In order to approve a Special Circumstances sign, the Review
Authority must find that all of the following are met, in addition to other applicable
regulations in this section.
1. The proposed signs are compatible in style and character with any building to
which the signs are to be attached, any surrounding structures and any adjoining
signage on the site.
2. Special circumstances exist that warrant consideration for exceeding the
prescribed standards.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk ’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
15
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 1
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 8th day of April, 2015.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the _____ day of _____________, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:_______________________________________________________________________
NOES:_______________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:_______________________________________________________________
ABSENT:_____________________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this _____ day of _____________, 2015.
Mayor
2401407.1
16
Attachment 2
Draft Ordinance Revision B (without Sandwich Board signs)
17
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. ________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE RELATED TO
SIGNAGE CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
(“City”) adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance, which repealed the
then-existing Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and replaced it with an
entirely new Title 20 that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards (“Zoning Ordinance”); and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010, the City has identified
areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction, including
revisions to the City’s Chapter 20.360 regulating signs in order to provide added flexibility to
accommodate signs that may not otherwise be allowed and other minor modifications; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
(“CEQA”), which IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the
environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed
established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections to the Zoning Ordinance
as they relate to signage are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the IS/ND prepared and circulated for
the Zoning Ordinance, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a
change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental
review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
18
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on February 19, 2015; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on March 11, 2015
which was continued to April 8, 2015; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public
Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because they strengthen and promote economic development objectives related to business
identification. The proposed text amendments related to the regulation of signs will remain
consistent with the City’s General Plan vision for community and economic development and
will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in
the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendments related to Signs wound not affect any
particular subject property. The proposed standards would generally be suitable in terms of
architectural compatibility, consistency with area character, legibility, readability, finish and
visibility, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City
Council because appropriate performance standards for signs have been included and would be
applied to projects on a case-by-case basis to minimize visual impacts.
3. The proposed zoning amendments related to Signs would not result in any change
of zoning districts and therefore would not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating
addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included
below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
19
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
A. Amend Section 20.360.002(B) to add real estate sales and rentals signs to the list of
signs exempt from requiring a permit, as follows:
B. Exempt Signs. The following on-premises signs are exempt from the permit
requirements of this chapter, and they do not count toward the total sign area limit
for a site, provided that they conform to the specified standards:
1. Bulletin Boards. One bulletin board not exceeding 20 square feet in area or
five feet above existing grade, for a public, or quasi-public agency,
community facility or institution, if located on the premises of the institution.
2. Flags. Flags may be erected and located in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Location. Flagpoles shall not be located within any required yard
setbacks.
b. Height. Flagpole heights shall be limited to 30 feet.
c. Number. No more than two flags per lot in residential districts, no more
than three flags per lot in all other districts.
d. Size. Maximum flag size is 24 square feet in residential districts, 35
square feet in all other districts.
3. Information Sign. Information signs not more than four square feet in sign
area. Information signs include wall or window signs that identify the name
and occupation of an occupant in a non-residential building or provide
information to patrons of an enterprise such as credit cards accepted, menus,
redemption stamps or directories and signs incorporated into displays,
machinery or equipment by a manufacturer, distributor or vendor and
identifying or advertising only the product or service dispensed by the
machine or equipment, such as signs customarily fixed to automated teller
machines (ATMs), gasoline pumps, vending machines.
4. Memorial Signs. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings or date of
building erection, when cut into any masonry surface.
5. Official Government Signs, Plaques, and Legal Notices. Official notices
issued by a court, public body or office and posted in the performance of a
public duty; notices posted by a utility or other quasi-public agent in the
performance of a public duty or by any person given due legal notice;
historical markers erected by a governmental body; or other signs required or
authorized by law.
6. Traffic, Directional, Informational, and Warning Signs. On-site traffic,
directional, informational or warning signs required or authorized by a public
utility, common carrier, or public agency and not exceeding one square foot in
area erected for the convenience of the public, such as signs identifying
restrooms, public telephones, walkways and similar features or facilities or
indicating danger and aids to service or safety. (Ord. 1445 § 2, 2011; Ord.
1432 § 2, 2010)
7. Real Estate Sales and Rental Signs. A sign, no larger than 24 square feet, that
is attached or affixed to a property or premises in a semi-permanent manner
offering property or premises for sale or lease. Temporary A-frame signs
advertising open houses are not included in this subsection.
20
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
B. Revise Section 20.360.004 “Prohibited Signs” as follows:
20.360.004 Prohibited Signs
The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained within the City of
South San Francisco.
A. Animated, Flashing, or Moving Signs. Any sign with lights or illuminations which
flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, reflect, vary in intensity, vary in color, or
use intermittent electrical pulsations.
B. Emissions. Signs that produce noise in excess of 40 decibels and signs that emit odor
or visible smoke, vapor or particles.
C. Exposed Raceway. Exposed sign raceway is prohibited.
CD. Fences Signs. Signs attached or painted on fences or freestanding walls that are not
part of a building.
E. Internally Illuminated Signs and Bare Bulbs.
DF. Obstruction of Ingress and Egress or Ventilation. Signs shall not obstruct any
door, window, or fire escape. No sign shall be attached to a standpipe, gutter drain,
handicap access or fire escape. Signs shall not interfere with any opening required for
ventilation.
EG. Off-Premises Signs. To the extent allowed by law, with the exception of off-
premises signs legally in existence at the time of adoption of this chapter, off-premises
signs are prohibited. Messages placed on transit benches or shelters sponsored or
contracted by the transit agency pursuant to contract and with its consent are exempted
from this prohibition. Legally established off-premise signs are subject to the
nonconforming sign provisions of Section 20.360.012 (“Nonconforming Signs”).
FH. Pole Signs.
GI. Portable Signs, as defined by 20.360.015, are prohibited.
HJ. Roof Signs. Signs shall not be erected or painted upon, over or above the roof of a
building or structure, or affixed to the wall of a building so that it projects above the eave
line of a roof, except as allowed in this chapter.
Figure 20.360.004(H)
Roof Signs
21
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
IK. Signs Creating Traffic Hazards. Signs that simulate in color, size or design any traffic
control sign, signal or device, or that make use of words, symbols or characters in a manner that
interferes with, misleads or confuses pedestrian or vehicular traffic. No sign, light or advertising
structure shall be located in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, or in such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision, at any location where, by reason
of the position, shape, color or movement may interfere with, obstruct the view of, or be
confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device.
JL. Signs on Public Property. No person shall paint, mark, or write on, or post or otherwise
affix any handbill or sign to or upon any sidewalk, crosswalk, curb, curbstone, street lamp post,
hydrant, tree, shrub, tree stake or guard, post, railroad crossing, electric light or power or
telephone or telegraph pole, or wire appurtenance thereof, or upon any fixture of the fire alarm or
police communications system, or upon any lighting system, public bridge, public building or
wall, drinking fountain, street sign, or traffic sign or any other public place, except:
1. Signs or handbills posted by a public officer or public employee in the performance of a
public duty;
2. Legal notices that are authorized by law;
3. Messages placed on transit shelters sponsored or contracted by the applicable transit
agency pursuant to a contract with the transit agency and with its consent; and
4. Signs, banners, or similar authorized by the City Manager to be posted by a public or non-
profit agency within the Downtown area for special events.
KM. Vehicle Display Signs. Vehicle display signs as defined in Subsection 20.360.015(JJ)
(“Vehicle Display Signs”), except the following:
1. Vehicle for sale signs in locations where the sale of vehicles is permitted;
2. Any vehicle which displays advertising or business identification of its owner, so long as
such vehicle is engaged in the usual business of regular work, or personal use, of the owner and
not used merely, mainly, or primarily to display advertising;
3. Buses; or
4. Taxicabs.
22
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
C. Revise Section 20.360.006 “General Standards” as follows:
20.360.006 General Standards
This section establishes general physical standards and requirements. More detailed
standards applicable to specific zoning districts are in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for
Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential
Districts”). In addition to these general standards, all signs shall conform to all applicable the
specifications and standards of the Uniform Sign Code, National Electric Code, and California
Building Code.
A. Materials. Signs shall be made of sturdy, durable materials. Paper, cardboard and
other materials subject to rapid deterioration shall be limited to temporary signs
displayed for no more than 90 days.
B. Clearance from Utilities. Signs and their supporting structures shall maintain
clearance from and not interfere with electrical conductors, communications
equipment or lines, surface and underground facilities and conduits for water, sewage,
gas, electricity and communications equipment or lines. Signs shall not be placed in
public utility easements unless express written permission from the affected public
utility is obtained. Signs shall maintain clearance from energized electric power lines
as prescribed by the California Public Utilities Code, the regulations of the California
Public Utilities Commission, and the orders of the California Division of Industrial
Safety, as now in force and as hereafter amended.
C. Intersection and Driveway Visibility. Notwithstanding other provisions of this
section, signs and related structures must comply with Section 20.300.017 (“Visibility
at Intersections and Driveways”).
D. Exposed Raceway. Exposed sign raceway is prohibited.
DE. Illumination. Illuminated channel letters and neon signs are allowed. However,
internally illuminated signs and bare bulbs are prohibited. Lighting fixtures used to
illuminate an outdoor sign shall be mounted on the top of the sign structure, unless
approved with a Minor Use Permit, and shall be shielded according to the following
table. All sign illumination shall adhere to the performance standards for lighting and
glare in Section 20.300.010 (“Performance Standards”).
Table 20.360.006
Requirements for Shielding and Filtering
Fixture Lamp Type Shielding Required Filtering Required
Low Pressure Sodium (1) None None
High Pressure Sodium Fully None
Metal Halide Fully Yes (4)
Fluorescent Fully (5) Yes (2)
Quartz(3) Fully None
Incandescent greater than 100W Fully None
Incandescent 100W or less None None
Mercury Vapor Not permitted
Fossil Fuel None None
Glass Tubes filled with Neon, Argon, or Krypton None None
Other Sources As approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Notes:
1. This is the preferred light source to minimize undesirable light into the night sky affecting astronomical observations.
2. Warm white natural lamps are preferred to minimize detrimental effects.
23
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
3. For the purposes of this article, quartz lamps shall not be considered an incandescent light source.
4. Most glass, acrylic, or translucent enclosures satisfy these filter requirements.
5. Outdoor signs constructed of translucent materials and wholly illuminated from within do not require shielding.
EF. Substitution of Sign Message. The owner of a permitted sign may substitute a non-
commercial message for a commercial message or a commercial message for a non-
commercial message.
FG. Awning and Canopy Signs. Awning and canopy signs may be attached to or painted
on the vertical edges of awnings, canopies, arcades, or similar features or structures
Awning and canopy signs are also subject to the specific zoning district standards in
Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section
20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the following
standards:
1. Sign Height. Maximum of 25 feet.
2. Sign Clearance. Minimum of eight feet.
Figure 20.360.006(G)
Awning and Canopy Signs
GH. Projecting Signs. A sign may project horizontally from the exterior wall of a
building provided that such projection conforms to the specific zoning district
standards in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”)
and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the
following standards:
1. Sign Height. Maximum of 20 feet above the surface of the sidewalk or street or
no higher than the eave line or parapet wall, whichever is lower.
2. Sign Clearance. Minimum of eight feet.
3. Width. A projecting sign shall be no more than one foot thick.
4. Projection. A projecting sign cannot extend more than three feet from the
building to which it is attached and shall be designed and located so as to cause
no harm to street trees. Signs projecting into the public right-of-way are subject
to an encroachment permit.
HI. Shingle Signs. Signs suspended beneath a marquee, covered walkway, or canopy in
conjunction with pedestrian walkways, are allowed, subject to the specific zoning
district standards in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and
Districts”) and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”),
the requirements for projecting signs in subsection G above, and the following
standard:
1. Illumination. The sign may not be illuminated.
24
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
Figure 20.360.006(I)
Shingle Signs
IJ. Marquee Signs. Marquee signs are subject to the specific zoning district standards in
Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section
20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the following
standards:
1. Sign Height. No portion of a marquee sign shall be higher than the eave line or
parapet wall of a building.
2. Sign Clearance. Minimum of eight feet.
3. Projections. A marquee sign may extend from the building to which it is
attached subject to approval from the City Engineer. All signs that project into
the public right-of-way shall be designed and located so as to cause no harm to
street trees. Signs projecting into the public right-of-way are subject to an
encroachment permit.
4. Changeable Copy. Changeable copy may occupy up to 75 percent of the area of
a marquee sign.
JK. Wall Signs. Wall signs include any sign attached to, erected against or painted upon
the wall of a building or structure, the face of which is in a single plane parallel to the
plane of the wall. Wall signs also include signs on a false or mansard roof. No wall
sign may cover wholly or partially any required wall opening. Wall signs are also
subject to the specific zoning district standards in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign
Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign
Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the following standards:
1. Height. Wall signs shall not be mounted or placed higher than the second story
and shall not extend higher than the building wall upon which they are attached
25
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
except on a peaked, mansard, or shed roof where the sign may be placed in such
a manner that the highest point on the sign shall be no higher than the lowest
two-thirds of the roof height and providing that the vertical dimension of the
sign shall be no greater than one-third the vertical dimension of the roof.
2. Coverage. Wall sign copy shall not occupy more than 75 percent of the length
of the wall to which the sign is attached.
3. Projection. Wall signs cannot extend more than 12 inches beyond the face of
the wall to which they are attached.
KL. Window Signs. Permanent window signs painted or otherwise adhered directly onto
a window are subject to the specific zoning district standards in Section 20.360.007
(“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”) and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign
Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the following standards:
1. Height. Window signs shall not be mounted or placed on windows higher than
the second story.
2. Visibility. Window signs shall allow visibility into inside of building.
LM. Monument Signs. Freestanding signs erected on the ground or on a monument base
designed as an architectural unit are allowed, subject to the specific zoning district
standards in Section 20.360.007 (“Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts”)
and Section 20.360.008 (“Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts”) and the
following standards:
1. Height. A maximum of 10 feet.
2. Landscape. All monument signs shall require automatic irrigated landscape at
the base equivalent to two times the area of the sign copy.
Figure 20.360.006(M)
Monument Signs
MN. High-Rise Building Identification Signs. High-rise building identification signs
shall be limited to buildings of at least four stories located in the Commercial and
Employment districts.
1. Location. Signs shall be located on the upper-most story of the building.
2. Sign Type. Signs shall be composed of individual, internally illuminated
channel letters.
3. Sign Copy. Sign copy shall be limited to one.
NO. Center Identification Signs. Center identification signs may be erected in all
districts, subject to the following limitations:
1. Identifiable Area. The signs must be for a development containing a minimum
of 20,000 square feet with an integrated site and design plan creating a single
unified development with one or more uses.
2. Non-Residential Districts. The maximum sign area in nonresidential districts
may be no more than one foot for each linear foot of street frontage, but in no
26
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
case shall the total sign area exceed 200 square feet. If more than one entrance
to the lot exists, the maximum sign area permitted will be divided among the
number of entryways and signs requested.
3. Residential Districts and Subdivisions. For subdivisions and other residential
area entry signs, the maximum sign area permitted is 20 square feet. Signs shall
be mounted on a fence, wall or other similar entry feature. If more than one
entrance exists, the sign area permitted will be divided between the number of
entryways and signs requested.
4. Sign Base. The sign base is to be located within a planter box or planting area,
the design and location of which is to be approved by the Chief Planner.
5. Area Not Counted. The area of the sign shall not count towards the permissible
sign area of the individual lot.
OP. Changeable Copy.
1. Changeable copy shall cover no more than 25 percent of the total sign area,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
2. Automatic changeable copy in which copy can be changed or altered by electric,
electro-mechanical, electronic, or any other artificial energy means is
prohibited, except for Automobile Service Station fuel pricing displays or signs
granted a Type C sign permit pursuant to the Special Circumstances Section
20.360.011.
3. Changeable copy signs shall not contain animation, rolling or running letters or
message, flashing lights or displays as part of the display.
PQ. Temporary Signs. Any temporary sign, banner, balloon, pennant, valance or
advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard or
other light materials, with or without frames for any event of limited duration
including, but not limited to, entertainment, sporting events, elections, construction,
and sales of goods, and real estate sales and rental may be erected and located in
accordance with the following standards:
1. Maximum Total Temporary Sign Area.
a. Residential. Six square feet, no portion of which may be higher than seven
feet above existing grade.
b. Nonresidential. 24 square feet, no portion of which may be higher than 10
feet above existing grade.
2. Distance between Signs. Minimum two feet.
3. Time Limits. Temporary signs shall be removed within 30 days after they are
placed, erected or installed, or 15 calendar days after the conclusion of the event
to which they relate occurs, whichever is later. The Chief Planner may, for good
reason, grant an extension of up to 45 days based on the sign owner’s written
application. In no case shall a temporary sign remain in place for more than 90
days or be allowed more than twice per year.
D. Revise Table 20.360.008 “Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts” as follows:
Table 20.360.008
Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zoning Districts
27
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
Zoning Districts
(Frontage) Sign Area Allowed
(sq. ft. per 1 linear
ft. of building
frontage)
Total Maximum
Sign Area (sq. ft.) Permitted Sign
Types Maximum Number
of Signs Maximum Sign
Area per Sign
(sq. ft.)
Downtown 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 25 60
Marquee 1 per site 1 per linear ft. of
building frontage
Projecting 1 per building or
tenant space 16; 8 under a
canopy or awning 6
Shingle 1 per building or
tenant space 6
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25
Window n/a 15% of window
space, up to 30% of
window space with
MUP approval
Monument 1 per site 25
Commercial, Office
and Mixed Use 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 60 100
Marquee 1 per site 1.5 per linear ft. of
building frontage
Projecting 1 per building or
tenant space 16; 8 under a
canopy or awning 6
Zoning Districts
(Frontage) Sign Area Allowed
(sq. ft. per 1 linear
ft. of building
frontage)
Total Maximum
Sign Area (sq. ft.) Permitted Sign
Types Maximum Number
of Signs Maximum Sign
Area per Sign
(sq. ft.)
Shingle 1 per building or
tenant space 6
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25 100
Window n/a 15% of window
space, up to 30% of
window space with
MUP approval
Monument 1 per site 60
High-Rise Building
Identification 2 per building with
at least 4 stories 1 per linear ft. of
building frontage
Employment 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 60 100
Marquee 1 per site 1.5 per linear ft. of
building frontage
Projecting 1 per building or
tenant space 16; 8 under a
canopy or awning 6
Shingle 1 per building or
tenant space 6
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25 100
Monument 1 per site 60
High-Rise Building
Identification 12 per building with
at least 4 stories 1 per linear ft. of
building frontage
PQP 1 70 Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25
Monument 1 per site 60
E. Amend Section 20.360.009 “Permits Required; Review Process” as follows:
20.360.009 Permits Required; Review Process
A. Sign Permit Type. The physical classification of signs and the review criteria are as
follows:
28
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
1. Type A. Temporary and permanent signs that are used by individual business
establishment and have a maximum freestanding height of six feet or less and
have a maximum surface area of 25 square feet or less.
2. Type B. Signs that are used by individual or multi-tenant businesses and have a
freestanding height of more than six feet and less than 10 feet and have a
maximum surface area of more than 25 square feet and less than 100 square
feet.
3. Type C. Signs that are used by individual or multitenant businesses and have a
freestanding height of 10 feet or more, and less than 20 feet and have a
maximum surface area of 100 square feet or more and less than 300 square feet.
Special Circumstance signs are also subject to Type C sign permits.
4. Master Sign Program. See Section 20.360.010 (“Master Sign Program”).
B. Authority. The Chief Planner shall review and approve all Type A and Type B sign
applications. The Planning Commission shall review and approve all Type C, and
Master Sign PermitProgram and Special Circumstances sign applications.
C. Design Review Required. All signs 25 square feet or more in size are subject to the
design review provisions of Chapter 20.480 (“Design Review”).
F. Amend Chapter 20.360 to add new Section 20.360.011 “Special Circumstances” as
follows, and renumber existing Sections 20.360.011 through 20.360.014 accordingly.
20.360.011 Special Circumstances
A. Purpose. Unusual site conditions, locations, particular unique signing requirements,
or other design factors may warrant types, heights, and sizes of signs not otherwise
permitted by the regulations of this chapter. Such signs, including but not limited to
the following, shall require a type “C” permit and shall be processed in accordance
with Section 20.360.009.
1. Roof signs which extend above the highest point on the roof or of the type not
allowed by Section 20.360.006.Q Temporary Signs.
2. Any individual sign, or combination of all signs on any one property, which
exceeds the height or area limitations prescribed in this chapter.
3. Signs in the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zone District which are of a classic
design style, consistent with those designed and erected in the 1940s and 1950s.
4. Signs in the Airport/South Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 corridor areas
which have special sign needs due to the regional nature of the use, the traveler-
oriented nature of the use, or other special requirements.
5. Employee-oriented signs for multibuilding campus-like facilities in the east of
101 area, of which at least four hundred thousand total square feet of
development is occupied by a single tenant. Signs approved pursuant to this
subsection shall:
a. Be architecturally integrated with the buildings to which they are attached;
b. Be oriented toward the interior of the campus and not a public area,
including public rights-of-way and public open space;
c. Hide from view or disguise any separate structure or apparatus required to
attach the signs to buildings; and
29
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
d. Only contain copy that is directly associated with the entity for which the
sign permit is issued.
B. Review Authority. All Special Circumstances signs are subject to review and
approval of the Review Authority for the project with which the signs are associated,
but at a minimum require approval by the Planning Commission as set forth in
Section 20.360.009. A Special Circumstances sign may be submitted as part of the
Use Permit application for the project.
C. Required Findings. In order to approve a Special Circumstances sign, the Review
Authority must find that all of the following are met, in addition to other applicable
regulations in this section.
1. The proposed signs are compatible in style and character with any building to
which the signs are to be attached, any surrounding structures and any adjoining
signage on the site.
2. Special circumstances exist that warrant consideration for exceeding the
prescribed standards.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk ’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 8th day of April, 2015.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the _____ day of _____________, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:_______________________________________________________________________
30
Draft Ordinance, Attachment 2
NOES:_______________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:_______________________________________________________________
ABSENT:_____________________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this _____ day of _____________, 2015.
Mayor
2401407.1
31
Attachment 3
City Council Staff Report and Draft Minutes – Meeting of March 11, 2015
32
Staff Report
DATE: March 11, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.360 (SIGNS) TO REVISE REGULATIONS AND
PERMITTING FOR SIGNS CITYWIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC CHAPTER
20.550.
Case Nos.: P07-0136: ZA15-0002
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and
introduce an Ordinance making modifications to the South San Francisco Municipal Code related to
regulations and permitting for signs, and waive further reading.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
The City’s regulations related to signs (Chapter 20.360) were last revised and updated in 2010 as part of the
overall Zoning Ordinance Update. Since adoption of these regulations, it has become apparent that there is
not sufficient flexibility in Chapter 20.360 to allow for unusual or unique signs that are otherwise consistent
with the Chapter’s purposes and design principles. To address these concerns, staff is proposing to re-
establish “Special Circumstances” standards that were part of the Zoning Ordinance in effect prior to the
2010 Zoning Ordinance Update. Staff is also proposing additional modifications to provide greater
flexibility in the maximum allowable sign area for awnings and wall signs, to allow sandwich board signs
within select downtown zoning districts, and miscellaneous minor revisions to other sections of the Signs
chapter. The proposed changes included in the attachments are done using a strikethrough and double
underline format, where text that is struck out is removed and text that is double underlined is added.
Special Circumstances Signs Revisions
In the course of processing signage applications under the existing ordinance, staff has discovered that
there is limited ability to allow unique signs. Currently, only Master Sign Programs are allowed to deviate
from the signage development standards. However, Master Sign Programs are only applicable to
nonresidential developments of two or more separate tenants, multi-family residential developments of 100
or more units, or whenever five or more signs are proposed for a building with one or more tenants.
Therefore, smaller projects or businesses with less than five signs do not have a process to allow unique
signage solutions.
33
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - Signage
Date: March 11, 2015
Page 2 of 6
The Zoning Ordinance in effect prior to 2010 included a “Special Circumstances” section that stipulated a
process to allow unique signs that may not otherwise be permitted by the existing Sign regulations. Staff is
proposing that this language be incorporated into the current Zoning Ordinance as follows:
20.360.011 Special Circumstances
Unusual site conditions, locations, particular unique signing requirements, or other design
factors may warrant types, heights, and sizes of signs not otherwise permitted by the regulations of
this chapter. Such signs, including but not limited to the following, shall require a type “C” permit
and shall be processed in accordance with Section 20.360.009.
A. Roof signs which extend above the highest point on the roof or of the type not allowed by
Section 20.360.006.Q Temporary Signs.
B. Any individual sign, or combination of all signs on any one property, which exceeds the
height or area limitations prescribed in this chapter.
E. Signs in the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zone District which are of a classic design style,
consistent with those designed and erected in the 1940s and 1950s.
F. Signs in the Airport/South Airport Boulevard, and Highway 101 corridor areas which have
special sign needs due to the regional nature of the use, the traveler-oriented nature of the
use, or other special requirements.
G. Employee-oriented signs for multi-building campus-like facilities in the east of 101 area,
of which at least four hundred thousand total square feet of development is occupied by a
single tenant. Signs approved pursuant to this subsection shall
1. Be architecturally integrated with the buildings to which they are attached;
2. Be oriented toward the interior of the campus and not a public area, including public
rights-of-way and public open space;
3. Hide from view or disguise any separate structure or apparatus required to attach the
signs to buildings; and
4. Only contain copy that is directly associated with the entity for which the sign permit
is issued.
Type C sign permits issued pursuant to this subsection shall expire immediately if the
facility is no longer owned or primarily occupied by the entity for which the permit is
issued.
Application to the Planning Commission shall include reasons or exceptional circumstances which
warrant consideration for exceeding the prescribed standards (e.g., nonconforming structures, visual
obstruction,
Special Circumstances signage applications will be processed in the same way as a Type C Sign Permit,
with the Design Review Board providing a recommendation on the application and the Planning
34
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - Signage
Date: March 11, 2015
Page 3 of 6
Commission acting as the approval body. Both the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission
will continue to consider how the proposed signage complies with Section 20.360.003 “Design Principles”,
which include principles related to architectural compatibility, consistency with area character, legibility,
readability, finish and visibility.
Revisions to the Allowable Area for Specific Sign-types
Table 20.360.008 “Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zoning Districts” includes sign area standards for
zoning districts and specific sign types. The basic allowance is 1.5 square feet of sign area for every 1 foot
of linear building frontage; based on this, a building with 50 feet of street frontage would be allowed 75
square feet of total sign area. The table further stipulates the allowable sign area for specific sign types. As
an example, businesses are allowed one wall sign with a maximum sign area of 25 square feet in the
Downtown Zoning Districts. The total area of all of the specific sign types cannot be greater than the
maximum sign area allowed by the calculation above.
The primary sign types for commercial businesses within the City are wall signs and awnings. Currently,
wall signage in all zoning districts is restricted to no more than 25 square feet in total area. This is often
adequate for businesses on smaller lots, but is too restrictive for larger buildings and parcels. To allow
greater flexibility for businesses and property owners, staff is proposing that the total sign area allowed for
both awnings and wall signs be increased in all zoning districts, as follows:
Table 20.360.008
Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning Districts
(Frontage) Sign Area Allowed
(sq. ft. per 1 linear ft.
of building frontage)
Total Maximum Sign
Area (sq. ft.) Permitted Sign Types Maximum Number
of Signs Maximum Sign Area
per Sign
(sq. ft.)
Downtown 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 25 60
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25 60
Commercial, Office
and Mixed Use 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 60 100
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25 100
Employment 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy n/a 60 100
Wall 1 per building or
tenant space 25 100
Under these revised standards, any signage proposed at the maximum sign area allowed for awnings and
wall signs would be subject to a Type B Sign Permit, which requires review by the Design Review Board
and approval by the Chief Planner. As discussed above in the Special Circumstances section, all signage is
reviewed in conjunction with Section 20.360.003 “Design Principles”, and therefore the allowance for
additional sign area will be balanced by the need for such signs to be architecturally compatible and in
scale with the building on which the sign is to be installed.
Sandwich Board Signs
The Sign ordinance currently prohibits all portable signs throughout the City. During the process to adopt
the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, an interest in allowing sandwich board or A-frame signs was
introduced by some downtown merchants. To accommodate this request, staff is proposing to add
regulations that would allow sandwich board signs only within the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) and
Downtown Transit Core (DTC) zoning districts, subject to very specific requirements, including:
35
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - Signage
Date: March 11, 2015
Page 4 of 6
Businesses would be limited to no more than one sandwich board sign.
The allowable location would be limited to directly in front of the associated business and with a
requirement that a minimum four foot passage be maintained from all other obstructions.
Maximum size allowed would be 30 inches in width and 42 inches in height, with a maximum area of
seven square feet.
Materials that meet the City’s design guidelines and are high-quality in appearance would be required,
and the sign must be constructed so as not to fall into the public way.
No illumination is allowed.
Signs are only allowed to be on the sidewalk during business hours.
A type B sign permit would be required as well as an encroachment permit and
indemnification/insurance.
During the Planning Commission public hearing on February 19, 2015, the Commission was supportive of
the proposed standards regulating sign materials and placement, but requested that the language be
modified to encourage that multiple sandwich board signs on a single block be located in similar locations
(either closer to the building façade or closer to the street). As shown in Figure 1 below, the area between
the building frontages and the street tree grates is open to allow for circulation. A 3-foot wide zone nearest
the street curb contains street tree grates, parking meters, sign poles, and similar installations. Staff is
recommending that sandwich board sign locations be restricted to this zone as well.
Figure 1 – Allowable Location Zone of Sandwich Board Signs
36
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - Signage
Date: March 11, 2015
Page 5 of 6
All sandwich board signs would be subject to a Type-B sign permit, which requires review by the Design
Review Board and approval by the Chief Planner. In addition to complying with the conditions of the Type
B sign permit, the Director of Public Works would retain the right to temporarily suspend the encroachment
permit of a sandwich board if specific conflicts arise within the public right-of-way, such as an emergency,
necessary repairs, or a parade or festival.
Other Miscellaneous Revisions regarding Signs
The following miscellaneous revisions are discussed in the order they are included in the Ordinance.
Exempt Signs (20.360.002.B)
Add “Real Estate Sales and Rental Signs” as a sign type that is exempt from the sign regulations.
Prohibited Signs (20.360.004)
Language in Chapter 20.360.006 “General Standards” currently states that exposed raceway signs and
internally illuminated signs and bare bulbs are prohibited; this language will be moved into the appropriate
“Prohibited Signs” section.
Window Signs Visibility (20.360.006.K)
Add language requiring that permanent window signs installed on the ground floor/street level allow
visibility into the inside of a building, so as to provide views into work areas, sales areas, lobbies or similar
active spaces.
Changeable Copy for Service Station Fueling Signs (20.360.006.O)
Add language allowing gas station fuel pricing displays to be changed or altered via electronic displays.
Revise language in Temporary Signs (20.360.006.P)
Remove “real estate sales and rental” language from the Temporary Signs section, as that type of signage
will now be considered exempt.
High-Rise Building Identification in Employment Districts (Table 20.360.008)
Revise the allowable number of high-rise building identification signs allowed within Employment districts
from 1 to 2 per building with at least 4 stories, in keeping with the allowance for Commercial, Office and
Mixed Use districts.
PLANNING COMMISSION
At the February 19, 2015 Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed zoning amendment and had moderate concerns with the allowance of sandwich board signs in the
downtown, requesting that the location of sandwich board signs be more uniformly regulated. Subject to
this modification, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the
proposed legislation. The Planning Commission resolution and draft minutes of the Commission meeting
are attached to this staff report.
37
38
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
4. Motion to waive reading and adopt an ordinanceamendingChapter 11.24 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Codeto prohibit the intentional obstruction of pedestrian traffic upon
sidewalks. (Steve Mattas, City Attorney).
City Attorney Mattas presentedthe staff report. He began by explaining that this item was being
presented as a second reading of an ordinancethat Council introduced at the last City Council
Meeting. He further elaborated onthe specifics of the Ordinance and recommendedthat Council
waive reading and adopt it.
Councilman Gupta stated that he was not entirely comfortable with the way the ordinance was
drafted. He clarified that he wantedtomake sure its enforcement would be carriedout fairly and
appropriately.
City Attorney Mattas assured him that staff would come up with proper guidelines and enforcement
standards. Heexplained that warnings would be issued initially. He addressed Councilwoman
Matsumoto's concern for consistent enforcementstatingthat the intent was to ensure pedestrian
flow.
Vice Mayor Addiego said thatafterconsideration of the Mayor's comments the last time the item
was discussed, heagreed that this ordinance would essentially function as a tool for law
enforcement.
Mayor Garbarino asked staff to bring the ordinance back for adoption at a later date, once possible
enforcement guidelines were better outlined.
PUBLIC HEARING
5. ZoningText Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.360 to revise regulations and permitting for
signs citywidein accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.550.
Billy Gross, Senior Planner).
Public Hearing opened: 8:17 P.M.
Senior Planner Gross presented the staff report. He explained that Planning Staff had identified
existing sign regulations that needed small revisions to provide more flexibility for the type and sizeofsignageallowedintheCity. These revisions would include special circumstance signs, the
allowable area for awning/wall signs and the use of sandwichboard signs.
Council discussedthe challenges of sandwich board signs, specifically aesthetic concerns and
spatial impediment. Planner Gross explained that staff would have to make some additional
revisions given the plannedGrand Avenue Downtown Improvement Projects.
Councilwoman Matsumoto felt that sandwich boards on Grand Avenue would impede pedestrian
traffic, act as an obstacle to car doors with the proposed parallel parking modifications and
ultimately recommendedthat this be revisited after significant changes to the Downtown have been
made. CouncilwomanNormandy agreed.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 11,2015
PAGE 4
MINUTES 39
In light of the signage discourse, Councilman Gupta requested parking garage signage
improvements. He also stated that he appreciated Councilwomen Matsumoto's and Normandy's
concerns with the sandwich board uses they brought up earlier in the discussion. He was
uncomfortable setting a standard marketing strategy for local businesses.
ViceMayor Addiego stated similar concerns with regard to pedestrian impediment, but highlighted
the business community's desire for the signs. He proceededto ask clarifying questions pertinentto
signage options.
Mayor Garbarino followed mentioning visibility and code enforcement issues related tosignage.
Councilwoman Normandy inquired about safety and liability. The City Attorney explained that the
business displaying the sign was legally responsible for any safety or liability issues it caused.
Mayor Garbarinorecommended omitting the sandwich board section and moving forward with the
rest of staffs recommendations.
City Attorney Mattas suggested that staff return with sandwichboard standards and bring the
complete item back for introduction at a futuremeeting.
Council agreed.
Public Hearing closed: 8:57 P.M.
Motion—Councilwoman Matsumoto/Second—Vice Mayor Addiego: to continue the public hearing
to a date certain of April 8, 2015. Unanimously approved by roll callvote.
6. City's Housing, Community, and EconomicDevelopment Needs for the 2015-2016 OneYearActionPlanandprovisionofdirectiontotheCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrant
CDBG") Subcommittee regarding funding priorities. (Alin Lancaster, Community
Development Coordinator).
Community Development Coordinator Alin Lancaster presented the staff report. She explained that
the purpose of the Public Hearing was tohear non-profit testimony regarding need to assist in
preparation of the annual CDBG Action Plan for funding. She further noted that Councilwould
have the opportunity to raise questions to help navigate the allocation process. Coordinator
Lancaster stated that the City has an overall budget of $684,626. The CDBG City Council
Subcommittee's final funding recommendations and annual action plan would be brought before
Council for final approval at the April 22, 2015 meeting.
Public Hearing opened: 9:01 P.M.
Diane Papan from John's Closet spoke of its efforts to provide needy school-aged children with
clothing. The agencyoperated with nooverhead and hopedto continue receiving funds for its labor
of love.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 11,2015
PAGE 5
MINUTES 40
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Meeting of February 19, 2015
41
EXCERPT FROM 02-19-15 PC MINUTES – SIGN REGULATIONS
Sign Regulations
City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant
Citywide
P07-0136: ZA15-0002
Zoning Text Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.360 to revise regulations and permitting
for signs citywide in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
20.550.
Chairperson Wong opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Senior
Planner Gross presented the proposed changes to the Sign Regulations and informed
the Commission of two documents he handed out to them. One was a letter of support
from the San Mateo County Association of Realtors and the other was a revised draft
Ordinance with minor corrections. The proposed revisions to the Sign Regulations
include an allowance for unique/special circumstance signs, a revision to the allowable
area for awnings and wall signs in specific districts, and an allowance for sandwich
board/a-frame signs in the Downtown.
There being no speakers the public hearing closed.
Commission comments/questions:
Commission expressed concern with sandwich board signs since they will be
handled as a Type B sign, not subject to Planning Commission review, and
asked about recourse if they become problematic. Senior Planner Gross stated
that there are different types of enforcement, including rescinding an
encroachment permit for signs within the right-of-way, and Code Enforcement
processes.
Commission expressed concern with sandwich board signs potentially blocking
the pedestrian walkway. Senior Planner Gross explained that a site plan would
be required for such signs, similar to what is required for outdoor seating
applications.
Commission inquired whether the permit would state exactly where the sign is to
be placed. Assistant City Attorney Rosenberg responded that there are
suggested performance requirements in the sandwich board sign section,
including standards related to allowable locations. He further explained the
permit may include reasonable conditions to insure consistency with the sign
section. He advised the Commission that they could require more specific
conditions if they desired. As currently proposed, these signs would be subject
42
to Design Review and approval by the Chief Planner, subject to these standard
performances and conditions of approval.
Commission stated the signs will add character to the Downtown.
Commission inquired whether the staff could encourage the sandwich board
signs to have uniformity of sign location.
Commission asked for clarification regarding the size increase being proposed
for awning and wall signs. Senior Planner Gross explained that the change in
size would allow more flexibility; however, signs that are greater than 25 square
feet would be subject to Design Review Board review, ensuring additional review
for larger signs allowed under the modifications.
Senior Planner Gross advised the Commission before they make a motion that staff is
recommending an additional change to the language in Section 20.360.002(B)(7) to
clarify size limitations for proposed exempt real estate signs as follows: “A sign no larger
than 24 square feet that is attached or affixed to a property or premises in a semi-
permanent manner offering property or premises for sale or lease”. The additional
language stipulating the maximum size of Real Estate Sales and Rental Signs would be
in keeping with the sign area allowed for temporary signs.
Commission asked for clarification whether the property reference is for public or
private. Senior Planner Gross responded it referred to private property.
Motion--Commissioner Faria/Second--Commissioner Martin: to adopt a Resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance revising the Sign Ordinance as
indicated consistent with the direction provided by Planning Commission and including
the amendments as indicated by staff. Approved by unanimous roll call vote (6-0).
43
Attachment 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2758-2014 – Zoning Text Amendment Resolution
44
RESOLUTION NO. 2758-2015
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE RELATED TO
SIGNS
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
(“City”) adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance, which repealed the
then-existing Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and replaced it with an
entirely new Title that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards (“Zoning Ordinance”); and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010, the City has identified
areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction, including
revisions to the City’s Chapter 20.360 regulating signs in order to provide added flexibility to
accommodate signs that may not otherwise be allowed and other minor modifications, as further
set forth in the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
(“CEQA”), which IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the
environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed
established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections to the Zoning Ordinance
as they relate to signage, set forth in the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A, are minor in nature,
the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed
and analyzed in the IS/ND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
CEQA finding and the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, take public testimony, and make
a recommendation to the City Council on the project.
45
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the
South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments; and all reports,
minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed
February 19, 2015 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources
Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
SECTION I FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. Exhibit A attached to this Resolution, is incorporated by reference and made a
part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because they strengthen and promote economic development objectives related to business
identification. The proposed text amendments related to regulation of signs will remain
consistent with the City’s General Plan vision for community and economic development and
will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in
the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendments related to Signs wound not affect any
particular subject property. The proposed standards would generally be suitable in terms of
architectural compatibility, consistency with area character, legibility, readability, finish and
visibility, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City
Council because appropriate performance standards for signs have been included and would be
applied to projects on a case-by-case basis to minimize visual impacts.
3. The proposed zoning amendments related to Signs would not result in any change
of zoning districts and therefore would not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone.
SECTION II RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and
46
recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance making the refinements, clarifications, and
corrections to the zoning ordinance as related to signs as set forth in Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 19th day of February, 2015
by the following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Wong, Vice Chairperson Khalfin, Commissioner Faria, Commission Lujan,
Commissioner Martin and Commissioner Nagales
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT: Commissioner Ruiz
Attest: Susy Kalkin
Susy Kalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
47
Attachment 6
Example Sandwich Board Sign Application Packet
48
PLANNING DIVISION
315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Tel (650) 877-8535 Fax: (650) 829-6639 Email: web-ecd@ssf.net
SANDWICH BOARD SIGN – TYPE “B” PERMIT
Section 20.360.006.Q South San Francisco Municipal Code
No application will be accepted unless it complies with all the following requirements:
1. Filing fee = $300
2. Environmental Fees ($50 + $20) = $70
2. Application and Affidavit
3. Plot Plan (Existing and Proposed Site Plan) and Elevation Drawings 11” x
17” (12 Copies)
4. Color and Material Samples
5. Photographs of existing conditions – (12 copies)
6. All exhibits shall be folded to 8 ½” x 11”
7. Electronic copies
8. Encroachment Permit
Explanation of the above items:
1. This fee is to cover the costs incurred in processing the application. This fee is non-refundable.
2. The application must be completed, signed, and submitted.
3. Dimensioned drawings showing the minimum required unobstructed sidewalk clearance of four-
feet (48”) measured from the edge of any table, chair, bench, planter, tree, parking meter or other
appurtenances and required distance measured from curb and/or a minimum 18 inch clearance
measure from face of curb to sandwich board sign (see Figure 1).
4. The dimensions, photograph(s) and design and materials of the proposed sandwich board sign and
all other proposed improvements. Please see the attached Sandwich Board Signs regulations for
Design standards.
5. For any sandwich board sign proposed within a public right-of-way, the revocable Encroachment
Permit and associated fee must be submitted along with a Certificate of Insurance for approval by
the Engineering Division and City Attorney.
Your application will be reviewed by staff and approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved by the
Chief Planner, as well as by the Engineering Division if an Encroachment Permit is required.
EX
A
M
P
L
E
49
Review Process
The City's Design Review Board will review, and the Chief Planner will approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove an application for a Type B – Sandwich Board Sign Permit. The decision of the Chief Planner may be
appealed to the Planning Commission.
Conditions of approval for a Type B – Sandwich Board Sign Permit may include provisions for modifications or
additions to sign materials, color programs, or other sign modifications.
The Design Review Board will review the application for appropriateness and effectiveness of the sign proposal
within the site and in the wider context of its surroundings. In accordance with Section 20.360.003 of the City’s
Sign Regulations, the Design Principles which the Board will consider in formulating its recommendations are:
A. Architectural Compatibility. A sign (including its supporting structure, if any) should be designed as an integral
design element of a building’s architecture and architecturally compatible, including color and scale, with any
building to which the sign is to be attached and with surrounding structures.
B. Consistency with Area Character. The size, materials, colors, graphic style, and other features of the sign shall
be in keeping with the visual character of the street or area in which it is proposed. Proposed new signs should
reflect the highest quality of design possible for a given area.
C. Legibility. The size and proportion of the elements of the sign’s message, including logos, letters, icons and
other graphic images, should be selected based on the anticipated distance and travel speed of the viewer. Sign
messages oriented towards pedestrians may be smaller than those oriented towards automobile drivers. Colors
chosen for the sign text and/or graphics should have sufficient contrast with the sign background in order to be
easily read during both day and night hours.
D. Readability. To ensure that signs perform their essential communicative function appropriately, characteristics
such as the proportion between different parts of the sign, visibility from important vantage points, and other
design features will be considered. A sign message should be easily recognized and designed in a clear,
unambiguous and concise manner, so that a viewer can understand or make sense of what appears on the sign.
Excessive use of large areas of several colors can create competition for the eye and significantly reduce
readability.
E. Finish. Signs must have finished edges with a clean, smooth, consistent surface.
Lettering on the sign is to be of complementary size, proportion and font and either carved, routed, painted or
applied.
F. Visibility. A sign should be conspicuous and readily distinguishable from its surroundings.
EX
A
M
P
L
E
50
Project#: _______________________
Sandwich Board Sign Permit Application
1.Project Address:
2.APN:
3. Present Use of Property:
A. Project Information.
1. Name and address of the establishment for which a sandwich board sign is proposed:
2. Hours of Operation
3. City of South San Francisco Business License Number:
4. Will the sign be located in the public right-of-way? _______ (if yes, an Encroachment
Permit is required)
B. Please provide the following:
A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of the proposed sandwich board sign and
the distance from any obstructions layout of proposed outdoor seating area and the existing
eating and drinking establishment (see attached example)
Dimensions and materials of sandwich board sign
Description of any features/materials of how sign is constructed to avoid being blown or
tipped over during weather events
C. Authorization of Property Owner
Property Owner: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to,
and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval
are binding. I agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the
hearing and/or during the appeal period.
Name: ________________________________________e-mail: _______________________
Address_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________Phone:__________________________
Signature: __________________________________________Date: ___________________________
EX
A
M
P
L
E
51
D. Applicant other than property owner: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have
obtained authorization of the property owner to file this application. If this application is not signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file this
application and agreement to conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings
or during the appeal period.
Name: ________________________________________e-mail: _______________________
Address_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________Phone:__________________________
Signature: __________________________________________Date: ___________________________
For Official Use Only
Case No.: __________________________
Hearing Date: _____________________
Fee: ______________________________
Receipt No.: _______________________
Planning Commission
Approved Denied
Conditionally Approved
This Project has been accepted for the Following
Deadline:
Chief Planner Date EX
A
M
P
L
E
52
SECTION 20.360.006.Q SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS
20.360.006.Q Sandwich Board Signs
Q. Sandwich Board Signs. Sandwich board signs are a freestanding temporary sign
set on the ground in an ‘A’ frame configuration with two panels hinged at the top.
1. Zoning Districts Allowed. Sandwich board signs are only allowed in the
Grand Avenue Core and Downtown Transit Core Zoning Districts.
2. Number. Each business shall be permitted no more than one sandwich
board sign. When multiple businesses, including upper floor businesses,
share a common entrance, a single shared sign shall be used. Such signs
shall be limited to one per entrance to the shared location.
3. Location. Signs may be placed on the business property being advertised or
on a sidewalk directly in front of the associated business. The sign shall
also be placed so as to be located within a three foot area at least one foot,
six inches from the street curb and no more than four feet from the curb. The
sign must be placed so as not to interfere with or obstruct pedestrian or
vehicular traffic; in any event, a minimum of four feet of passage must be
maintained on the sidewalk between the sign and any other obstructions
(i.e., lighting, benches, trees, parking meters, etc.). Signs may not be
anchored to the sidewalk, or attached or chained to poles, newspaper
vending boxes, or other structures or appurtenances.
4. Maximum Size. Any sandwich board sign shall not exceed 30 inches in
width or 42 inches in height, with a maximum area of seven square feet.
Sandwich board sign area shall not count toward allowable sign area.
5. Materials. The sign frame shall be of finished appearance and constructed
of durable weather resistant materials such as painted or stained wood or
anodized aluminum or metal; plastic framed signs are prohibited. Stenciled
or spray painted signs are prohibited. Windblown devices, including
balloons, may not be attached or otherwise made part of the sign.
Decorative sandwich board signs which complement the business type or
building architecture are encouraged. Signs must be of sufficient weight
and durability to withstand normally occurring weather related events, such
as rain and wind, and to ensure that they do not fall into the public way.
6. Lighting and Display Hours. Signs may not be illuminated. The sign shall
be removed at the end of the business day and may only be displayed during
regular business hours. Failure to remove the signs after regular business
hours are subject to removal by the City, at permitee’s expense.
7. Permits Required. Any Sandwich Board sign must apply for and obtain a
Type B permit, consistent with Section 20.360.009. The permit may include
reasonable conditions to ensure consistency with this Section and the
Purposes of this Chapter, including but not limited to the requirement that
the permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its
EX
A
M
P
L
E
53
officers and employees from and against all claims, losses, damage, injury
and liability for damages arising from the permittee’s use of the public right-
of-way. The permittee shall provide to the City, in a form and in amounts
acceptable to the City Attorney, certificates of insurance substantiating the
existence of a general liability policy covering the area subject to the permit.
Additionally, sandwich board signs located in the public right-of-way are
subject to an encroachment permit.
8. Temporary Suspension of Permit. The Director of Public Works shall have
the right to suspend or prohibit use of a sandwich board sign at any time
because of anticipated or actual conflicts in the use of the sidewalk
area. Such conflicts may arise from, but are not limited to, scheduled
festivals, parades, marches and similar special events; repairs to the street,
sidewalk or other public facility; or from demonstrations or emergencies
occurring in the area. To the extent possible, the City will give prior notice
of any time period during which the sign permit must be suspended and any
sandwich boards not displayed.
EX
A
M
P
L
E
54
Please add the following items:
• Attach a picture of the
proposed sign, or draw
basic design
• Sign face width
• Sign face length
____________
Width
of sign face
Please add the following items:
• Address
• Business Name
• Location of proposed sign
• Width of sidewalk
• Width of clear sidewalk at
the location of the sign
• Location of trees, fire
hydrants, sign posts, and
other items in the right of
way.
______________
Width of sidewalk Sidewalk
SKETCH B
FRONT VIEW
Attach picture of sign or draw
sign here
____________
Length of
Sign face
____________
Height of sign
____________
Distance of base when
sign is displayed
A‐FRAME/SANDWICH BOARD SIGN PLANS
Shop
Entrance
____________
Clearance
Distance
_______________________________________
Address
_______________________________________
Business Name
SKETCH A
SITE PLAN
Please add the following items:
• Sign height
• Distance of base when
sign is displayed
________________
Permit #
For Office use only
SKETCH C
SIDE VIEW
EX
A
M
P
L
E
55
EX
A
M
P
L
E
56
Attachment 7
Powerpoint Presentation
57
City Council Meeting
April 8, 2015
4/3/2015 1 Planning Division
58
Special Circumstances Sign Revisions
Revisions to Allowable Area for Awning and Wall Signs
Sandwich Board (A-Frame) Signs
Other Miscellaneous Revisions
4/3/2015 Planning Div. 2
59
4/3/2015 Planning Div. 3
Businesses limited to 1 sandwich board sign
Has to be located in front of associated business
Maximum area of 7sf
High-quality materials required; plastic prohibited
No illumination
Only allowed during business hours
Encroachment permit required
60
4/3/2015 Planning Div. 4
61
4/3/2015 Planning Div. 5
62
4/3/2015 Planning Div. 6
Pre-application meeting with Planning Division staff
Submit Type B Sign Application ($370 application fees)
Design Review Board recommendation
Chief Planner approval
Prior to installation, obtain Encroachment Permit from
Engineering Division ($100-175 fee)
63
4/3/2015 Planning Div. 7
64
4/3/2015 Planning Div. 8
Refined the distance from street and other obstructions
Businesses that share a common entrance allowed one
shared sandwich board sign
Allowance to place signs on private property, such as an
entrance alcove
More clearly state that signs have a finished appearance and
be able to withstand weather related events
65
City Council adopt an Ordinance
amending the Zoning Code regarding
signs.
4/3/2015 Planning Division 9
66