HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-20 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting to be held at:
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM
33 ARROYO DRIVE
MARCH 20, 2002
5:30 P.M.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the
State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting
on Wednesday, the 20th day of March, 2002, at 5:30 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building,
Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting
Agenda
4. Joint Study Session with Planning Commission - Review of Draft South
San Francisco General Plan Housing Element
5. Adjournment
City Clerk
{ Staff Report
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 20, 2002
Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
Director of Economic and Community Development
Joint Study Session: Review of Draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing
Element
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission conduct a joint study session on
the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element and provide comments as appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
On March 15, 2002, City staff distributed the draft Housing Element Policy Document for review
and comment by the City Council and the Planning Commission at the Joint Study Session on March
20, 2002. The purpose of the study session is to inform the City Council and the Planning
Commission about the Housing Element process and to solicit input on the development of the draft
policy document. Interested parties, including the Peninsula Policy Partnership, Bridge Housing,
the Tri-County Apartment Association, and Bay Area Legal Aid, received copies of the Housing
Element Background Report and the Policy Document and were notified of this study session.
The City of South San Francisco is required by law to update the General Plan Housing Element.
The housing element must also incorporate housing allocation numbers, prepared by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). In March of 2001, the ABAG released its housing allocation
numbers that projects the number of housing units required for the City based on projected job
growth (see the table located in the Discussion section). On April 18, 2001, the City Council held
a Study Session to review the City's housing needs for the purpose of ascertaining how the City may
best provide housing that is affordable to existing residents of the City and employees of businesses
located within the City. On August 30, 2001, The City Council and the Planning Commission held
a joint study session to discuss implementation of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the
preparation of the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element.
Staff Report
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development
Joint Study Session: Review of Draft Housing Element
March 20, 2002
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
A key part of the General Plan Housing Element Update process is the use of study sessions, tours,
community meetings, and presentations to the City Council, Planning Commission, community
groups and organizations to present and discuss growth and development issues, opportunities and
concerns that are important to South San Francisco. The following sections summarize the six
phases of the Housing Element update and the estimated schedule to complete all phases.
Estimated Housing Element Review Schedule
Phase 1: Program Initiation
September 2001
Phase 2:
Housing Needs Assessment Update and Survey of Available
Sites
October-November 2001
Phase 3: Preparation of the Background Report
January-February 2002
Phase 4: Housing Goals, Policies, Programs, and Quantified March 15, 2002
Objectives
Phase 5: HCD Review and Housing Element Revision (60-day review) March to June 2002
Phase 6: Public Review/Adoption
Summer 2002
Phase 2: Analysis of Availability of Land and Adequate Sites
On November 17, 2001, the Consultant and City staff facilitated the Planning Commission
workshop and tour that reviewed the list of suitable sites. The Consultant prepared maps of various
medium and high density neighborhoods that show where potential sites exist and a tour of
neighborhoods to look at the sites in context with the area. During the tour, the Planning
Commission commented on the feasibility of the proposed housing sites. In addition to the proposed
sites, the Planning Commission indicated that staff should prepare an inventory of housing on Grand
Avenue from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard. The Commission was also interested in finding
potential sites in the Lindenville area.
Phase 3: Background Report
The Background Report provides baseline information on existing conditions in the City and
preliminary planning issues for the Housing Element stemming from the analysis of existing
information. On January 17, 2002, The Planning Commission held a study session to review the
Staff Report
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development
Joint Study Session: Review of Draft Housing Element
March 20, 2002
Page 3
Background Report. City staff presented the Background Report and received comments from the
Planning Commission.
The Background Report indicates that the City of South San Francisco met nearly all of its goals
listed in the existing Housing Element (1992). As the following table indicates, the City is well
positioned to meet the General Plan housing goals and meet the ABAG Regional Housing Needs
Determination allocation. Indeed, of 768 very-low, low, and moderate income units required, the
City of South San Francisco has already approved or built 286 units. The remaining 482 units should
result from a continuation of current efforts between now and 2006.
Balance of Housing Need - 2001 to 2006
Income Category
1999 to 2006 Units Constructed, Percentage of Balance of
ABAG Needs Planned and Need Met Existing Need
Determination Adjustments,
1999-2001'
Very Low 277 167 60.3% 110
Low 131 2 1.5% 129
Moderate 360 117 32.5% 243
Above Moderate 563 1,584 281.0% 1,021 (surplus)
Total 1,331 1,870 -- 482
*Units include both units constructed and those receiving building permits between January 1, 1999 - December
31, 2001.
The Report notes that the ABAG requirements will be met since both the 1999 General Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance provide opportunities for affordable housing. For example, the City Council
recently adopted the following ordinances that support housing and community services:
Designation of the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District with higher
density development on infill sites and reduced parking
Adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to encourage affordable housing
production.
Adoption of the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Adoption of the Childcare Ordinance.
Staff Report
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development
Joint Study Session: Review of Draft Housing Element
March 20, 2002
Page 4
Phase 4: Draft Housing Element Policy Document
Under Califomia law, the Housing Element must include the community's goals, policies, quantified
objectives, and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
This Housing Element includes six goal statements. Under each goal statement, the element
establishes specific implementing policies and actions. The City's proposed goals and policies
include the following:
Goal 1. New Residential Construction
Goal 1 continues several policies found in the existing Housing Element and creates new policies
and actions that reflect both the 1999 General Plan and recent Zoning amendments for inclusionary
housing and density bonuses. Goal 1 policies include:
Promoting the provision of housing by both private and public sector developers for all
income groups;
Promoting the Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus ordinances; investigating other
methods for providing affordable housing;
Working with developers to consolidate properties for infill development;
Encouraging mixed-use development; and,
Supporting the development of second units on single-family parcels.
Goal 2. Maintenance of Existing Affordable Housing Stock
Goal 2 provides specific policies and actions that encourages the City to preserve the existing
housing stock, including:
Encouraging private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods; using state and federal
funds to the fullest extent to rehabilitate housing;
Seeking to eliminate incompatible land uses or blighting influences from residential
neighborhoods; Using City and Redevelopment Agency programs to arrest neighborhood
deterioration;
Limiting the conversions of apartments to condominium units; and,
Providing financial assistance where appropriate.
Staff Report
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
Marry Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development
Joint Study Session: Review of Draft Housing Element
March 20, 2002
Page 5
Goal 3. Special Needs
Goal 3 includes policies and actions that encourage the City and private developers to provide
housing for groups with special needs.
Goal 4. Equal Opportunity
Goal 4 includes policies and actions that support equal Opportunity in housing. Policies and actions
include promoting equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone
in the community regardless of age, race, sex, religion, marital status, national origin, disability, and
other arbitrary factors.
Goal 5. Neighborhood Safety
Goal 5 includes policies and actions protecting neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-
made disasters.
Goal 6. Energy Conservation
Goal 6 includes policies and actions that encourage energy efficiency in all new and existing homes.
Phases 5 and 6: Housing and Community Development (HCD) Review and Public Hearings
Local governments are required to submit draft and adopted housing elements to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review for compliance with State
law. Unlike the General Plan process, which does not require direct state comments, State law
requires that the HCD must approve the City's proposed policies and actions prior to City holding
community meetings, public heatings and adoption of the Housing Element by the City Council.
Following City Council direction, City staff propose to submit the draft Housing Element to HCD
for review in late March 2002. The state review is estimated to take approximately 60 to 90 days.
Once the City receives comments from HCD, the Consultant will submit the final Housing Element
for City Approval, estimated to be in the Summer of 2002.
Staff Report
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development
Joint Study Session: Review of Draft Housing Element
March 20, 2002
Page 6
CONCLUSION:
Staff and the consultants believe the proposed Draft Housing Element shows that we have the
capacity to meet our housing requirements with a clear and proactive plan of action. Staff requests
input from the City Council and the Planning Commission from their review of the document,
particularly regarding policies and implementation programs. Staff also requests direction from the
City Council to submit the Draft Housing Element to the state Housing and Community
Development Department for review.
By:
Marty Van Duyn Michael A. Wilson
Director of Economic City Manager
and Community Development
Attachment: Draft South San Francisco Housing Element
Public Review Draft Background Report
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
HOUSING ELEMENT
STUD Y SESSION DRAFT
Ho USING ELEMENT POLICY DOCUMENT
Prepared by:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES
VERNAZZA WOLFE ASSOCIATES, INC.
March 20, 2002
GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Under California law, the housing element must include the community's goals, policies, quantified
objectives, and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
This Housing Element includes six goal statements. Under each goal statement, the element sets out policies
that amplify the goal statement. Implementation programs are listed at the end of the corresponding policy
or group of policies and describe briefly the proposed action, the City agencies or departments with primary
responsibility for carrying out the program, and the time frame for accomplishing the program. Several of
the implementation programs also have quantified objectives listed.
The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs,
and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element Policy Document:
Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable.
Policy: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment.
Implementation Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy.
Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an
estimated time frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the calendar year in which
the activity is scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be
adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary considerations. Quantified objectives (where
applicable to individual implementation programs) are the number of housing units that the City
expects to be constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated.
Quantified Objective: the number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed,
conserved, or rehabilitated, .and the number of households the City expects will be assisted through
Housing Element programs based on general market conditions during the time frame of the Housing
Element.
The housing element law recognizes that in developing housing policy and programs, identified housing
needs may exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy these needs. The quantified
objectives of the housing element, therefore, need not be identical to the identified housing need but should
establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over
a five-year time frame.
March 20, 2002 I1-1 Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document City of South San Francisco
NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
GOAL 1
To promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sector for all income
groups in the community. (Existing HE Goal 2)
Availability of Sites for New Construction:
Policy 1-1
The City shall maintain an adequate supply of land to meet its 1999-2006 the ABAG
Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) of 277 very low income units, 131 low
income units,360 moderate income units, and 563 above moderate units. (New Policy)
Program 1-1A
The City shall annually update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcel identified
in Tables 1-32 and 1-33 of the Housing Element Background Report. The City shall also
conduct an annual review of the composition of the housing stock, the types of dwelling
units under construction or expected to be constructed during the following year, and the
anticipated mix, based on development proposals approved or under review by the City,
of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the period covered by the
Housing Element. This analysis will be compared to the City's remaining 1999-2006
Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) to determine if any changes in land use
policy are warranted (New Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: To assist the City meet the ABAG Regional Housing Needs
Determination of 277 very low-income units, 131 low-income units and 360 moderate-
income units between 1999 and 2006.
Policy 1-2 The City shall implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (New Policy)
Program 1-2A
The City shall adopt and implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring new
residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percent
iow- and moderate-income housing. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council
Time Frame: FY 2001-2002
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: To meet the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination of
277 very low-income units, 131 iow-income units and 360 moderate-income units
between 1999 and 2006.
Joint Study Session
11-2 March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco Draft Housing Element Policy Document
Program I-2B The City shall prepare an Annual Report summarizing by project the number of units
developed under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-3
In addition to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City shall investigate other
methods for providing affordable housing units. (New Policy)
Program 1-3A The City shall determine the feasibility of establishing a commercial linkage fee. (New
Program)
Division;
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
City Council
Time Frame: FY 2002-2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-4
The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers in consolidating infill
parcels designated for multi-family residential development when it facilitates efficient
development of the parcels. (New Policy)
Program 1-4A
The Redevelopment Agency shall acquire sites that are either vacant or were developed
with vacant, underutilized, blighted, and nonconforming uses and will make the sites
available to non-profit developers. (Existing Program 2D-3).
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, South San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Housing and Community Development
Division
Time Frame: 1999 - 2006
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Acquire land sufficient for 60 units by 2006.
Policy 1-5
The City shall promote the construction of lower cost units by providing incentives and
encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, loft-style units, and
manufactured housing. (Existing Policy 2B)
March 20, 2002
11-3
Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Program 1-5A
The City shall review its Zoning Ordinance to assure that it has the tools and flexibility
needed to encourage a variety of unit sizes and mix of housing types including single
family condominiums, cluster projects, PUDs, townhomes, cooperatives, mobile homes,
senior projects, and manufactured housing. The Zoning Ordinance may include the
following criteria and standards:
a) establishment of a residential FAR
b) establishment of specific parking standards for residential second units
c) establishment of specific design and development standards for all housing types
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; City
Council
Time Frame: Complete review and amendments by December 2002.
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-6 The City shall implement the Density Bonus Ordinance. (New Policy)
Program 1-6A The City shall adopt and implement the Density Bonus Ordinance. (Existing Program
2B-$)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division; City Council
Time Frame: FY 2001-2002
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 50 units between 1999 and 2006
Policy 1-7
The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas
designated as Downtown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density
Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business
Commercial and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San
Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District. (New Policy)
Policy 1-8
The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family
designated and zoned parcels. (New Policy)
Program 1-8A The City shall revise the Zoning Ordinance to remove constraints to the development of
second units, such as overly restrictive parking standards and setback requirements.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division, City Council
Time Frame: FY 2002-2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Joint Study Session 11-4 March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco Draft Housing Element Policy Document
Administrative Support, Housing Funding and Permit Streamlining:
Policy 1-9
The City shall continue to operate the "One Stop Permit Center" in order to provide
assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within thc
bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development
consistent with local needs. (Revised Existing Policy lB)
Program 1-9A
To support private market construction, the City shall work with property owners,
project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; design housing
projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; providing
timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and
affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval; and interfacing
with community groups and local residents to ensure public support of major new
housing developments. (Existing Program I B-1).
Responsibility off Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division and Housing and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy I-10 The City shall support efforts to generate affordable housing. (Existing Policy 2C)
Program 1-10A
The City shall allocate redevelopment funds to non-profit housing agencies that assist in
providing or developing Iow-income housing through such means as providing funds for
land purchase and rehabilitation. (Revised Program 2C-2)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: 1999 - 2006
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 60 units by 2006.
Policy 1-11
The City shall provide adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and
drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential development will be
encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services and
facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements
are already committed. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to
public rights-of-way. (Existing Program 1C-2)
Policy 1-12
The City shall continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an active
interest in seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems. The City supports the
concept that all communities should make a good faith effort to meet the housing needs
of very low-, low- and moderate-income households in their area, in a manner that is not
disproportionate for any community and which recognizes the degree of effort made in
prior years. (Existing Policy 2E)
March 20, 2002
11-5
Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Program 1-12A The City shall participate with San Mateo County in its Housing Revenue Bond and
Mortgage Credit Certificate programs.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: California Debt Limit Allocation Committee
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 1-12B
The City shall continue participating in the San Mateo County Housing Investment
Project (CHIP), which is a consortium of several cities located in San Mateo County, San
Mateo County, lenders, school districts, and other interested parties that seek to establish
a countywide first-time home buyer program. (New Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-13
The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonize with
existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy lC)
Policy 1-14
The City shall support excellence in design through the continued use of the design
review board and/or staff.
Policy 1-15
The City shall ensure that the objectives of this Housing Element are carried out within
the Element's time frame (1999-2006). (New Policy)
Program 1-15A The City shall continue to maintain Housing Element and the Element's programs.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund, CDBG funds, and
General Fund for remaining non-qualifying functions
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 1-15B
The City shall maintain and regularly update a list of major agencies and organizations
participating in housing-related activities, including address, telephone, and brief
description of their function.
Responsibility off Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Joint Study Session
11-6
March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco Draft Housing Element Policy Document
Policy 1-16
The City shall ensure that developers and city residents are made aware of key housing
programs and development opportunities. (New Policy)
Program 1-16A To widen the availability of information to interested residents, the City shall update its
website to include information on affordable housing, housing programs, and
inclusionary units. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: FY 2002-2003
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Related General Plan Policies
· See also General Plan Land Use Element policies 2-I-6, 2-I-10, 2-I-15, 2-I-18, and 2-I-19.
· See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element policies 3.1-G-3, 3.1-1-1, 3.1-I-3, 3.3-I-5, 3.3-
1-12A, 3.4-I-8, 3.4-I-9, 3.4-I-16, 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.10-G-I, 3.10-I-1, and 3.11-I-1
· See also General Plan Economic Development Element policies 6-I-2, and 6-1-13,
March 20, 2002 11-7 Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document City of South San Francisco
MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK
GOAL 2
To conserve and enhance existing residential neighborhoods while maintaining
affordability in existing neighborhoods and neighborhoods with low-income families.
Policy 2-1
The City shall continue to encourage private reinvestment in older residential
neighborhoods and private rehabilitation of housing. (New Policy)
Policy 2-2
As appropriate, the City shall use State and Federal funding assistance to the fullest
extent these subsidies exist to rehabilitate housing. The City shall continue to give
housing rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block
Grant funds. (New Policy)
Policy 2-3
The City shall prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds for acquisition
and rehabilitation of housing in older residential neighborhoods. The City would target
funds in order to preserve the older housing stock that exist in older neighborhoods with
low income families.
Policy 2~4
The City shall maintain and improve neighborhoods through the use of systematic code
enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs and
other available incentives. The City shall focus on properties in older neighborhoods
with iow-income families, such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden,
Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck's Lots.
Program 2-4A The City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety
codes. (Existing Program 1.21-2)
Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time'Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 2-4B
The City shall seek to eliminate incompatible land uses or blighting influences from
residential neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement and other available
regulatory measures. (New Policy)
Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Joint Study Session
11-8 March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco Draft Housing Element Policy Document
Policy 2-5
The City shall strive to raise and enforce current standards on all rental properties in the
community. (New Policy)
Policy 2-6
The City shall continue to support the revitalization of older neighborhoods by keeping
streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in good repair. The City shall continue
to work cooperatively with other agencies and utilities concerning the maintenance of
their properties and equipment in South San Francisco. (New Policy)
Program 2-6A
As appropriate, the City shall create a capital improvement and housing rehabilitation
program to upgrade housing in older neighborhoods with low income housing, such as
Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town,
and Peck's Lots. (New Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: General Fund, RDA and CDBG
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2-7
The City shall ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize
with existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy IC)
Policy 2-8
The City shall use City and Redevelopment Agency rehabilitation and other programs as
appropriate to arrest the deterioration of newer housing and neighborhoods that are
already showing signs of deterioration before repair costs become excessive. (New
Policy)
Policy 2-9 The City shall strive to maintain the existing multi-family housing stock. (New Policy)
Program 2-9A
The City shall provide Iow-interest loans for rehabilitation of owner-occupied
single-family homes by supporting the Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued
CDBG funding. The City shall give priority is given to homes in the Downtown Target
Area. (Revised Program 1.A-l)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 40 Units by 2006.
Program 2-9B The City shall support the South San Francisco Housing Authority in the continued
operation and renting of 80 units of public housing. (Existing Program 2D-l)
Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents
Quantified Objective: Preserve 80 units.
March 20, 2002 11-9 Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Policy 2-10
The City shall strive to preserve existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies.
(New Policy)
Program 2-10A
The City shall provide financial assistance for physical improvements to existing
boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area. (Existing
Program 20-2)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, South San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency
Time Frame: 1999 - 2006
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Upgrade 60 Single Rooms between 1999 and 2006.
Policy 2-11
The City shall strive to limit the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. (New
Policy)
Program 2-11A
The City shall continue to enforce limits on conversion of apartment units to
condominiums. As specified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium
conversions are allowed only if they meet the following general criteria:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least 5 percent exists;
The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City's available housing
stock;
Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting
condominium projects;
The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force
at the time of conversion; and
The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan.
Since the Ordinance was adopted, no conversions have occurred. This has
helped retain a rental housing stock in the community that provides a substantial
source of housing for low- and moderate-income families. (Existing Program
20-5)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2-12
The City shall support State and Federal legislation to make housing more affordable for
owners and renters, and to permit rehabilitation of existing deteriorated housing without
an increase in tax assessments. (Existing Program 2E-l)
Joint Study Session
I1-10 March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco Draft Housing Element Policy Document
Policy 2-13
The City shall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing units at
risk of converting to market rate housing. (New Policy)
Policy 2-14
The City shall track affordability levels in the City by monitoring changes in housing
sales prices and rental rates. (New Policy)
Program 2-14A The City shall regularly monitor housing sales price trends of existing units and new
units to determine housing affordability levels. (New Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 2-14B
The City shall regularly monitor rental rates to document any trends of unwarranted and
unreasonable rent increases. If there are signs of unwarranted and unreasonable rent
increases, the City shall investigate the feasibility of establishing a mediation board (New
Program)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Related General Plan Policies
See also General Plan Land Use Element policies 2-G-l, 2-G-5, 2-G-6, 2-G-7, 2-I-3, 2-1-7, 2-I-8,
2-I-9, and 2-1-15.
See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element Policies 3. l-G-2, 3. l-G-4, 3.1-1-2, 3. I-I-5,
3.1-I-12, 3.4-G-4, 3.4-I-2, 3.6-I-2, 3.7-I-2, 3.8-G-1, 3.8-I-1, 3.8-I-3, and 3.12-G-1.
· See also General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policy 7.5-I-1.
March 20, 2002 I1-11
Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document City of South San Francisco
SPECIAL NEEDS
GOAL 3
To provide housing for groups with special needs.
Policy 3-1
The City shall continue to give special attention in housing programs to the needs of
special groups, including the disabled, large families, the elderly, and families with low
incomes. (New Policy)
Senior Programs:
Policy 3-2 The City shall encourage the development of housing for elderly. (New Policy)
Program 3-2A The City shall monitor the demand for senior housing to ensure that their needs are being
met on an ongoing basis. (New Policy)
Policy 3-3
The City shall encourage non-profit groups to provide housing for the elderly citizens of
South San Francisco. The City should encourage the development of senior housing in
higher density areas close to shopping and transportation. (Existing Policy 3A)
Program 3-3A
The City shall continue to grant density bonuses for senior housing Projects. The City
shall allow up to 50 units per acre for senior housing projects and permit reduced parking
standards. (Revised Program 3A-l)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division and Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 100 senior housing units between 1999 and 2006.
Program 3-3 B
The City shall continue to provide funding for minor repairs of homes owned and
occupied by low-income senior citizens. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical,
painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. (Revised Program 3A-2)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 100 units from 1999 to 2006
Policy 3-4
The City shall encourage the establishment of a range of housing types for seniors
including residential hoard and care facilities for the elderly in the community. (Existing
Policy 3B)
Joint Study Session
11-12 March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco Draft Housing Element Policy Document
Program 3-4A The City shall continue to allow reduced parking requirements for residential board and
care facilities. (Existing Program 3B-l)
Responsibility off Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Disabled Programs:
Policy 3-5
Consistent with State law, the City shall require the inclusion of handicapped accessible
units in all housing projects. In all new apartment projects with five or more units, State
law requires that 5 percent of the units constructed be fully accessible to the physically
disabled. (Existing Policy 3C)
Program 3-5A The City shall review development plans to assure consistency with state handicap and
accessibility laws and require modifications for accessibility. (Existing Program 3C. 1)
Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: Enforcement of applicable State and federal standards.
Policy 3-6
The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the
needs of disabled citizens. (Existing Policy 3D)
Program 3-6A The City shall continue to provide funds to make housing units accessible to the
disabled. (Existing Program 3D-l)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 125 units from 1999 to 2006
Policy 3-7
The City shall encourage provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large
families. (Existing Policy 3F)
Homeless Programs:
Policy 3-8
The City shall assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. (Existing
Policy 3G)
March 20, 2002 11-13 Joint Study Session
Draft Housing
Policy 3-9
Program 3-9A
Program 3-9B
Program 3-9C
Element Policy Document
City of South San Francisco
The City shall be an active participant in the County of San Mateo "Continuum of Care"
planning process that supports emergency shelters, temporary housing, transitional
programs, and general housing assistance for the homeless. (New Policy)
The City shall continue to be an active participant in the Continuum of Care planning
process with the appropriate homeless agencies in its efforts to address the needs of
South San Francisco residents in need of emergency shelter or temporary housing. (New
Program)
Responsibility of.' Dept. of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Fund
Quantified Objective: NQ
The City shall support non-profits, such as Human Investment Project, Inc (HIP), in the
placement of low-income individuals and small households needing housing with seniors
who have excess space in their homes and who are willing to share that space. This
program arranges to place seniors, students, and other individuals and small households
needing housing with persons who have housing and wish to accept boarders. The
organization maintains lists of people who have available space and of those who need to
rent or otherwise obtain housing in north San Mateo County.(Revised Program 2C-3)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 350 placements between 1999 and 2006.
The City shall continue to provide funds to organizations that provide transitional
housing. (Revised Program 3G-2)
Responsibility of: Dept. of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 210 placements of families and/or individuals between 1999 and
2006
Joint Study Session
11-14 March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco
Draft Housing Element Poiicy Document
Program 3-9D
The City shall sponsor the construction and operation of a 90-bed year round homeless
shelter with city limits. Once the shelter is completed and operational, the City shall
provide on-going support to ensure the continued operation of the shelter. (New
Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: FY 2001-2002
Funding Source: CDBG, RDA Housing & Set Aside.
Quantified Objective: Construction and operation of a 90-bed year round homeless
shelter.
Program 3-9E
The City shall continue to provide financial assistance to organizations helping families
with social services including case management and referrals for housing and homeless
prevention. (New Program)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: Case management and referrals for 500 individuals and families
per year from 1999 to 2006.
March 20, 2002 11-15 Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document City of South San Francisco
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Goal 4
To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for
everyone in the community regardless of age, race, gender, religion, marital status,
national origin, disability, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary factors.
Policy 4-1
The City shall promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of age, race, sex,
religion, marital status, national origin, disability, and or other barriers that prevent
choice in housing. (New Policy)
Policy 4-2
The City shall provide information and referrals regarding fair housing complaints,
tenant-landlord conflicts, habitability, and other general housing assistance. (New Policy)
Program 4-2A
The City shall provide access to legal counseling and advocacy concerning fair housing
laws, rights, and remedies to those who believe they have been discriminated against.
Persons requesting information or assistance related to housing discrimination are
referred to one or more fair housing group (s). (Existing Program 4.A-l)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 5 discrimination cases and 10 tenant-landlord cases pursued each
year between 1999 and 2006.
Program 4-2B The City shall provide funding assistance to organizations that provide counseling and
tenant-landlord issues, habitability and other general housing assistance.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 1 O0 habitability cases pursued each year between 1999 and 2006.
Joint Study Session 11-16 March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco Draft Housing Element Policy Document
NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
Goal 5
To protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards.
Policy 5-1
The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate
mitigation measures are taken. (Existing Policy SA)
Policy 5-2
The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with
adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property-related
crimes. (Existing Policy 5B)
Policy 5-3
As appropriate and required by law, the City shall continue the abatement of unsafe
structures. (New Policy)
Program 5-3A
The City shall review residential projects for major environmental hazards during the
environmental review process. The City shall not approve the projects unless the hazards
are adequately mitigated. (Existing Program 5A-I)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All residential projects.
Program 5-3B The City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security
Standards, of the Municipal Code. (Existing Program 5B-l)
Responsibility: Police Department
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All new residential units shall comply with City standards.
Policy 5-4
The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport
Plan Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing
Policy 5C)
March 20, 2002
11-17
Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document City of South San Francisco
Program 5-4A
The City shall review all new residential development for compliance with the County
Airport Land Use Plan. Any incompatible residential use will either be eliminated or
mitigation measures will be taken to reduce interior noise levels within the acceptable
range in accordance with the Noise Element. (Existing Program 5C-I)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning
Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All new residential projects.
Program 5-4B
The City shall investigate the feasibility of pursuing additional funding to support the
Airport Noise Insulation Program to assist homeowners in insulating units adversely
affected by airport noise, pursuant to the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of
1979 (Section 49 USC 2101 et seq.). This is a broad-based project to reduce
aircraft-associated noise inside residences. This program is available regardless of
income level. (New Policy)
Responsibility: Department of Public Works
TimeFrame: 1999-2006
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: To insulate existing homes within the 65 CNEL zone.
Related General Plan Policies
· See also General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element policies 3.2-G-4, 3.3-G-1, and 3.5-I-3.
See also General Plan Health and Safety Element policies 8. l-G-1, 8.1-I-3, 8.2-I-2, 8.5-G-2, 8.5-
I-3, 9-G-l, 9-G-2, 9-I-3, and 9-I-4.
Joint Study Session
11-18 March 20, 2002
City of South San Francisco Draft Housing Element Policy Document
ENERGY CONSERVATION
Goal 6
To encourage energy efficiency in all new and existing homes. (New Goal)
Policy 6-1
The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new
residential structures. (New Policy)
Program 6-1A The City shall assist with energy and water conserving modifications features in existing
residential rehabilitation projects.(Existing Program 5E-2)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division; Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: Ten units annually.
Policy 6-5
When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to respond to
climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shadow patterns. (New Policy)
Program 6-5A
The City shall continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for
residential buildings (e.g., brochures and other information). The City shall promotes the
use of passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential buildings to
ensure that State residential energy conservation building standards are met. (Existing
Program 5E-l)
Responsibility of: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: State standards enforced in all new construction.
Policy 6-6.
The City shall promote the use of weatherization programs for existing residential units
especially among low-income households. (New Policy)
Policy 6-7
The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving design and
construction techniques in all types of projects (including new construction and
remodeled and rehabilitated structures). (New Policy)
March 20, 2002
11-19
Joint Study Session
Draft Housing Element Policy Document
City of South San Francisco
Program 6-7A
The City shall continue to enforce State requirements, including Title 24 requirements,
for energy conservation in residential development and encourage residential developers
to consider employing additional energy conservation measures with respect to the
following: (New Program)
Street and driveway design
Lot pattern and configuration
Siting of buildings
Landscaping
Solar access
Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City Budget
Quantified Objective: NQ
Joint Study Session
11-20
March 20, 2002
DRAFT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
HOUSING ELEMENT
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
BACKGROUND REPORT
Prepared by:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES
VERNAZZA WOLFE ASSOCIATES~ Inc.
February 2002
HOUSING ELEMENT CREDITS
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CITY COUNCIL
Gene Mullin, Mayor
Pedro Gonzalez o Mayor Pro-Tern,
Joe Fernekes - Councilmember,
Ray Green - Councilmember,
Karyl Matsumoto - Councilmember
PLANNING COMMISSION
William Romero, Chairperson
Rick Ochsenhirt, Vice Chairperson
Joseph D'Angelo, Commissioner
Judith Honan, Commissioner
Michael Meloni, Commissioner
Eugene Sim, Commissioner
Marc Teglia, Commissioner
CITY STAFF
Michael Wilson, City Manager
Armando Sanchez, Economic & Community
Development Manager
Tom Sparks, Chief Planner
Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economics and
Community Development
Michael Lappen, Senior Planner
Norma Fragoso, Housing & Community
Development Manager
CONSULTANTS
J. LAURENCE MINTIER & ASSOCIATES
Larry Mintier, Principal
Derek DiManno, Associate
VERNAZZA WOLFE ASSOCIATES
Lucina Vernazza, Principal
RAFT
INTRODUCTION
The City of South San Francisco last updated their General Plan in December 1992, which was subsequently
"certified" as legally adequate by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The
document was intended to serve a planning period from 1991 to 1996, but State law extended the planning
period to 1999 due to a slowdown in housing construction. This Housing Element is a comprehensive update
of the 1992 Housing Element.
Upon its adoption, this element will become part of the General Plan. The City of South San Francisco
carried out a comprehensive general plan update in 1999. The plan includes the following elements: Land
Use Element; Planning Sub-Area Element; Transportation Element; Parks, Public Facilities, and Services
Element; Economic Development Element, Open Space and Conservation Element; Health and Safety
Element; and Noise Element. The adoption of this Housing Element may necessitate revisions of some of
the other General Plan elements to maintain consistency with those elements as mandated by State law.
OVERVIEW OF STATE REQUIREMENTS
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Each
local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical
development of the city or county. The housing element is one of the seven mandated elements of the local
general plan. State law requires local governments plan to address the existing and projected housing needs
of all economic segments of the community through their housing elements. The law acknowledges that, in
order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt
land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing
development. As a result, housing policy in the state rests largely upon the effective implementation of local
general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.
The purposes of the housing element are to identify the community's housing needs, to state the community's
goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs,
and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and
objectives.
State law requires cities and counties to address the needs of all income groups in their housing elements.
The official definition of these needs is provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for
each city and county within its geographic jurisdiction. Beyond these income-based housing needs, the
housing element must also address special needs groups such as persons with disabilities and homeless
persons.
Housing Element Background Report Requirements
The Housing Element is composed of two parts: the Background Report and Policy Document. The
following detail the primary requirements for the Background Report. Requirements for the Policy
Documents are described in the second part of this Housing Element.
Under State law the housing element must contain extensive documentation of housing stock, housing needs,
resources available to meet those needs, and constraints on housing production. Specifically, the housing
element must include all of the following:
February 2002 I-1 Public Review Draft Background Report
Housing Element
DRAFT
~.[y of South San Francisco
An analysis of population/employment trends, documentation of projections, and a
quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels;
An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment
compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing
stock condition;
An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites
having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public
facilities and services to these sites;
An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required
of developers, and local processing and permit procedures;
An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of
financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction;
An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the disabled, single parent
families, elderly, large families, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter;
An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential
development; and
· An analysis of assisted housing development eligible to change to non-low-income housing.
The following sections satisfy these requirements and provide the foundation for the development of goals,
policies, implementation measures, and quantified objectives. The Housing Element Background Report is
organized as follows:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
1: Population, employment, and housing trends and needs
2: Housing and household characteristics
3: Existing and future housing needs
4: Housing overpayment
5: Available sites and services to meet identified needs
6: Governmental and non-governmental constraints
7: Energy conservation
8: Past and current housing efforts in South San Francisco
9: Evaluation of 1992 Housing Element Accomplishments
These chapters draw on a broad range of informational sources. Information on population, housing stock,
and economics comes primarily from the 1990 and 2000 (most of the 2000 census data was not available at
the time this report was prepared) U.S. Census, the California Department of Finance, the Association of Bay
Area Governments, and City of South San Francisco records. Information on available sites and services for
housing comes from numerous public agencies. Information on constraints on housing production and past
and current housing efforts in South San Francisco comes from City staff, other public agencies, and a
number of private sources.
Public Review Draft Background Report I-2
February 2002
City of South San Francisco
DRAFT
Housing Element
HOUSING ELEMENT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Overview
State law requires each California city and county to prepare a general plan. A general plan is defined as "a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land
outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." State
requirements call for general plans that "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible
statement of policies for the adopting agency."
A city's general plan has been described as its constitution for development - the framework within which
decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment
must be made. California's tradition of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that the State's
cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans.
The California Government Code establishes both the content of general plans and rules for their adoption
and subsequent amendment. Together, State law and judicial decisions establish three overall guidelines for
general plans.
The General Plan Must Be Comprehensive. This requirement has two aspects. First, the general plan
must be geographically comprehensive. That is, it must apply throughout the entire incorporated area
and it should include other areas that the City determines are relevant to its planning. Second, the
general plan must address the full range of issues that affects the city's physical development.
The General Plan MustBe Internally Consistent. This requirement means that the General Plan must
fully integrate its separate pans and relate them to each other without conflict."Horizontal"
consistency applies as much to figures and diagrams as to the general plan text. It also applies to data
and analysis as well as policies. All adopted portions of the general plan, whether required by State
law or not, have equal legal weight. None may supersede another, so the general plan must resolve
conflicts among the provisions of each element.
The General Plan Must Be Lone-range. Because anticipated development will affect the city and
the people who live or work there for years to come, State law requires every general plan to take
a long-term perspective.
The South San Francisco General Plan, adopted by the City Council on October 13, 1999, serves several
purposes. It:
Outlines a vision for South San Francisco's long-range physical and economic development and
resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community;
Provides strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished;
Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in
harmony with Plan policies and standards;
Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will
enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and
minimize hazards; and
Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing
programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and
redevelopment and specific plans.
I-3
Housing Element
DRAFT
~.,Jty of South San Francisco
The South San Francisco General Plan has been a result a community effort. Its major policy directions have
been defined through close involvement of the City Council, the Planning Commission, other boards and
commissions, residents, and the business community, in all phases of the General Plan process.
General Plan and Housing Element Differences
The Housing Element is one of seven State-mandated elements that every General Plan must contain.
Although the Housing Element must follow all the requirements of the General Plan, the Housing Element
has several State-mandated requirements that distinguish it from other General Plan elements. Whereas the
State allows local government the ability to decide when to update their General Plan, State law sets the
schedule for periodic update (5-year timeframe) of the housing element. Local governments are also required
to submit draft and adopted housing elements to the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for review for compliance with State law. This review ensures that the housing element
meets numerous State mandates. Should the City satisfy these requirements, the State will "certify" that the
element is legally adequate. Failing to comply with State law could result in potentially serious
consequences that extend beyond the realm of residential land use planning.
Public Review Draft Background Report I-4
February 2002
City of South San Francisco
DRAFT
Housing Element
1.0
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING TRENDS AND
NEEDS
This section includes information on South San Francisco's population, employment, and housing stock. In
most cases, information about South San Francisco is compared with information from the neighboring cities
of Daly City, San Bruno, and Colma, as well as the county as a whole. The information is oriented to
identify trends, potential shortcomings, and issues requiring a policy position.
1.1 HISTORIC GROWTH AND POPULATION TRENDS
South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County.
The City is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically
located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280,
the Union Pacific Railroad, (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad) and the San Francisco International Airport.
Sign Hill is a distinctive landmark.
The modern history of South San Francisco began in 1827, when the 15,000-acre Rancho Buri Buri was
given to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant. In 1856, Charles Lux purchased 1,500 acres of
the Rancho and founded the town of Baden, named for Lux's native region in Germany. At that time, the
Baden area was used for cattle grazing and dairy operations.
The meat industry played an important role in South San Francisco's evolution. The Gustavus Swift meat
packing plant, established on Point San Bruno in 1888, was the City's first industrial development. Swift
organized a "beef trust"with other Midwestern meat packing companies to join in building a community of
stockyards and packing plants on Point San Bruno, and organized for the development of an industrial town.
In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased 3,400 acres on the former site
of the Rancho Buri Buri for development of the town. The arrangement of residential and industrial uses
intentionally took advantage of stable ground and Bay access at Point San Bruno, as well the prevailing
winds from San Bruno Gap that blew offensive odors away from residential areas and over the Bay.
Industry and community growth have been closely intertwined throughout South San Francisco's history.
The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line between San Francisco and San Jose in 1904-
1907 expanded opportunities for goods shipping from South San Francisco, and steel mills began to take
advantage of the city's abundant land with excellent transportation access. A major lack of housing and
services and a battle over a copper smelter precipitated incorporation, allowing South San Francisco to
control its industrial future and provide the services needed to attract resident workers. When the City
incorporated on September 19, 1908, it had 1,989 residents and 14 major industries.
By 1920, the city had grown to a population of more than 4,000 (see Table I-1). Industries continued to
locate and grow in South San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the
Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some of the city's major establishments whose products helped build
California's modern transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged
as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail
access made South San Francisco even more attractive as a shipping terminal, and the city became the central
distribution point for the entire Peninsula. In the years following incorporation, South San Francisco's civic
improvements kept pace with its growing industry. The City Hall was opened in 1920 and the 20-acre Orange
Memorial Park was developed in 1925.
I-5
Housing Element
DRAFT
~.,Ity of South San Francisco
Constrained by marshlands to the south, residential development began to extend north around and along the
slopes of Sign Hill as the city grew, requiring the introduction of a curvilinear street form. Industries
expanded to the south and west, taking advantage of the SPRR and spurs along Railroad Avenue and other
streets west of the rail right-of-way.
The growth of South San Francisco's steel and, later, shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World
War II helped spur residential growth. Between 1940 and 1960, South San Francisco's population increased
more than six-fold from 6,290 to 39,418.2 Over 46 percent of South San Francisco's existing housing units
were constructed between 1940 and 1959.
By the end of the 1950s, South San Francisco had essentially reached its present level of urbanization
between U.S. 101 and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Many of the residential subdivisions west of Sign Hill and
El Camino Real were complete. Except at the city's northwestern corner, Junipero Serra Boulevard formed
the city's western edge, and Hillside Boulevard/Randolph Avenue was the northern boundary. As shown in
Table I-1, the 1940s and 1950s saw the most rapid increases in population.
With some important exceptions, land use in South San Francisco since the 1960s has stemmed from internal
change rather than outright expansion. Infill development occurred along E! Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue,
and U.S. 101. Major expansion did occur in the Westborough area and the East of 101 area, enabled
respectively by the construction of Interstate 280 and landfill at Oyster and Sierra Points. The city has
recently entered its last phase of expansion with multi-use development at Terrabay on the south slopes of
San Bruno Mountain.
The rate of population growth slowed in the 1960s and 1970s, increasing by only six percent in the 1970s.
Population growth increased by 10 percent in the 1980s and by roughly the same percentage in the 1990s.
By 2000, South San Francisco had a population over 60,552 according to the 2000 U.S. Census. With 8.5
percent of the county's population, South San Francisco is San Mateo County's fourth-largest city. Future
opportunities for growth other than redevelopment are limited to remaining unincorporated islands.
Public Review Draft Background Report I-6 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
DRAFT
Housing Element
TABLE I-1
HISTORIC POPULATION TRENDS
City of South San Francisco
1920-2000
Population
Year
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Source: U.S. Census, various years.
Population Projections
General Plan Buildout Population
Percentlncrease
4.411 --
6,193 40%
6,290 2%
19,351 308%
39,418 104%
46,646 18%
49,393 6%
54,312 10%
60,552 11%
According to buildout projections in the 1999 General Plan, South San Francisco will accommodate a
population of approximately 67,400, an increase of 14 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200.
If buildout were to occur over 20 years, South San Francisco will moderately increase its share of the San
Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 8.4 percent. Population growth rate over the plan horizon will
be much slower than growth experienced by the city over the last ten years.
I-7
Housing Element
DRAFT
~,~ty of South San Francisco
TABLE I-2
BUILDOUT POPULATION
City of South San Francisco
199O-2O20
Jurisdiction 1990 1998 1990-1998 Buiidout 1990-2020
Population Population Share of Annual Population Share of Annual
County Growth County Growth
Rate Rate
South San 54,312 59,208 8.3% 1.0% 67,400 8.4% 0.6%
Francisco
San Mateo 649,623 715,382 100% 1.2% 789,600* 100% 0.5%
County
*Projected year 2020 population for San Mateo COunty
Source: 1999 General Plan
ABAG Projections
According to population projections produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in
Projections 2002, South San Francisco's population is expected to grow relatively slowly through 2020, with
an average annual growth rate of 0.51 percent between 2000 and 2020. As Table I~3 indicates, the city's
population is projected to grow to 67,000 by 2020, representing an increase of 6,448 residents from ABAG's
estimated 2000 South San Francisco population of 60,552. In terms of South San Francisco's neighboring
communities, South San Francisco ranks in the middle for fastest annual growth rate.
Public Review Draft Background Report I-8 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
DRAFT
TABLE I-3
Housing Element
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities
2000 to 2020
Jurisdiction 2000 2005 2010 2020
2000-2020
Annual
lncrease in Growth
Population Rate
South San
Francisco 60,552 62, 600 63,600 67, 000 6,448 0.51%
Daly City 103,621 106,500 108,200 111,000 7,379 0.34%
San Bruno 40,165 41,500 42,000 43.800 3,635 0.43%
Colma 1,191 1,230 1,270 1,370 179 0.70%
San Mateo County 707,161 739,100 754,600 795,100 87,939 0.68%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2002, October 2001.
Age of the Population
Table I-4 shows South San Francisco's age trends from 1970 through 2000. The age of South San
Francisco's residents showed two increases during the last decade. Two of the most significant trends over
the last 30 years has been the decrease in the city's younger population (i.e., 0-14) and the increase in the
city's senior population (i.e., 65 and older). In 1970, those under 14 years old were approximately 30 percent
of the population. By 1980, that group's population fell to roughly 20 percent. Over the next 20 years, that
percentage has remained relatively constant. In 1970, the senior population was 5.0 percent. This percentage
has been steadily increasing over the last 30 years (8.3 percent in 1980, 11.4 percent in 1990, and 12.6
percent in 2000). Between 1990 and 2000, the median age of South San Francisco's residents remained
relatively constant, increasing from 35.1 in 1990 to 35.7 in 2000.
I-9
Housing Element
DRAFT
~,;ty of South San Francisco
TABLE I-4
POPULATION BY AGE GROUP
City of South San Francisco
1970 through 2000
Age Groups 1970 1980 1990 2000
0-14 30.6% 20.8% 20.7% 20.3%
! 5-24 17.0% 19.2% 13.7% 13.2%
25-34 13.2% ! 7.2% ! 8.6% ! 5.4%
35-44 ! 3.6% 12.0% 15.4% 16.6%
45-54 13.0% 12.0% 10.5% ! 3.3%
55-64 7.6% 10.6% 9.7% 8.7%
65 5.0% 8.3% 11.4% 12.6%
Source: U.S. Census, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000
Race and Ethnicity
Table I-4 demonstrates that South San Francisco is a very ethnically and racially diverse community almost
evenly divided among three ethnic groups.. South San Francisco's ethnic/racial make-up is made primarily
of Whites (30.5 percent), Hispanics/Latinos (31.8 percent), and Asians (28.6 percent). The city's largest
ethnic/racial population consists of Hispanics and Latinos with nearly 32 percent of the city's population.
South San Francisco also has a larger Hispanic/Latino population than surrounding communities such as
Daly City, San Bruno, and San Mateo County. South San Francisco and Daly City are home to the largest
population of Filipinos in the Bay Area. African Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and those
of two or more races make up only 4.7 percent of South San Francisco's entire population.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-10
February 2002
City of South San Francisco
DRy, AFT
Housing Element
TABLE I-5
POPULATION BY RACE
(INCLUDING HISPANIC AND LATINO POPULATIONS)
City of South San Francisco and Surrounding Communities
2O00
South
San Francisco Daly City San Bruno
Group Pop. Percent Pop. Percent Pop. Percent
White 18,487 30.5% 18,344 17.7% 18,822 46.8%
Hispanic/Latino 19,282 31.8% 23,072 22.2% 9.686 24.1%
Asian 17,312 28.6% 52,154 50.3% 7,393 18.4%
African American 1,621 2.6% 4,482 4.3% 753 1.8%
Native American 197 0.3% 199 0.1% 103 0.2%
Pacific Islander 896 1.4% 904 0.8% 1,118 2.7%
Two or more races 264 0.4% 414 0.3% 211 0.5%
TOTAL 60,552 100.0% 103,621 100.0% 40,165 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census, 2000
San Mateo County
Pop. Percent
352,355 49.8%
154,708 21.8%
140,313 19.8%
23,778 3.3%
1,546 0.2%
1,546 0.2%
2,217 0.3%
707,161 100.0%
1-11
Housing Element
DRAFT
· -,~y of South San Francisco
1.2 EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT
Employment
South San Francisco's notable competitive Iocational advantages within the region, and a positive business
environment position it well to capture significant new development with resultant economic benefits for the
City. The City's location is highly strategic, between between two world-class universities--Stanford and
UCSF--and three major centers of economic activity: (1) the rapidly expanding San Francisco International
Airport (SFO); (2) downtown San Francisco; and (3) the Silicon Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area's
primary economic engine, which is producing tremendous growth in business and employment activity. The
Silicon Valley, once synonymous with Santa Clara County, has expanded into southern San Mateo County.
South San Francisco's economy was historically based upon manufacturing and processing industries, many
of which slowly gave way to warehousing and distribution businesses. Growth in recent years has focused
on the information-based economy, as more high-technology and service firms have located to the eastern
portion of the city. With Genentech serving as a major high-technology/biotechnology anchor in East of 101,
a significant cluster of bio-technology establishments exists today. The ability of the City to attract uses that
generate economic benefits will depend on maintaining a positive business climate and availability of land,
particularly sites suited to the needs of large office or research and development campuses, or regional-scaled
commercial centers.
The 1999 General Plan states that while non-residential building space in South San Francisco will increase
from an estimated current 18.1 million square feet to 24.6 million square feet at buildout (an increase of 31
percent), the General Plan at buiidout will accommodate an employment increase from 39,100 currently to
as much as 71,400 at buildout (an increase of 83 percent; including construction and at-home workers),
primarily as sites with Iow-intensity warehousing and distribution uses (with an estimated average 960 square
feet per employee in South San Francisco) are succeeded by higher intensity R&D, office, retail, and other
similar uses. This level of employment attainment will likely take place over a time-period that may extend
beyond 20 years. Table I-6 shows existing and buildout employment by broad land use categories.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-12 February 2002
Housing Element
~;ity of South San Francisco
DRAFT
TABLE I-7
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities
2000 to 2020
Jurisdiction Job Type 2000 2005 2010
South San Total Jobs 53,190 55,330 58,020
Francisco
Employed
Residents 32,206 33,300 33,900
Colma Total Jobs 2,510 2,640 2,770
Employed
Residents 739 830 850
Daily City Total Jobs 24,650 25,750 26,750
Employed
Residents 57,244 59,200 60,100
San Bruno Total Jobs 15,810 16,160 17,620
Employed
Residents 23,779 24,500 24,600
San Mateo Total Jobs 395,890 413,380 434,740
County
Employed
Residents 403,083 422,000 430,900
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2002.
2015 2020
60,650 62,880
Percent
Increase
2000-2020
15.5%
35,000 36,000 10.5%
2,950 3,140 20.1%
890 950 22.1%
28,290 29,180 15.5%
61,700 62,400 8.2%
19,850 21,300 25.8%
25,500 26,200 9.2%
458,750 482,050 17.8%
446,100 458,000 12.0%
Jobs/Housing Balance
The 1999 General Plan notes that where once the residential and commercial portion of South San Francisco
was a company town for the "beef trust" packers on Point San Bruno, improved transportation access and
extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco into a commuter suburb. In 1999, only 23
percent of employed residents work in the city, despite a surplus of jobs, indicating regional jobs-housing
interdependencies.
The city has continued to add jobs at a faster rate than population for the last 15 years, and in 1995, there
were 13,610 more jobs than employed residents in the city. In contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall
shortage of jobs; however, during the last 15 years, the overall jobs/employed residents ratio in San Mateo
County has crept closer to balance.
Given that much of the land in the city--including all of the East of 101 area-- is not suited for residential
development, it is unlikely that a balance between jobs and housing can be attained. However, continued job
growth in the city will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area
community well served by all modes of transit--including air and rail, and in the near future BART and ferry
service---employment growth in the city will support regional transit as well. Nonetheless, availability of
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-14 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
DRAFT
Housing Element
Land Use
Commerci al/Retail
Hotels/Visitor Services
Office and Business Park
(inc. R&D)
Warehouse/Mixed Industrial
Public and Schools
Construction and
Miscellaneous
Others (including)
TOTAL
Source: 1999 General Plan.
TABLE I-6
EMPLOYMENT BUILDOUT
City of South San Francisco
1997 to Buildout
Estimated 1997 Increase to
Employmen0 Buildout
l 0,400
1,800
5,700
Buildout
Employment
3,100 13,500
3,900 5,700
23,500 29,200
13,400 (3,200) 10,200
1,500 1,500
2,500 1,800 4,300
3,800 3,200 7,000
39,100 32,300 71,400
ABAG Projections
According to ABAG's 2002 projections, South San Francisco had a total of 53,190 jobs and 32,206
employed residents in 2000. This gives the city a jobs/housing ratio of !.65 which means that South San
Francisco is a job center that brings in employees from surrounding communities. As Table I-7 shows,
ABAG projects the number of jobs to increase to 62,880 and the number of employed residents to grow to
36,000 by the year 2020. Table I-7 also shows South San Francisco's economic strength compared to
surrounding jurisdictions.
1-13
City of South San Francisco
DRAFT
Housing Element
housing in South San Francisco serves not only regional interest, but is imperative to attracting high-
technology and biotechnology jobs that the city seeks. Increased residential development within the city will
help partly alleviate traffic impacts resulting from job growth, and provide residential opportunities to those
that work in the city but live elsewhere. Thus, the General Plan seeks to maximize residential development
opportunities on infill sites.
TABLE I-8
Jobs
Employment Residential
Jobs/Employed Residents
JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
South San Francisco
1997 and Buildout
Estimated 1997 Employment* Buildout
39,100 71,400
27,900 32,352
1.4 2.2
*Using information from Claritas Inc.(for the Planning Area) collected as part of the General Plan
Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report.
Source: 1999 General Plan.
2.0 HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Section 2 assesses current and projected housing and household characteristics, the condition of the housing
stock, and the potential impact on future housing needs. This analysis identifies key trends that will affect
both near-term and long-term housing needs.
2.1 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND INCOME
Household Composition
The 2000 Census defines the term "household" as the person or persons occupying a housing unit. This
general category includes families, defined as two or more persons, including the householder, who are
related by birth, marriage, or adoption and who live together as one household. The family definition
includes both married couples and single-parent families. Despite increases in single-parent families and
unrelated households, married couples remain the majority of households in South San Francisco. Table I-9
shows the number and percentage of different types of households. Households that do not meet the
definition of "family" are classified as "non-family households."
1-15
Housing Element ~ty'of South San Francisco
TABLE I-9
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE
City of South San Francisco
2000
Type of Household Number Percent of Households
Total Households 19,677 100.0
Family Households 14,650 74.5
Married Couple 10,977 55.8
Female Headed household 2,596 13.2
Non-Family Households 5,027 25.5
Seniors 1,771 9.0
Householder living alone 3,923 19.9
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
Household Income
General Plan Household Income
The General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report noted that the South San Francisco median
household income in 1990 was lower than San Mateo County's but slightly higher than the median income
in the Bay Area as a whole. Since that time, real incomes have risen somewhat based on 1999 estimates.
A particularly pertinent issue for economic development efforts is the education and employment profile of
South San Francisco residents. In general, residents have lower levels of educational attainment and hold
lower level jobs than residents in the Bay Area as a whole. This discrepancy is particularly notable with
regard to executive and administrative jobs: South San Francisco has a much lower concentration of residents
with managerial positions and a higher proportion of residents in administrative positions than the region as
a whole.
The most prevalent industries in which SSF residents are employed are transportation, retail trade, finance,
insurance, real estate, and manufacturing. The city has a Iow proportion of residents in nondurable goods
manufacturing and professional services than the rest of the Bay Area.
ABAG Income Projections
Mean household income in South San Francisco (in constant 1995 dollars) was $55,800 in 1990, and
increased to $68,000 in 2000. ABAG projects that the city's mean household income will continue its upward
trend, increasing to $73,200 in 2005, $76,100 in 2010, $77,500 in 2015, and $79,300 in 2020. This
represents a 15 percent increase between 2000 and 2020. By comparison, mean household income for San
Mateo County as a whole is estimated at $88,700 in 2000, and is projected to increase by 19 percent to
$109,100 by 2005. Thus, the average income for the county is not only higher than that of South San
Francisco, but will increase at a greater rate than the city (ABAG Projections 2000, December 1999, page
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-16
February2002
City of South San Francisco
188).
Housing Element
TABLE 1-10
Jurisdiction
South San
Francisco*
Colma**
Duly City*
San Bruno*
San Mateo
County
MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
City of South San Francisco and Surrounding Communities
1990 - 2020
1990 2000 2005 2010 2015
55,800 68,000 73,200 76,1 O0 77,500
202O
79,300
47,000 51,000 53,500 56,000 59,000 62,400
57,000 69,100 74,300 77,500 79,800 81.600
59,000 71,000 76,200 80,200 83.400 85.900
72,900 88,700 95,200 100,100 104,800 109,100
* City Sphere of Influence
**City limits
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999.
2.2 HOUSING UNIT MIX AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Housing Stock Composition
South San Francisco's city limits encompass 4,300 acres. According to the ! 999 General Plan, single-family
residential is the predominant use, occupying 33 percent of the land. Only ten percent of the land in the city
is vacant, and development has been approved or is under review on over half of this land. Development that
has been approved or under review includes 1,002 housing units on 110 acres (October 1998). The 160 acres
of remaining vacant land is primarily concentrated in the east of US 101 area, which prohibits residential
development.
South San Francisco's housing stock reflects the city's history as an industrial town and its later role as a
convenient suburb of San Francisco. The city's residential development is fairly unusual, with small single
family homes clustered in flat areas and multifamily housing and townhomes on hillsides surrounding the
town. This development not only reflects the history of the city but also the land use constraints that have
influenced land use decisions. Noise and safety impacts resulting from aircraft operations at the San
Francisco International Airport (SFIA) include height restrictions within the airport approach zone. Likewise,
no residential development is permitted in the east of 101 area according, to a Memorandum of
Understanding between SFIA and the City.
The Existing Conditions and Planning issues Report (1997) indicates that the composition of South San
Francisco's housing is similar to that of the rest of San Mateo County, with the exception that South San
Francisco has a greater concentration of townhomes and other attached single-family units. While South San
Francisco has eight percent of the housing in San Mateo County, it contains 11 percent of the county's
townhomes and other attached single-family units. Market conditions also dictate the development patterns
in the South San Francisco. Between 1990 and 1997, housing growth was modest in both the county and the
city. During that period, approximately equal amounts of single-family and multiple-family development
1-17
Housing Element
occurred in South San Francisco.
DRAFT
,.,,ty of South San Francisco
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the city of South San Francisco has a total of 20,138 housing units.
After a sharp decline in the 1970s, average household size in the 1980s and again in the 1990s increasing
from 2.91 to 3.05. The housing stock has remained primarily single family residential with roughly 70
percent of homes being single family and 30 percent being multi family in 1990 and 2000. A detailed
breakdown of occupancy status and household size by type of dwelling unit is provided in Tables I-11, I-12,
and I- 13. Tables I- 12 and I- 13 show 1990 Census information since the Census Bureau has not released 2000
data for these categories.
TABLEI-11
NUMBER, TYPE OF UNITS, AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE
City of South San Francisco
1990 and 2000
1990
Total Units 19,130
Percent Single-Family 70%
Percent Multi-Family 30%
Vacant Units 562
Percent Vacant 2.9%
Household Population* 53,975
Persons per Occupied Unit 2.91
*Household population excludes persons in group quarters.
**Based on 2000 DOF estimates.
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census; Department of Finance, 2000.
2OOO
20,138
71%**
29%**
461
2.3%
60,109
3.05
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-18 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Number of Occupied
units in Units
structure
Single-family 10,743
detached
Single-family 2,264
attached
2-unit 551
3- or 4-unit 1,002
5 or more 3,347
Mobile homes 336
Other 325
Total 18,568
Source: U.S. Census, 1990.
TABLE 1-12
HOUSING OCCUPANCY STATUS
City of South San Francisco
1990
% Owner- %
Occupied
Renter-
Occupied
Housing Element
57.9 8,767 76.8 1,976 27.6
12.2 1,594 14.0 670 9.4
3.0 93 0.8 458 6.4
5.4 169 1.5 833 11.6
18.0 264 2.3 3,083 43.1
1.8 297 2.6 39 0.5
1.8 226 2.0 99 1.4
100.0 11,410 61.4 7,158 38.6
1-19
Housing Element
. .~y of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-13
NUMBER OF PERSONS IN UNITS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE
City of South San Francisco
1990
All Units Owner-occupied Renter-occupied
Units in Total Persons Per Unit Total Persons Per Unit Total Persons
Structure
Single-family 33,403 3.11 26,203 2.99 7,200
detached
Single-family 7,448 3.29 5,018 3.15 2,430
attached
2-unit 1,597 2.90 244 2.62 1,353
3- or 4-unit 2,853 2.85 379 2.24 2,474
5 or more 7,389 2.21 614 2.33 6,775
Mobile homes 485 1.44 413 1.39 72
Other 800 2.46 521 2.31 279
Total 53,823 2.91 33,258 2.93 20,565
Source: U.S. Census, 1990.
Per Unit
3.64
3.63
2.95
2.97
2.20
1.85
2.82
2.88
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-20
February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
2.3 HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Within the general population there are several groups of people who have special housing needs. These
needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The following subsections
discuss these special housing needs of six groups identified in State housing element law (Government Code,
Section 65583(a)(6)). Specifically, these include senior households, persons with disabilities, large
households, single-headed households, farmworkers, and the homeless. Where possible, estimates of the
population or number of households in South San Francisco falling into each group is presented.
Senior Households
Senior households are defined as households with one or more persons over the age of 65 years. To date
(January 2002), the 2000 Census has not yet reported on the number of households headed by a senior.
However, information is available on the number of persons over the age of 65 years as well as the number
of households in which a person over the age of 65 resides. This information is presented in Table 1-14
below. Approximately 28 percent of all households in South San Francisco included one or more senior
individuals, and 12.6 percent of ali persons living in South San Francisco are seniors. Women make up
approximately 59 percent of the senior population.
TABLE 1-14
Number of Persons 65 years and Over
NUMBER OF SENIORS
City of South San Francisco
2000
7,632 Number of Households with Individuals 5,586
65 Years and Over
Seniors as a Percentage'of the Total Population 12.6%
Percentage Male 41.3%
Percentage Female 58.7%
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
Percentage of All Households
28.4%
As of 1990, the majority of senior households in South San Francisco were homeowners. Of all 1990
households headed by a person 65 years or older, 71.8 percent owned their homes and 28.2 percent rented.
1-21
Housing Element
~.lty of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-15
HOUSING TENURE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S
SENIOR AND NON-SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
City of South San Francisco
1990
Number
Household Type and Tenure*
Senior-Headed Households
Renter
Owner
Households Headed by a Non-Senior Person
Renter
Owner
* Based on occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census, 1990.
Percent
3,838 100.0%
! ,083 28.2%
2,755 71.8%
14,681 100.0%
6,069 41.3%
8,612 58.7%
A much larger percentage of senior renter households (55 percent) than non-senior households (37 percent)
paid 30 percent or more of their incomes for housing costs. Only 11 percent of senior homeowners reported
paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-22 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
DRAFT
Housing Element
TABLE 1-16
COMPARISON OF COST BURDENS BY AGE AND TENURE
City of South San Francisco
1990
Age Category
Cost Burden Total
Total Renters Greater Than 30% Homeowners
Number Number Percentage Number
6,048 2,231 36.9% 7,689
1,083 594 54.8% 2,506
15-64 years
65 years and
over
Cost Burden
Greater Than 30%
Number Percentage
2,531 32.9%
286 11.4%
Total 7,131 2,825 39.6% 10,195 2,817 27.8%
Sources: Census, 1990; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, lnc.
These data indicate that there is need in South San Francisco for additional programs to assist senior renters.
Although there are more senior homeowners, it is the renters who experience the greatest housing needs due
to fixed incomes and rising rental rates. Senior homeowners, often on fixed incomes, do face the problem
of maintaining their homes,.
According to statistics from the Social Security Administration, as of December 1996, there were 954
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients 65 years and over in South San Francisco. SSI is a
needs-based program that pays monthly benefits to persons who are 65 or older, blind, or have a disability.
Seniors who have never worked or have insufficient work credits to qualify for Social Security disability
often receive SSI benefits. In fact, SSI is the only source of income for a number of iow-income seniors.
With the maximum monthly benefit currently $712, SSI recipients are likely to have difficulty in finding
housing that fits within their budgets since they could afford to pay only $214 for rent. The Chestnut Creek
Senior Project will help address the need for housing for very Iow-income seniors, adding 40 units.
Information from Service Providers
The City's Senior Services operates two senior centers, El Camino and Magnolia, as well as an Adult Day
Care Center. The centers include an Information and Referral service, which provides information on senior
housing. Staff reports receiving approximately 40 inquiries per week regarding housing. Most requests are
for seniors seeking affordable and/or Section 8 apartments. There are also quite a few requests for
information for assisted-living and board and care homes -- probably an additional 20 per week.
There are three senior housing developments with 321 affordable units located in South San Francisco
(Fairway Apartments, Magnolia Plaza and Rotary Plaza), all with long waiting lists. The Chestnut Creek
Senior Housing Development, currently under construction, will add another 40 units. Seniors also
participate in the Shared Housing Program operated by the Human Investment Project (HIP).
1-23
Housing Element
DRAFT
~.,ty of South San Francisco
Persons with Disabilities
Since it is difficult to obtain data on South San Francisco's disabled population, Table 1-17 presents
information derived from the 1990 U.S. Census. (2000 Census data on disabilities are not yet available.)
With regard to disability status, the 1990 U.S. Census provides information on whether persons 16 years of
age or older have a mobility problem, self-care limitation or both.
TABLE 1-17
MOBILITY/SELF-CARE LIMITATION - PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OLDER
City of South San Francisco
1990
Mobility/
Self-Help
Limitation
16-64 Years 65-74 Years 75 Years and Older Total Population 16
Years and Older
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1,964 5.4% 428 ! 0.6% 550 28.0% 2,942 7.0%
No 34,156 94.6% 3,591 89.4% 1,412 72.0% 39,159 93.0%
Limitation
Total 36,120 100.0% 4,019 100.0% 1,962 100.0% 42,101 100.0%
Persons
Sources: 1990 U.S. Census; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
In 1990, approximately 95 percent of South San Francisco's population 16 years of age or older had no
self-care or mobility limitation. However, when this same information is separated by age group, it is clear,
that, as the population ages, the incidence of disability increases. Among the population that is age 75 and
older, 28 percent experienced either a self-care or mobility limitation or both. In summary, a total of 2,942
persons who were 16 years or older in 1990 had a mobility limitation, a self-care limitation, or a combination
of these conditions.
The statistics for the SSI program also provide information on the number of persons with disabilities who
may have housing needs because of their low incomes. As of December 1996, there were 751 SSI recipients
in South San Francisco who were receiving benefits because they are blind or disabled. Although these
figures can give a sense of the proportion of the population with different types of disabilities, a much
smaller proportion of the population may actually require specially adapted housing to accommodate
disabilities.
In addition to these mobility and self-care limitations, there is also a significant population of people with
mental illness and developmental disabilities. As of January 2002, the County's Mental Health Department
reported that 969 of its clients resided in South San Francisco. Although accessibility may be of a lesser
concern, housing with supportive services is critical for mentally ill individuals.
The Golden Gate Regional Center serves developmentally disabled people in San Mateo County. As of
January 2002, this Center reported that 162 of its adult clients reside in South San Francisco. Over one half
of them are living with their families; only 20 currently live independently in their own apartments. A
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-24 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
D AFT
Housing Element
number of these clients are 45 years or older. This aging of their clientele is of concern to the Center, since
many of their clients live with their older parents. At some point, these parents will be unable to care for
their adult, disabled children, and their children will require a supportive living situation.
Information from Service Providers
The State Independent Living Council's (SILC) 1998 report, Independent Living, provides a perspective on
the housing needs of persons with disabilities. SILC polled the independent living centers across the state
to determine the major factors that hinder people with disabilities from living independently. The SILC
identified housing as a critical issue, as follows:
Housing is a huge problem for most people with disabilities. Not only is there a scarcity of
low-income housing located in each community, there is even less barrier-free iow-income
housing. For individuals who are receiving a total gross income of $640 on Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), paying market rate for any type of apartment or house is a virtual
impossibility.
South San Francisco does not have any affordable housing development built specifically for
persons with disabilities, though some units at some of the affordable projects have handicap
accessible units. The Peninsula Association for Retarded Children and Adults (PARCA)
provides housing for 11 clients and supplements the rent at four apartments at Peninsula Pines
and a house in Westborough.
The City provides CDBG funding to the Center for Independence of Disabled to make accessibility
modifications to enable persons with disabilities to stay in their homes or move to new housing.
Additionally, the minor repair programs sponsored by the City provide assistance to persons with disabilities
to undertake home repairs that increase access.
The housing coordinator for the Golden Gate Center is organizing a coalition of agencies such as PARCA
and Life Steps, nonprofit developers, and parents to address the housing needs of developmentally disabled
persons in San Mateo County. The coalition plans to request each city as well as the county to include units
for developmentally-disabled in their affordable housing developments and to request the San Mateo Housing
Authority to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers for this group. The City also provides funding for
the Human Investment Project Home Sharing Program.
Large Households
Large households require housing units with more bedrooms than housing units needed by smaller
households. In general, housing for these households should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and
should be located to provide convenient access to schools and child-care facilities. These types of needs can
pose problems particularly for large families that cannot afford to buy or rent single-family houses, as
apartment and condominium units are most often developed with childless, smaller households in mind.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines a large household or family as one
with five or more members. According to the 1990 Census, 2,922 households, or 15.7 percent of the total
households in South San Francisco, had five or more members. Approximately three percent of all
households (500) had seven or more members. Furthermore, most of the affordable housing projects have
smaller units. However, the Greenridge project includes 13 three-bedroom units and 4 four-bedroom units.
Single-Headed Households
1-25
Housing Element
D AFT
.,[y of South San Francisco
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least one
dependent, which could include a child, an elderly parent, or non-related child. The 2000 Census information
released thus far indicates that them are 2,596 households headed by a female, representing 13.2 percent of
all South San Francisco households. Less than one-half of these female-headed households (1,099) have
children living in them who are under 18 years of age. (Data on the number of male single-headed
households is not yet available.)
Due to lower incomes, single-headed households often have more difficulties finding adequate, affordable
housing than families with two adults. Also, single-headed households with small children may need to pay
for chiidcare, which further reduces disposable income. This special needs group will benefit generally from
expanded affordable housing opportunities. More specifically, the need for dependent care also makes it
important that housing for single-headed families be located near childcare facilities, schools, youth services,
medical facilities, or senior services.
Homeless
As part of its Consolidated Plan for Housing, Community and Economic Development for 1998-2003, the
City of South San Francisco established as one of its priorities to "provide service enriched shelter and
transitional housing for homeless persons and families." As stated in the report, the rationale for this priority
is that:
It is now accepted that a continuum of care approach is required to assist families and individuals
to break the cycle of homelessness. The City attempts to offer an array of services that will assist
families at risk of becoming homeless: by providing support services, transitional housing, and
permanent housing solutions.
As elsewhere in the nation, homelessness is usually the end result of multiple factors that converge in a
person's life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for
retraining, and the high housing costs in this county lead to some individuals and families losing their
housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health
disabilities, or drug. and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and long-term
support needed to address these conditions.
To estimate the number of homeless in South San Francisco is difficult due to the lack of current data. For
the entire County of San Mateo a count by the County's Office on Homelessness for the calendar year 2000
indicated that there are at least 4,800 unduplicated homeless people (based on a survey of 16 agencies serving
the homeless). Because this count did not capture individuals who did not receive services or who declined
to give their social security numbers, the Shelter Network of San Mateo County estimates that the number
of homeless was closer to 6,000 people.
In June 2001 the San Mateo Humans Services Agency, Office of Housing reported on the results of a special
needs assessment for emergency shelter services. The study, which includes a survey of 49 clients staying
at the Safe Harbor winter shelter, provides additional insights about the homeless population in San Mateo
County. The findings included the following:
The population staying at the shelter was older than in a 1995 survey of the homeless.
Seventy percent of the survey participants were between the ages of 36 and 55 years old, and
10 percent were over 55 years old.
· The majority of the homeless population is either recently homeless or chronically homeless,
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-26 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
indicating a need for a variety of services and interventions to break the cycle and prevent
further cultural homelessness. (Forty percent of the survey participants had been homeless
for less than six months, while 27 percent has been homeless for over two years.
The incidence of homelessness in San Mateo County appears to be steadily increasing over
time based on one-night homeless counts by the Office of Housing. From February 1998
to March 2002 there was a 26 percent increase.
Conversations with organizations operating emergency shelters and transitional housing, and providing
services in the area, reveal the following about the homeless population in South San Francisco:
St. Vincent de Paul Society, South San Francisco: This agency provides a meal program
between 10:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon each day through the "Caf~ St. Vincent" located at 344
Grand Avenue. Staff report that the number of participants in the meal program has increased
dramatically during the fall of 2001. During the spring and summer of 2001, the average
number of people eating at the dining hall was 50 to 70, and increased to an average of 70 to 100
in October.
A majority of the participants are from South San Francisco. Most are homeless or come from
neighboring Single Room Occupancy Hotels. The dining room serves primarily single adults;
families are referred to North Peninsula Neighborhood Services.
Staff described their clientele as needing support services -- many suffer from mental illness
and substance abuse. Besides the meal service, the St. Vincent de Paul Society provides
referrals and can sometimes cover the cost of alcohol and drug rehabilitation services, and
provide bus passes, shoes, short-term and emergency rent subsidies and other necessities.
St. Vincent de Paul, San Mateo County District Council, San Mateo: This office of St. Vincent
de Paul's operates a motel voucher distribution program. In the calendar year 2001, eleven
families comprised of 21 people (twelve adults and nine children) were placed in hotels in South
San Francisco. The motels used were the Metropolitan and Grand Hotels.
Safe Harbor, South San Francisco: This 90-bed shelter is known as the "winter shelter" for the
County, and is located near the San Francisco Airport at 295 North Access Road. The shelter
is operated by a San Mateo-based non-profit organization, Samaritan House. The director of the
shelter reports that the facility is full every night. Referrals are obtained from local "core"
service agencies throughout the County who make their requests through the St. Vincent de Paul
Society. Neither the director nor staff at St. Vincent de Paul's had statistics on the exact number
of people served from South San Francisco, but believed that "many" or "most" were from that
South San Francisco.
The shelter serves only adults and is located in a dormitory-like facility with 45 bunk beds. It
is open from 5:30 P.M. until 7:00 A.M., and staff provide a hot breakfast to guests. Bus tickets
are provided, and Samaritan House plans to open a treatment center as part of the facility in the
near future. Due to increasing and steady demand, Samaritan House also intends to keep the
shelter open year-round rather than only during the winter months.
· The Salvation Army, South San Francisco: The Salvation Army is located at 409 South Spruce
Avenue, and serves a hot breakfast to about thirty people every Saturday morning.
· North Peninsula Neighborhood Service Center, South San Francisco: This agency is the
1-27
Housing Element
~.~y of South San Francisco
designated lead agency for homeless services in San Mateo County. They coordinate services
in San Marco County and provide case management for homeless services. This agency is
partially supported by the City through CDBG funding. From 1999 through 2001 this group
served 165 homeless people from South San Francisco (an average of 55 per year) through its
blanket, food, and information and referral services..
Human Investment Program (HIP Housing), South San Francisco: This San Mateo-based
non-profit organization has a satellite office in South San Francisco to conduct its Home Sharing
program which provides assistance to low income people seeking permanent affordable housing
by matching them with roommates. From 1999 through 2001, staff interviewed 25 people from
South San Francisco who were homeless and 28 people who were "at-risk" of homelessness.
The City of San Francisco helps support this agency with Redevelopment Agency funding.
Shelter Network of San Mateo County, Burlingame: Shelter Network serves South San
Francisco residents primarily at the following two shelters: 1) Family Crossroads in Daly City,
a former apartment house serving 12 families at a time for four month intervals; 2) Maple Street
Shelter in Redwood City, a program for single adults that includes 32 emergency beds available
for 60-day stays, and an additional 44 beds reserved to provide transitional housing for
six-month periods.
From FY 1998/99 through the FY 2000/01, 24 families from South San Francisco stayed at
Family Crossroads. During that same period, the number of single adults from South San
Francisco staying at Maple Street Shelter steadily increased - from ten in FY 1998/99 to 18 in
FY 1999/00 to 24 in FY 2000/01- a total of 52 individuals.
Shelter Network also provides supportive services to homeless people through the "First Step
for Families" and "Bridges" programs. From FY 1998/99 through FY 2000/01 First Step served
13 families comprised of 50 children and adults from South San Francisco. Families live at the
First Step facility in San Mateo for up to two months and receive case management, tutoring,
chiidcare, and support for locating and affording permanent housing.
Three South San Francisco families have been served by "Bridges", which provides up to two
years of transitional housing to homeless families in apartments located throughout the County.
During their stay families receive job training, credit counseling and money management, and
other services that will enable them to increase their incomes.
The City of South San Francisco assists this non-profit organization through Redevelopment
Agency funding.
Clara-Mateo Alliance, Inc., Menlo Park: This private non-profit organization operates a
comprehensive emergency shelter and transitional housing program in the Veteran's Hospital.
Veterans are given preference for certain programs, but the facilities are open to all homeless
people. Staff report that since the beginning of FY 2000/01 through the first half of FY 2001/02,
they have served 17 individuals and two couples from South San Francisco in the following
facilities:
- The Family Center: Includes six rooms for families with children.
- Shelter for Adults: Includes 63 beds for adults, and four rooms are reserved for
couples.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-28 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
- Transitional Housing Center: Includes 28 beds for adults. Services are provided by the
Clara-Mateo Alliance to assist residents to obtain employment and find permanent housing.
The Homeless Veterans Emergency Facility, Menlo Park: The Homeless Veterans Emergency
Facility, a private nonprofit organization, operates a shelter with 112 emergency and transitional
beds located in a building adjacent to the Clara-Mateo Alliance facilities mentioned above.
This shelter served over 500 veterans in the year 2001 with a significant number coming from
the County of San Mateo. Staff did not know how many veterans were served from the City of
South San Francisco, but reported that they saw "quite a few". Veterans served by the
emergency shelter are waiting for inpatient treatment through the drug and alcohol abuse, and
mental health programs available at the Veteran's Hospital. Veterans eligible for the transitional
beds are being assisted with employment and training.
Spring Street Shelter, Redwood City: The San Mateo Mental Health Association, a nonprofit
organization runs this 16-bed shelter for single adults diagnosed with a mental illness.
Approximately six persons served by the shelter in the last six months were from North County
including the City of South San Francisco.
The San Mateo Hospitality Network, Burlingame: Twenty-two churches and synagogues in San
Mateo County provide shelter on a rotating basis, as well as services, donations, meals,
information and referral, shower facilities and computer access to approximately 30 homeless
families per year. Staff report that last year the program served three families from South San
Francisco. Currently, staff is working on expanding their program and is contacting
congregations in South San Francisco to gain their participation in the network, which currently
includes 800 volunteers.
Another source of affordable housing often sought by individuals who cannot afford an apartment orby local
service agencies seeking to place very low-income clients are the single-room occupancy hotels (SROs) in
South San Francisco. Currently (January 2002), there are 192 SRO units in the city. Generally, these
facilities do not include bathrooms or kitchens in the units. (The latter is one reason that St. Vincent de Paul
staff report they see so many residents from the SROs in their dining room - this population cannot afford
to eat out as well as pay rent). Two SRO buildings in South San Francisco have received City funding for
rehabilitation and are restricted to occupancy by very low-income tenants. They are the Grand and the
Metropolitan Hotels, which are comprised of a total of 82 units. North Peninsula Neighborhood Services
Center, a nonprofit organization supported by the City, is able to place homeless families in these hotels.
As recognized by the City of South San Francisco in its Consolidated Plan, homelessness is best mitigated
by a continuum of care approach. To implement this strategy continued collaboration between South San
Francisco, the County of San Mateo, service and housing providers, and the interfaith community is essential.
Farmworkers
South San Francisco has a history of small truck farms and local farms. However, farmworkers accounted
for slightly less than one percent of the employed persons living in South San Francisco in 1990. The 1990
Census reported 255 South San Francisco residents who were employed in the farming, forestry, and fishing,
industries.
2.4 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Number and Types of Units
1-29
Housing Element
~..~,y of South San Francisco
As Table I- 18 indicates, the existing housing stock in South San Francisco is predominantly (over 70 percent)
single-family dwellings and has been that way since 1990. Apartment buildings with three to 49 units
account for 20 percent of housing units, while 3 percent of units are found in buildings with more than 50
units. The remainder of the housing stock is made up of duplexes, mobile homes, and houseboats.
TABLE 1-18
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS, BY YEAR AND TYPE
City of South San Francisco
1991-2000
Duplex/ Multi-
Year Single-Family Townhom~ Condo Family Mobilehomes Total
1991 11,009 2,336 5,411 405 19,161
1992 11,030 2,336 5,426 405 19,197
1993 11,053 2,336 5,479 405 19,273
1994 11,066 2,336 5,511 405 19,318
1995 11,088 2,336 5,513 405 19,342
1996 11,120 2,336 5,545 405 19,406
1997 11,145 2,336 5,560 405 19,446
1998 11,295 2,408 5,581 405 19,689
1999 11,535 2,654 5,581 405 20,175
2000 11,945 2,654 5,657 405 20,661
Increase 91- 00 936 318 246 0 1,500
Source: California Department of Finance, 1990 through 2000.
Condition of the Housing Stock
Recent information relating to condition of housing stock is not available because the U.S. Census Bureau
has not released (as of January 2002) housing stock condition data and the City has not conducted
comprehensive surveys of South San Francisco's housing stock in the last 12 years. The only available data
is from a windshield survey of housing conditions conducted by the City in May 1990. The following rating
system was used in the survey:
· Good: structures needing no repairs or only cosmetic repairs, e.g., paint;
· Fair: structures requiring some minor structural repairs--visible cracks, minor roof problems,
etc.; and
· Poor: structures needing major repairs--dilapidated/substandard housing.
Overall, South San Francisco's residential structures are in good condition. Of the 1,862 structures surveyed,
87.3 percent were found to be in good condition, 10.7 percent in fair condition, and 2 percent in poor
condition. Applying these percentages to the city as a whole, approximately 2,000 units need minor
structural repairs, and 380 units need either major repairs or replacement. (The low rate of demolitions,
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-30 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
averaging five per year, indicates that relatively few units need to be replaced.)
percentage breakdown of structural conditions by neighborhood.
Housing Element
Table 1-19 shows a
TABLE 1-19
HOUSING CONDITIONS BY NEIGHBORHOOD
City of South San Francisco
1990
Condition
Neighborhood Structures Surveyed
Good Fair Poor
Avalon/Brentwood 198 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
Buri-Buri/Serra 193 93.0% 7.0% 0.0%
Highlands
Grand Avenue Area 103 88.4% 11.6% 4.8%
Irish Town 277 73.3% 26.7% 10.1%
Mayfair 119 82.4% 17.6% 0.0%
Village/Francisco
Terrace
Paradise Valley 166 88.6% 10.8% 0.6%
Parkway 119 98.3% 1.7% 0.0%
Peck's Lots 77 83.1% 13.0% 3.9%
Southwood 78 93.6% 6.4% 0.0%
Sunshine Gardens 136 91.2% 8.8% 0.0%
Town of Baden 85 84.7% 14.1% 1.2%
Westborough 155 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
Winston Manor 156 93.6% 6.4% 0.0%
TOTAL 1,862 87.3 % 10.7 % 2.0 %
Source: Economic and Community Development Department Windshield Survey, May 1990
Based on the Planning Commission tour in November 2001, Irish Town, located north of the downtown
commercial area has by far the greatest percentage of structures in need of rehabilitation. This is the
Downtown Target Area, where Community Development Block Grant funds are concentrated for rental and
single-family rehabilitation. In five other neighborhoods, over 10 percent of the structures were in fair to
poor condition: Grand Avenue, Paradise Valley, Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace, Town of Baden, and
Peck's Lots.
1-31
Housing Element
· y of South San Francisco
Overcrowding
The Census Bureau defines overcrowded conditions as dwelling units housing more than one person per
room. Overcrowding is a significant and increasing problem in South San Francisco: between 1980 and
! 990, the proportion of overcrowded units nearly doubled, from 6.7 percent to 12.8 percent.
Overcrowding affects more rental households than owner households. While the rate of overcrowding was
less than 8 percent for owners, it was over 20 percent for renters.
Overcrowding is also distributed unevenly throughout the city. The three census tracts immediately west of
U.S. 101 (6021, 6022, and 6023) have the highest rates, (30.4 percent, 22.3 percent, and 17.7 percent).
Overcrowding is lowest in the area between E! Camino Real and Interstate 280 (tracts 6017,6018, and 6024).
Table 1-20 shows that the number of larger units exceeds the number of larger households, while the number
of small units is less than the number of small households. If every household could compete effectively in
the housing market, there are enough units to accommodate all households without overcrowding.
Overcrowding is primarily a problem of distribution caused by households lacking sufficient income to bid
for units of suitable size.
TABLE 1-20
SIZE OF UNITS COMPARED WITH SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS
City of South San Francisco
Number of Units
Number of Rooms
1 679
2 1,375
3 2,740
4 3,304
5 4,115
6 3,837
7 or more 3,080
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
1990
Number of Persons
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 or more
Number of
Householders
3,876
5,317
3,450
3,079
1,531
700
615
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-32 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
3.0 FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
Under the State housing element requirement, housing needs are defined in three categories: existing needs,
needs of special groups within the community, and projected needs over the next five year period. Previous
sections of this chapter have identified existing needs and needs of special groups. This section focuses on
projected housing needs for the period from 2001 to 2006.
Projected housing needs are the total additional housing units required to adequately house a jurisdiction's
projected population in five years in units that are affordable, in standard condition, and not overcrowded.
These needs, therefore, include those of the existing population as well as the needs of the additional
population expected to reside in the city five years hence.
3.1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S SHARE OF 1999 TO 2006 HOUSING NEEDS
Government Code Section 65584 assigns responsibility for developing projections of regional housing need
and for allocating a share of this need to localities within the region to regional councils of government. For
the San Francisco Bay Area, these determinations were prepared by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). Based on a methodology that weighs a number of factors (e.g., projected population
growth, employment, commute patterns, available sites), ABAG determined quantifiable needs for housing
units in the region according to various income categories. Table 1-21 depicts the South San Francisco's
estimated need for 1999 to 2006. In its final Regional Needs Determination (RHND) figures, ABAG
allocated 1,331 housing units to the City of South San Francisco. The allocation is equivalent to a yearly
need of 177 housing units for the 7 1/2 year period. The total allocation is broken down into four income
categories: very low (277 units or 20.8 percent of total units), low (131 units or 9.8 percent of total units),
moderate (360 units or 27.0 percent of total units), and above moderate (563 units or 42.3 percent of total
units). In other words, of the 1,331 units allocated, 57.6 percent must be in the affordable range (very low,
low, moderate) and 44.3 percent in the above range.
1-33
Housing Element
..,ty of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-21
HOUSING NEED BY INCOME CATEGORY
South San Francisco
1999 to 2006
Income Category ABAG Need Determination Percentage of Total
Very Low 277 20.8
Low 131 9.8
Moderate 360 27.0
Above Moderate 563 42.3
Total 1,331 100%
Average Yearly Need 177 --
Unincorporated Sphere of lnfluence 0 --
Need
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, March 2001.
Table 1-22 shows the total 1999-2006 RHND allocation and the 1999 housing unit count for South San
Francisco, San Mateo County, and the entire nine-county ABAG region. When applied to the 1999 DOF
estimate of 20,175 housing units in the incorporated area of South San Francisco, the 1,331 total housing
unit allocation for 1999-2006 is equivalent to a 6.2 percent total increase, or a 0.92 percent annual average
growth rate for the 7V2-year period.
South San Francisco's RHND allocation represents 8.1 percent of the total San Mateo County RHND of
16,305. This share is slightly larger than South San Francisco's 7.7 percent share of the total San Mateo
County housing stock in 1999. South San Francisco's 1999 housing stock represented 0.8 percent of the total
1999 Bay Area regional housing supply. However, South San Francisco has been assigned a RHND
equivalent to 0.6 percent of the regional total, a share that is almost equivalent to South San Francisco's share
of the 1999 housing stock.
South San Francisco's annual average growth rate of 0.92 percent implied in its RHND is relatively close to
the growth rate of San Mateo County (0.87 percent) and slightly less than the entire Bay Area region (1.17
percent).
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-34 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-22
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION
South San Francisco, San Mateo County, and ABAG Regions
1999 to 2006
Regional Housing Needs (Units) Allocation -
Current Jurisdictional Boundaries
1999 Housing Units
Allocated Growth
Jurisdiction
South San
Francisco
San Mateo
County
ABAG
Regional
Total
% of
Total County
1,331 8.1%
Annual
Average
Average 1999 % of % Total Growth
% of Yearly Housing % of Region Growth: Rate:
Regional Need (7.5 Units County al 1999- 1999-
Share Years) (DOF) Share Share 2006 2006
0.6% 177 20,175 7.7% 0.8% 6.2% 0.92%
16,305 100.0% 7.1% 2,174 261,434 100.0% 10.3% 5.9% 0.87%
230,743 -- 100.0% 30,766 2,529,529 -- 100.0% 9.1% 1.17%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, March 15, 2001; California Department of Finance, January 1,2000.
3.2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (1999 TO 2001)
Between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, which is within the planning timeframe of the Housing
Element, South San Francisco approved or built 1,688 new units. For comparison, between January 1, 1989,
and January 1, 1999, the City of South San Francisco issued building permits for 1,247 new units.
Table 1-23 summarizes building permits issued and units constructed by year and type of unit. Of the 1,688
permits issued and units constructed between 1999 and 2001,264 of those units were considered affordable
housing units (i.e., affordable to very low, low, and moderate in come households).
1-35
Housing Element
~ty of South San Francisco
Project
1999
Grand Hotel
Terrabay Village
(Phase 1 )
Terrabay Park (Phase
1)
Metro Hotel
SUBTOTAL
2000
Greenridge
Promenade
Bay View Villas
Avalon Terrace
Chestnut Estates
Westborough Court
El Rancho Highlands
Carter Park
SUBTOTAL
2001
TABLE 1-23
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
City of South San Francisco
1999-2001
Location Total Units Affordable units
-- 24
North side of Hillside 161
Blvd.
North side of Hillside 125
Blvd.
65
375
Description/
Comments
1450 El Camino Real
34
179
35
21
8O
85
63
5O
1450 El Camino Real
Comer of Gellert and
Appian Way
375 Dorado Way
9-132 Nursery Way
3851-3893 Carter Dr.
735 Del Monte Ave.
3721-3741 Carter Dr.
547
24 Rehabilitated units
(completed)
Townhomes
(completed)
0 Single Family
Residential
(completed)
65 Rehabilitated units
(completed)
89
34 townhomes and
manager's unit on 2.6
acres (completed)
0 Single family
detached units on 28.5
acres (completed)
0 Single family
detached units on 3.9
acres (completed)
0 Single family
detached units on 5.2
acres (completed)
0 Single family
detached units on 12.8
acres (completed)
0 Condos on a4acre
site (phase i of 11
completed)
0 Single family units on
10.5 acres.
(completed)
0 Planned condos on a
2 acre site (approved)
34
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-36 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-23
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
City of South San Francisco
1999-2001
Project Location
Oak Farms SE corner of Oak and
Grand Avenues
Total Units Affordable units
34
Oakmont Vistas Oakmont Drive and 34
Westborough Blvd.
Parc Place Orange and Railroad 153
Avenues
Chestnut Creek/ Comer of Mission Rd. 40
Bridge Senior & Chesnut Avenue
Housing
Terrabay Woods North side of Sister 135
(Phase I11) Cities Blvd.
Oak Avenue 90 Oak Avenue 15
Apartments
Marbella Gellert Boulevard 280 70
Commercial Avenue Commercial Avenue 4
Apartments
Aggis __ 71
Terrabay Pointe 182 22
(Phase Ill)
Description/
Conunents
5 Single family
detached units on 2.6
acres (approved)
0 Single family
detached units on 4.9
acres (approved)
0 Single family
detached units on 18.9
acres (completed)
40 One- and two-
bedroom units
(completed)
0 Single family
residential (under
construction)
0 Apartment complex
on 0.45 acre site
(under review)
Condominium
(approved)
4 Rehabilitated units
(completed)
0 Elderly residential
care (completed)
112 unit residential
tower, 70 single
family homes
(approved)
SUBTOTAL 948 141
TOTAL 1,870 264
Source: Economic & Community Development Department, January 1, 1999, through December 31,2001.
In an effort to relate this building permit activity to the 1999-2006 ABAG need determination figures, the
South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department assigned each new unit to one of
the four income categories specified in the ABAG needs determination. The results of this analysis are
shown in Table 1-24. After accounting for approved and constructed housing units between January 1, 1999,
and December 31, 2001, South San Francisco's remaining fair share need is 482 new units (110 very low,
129 low, and 243 moderate). The City has satisfied its need for above moderate having a surplus of 1,021
units above the 563 unit allocation.
1-37
Housing Element ,.,,ty of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-24
BALANCE OF 1999 TO 2001 NEED
City of South San Francisco
Units
Constructed/Planned
1999 to 2006 ABAG and Adjustments Percentage of Need Balance of Existing
Income Category Need Determination 1999-2001' Met Need
Very Low 277 167 60.3% 110
Low 131 2 1.5% 129
Moderate 360 1 ! 7 32.5% 243
Above Moderate 563 1,584 281.0% 1,021 (surplus)
Total 1,331 1,870 -- 482
*Units include both units constructed and those receiving building permits between January 1, 1999 - December 31,2001.
Source: Economic & Community Development Department, November 2001; Association of Bay Area Governments,
December 2000.
4.0 HOUSING OVERPAYMENT
Section 4 assesses the ability of South San Francisco residents to pay for housing (owner-occupied and rental
units) within the city.
4.1 HOUSING COSTS COMPARED TO ABILITY TO PAY
The following section discusses current income levels and ability to pay for housing compared with housing
costs. Housing is classified as "affordable" if households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for
payment of rent (including monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly mortgage (including
taxes). Since above moderate-income households do not generally have problems in locating affordable units,
affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that are low- to
moderate-income. Table 1-25 below shows the definition of housing income limits as they are applied to
housing units in South San Francisco, which is part of the San Francisco PMSA (Marin, San Francisco, and
San Mateo counties).
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-38 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-25
DEFINITIONS OF HOUSING INCOME LIMITS
Very Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or lower than 50% of the
median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). A household of four is considered to be very low-income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is
$42,500 or less for the year 2001.
Low-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 50% to 80% of the
median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be low-income in
the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $68,000 or less for the year 2001.
Median Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 81% to 100% of the
median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be median income
in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $80,100 or less for the year 2001.
Moderate-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is at or between 101% to 120% of the
median income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be
moderate-income in the San Francisco PMSA if its combined income is $96,100 or less for the year 2001.
Above Moderate-Income Unit is one that is affordable to a household whose combined income is above 120% of the median
income for the San Francisco PMSA as established by HUD. A household of four is considered to be moderate-income in the
San Francisco PMSA if its combined income exceeds $96,1 O0 for the year 2001.
Affordable Units are affordable if households do not spend more than 30% of income on rent (including monthly allowance
for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly mortgage. Since above moderate-income households do not generally have
problems in locating affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that
are Iow- to moderate-income.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2001.
Ability to Pay
Table 1-26 shows the 2001 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)~defined family
income limits for Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-Income households in the San Francisco PMSA (including
South San Francisco) by the number of persons in the household. It also shows maximum affordable monthly
rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes. For example, a three-person household is
classified as Low-Income (80 percent of median) with annual income of up to $61,200. A household with
this income could afford to pay $1,530 for monthly gross rent (including utilities) or to purchase a $213,308
house or condominium. A Very Low-Income household of the same size could afford to spend only $956 for
gross rent.
1-39
Housing Element ~..,y of South San Francisco
TABLEI-26
ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR
VERY LOW-,LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2001 Median Family Income (1)
Unit Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Number Persons I 2 3 4 5
income Level $29,750 $34,000 $38,250 $42,500 $45,900
Max. monthly $744 $850 $956 $1,063 $1,148
gross rent (2)
Max. purchase $103,691 $118,504 $133,317 $148,131 $159,981
price (3)
Low-Income Households at 80% of 2001 Median Family Income (1)
Unit Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Number Persons I 2 3 4 5
lncome Level $47,600 $54,400 $61,200 $68,000 $73,450
Max. monthly $1,190 $1,360 $1,530 $1,700 $1,836
gross rent (2)
Max. purchase $165,906 $189,607 $213,308 $237,009 $256,004
price (3)
Moderate-Income Households at 100% of 2001 Median Family Income (1)
Unit Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Number Persons I 2 3 4 5
Income Level $56,050 $64, ! 00 $72,100 $80,100 $86,500
Max. monthly $1,401 $1,603 $ 1,803 $2,003 $2,163
gross rent (2)
Max. purchase $195,358 $223,416 $251,299 $279,183 $301,489
price (3)
Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2001 Median Family Income (1)
Unit Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom
Number Persons I 2 3
$67,250 $76,900 $86,500
income Level
3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
4 5
$96,100 $103,800
5 Bedroom
6
$49,300
$1,233
$171,831
5 Bedroom
6
$78,900
$1,973
$275,000
5 Bedroom
6
$92,900
$2,323
$323,796
5 Bedroom
6
$111,500
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-40 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-26
ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING FOR
VERY LOW-,LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Max. monthly $1,681 $1,923 $2,163 $2,403 $2,595
gross rent (2)
Max. purchase $234,395 $268,029 $301,489 $334,949 $361,787
price (3)
Assumptions and Notes:
(1) Since the San Francisco PMSA is a high-income area, HUD median income categories do not follow the exact
percentages. For example Low-Income is capped at 75% of median income, rather than 80%.
(2) 30% of income devoted to maximum monthly rent, including utilities
(3) 33% of income devoted to mortgage payment and taxes, 95% loan @ 8%, 30 year term
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
$2,788
$388,625
Existing Housing Costs
Table 1-27 below shows HUD-defined fair market rent levels (FMR) for the San Francisco PMSA (including
South San Francisco) for 2001 as well as the proposed FMR rents for 2002. In general, the FMR for an area
is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned,
decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. FMRs are
estimates of rent plus the cost of utilities, except telephone. FMRs are housing market-wide estimates of rents
that provide opportunities to rent standard quality housing throughout the geographic area in which rental
housing units are in competition. The rents are drawn from the distribution of rents of ali units that are
occupied by recent movers. Adjustments are made to exclude public housing units, newly built units, and
substandard units.
1-41
Housing Element
,.,~ty of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-27
FAIR MARKET RENT
San Francisco PMSA (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties)
2001
Fair Market Rent
(FMR)
Bedrooms in Unit
0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
$891 $1,154 $1,459 $2,001 $2,1 ! 8
Proposed 2002 $1,067 $1,382 $1,747 $2,386 $2,536
Fair Market Rent
Notes: 40th percentile of market rents for Fiscal Year 2001 (January 2, 2001) for the San Francisco PMSA (Marin, San
Francisco and San Mateo Counties)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (24 CFR Part 888)
Comparing this table to Table 1-26, a three-person household classified as Low-Income (80% of median) with
an annual income of up to $61,200 could afford to pay $1,530 monthly gross rent (including utilities). The
FMR for a 2-bedroom unit is $1,459, which is affordable to the household, assuming such a unit were
available in South San Francisco. A three-person household classified as Very Low-Income (50% of median)
with an annual income of up to $38,250 could afford to pay $956 monthly gross rent. A FMR 2-bedroom unit
would not be affordable to this household. The proposed 2002 FMRs reflect the increase in rental rates in
this market. For example, the proposed 2002 FMR for a 2-bedroom unit is $1,747, which is not affordable
for either a Very Low or Low-Income household.
Table 1-28 presents information on asking prices of homes in South San Francisco from several sources
including the Multiple Listing Service (October 10, 2001 ) and Realtor.corn (December 2001). At that time
there were 43 detached homes advertised, ranging from $279,000 to $950,000. The average asking price of
the listings was $545,682. There were also two condominiums or townhouses for sale ($223,000 and
$359,000).
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-42 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-28
ASKING PRICES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
City of South San Francisco
October 2001
Bedrooms in Unit
2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
5 BR
Number of Homes 11 26 4 2
Advertised
Average Asking Price $383,613 $472,366 $564,250 $762,500
Range of Asking $279,950-435,000 $369,000-569,000 $429,000-738,000 $575,000-950,000
Prices
Source: San Mateo County Association of REALTORS, October 10, 2001; Realtor.com, December 2001; Vernazza Wolfe
Associates, Inc.
Table 1-29 below demonstrates typical rent levels in South San Francisco. The average rent level ranged
from $700 for a single bedroom in a single family house to $2,113 for a four bedroom apartment. These
costs were compiled from approximately 30 listings appearing on Places4rent.com and Craiglist.org for
December 2001.
TABLE 1-29
AVERAGE RENT LEVELS
City of South San Francisco
December 2001
Number of Rooms Cost Range Average Cost
Single Bedroom in house $500-850 $700
One-bedroom $995-1,350 $1,217
Two-bedroom $1,425-2,000 $1,639
Three-bedroom $1,800-2,200 $2,070
Four-bedroom $1,975-2,250 $2,113
Source: Places4Rent, Craiglist.org, December 2001.
Home sales prices have escalated rapidly during the past few years. Table 1-30 shows the median and
average sales prices for South San Francisco for 1999-2001, January through June. The median price for
single-family homes was $320,500 in 1999 and had increased to $453,000 by the end of the June 2001. This
represents an increase of more than 40 percent. Prices for condominiums and townhouses showed a greater
percentage increase (72 percent), from $203,500 to $350,000. Theses median sales prices would be
considered unaffordable even for a four-person household classified as Moderate-Income (120 percent of
median) with an annual income of up to $96,100. This household could afford to buy a three-bedroom house
1-43
Housing Element
· _,,'y of South San Francisco
at $334,949.
TABLE 1-30
Period
Single Family Homes
Jan-June 1999
Jan-June 2000
Jan-June 2001
Increase
(1999-2001)
Condos/Townhouses
Jan-June 1999
Jan-June 2000
Jan-June 2001
Increase
(1999-2001)
No. of Sales
COMPLETED HOME SALES
City of South San Francisco
1999 - 2001
Median Price % Change
Average Price % Change
164 $320,500 -- $342,146 --
159 $385,000 20.1% $411,688 20.3%
145 $453,000 17.7% $489,963 19.0%
-- $132,500 41.3% $149,817 43.2%
52 $203,500 -- $212,082 --
36 $285,500 40.3% $290,519 37.0%
47 $350,000 22.6% $358,574 23.4%
-- $146,500 72.0% $146,492 69.1%
Source: San Mateo County Association of REALTORS; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, lnc.
Existing Income Levels
Table 1-31 is an abbreviated list of occupations and annual incomes for South San Francisco residents such
as city employees, employees of the South San Francisco Unified School District, retired individuals and
minimum wage earners. The table shows the amounts that households at these income levels could afford
to pay for rent as well as the purchase prices that they could afford to pay to buy a home. Most of these
households could not afford to pay rent at the 2002 FMR levels, $1,747 for a two-bedroom unit or $2,386
for a 3-bedroom unit. None would be able to afford to pay the average listing price for a three-bedroom
home in South San Francisco ($433,300). Only a few would be able to afford the lowest price listing, a
one-bedroom condominium ($223,000).
TABLE 1-31
AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES AND
INCOMES FOR SELECTED FAMILIES AND OCCUPATIONS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Category
Computer Engineer
Annual Income Monthly Affordable Rent (1)
$70,280 $1,757
Affordable House PHce(2)
$244,956
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-44 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-31
AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES AND
INCOMES FOR SELECTED FAMILIES AND OCCUPATIONS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Category
Electrical Equipment Assembler $28,380
Precision
Retail Salesperson $16,600
Computer Support Specialist $46,080
City of South San Francisco Employee
Police Officer (recruit) $45,300
Police Officer (lateral, top of salary $61,068
range)
Communications Dispatcher $51,144
Paramedic/Firefighter (top of range) $70,908
Two Wage Earners
Police Officer (lateral) and Retail $77,668
Salesperson
Electrical Assembler and Teacher, $66,353
Step 4
Communications Dispatcher and $97,224
Computer Support
South San Francisco Unified School District
Teacher, BA + 30, Step 4 $37,973
Teacher, BA + 60, Step 10 $50,834
Retired - Average Social Security
One person household with only SS $11,960
Two person household - both retired $23,920
- only SS
Minimum Wage Earners (effective 1/1/02)
Single Wage Earner $13,500
Two Wage Earners $27,000
SSI (Aged or Disabled)
One person household with only $8,544
SSI
HUD-Defined Income Groups (3-person HH)
Annual Income Monthly Affordable Rent (1)
$710
$415
$1,152
Affordable House Price(2)
$98,916
$57,858
$160,608
$1,133
$1,527
$1,279
$1,773
$157,890
$212,848
$178,259
$247,144
$1,942
$1,659
$2,431
$270,706
$231,268
$338,867
$949
$1,271
$132,352
$177,178
$299
$598
$41,686
$83,371
$338
$675
$47,053
$94,106
$214
$29,779
1-45
Housing Element . .[y of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-31
AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES AND
INCOMES FOR SELECTED FAMILIES AND OCCUPATIONS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Category Annual Income Monthly Affordable Rent (1) Affordable House Price (2)
Extremely Low Income (below $22,950 $574 $79,990
30%)
Very Low-Income (below 50%) $38,250 $956 $133,317
Low~Income (below 80%) $61,200 $1,530 $213,308
Moderate Income (below 120%) $86,500 $2,163
(1) Assumes 30% of income devoted to monthly rent, including utilities.
(2) Assumes 33% of income devoted to mortgage payment and taxes, 95% loan @ 8%, 30 year term.
Source: Employment Development Department, City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Unified School
District and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
$301,489
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-46 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
5.0 AVAILABILITY OF
DEVELOPMENT
LAND AND SERVICES FOR
Housing Element
RESIDENTIAL
Section 5.0 assesses the availability of land and services to meet the needs documented in Section 3.0. This
section reviews inventories South San Francisco's available residentially-designated land, calculates the
buildout potential of this land, and reviews the adequacy of services to support future housing development.
5.1 AVAILABLE LAND INVENTORY
In 1999, the City conducted a buildout analysis as part of the General Plan Update that identifies a potential
for 1,630 additional housing units that could theoretically develop over the life of the General Plan (e.g.,
2020). Since that time, City Staff conducted a detailed analysis of remaining development potential based
on the existing General Plan. In November 2001, the Economic & Community Development Department
and Housing Element Consultants (Mintier & Associates) completed an inventory of vacant and underutilized
sites for residential development within the city limits. The analysis factored in residential development
activity that has occurred from the adoption of the General Plan to December 31, 2001. A more detailed
description is identified in the following paragraphs.
Vacant and Underutilized Land Currently Planned for Residential Use
In November 2001, City Staff and Mintier & Associates prepared a draft list of suitable sites for housing for
Planning Commission review and comment. The list was based on the following criteria:
2.
3.
4.
Identify of suitable sites for housing;
Review General Plan residential densities;
Identify efficiently designed multi-family units (including mixed-income units in other cities); and
Investigate potential redevelopment of older industrial and commercial sites.
On November 17, 2001, the Consultants and Planning Division staff facilitated a Planning Commission
workshop and tour that reviewed sites on the list. The Consultant prepared maps of various medium and
high density neighborhoods that show where potential sites exist and a tour of neighborhoods to look at the
sites in context with the area. During the tour, the Planning Commission commented on the feasibility of
the proposed housing sites. In addition to the sites on the list, the Planning Commission indicated that staff
should prepare an inventory of housing on Grand Avenue from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard. The
Commission was also interested in finding potential sites in the Lindenviile area.
The Economic & Community Development Department survey identified 21 sites that are residentially-
designated and are considered vacant or underutilized. Table 1-32 summarizes the location, size, potential
constraints, and the estimated number of potential housing units which could be accommodated on each site.
Figure I shows the location and boundaries of the areas referred to in Table 1-32.
1-47
Housing Element
~,,[y of South San Francisco
Vacant Residential Land
As indicated in Table 1-32, South San Francisco has vacant residential land that, at General Plan- approved
densities, would allow for the development up to 695 new units on 18 acres. Most of these sites are located
along the BART tracks and in the downtown area. Only one site -- Chestnut Avenue Land Use Study Area
-- has a constraint that may temporarily impede development on that site. The site is currently (January
2002) zoned for commercial uses that does not permit residential uses. The City would need to rezone this
area before it can be developed.
Underutilized Residential Land
Underutilized sites yield the potential for 704 additional units on nearly 41 acres of underutilized land.
Although all of the sites have designations that allow for residential use, several parcels are subject to some
form of development constraint. The two most prevalent constraints are the need to rezone the property and
existing buildings on site.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-48
February2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Site # Site Name
Vacant Land
V- I BART Station
parcel noah
V-2 BART Station
parcel south
V-3 comer of Mission &
McLellan
V-4 corner of Sequoia &
Mission
V-5 Oak Avenue
Apartments
V-6 SF PUC Property
V-7 700 Linden
V-8 616 Linden
VACANT SUBTOTAL
TABLE 1-32
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
City of South San Francisco
Max.
Acreage General Plan Zoning Dev.
Potential
Status Existing Use
4,55 ac Mixed Use SSF BART Transit 228 units
Community Village Zoning
Commercial, Office, District
High Density
Residential
2.53 ac .... 127 units
vacant
vacant
0.67 ac
20 units vacant
0.706 ac
0.32 ac
8.63 ac
Medium Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
SSF Transit Village
Zoning District
21 units vacant
15 units vacant
260 units vacant
0.32 ac
0.32 a
18.0 ac
Mixed Use Downtown
High Density
Residential /
Community
Commercial
C-I-L
C-l-L
12 units vacant
12 units
695 units
vacant
Constraints
None
None
The site is located in the
SSF BART Station Zoning
District. The site may also
accommodate a day care
facility.
None
15 apartment units approved
by the Planning Commission
Current property owner is a
public agency. Access to
Mission Road is good, but
infrastructure improvements
would be necessary.
None
None
1-49
Housing Element City of South San Francisco
Site # Site Name
Underutilized
U-1 1410 El Camino
TABLE 1-32
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
City of South San Francisco
Max. Status Existing Use
Acreage General Plan Zoning Dev.
Potential
1.26 ac Mixed Use SSF BART Transit 63 units underutilized 2 existing
Community Village Zoning buildings
Commercial, Office, District
High Density
Residential
U-2 Broadmore Lumber 3.47 ac
U-3 Mission Road 1.71 ac
U-4 Sunshine Garden 2.11 ac
Center
U-5 San Mateo County - 1.15 ac
Municipal
Courthouse
U-6 Church sites on 1.34 ac
Oak Avenue
U-7 Chestnut Avenue 0.52 ac
174 units underutilized
lumberyard
small truck
farm
shopping
center
County Center
and Municipal
Court
51 units underutilized
Community " 38 units underutilized
Commercial
Mixed Use
Public and
High Density
Residential
HDR
High Density
Residential
R-3 35 units underutilized
R-3 40 units underutilized
R-2 16 units underutilized
A church
facility with a
chapel and
classrooms
2 existing
homes
Constraints
Existing buildings
Existing buildings -
lumberyard
Potential tear down
structures
Existing Buildings on an
aging shopping center site.
The Transit Village Plan
permits Medium Density
Res. With commercial on
the site.
The County has not
developed a long range plan
for this site.
The existing church and
accessory buildings are still
used by the Church.
Existing buildings and
access
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-50 February 2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Site # Site Name
U-8 corner of Spruce
and Railroad
Avenues
U-9 north side of
Mayfair Avenue
U- 10 south side of
Mayfair Avenue
U-11 BAE Project on
Grand Avenue
TABLE 1-32
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
City of South San Francisco
Acreage General Plan Zoning
Max.
Dev.
Potential
Status Existing Use
7.37 ac Mixed Use Planned P-I 133 units underutilized
Commercial and
Medium Density
Residential
warehousing,
auto repair,
light
manufacturing
0.91 ac " P-I 16 units underutilized
existing
apartment
complex
(potential
rehab.)
2.92 ac " P-I 53 units underutilized
warehousing,
auto repair,
light
manufacturing
0.57 ac DC D-C 40 units underutilized mixed use
U-12
Learning Center at
the Corner of
Linden and Baden
Avenues
U- 13 Paradise Valley
UNDERUTILIZED
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ACREAGE
0.28 DC D-C 20 units underutilized mixed use
1.41 ac Mixed Use C-1 25 units underutilized neighborhood
Community shopping
Commercial and center
Downtown High
Density Residential
25.05 ac 704 units
40.95 ac. MAX. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 1,399
units
Constraints
Existing buildings are aging
industrial buildings. Site
requires environmental
analysis.
Existing buildings are
occupied.
Existing buildings art
industrial. Site requires
environmental analysis.
Small parcels will require lot
consolidation and a parking
structure to maintain
downtown parking.
City-owned property.
Currently (Feb 2002), uses
for Information technology
Department.
Existing use
1-51
Housing Element City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-32
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
City of South San Francisco
Status Existing Use
Max.
Dev.
Potential
Site # Site Name Acreage General Plan Zoning
Source: Economic and Community Development Department, Mintier & Associates, November 2001.
Constraints
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-52 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
Table 1-33 summarizes the information provided in Table 1-32 according to General Plan land use designation
and density. Of the nearly 1,400 units (maximum capacity) that could be accommodated under the General
Plan, 1,062 of those units fall within the high density range and could thus accommodate units in the low and
very low income categories.
TABLE 1-33
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND
BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
City of South San Francisco
January 2002
General Plan
Land Use Maximum
Designation Density
MDR - Medium 18 units per net
Density acre
Residential
MDR SUBTOTAL
HDR - High 30 units per net
Density acre
Residential
HDR SUBTOTAL
DHDR -
Downtown
High Density
Residential
DHDR SUBTOTAL
MU - Mixed Use
Business
Commercial and
Medium Density
Residential
40 units per net
acre
18 units per net
acre
30 and 50 units
per net acre
MIXED USE SUBTOTAL
MU - Mixed Use
Community
Commercial,
Public,
High Density
Residential, Office
Site Area
Mission Road
Corner of Sequoia
Avenue and Mission
Road
Church sites on Oak
Avenue
Oak Avenue Apartments
Chestnut Avenue
SF PUC Property
700 Linden Avenue
616 Linden Avenue
Sunshine Garden Center
Corner of Railroad and
Spruce Avenues
North side of Mayfair
Avenue
South side of Mayfair
Avenue
BART Station parcel
north
BART Station parcel
south
1410 E1 Camino Real
Broadmoor Lumber
comer of Mission Ave.
& McLellan Drive
Vacant/Underutilized
Acres
1.71
0.71
2.42
1.34
0.32
0.52
8.63
10.81
0.32
0.32
0.64
2.11
7.37
0.91
2.92
14.72
4.55
2.53
1.26
3.47
0.67
Maximum Units
51
21
72
40
15
16
260
351
12
12
24
38
133
16
53
265
228
127
63
174
20
1-53
Housing Element
~,~ty of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-33
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND
BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
City of South San Francisco
January 2002
Maximum Vacant/Underutilized
Density Site Area Acres
Paradise Valley 1.41
San Mateo County 1.15
Municipal Courthouse
BAE Project
Learning Center
MIXED USE (HIGH DENSITY) SUBTOTAL
Downtown
Commercial
DC SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
15.04
0.57
0.28
O. 85
41.73
Source: Economic Community Development Department; Mintier & Associates; January 2002.
Maximum Units
25
35
672
40
2
42
1,399
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-54 February 2002
Special Study Areas
South San Francisco contains several residential areas that are characterized by grid iron pattern of
development that was established at the turn of the century, small blocks, and small parcels. The Downtown
area is in the geographic heart of the city and includes the oldest commercial and residential areas. The
typical block dimension in Downtown is 1,300 x 300 feet, with 20-foot wide mid block alleys. Resulting
average lots are 140 feet deep and 50 feet wide, or 7,000 square feet in area. Located outside the Downtown
areas, both the Town of Baden, near E! Camino Real, and Peck's Subdivision, north of Linden Avenue, are
older developments with narrow streets, insufficient parking, and homes showing signs of dilapidation and
deferred maintenance.
In November 1999, the Planning Commission toured Downtown (Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard)
and Peck's Lots to investigate potential options for the City to encourage new residential development infill
projects or focus City-supported rehabilitation efforts of existing buildings.
Figure I and Table 1-34 identify four areas -- El Camino, Linden Avenue, Airport Avenue, and Peck's lots
-- that the City will concentrate its development standards, design standards, and rehabilitation efforts on
during the timeframe of this Housing Element (2002-2006). These areas have potential for both infill and
redevelopment. However, these areas have special development constraints such as dense 2,500 square foot
lots which might pose a challenge to new development. These areas also provide potential for providing
additional housing units not described in Tables II-30 and 11-33.
TABLE 1-34
Study Area # of Lots
E1 Camino Real 198
Linden Avenue 70
Airport Avenue 32
Pecks Lots 245
SPECIAL STUDY AREAS
City of South San Francisco
Acres
General Plan Zoning
20.4 Medium Density Residential and R-2-H
Mixed Medium Density
Residential/Community Commercial
9.2 Downtown High Density Residential C-1-L
and Mixed Downtown High Density
Residential/Community Commercial
6.4 Mixed Business P-C-L
Commercial/Downtown High Density
Residential
27.4 Low Density Residential and Medium R-2-H
Density Residential
TOTAL 545 63.4 --
Source: Economic and Community Development Department, Mintier & Associates, December 2001.
1-55
Housing Element DRAFT
Planned Housing Projects
,._.,y of South San Francisco
In addition to the potential number of housing units that could be developed on the land available for
residential development in Tables 1-32 and 1-33, Table 1-35 identifies the project name, location, and number
and type of housing units that have applied for a permit and are under development review by the South San
Francisco Economic and Community Development Department (ECD). These two housing projects could
provide an additional 36 new units -- 20 of which will be townhomes/condos and 16 will be multi-family
units (16 of which are affordable) -- to the potential 1,399 units on vacant and underutilized land. All of
these units are likely to develop during the time frame of the Housing Element, and will therefore contribute
to satisfying South San Francisco's fair share responsibility for 1999 to 2006.
TABLEI-35
PENDING HOUSING PROJECTS
City of South San Francisco
2001
Project Name Location Status Type of Units Number of Units
Stonegate Estates Hillside Blvd. & Under review Townhomes 20
Stonegate Drive
Willow Gardens Acquisition over next Apartments
five years
TOTAL
Note: The number of units described in this table is subject to change.
Source: Economic and Community Development Department, December 2001.
16 (all affordable)
36
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-56
February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
5.2 ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL VERsuS PROJECTED HOUSING
NEEDS
As shown in Table 1-24, South San Francisco has a net RHND allocation (after subtracting units already built
and approved units in 1999 through July 2001) of 482 housing units for the 1999-2006 planning period.
When breaking down that total by income group, there is a need of 110 units for the very low-income
category, 129 for low income, and 243 for moderate income. The above-moderate income category has been
met (856 unit surplus) over the 1999 to 2001 time period.
Tables 1-32 and 1-33 demonstrate that the City of South San Francisco has a total remaining residential
holding capacity of 1,399 housing units. Because capacity for housing production exceeds South San
Francisco's total need for new housing during the Housing Element planning period, a primary objective for
the City over the Housing Element planning period will be to provide adequate sites to accommodate the
housing needs of very Iow-, low-, and moderate-income households. The California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) assumes, in general, that the higher the density, the more affordable
the housing. It is HCD's position that local jurisdictions can facilitate and encourage affordable housing
development by allowing residential development at higher densities, which helps to reduce per unit land
costs.
In compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(c)(1), the General Plan Land Use
Element provides a sufficient portion of land in the medium density residential (i.e., MDR), high density
residential (i.e., HDR) and DHDR), and mixed use/commercial designations (i.e., MU and DC) that permit
residential development to meet its obligation to provide sites suitable for the production of needed housing
affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate income households.
The Residential Medium Density Residential (8.1 to 18.0 units per acre) designation, which allows for
attached and detached single family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes, can also
provide for low- and moderate-income housing. The High Density Residential (18.1 to 30 units per acre) and
Downtown High Density Residential (25.1 to 40 units per acre) designations allow multi-family residential
development such as apartments. These density ranges can support moderate, low, and very low-income
categories.
Under the General Plan, there is a total capacity of 1,399 housing units (at maximum density) in the
medium-high density residential, high density residential designations, mixed use, and commercial
designations that allow residential use. This capacity is equivalent to 374 units greater than ABAG's total
regional allocation need. The number of potential high density units (i.e., 1,012 units) provides adequate
capacity to accommodate for very low- and low-income households (239 unit need) during the 1999 to 2006
Housing Element planning period. In addition, the number of potential medium density units (i.e., 337 units)
provides adequate capacity to accommodate for moderate-income households (243 unit need) during the 1999
to 2006 Housing Element planning period.
This analysis shows that there are potentially enough sites to accommodate demand for the remaining 482
housing units (very low, low, and moderate) allocated by ABAG for South San Francisco.
1-57
Housing Element
~.,ty of South San Francisco
5.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
In 1999, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan EIR.
The document is a Program EIR and evaluates environmental impacts resulting from implementation and
buildout of the General Plan. While the EIR identifies potentially significant impacts with full General Plan
buildout, it does not preclude, and indeed, it assumes that individual development project proposals
submitted to the City will necessitate an independent environmental assessment in accordance with CEQA
requirements. The EIR is intended to be used for citywide and cummulative impact analysis of subsequent
project proposals that are consistent with the General Plan as well as other implementation activities.
The environmental setting for Land Use, Transportation, Urban Design and Aesthetics, Air Quality, Noise,
Public Facilities and Services, Environmental Resources, Cultural Resources, and Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space are decribed in the South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues
Report (1997). This Background Report analyzes Public Services and Facilities based on General Plan EIR.
Public services and facilities are not expected to pose a constraint on residential development within the
timeframe of the Housing Element (2002 to 2006). The following paragraphs summarize the current status
of each of those services essential to residential development.
Water
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula District
(CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San
Francisco's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation
among these communities. The Company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department
(SFWD) entitles the city to 42.3 mgd per year. An additional 1.4 mgd can be pumped from groundwater.
The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of 1-280, an area not targeted for growth in this
Housing Element.
Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining period, the CWSC has
adequate supply to meet projected demand through the year 2020.
Wastewater
The city of South San Francisco's wastewater needs are met by the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage
Treatment Plant, which was constructed in the early 1970s and is jointly operated by the cities of South San
Francisco and San Bruno. The current design capacity of the treatment plant is 13 mgd and an actual
capacity of 9 mgd average dry weather flow. The plant expansion, which occurred in the fall of 1998,
increased the dry-weather operational capacity to 13 mgd.
According to projections described in the ! 999 General Plan, the average flow is expected to reach 13.1 mgd
at buildout of the plan. Within the timeframe of this Housing Element (2006), the City expects to have
expected capacity to accommodate new residential development.
Schools
South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) operates the public schools within the city of South
San Francisco. SSFUSD operates 15 schools, including ten elementary (K-5), three middle (6-8), and two
high schools.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-58 February 2002
City of South San Francisco. Housing Element
Based on Department of Finance schOol enrollment projections, SSFUSD will likely see a decline in
enrollment within the timeframe of this Housing Element. The District has reduced class sizes (one teacher
to 20 students) which has decreased the overall capacity of the schools. However, even with this change,
SSFUSD expects that school capacity will be sufficient to meet enrollment demands through the year 2006.
Should the SSFUSD experience enrollments exceeding capacity in the near future, the District has retained
two closed school sites to accommodate unexpected growth.
6.0 CONSTRAINTS TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
6.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
It is in the public interest for the government to regulate development to protect the general welfare of the
community. At the same time, government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing
available in a community if the regulations limit the opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements
that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or make the development process so arduous as to
discourage housing developers. State law requires housing elements to contain an analysis of the
governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, and development (Government Code,
Section 65583(a)(4)).
General Plan Land Use Controls
The City of South San Francisco's principal land use policy document is the General Plan. The City, which
updated the General Plan in October 1999, contains eight elements including: Land Use; Planning Sub-Areas;
Transportation; Parks, Public Facilities, and Services; Economic Development; Open Spaces and
Conservation; Health and Safety; and Noise. Within the Land Use and the Planning Sub Areas Elements of
the General Plan, there are six residential land use designations and one commercial designation that allow
for higher residential densities, transit- oriented development near transit centers, and residential units above
ground floor commercial uses:
Low Density Residential: Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per
net acre. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached
single-family units are also permitted.
Medium Density Residential: Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre. Dwelling
types may include attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and
townhouses. Multi-family housing is not permitted.
Hi[h Density Residential: Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units
per net acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including single-family
attached development.
Downtown Low Density Residential: Single-family (detached or attached) residential development
with densities ranging from 5.1 to 15.0 units per acre. Multifamily development is not permitted.
Downtown Medium Density Residential: Residential development at densities ranging from 15.1 to
25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing types is permitted.
Downtown High Density Residential: Residential development at densities ranging from 25.1 to 40.0
units per acre for lots equal to or greater than V2-acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots smaller
that ¥2 acre, maximum density shall be 30.0 units per acre.
Downtown Commercial: This designation provides for a wide range of uses in the commercial core
1-59
Housing Element [ ) '~;, ~ ~ ~
/~ ~ '~r~~: · ~ . ..y of South San Francisco
of downtown and allows residential uses on second and upper floors only. Residential units are
subject to a use permit.
The General Plan Land Use Element outlines City policy pertaining to the distribution of various land uses
within the city in the Land Use Diagram. The Planning Sub-Areas Element describes specific land use
policies for each neighborhood, such as transit-oriented development near the South San Francisco BART
Station, the San Bruno BART Station, and the Caltrain Station. The Element also promotes infill
development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized properties. As described in the
vacant/underutilized land survey in Section 5.0, there is enough land set aside under the General Plan to
meet the immediate housing needs in South San Francisco.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-60
February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance
Housing Element
Zoning is one tool used to implement the policies and programs of the General Plan. Zoning establishes
location and density constraints consistent with the General Plan and guides residential uses away from
incompatible uses and environmental hazards and conflicts.
Zoning can also create opportunities for housing, particularly affordable housing, to be developed with the
use of mechanisms such as density bonuses and an inclusionary housing ordinance. Thus, zoning is not
inherently a constraint to housing development.
South San Francisco has four residential zoning districts: R-E (Rural Estates), R-I (Single-Family
Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), and R-3 (Multi-Family Residential). In addition, residential
uses are allowed in South San Francisco BART Transit Village District, Downtown Commercial, the city's
commercial, industrial, and open space zoning districts, subject to conditional use permit approval.
Recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance since adoption of the General Plan include the South San
Francisco BART Transit Village District, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Density Bonus
Ordinance. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is described in detail in Section 8 of this report.
The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance will need to be amended to be consistent with the 1999 General
Plan and the 2002 Housing Element. Specific Zoning Ordinance provisions that affect residential uses are
discussed below.
On-Site Zoning Requirements and Specifications
The Zoning Ordinance establishes setback requirements for structures in each residential zoning district (see
Table 1-36). In addition, the Zoning Ordinance employs a system of "density designators," whereby the
maximum residential density allowed in each zoning district is indicated by an additional one-letter
designation on the City's zoning map. Table 1-38 illustrates the range of possible densities allowed by this
designation system. Table 1-39 shows the parking requirements for residential uses as established by the
Zoning Ordinance.
TABLE 1-36
FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REGULATIONS
City of South San Francisco
Minimum Yard Dimensions* (in feet)
Zoning District Front Side
R-1 15 5
R-2 25 5
R-3 15 5
C-I 15 0-10
D-C 0 0
*All yard requirements subject to additional conditions and terms stated in Zoning Ordinance text.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Table 20.71.030.
Rear
20
20
10-11.5
0
0
1-61
Housing Element
~,,[y of South San Francisco
The 1999 General Plan called for the development of the' BART Station areas as a "vital pedestrian-oriented
center, with intensity and a mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. The City
implemented this goal through the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan. The Transit Village
Plan is an area plan that includes zoning standards, design guidelines, and implementation recommendations
to realize this vision. Some of the development standards for the Transit Village Plan are identified in Table
1-37.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-62 February 2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
TABLE 1-37
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BART TRANSIT
VILLAGE DISTRICT
City of South San Francisco
Standards TV-RM* TV-RH*
Building Scale-Intensity of Use
Minimum Lot Size (sq. feet) 5,000 5,000
Minimum Site Area per Unit (sq. feet) 1,500 1.000
Maximum Density (units per sq. acre) 30 50
Maximum Non-residential FAR 0.75 1.0
Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 75 75
Building Form and Location
Minimum Yard (feet)
Front Varies
Side 5 5
Street Side l 0 10
Rear yes yes
Vehicle Accommodations-Driveways and Parkways
Location of Parking
Percent Allowable of parking 20
podium visible from Principle
Street.
Required distance (feet) behind building 20 20
facade
*Transit Village Residential Medium Density
** Transit Village Residential High Density
Source: South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, June 2001.
South San Francisco's zoning regulations for setbacks and parking are comparable to those in other cities,
and parking requirements for senior housing and downtown residential uses are lower. Zoning regulations
are not a constraint to housing development in South San Francisco.
1-63
Housing Element ~.,(y of South San Francisco
TABLE 11-38
ZONING DENSITY REGULATIONS
City of South San Francisco
Density
Designator (Maximum Units per Net Acre)
A 1
B 1.3
C 5
D 6
E 8
F 8.7
G 10
H 15
I 17.5
J 40
K 43
L 21.8-30
Maximum Site Area per Dwelling
Unit (square feet)
43,560
32,600
8,710
7,260
5,445
5,000
4,360
2,904
2,500
1,090
1,000
1,452-2,000
Note: All density requirements subject to additional conditions and terms stated in Zoning Ordinance text.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Table 20.69.020.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-64 February 2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
TABLE 1-39
Residential Use Type
One-, two- and three-unit dwellings.
Multi-family projects with four or more units.
Single family and townhouse units in planned developments.
Group residential uses, residential hotels.
Senior citizen residential.
Family residential uses in Downtown Commercial District,
and building with 4 or fewer units (1 bedrooms units with
800 square feet or less and/or studio units with 500 square
feet or less).
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
City of South San Francisco
Parking Requirement
2 spaces (! enclosed) per unit for dwellings with fewer than
five bedrooms and less than 2,500 square feet in size.
3 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit with five or more bedrooms, or
for any dwelling unit with a gross floor area of 2,500 square
feet or greater.
2 spaces per unit (with at least one space covered), plus one
guest space per every four units.
2.25 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit if project has driveway
aprons at least 18 feet long. Otherwise, 4.25 spaces (2
enclosed) per unit.
I space for each sleeping room.
0.50 space to 1.25 spaces per unit (to be determined by
Planning Commission).
1 covered space per unit plus 0.25 uncovered space per unit
for guest parking.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.040.
Density Bonus
In December 2001, the South San Francisco City Council adopted a Residential Density Bonus Ordinance
along with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City adopted the Density Bonus Ordinance to provide
incentives for developers for the production of housing affordable to lower-income and moderate-income
households. The Density Bonus Ordinance allows a density bonus of up to 25 percent for housing
developments that include affordable units, assuming build out at the maximum density is allowed for that
site. Greater densities may be considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis; however, projects may
be subject to further environmental review.
Secondary Units
The Zoning Ordinance permits secondary living units in the R-I (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Medium
Density Residential), R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), and D-C (Downtown Commercial) zoning districts,
subject to use permit approval.
The Ordinance (Section 20.79.020) states that no more than one residential second unit is permitted on any
one parcel or lot which has one existing single-family detached dwelling unit. Second units are required to
be within or attached to the existing single family unit and can be no larger than 640 square feet. Secondary
units also are required to have one off-street parking space and comply with minimum housing code
requirements. Since adoption of the Second Unit Ordinance in 1983, only two applications for a second unit
have been approved.
1-65
Housing Element
_ .~y of South San Francisco
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-66 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Manufactured Housing
Housing Element
Manufactured housing can provide quality housing at a reasonable price. The recent trend in State legislation
has been to encourage homeowners to place and finance manufactured homes on single-family lots. As a
result, mobile homes as well as factory-built housing may now be taxed as real estate and may be set on
permanent foundations, in common with conventional site-built housing.
California SB 1960 (1981) prohibited local jurisdictions from excluding manufactured homes from all lots
zoned for single-family dwellings; in other words, restricting the location of these homes to mobile home
parks is forbidden. However, SB 1960 does allow the local jurisdiction to designate certain single-family
lots for manufactured homes based on compatibility for this type of use.
The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance allows manufactured housing in all zoning districts
where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted. The regulations state that "a design review
approvai...shall be required for all manufactured homes on residential lots, provided that the scope of review
shall be limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material. Manufactured homes on residential
lots shall be treated in this title the same as single-family dwellings in all other respects" (Zoning Ordinance
Sections 20.14.040 through 20.34.040).
The City's zoning is thus not a constraint to manufactured housing, although the demand for such units in
South San Francisco seems to be very limited.
Building Codes
Building and Housing code establish minimum standards and specifications for structural soundness, safety,
and occupancy. The State Housing Law requires cities and counties to adopt minimum housing standards
based on model industry codes. In addition to meeting the requirements of State Housing Law, local
governments enforce other state requirements for fire safety, noise insulation, soils reports, earthquake
protection, energy conservation, and access for the physically handicapped. The enforcement of building
and housing codes for all homes is per the minimum standards and requirements set forth in the codes listed
in the attached table. Standards for rehabilitation are no more rigorous than those contained in the California
Health and Safety Codes and the Uniform Building Codes.
The 1998 edition of the Uniform Building Code is enforced in South San Francisco. The City Building
Division ensures that new residences, additions, auxiliary buildings, and other structures meet current
construction and safety standards. Building permits are required for any construction work.
Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of
rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this way, building codes
and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the amount of housing and its affordability. However, the
codes enforced by South San Francisco are similar to cities in the region, and are necessary to promote the
minimum standards of safety and accessibility to housing. Thus, the codes are not considered to be an undue
constraint on housing investment.
1-67
Housing Element
.. ~y of South San Francisco
City Permit Processing and Fees
Permit Process
In 1999, the City of South San Francisco established a "One-Stop Shop" permit processing center. The
Center's objective is to provide the applicant with a clear understanding of what is involved in the
development and building permit application procedure, process applications as quickly as possible, and
supply the Planning Commissioners and the City Council members with complete and accurate information.
The City also complies with the Permit Streamlining Act and has worked with SAMCEDA (Sam Mateo
County Economic Development Agency) to develop countywide processing standards.
Most planning applications follow a similar process. The following outlines the steps needed for a permit
applicant.
Pre-Application Meeting -- When the project applicant has a plan of the existing site conditions but
before the applicant has developed detailed architectural and planning drawings, the applicant can
meet with City staffto discuss what the applicant can expect during the review and approval process.
Application Submittal -- Applications may be submitted at any time but the deadline for each
planning cycle is always the first Friday of each month.
Design Review Board-- Most applications require review by the Design Review Board (DRB). This
is a panel composed of lay and professional community members who provide recommendations to
the Chief Planner and the Planning Commission regarding the project's site planning, building
design, and landscaping.
Application Completeness -- After the DRB meeting and a review by Planning staff, a letter may
be sent to the applicant describing new information, or corrections to their plans, that they may need
to submit to the Planning Division in order to complete their application. If they do not receive this
letter within.thirty days after their submittal, they may assume that your application is complete.
Environmental Determination -- Normally, within the thirty day period after the application is
accepted as complete Planning staff will review the application to determine what category of the
State's environmental regulation (i.e., California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)) apply to the
project. In some cases additional studies will be required to meet CEQA objectives. A Planner will
contact the applicant if the project requires further study. These studies will be prepared in the form
of either a "Negative Declaration" or an "Environmental Impact Report."
Public Notice ~ At least ten days before the Planning Commission reviews the project, the City
sends out a notice of a Public Hearing to property owners within a three-hundred foot radius
surrounding your project site. The notice, which is published in the San Mateo Times and mailed
to the property owners, describes the project and announces the hearing date.
Planning Commission Meeting -- The Planning Commission holds public hearings at the Municipal
Services Building on the first and third Thursday of each month. Items are normally scheduled for
the public hearing six to eight weeks after the application has been accepted as complete. During the
hearing, Planning staff will present their report and recommendation to the Commission. Applicants
and their representatives also have an opportunity to make a presentation in support of your project.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-68 February 2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
· Notice of Action -- About a week after the Commission's action, the applicant receives by mail a
written statement of the Commission's action and the conditions of approval.
Appeal -- Following the Commission's action, there is a fifteen day period during which anyone
may appeal all or any portion of the action to the City Council. During this appeal period, the City
may not take any further actions regarding the project, including issuing building permits.
Permit Processing Times
The time required to process residential project applications depends on the size and scope of the project.
Any delays in processing can ultimately result in added housing costs. While the City of South San
Francisco has a reputation for speedily processing development applications, some delays can occur that are
outside the control of the city. Delays in processing can occur if environmental review, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires an EIR to be prepared. At times, approval from
State or other agencies may also be required for certain types of projects. Overall, project processing is not
a constraint on the development of housing in South San Francisco.
Permit Processing Fees
Project application fees, permit fees, and developer fees add to housing construction costs. Several fees
apply to housing developments. These include 1) fees charged by the planning department for processing
use permits, zoning amendments and variances, tentative subdivision maps, design and environmental review,
and appeals; 2) fees levied by the building and public works departments for plan checks and inspections;
3) fees charged for city-provided utility connections such as sewer and water; and 4) fees for infrastructure
improvements, schools, roads and public transit, parks and recreation, police and fire services, and affordable
housing funds. Whereas the first three fee categories have been enforced by local governments for many
years, the fourth category, often called growth fees, is a fairly recent phenomenon intended to offset the costs
of new development.
State law requires that local permit processing fees charged by local governments must not exceed the
estimated actual cost of processing the permits. Table 1-40 lists the fees that the City charges for processing
various land use permits based on the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule.
1-69
Housing Element
DRAFT
~,lty of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-40
PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE
City of South San Francisco
2001- 2002
Type
Planned Unit Development
Use Permit
Use Permit Modification
Minor Use Permit
Zoning Amendment (Text)
Specific Plan
Variance
General Plan Amendments
Environmental Impact Report (E1R)
Negative Declaration
Tentative Subdivision Map
Final Subdivision Map
Tentative Parcel Map
Final Parcel Map
Amount
$650.00
$650.00
$350.00
$100.00
$600.00
$2,000.00
$385.00
$650.00
Consultant Contract, plus $900.00 or
5% of the contract amount, whichever
is greatest.
Consultant Contract, plus $75.00
$500.00 plus $25.00 for each lot or
dwelling unit.
$500.00 plus $50.00 for each lot or
dwelling unit
$500.00 plus $25.00 per lot or dwelling
unit
$500.00
Source: City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule, 2001-2002
6.2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL/MARKET CONSTRAINTS
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-70 February 2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
All resources needed to develop housing in South-San Franci.s~0~a.re subject to the laws of supply and
demand, meaning that these resources may not always be available at prices which make housing
development attractive. Thus, cost factors are the primary non-governmental constraints upon development
of housing in South San Francisco. This is particularly true in the case of housing for low- and
moderate-income households, where basic development cost factors such as the cost of land, required site
improvements, and basic construction, are critical in determining the income a household must have in order
to afford housing.
Land Costs
Land costs in the Bay Area have been increasing since World War II as a result of inflation, increased
immigration, and decreasing land supply. Clearly, rising land costs have constrained the development of
affordable housing. This cost increase has an adverse effect on the ability of households, particularly low-
and moderate-income households, to pay for housing.
Costs associated with the acquisition of land include the market price of raw land and the cost of holding land
throughout the development process. These costs can range from about 15 percent of the final sales price
of new homes to nearly half in very small developments or in areas where land is scarce. Among the
variables affecting the cost of land are its location, its amenities, the availability of public services, and the
financing arrangements made between the buyer and seller. As South San Francisco gets closer to full build-
out of its developable land, land costs will likely increase significantly.
Raw land in South San Francisco has been estimated to be worth approximately $248,000 per acre, or about
$183,000 for a typical improved single-family lot. Smaller infill parcels with services available would be
worth up to 25 percent more depending on their location. In addition to the cost of the raw land, new housing
prices are influenced by the cost of holding land while development permits are processed. The shorter the
period of time that it takes a local government to process applications for building, the lesser the effect
inflation will have on the cost of construction and labor. Permit processing times are discussed earlier in this
chapter in the context of governmental constraints on the development of affordable housing.
Construction Costs
Table 1-41 presents a hypothetical composite of all the associated costs that contribute to the final cost of a
typical single-family home (i.e., 2,000 square-feet, 3-bedroom home on a 4,000 square-foot lot) in South San
Francisco. It should be noted that the totals in Table 1-41 represent a likely scenario and that the actual
development costs will vary with the size, quality, and location of the development.
1-71
Housing Element
TABLE 1-41
TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY
HOME COST COMPONENTS
South San Francisco
January 2002
Cost Item Amount
Construction Costs $216,000
Construction Loan Interest $5,000
Land Cost $183,000
Land Financing $7,000
Permits and Fees $20,000
Developer Profit and Marketing (20%) $86,200
Total Cost $517,200
~ity of South San Francisco
Source: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates; Standard Builders, January 2002.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-72
February2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
Cost and Availability of Financing
In the early 1990s there was much discussion in the regional and national press of a "credit-crunch" that made
it difficult for developers to obtain financing for new real estate projects. In fact, financial institutions did
reduce lending activity in response to more stringent regulations. However, these reforms addressed lending
abuses associated primarily with very risky projects which were conceived with little relation to project
economics and underlying market conditions. Bankers and regulators assert that financing is currently
available for well-planned projects that are financially sound and target a demonstrated market demand. One
current aspect of financing that does differ from the early 1990s is that lending institutions generally require
greater contributions of equity from developers to ensure that developers share in the risk of the project by
committing their own money. In this respect, financing is less likely to be available to developers who are
not financially sound and lack the appropriate ~contribution of their own capital.
For credit-worthy projects, residential construction loan rates are presently at relatively low levels due to the
low inflation levels that have prevailed over the last several years. Expectations of continued low inflation
should help to keep financing rates at reasonable levels for the remainder of the Housing Element planning
period. This is a benefit to home builders, who can take advantage of the interest savings on construction
financing to reduce their overall cost to develop new housing.
7.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
State Housing Element Law requires an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential
development. Energy efficiency has direct application to affordable housing because the more money spent
on energy, the less available for rent or mortgage payments. High energy costs have particularly detrimental
effects on low-income households that do not have enough income or cash reserves to absorb cost increases
and many times they must choose between basic needs such as shelter, food, and energy.
Energy price fluctuations in the late 1990s, and energy price increases in early 2001 combined with rolling
electricity blackouts have led to a renewed interest in energy conservation. The City of South San Francisco
receives both electricity and natural gas services from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code
of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These
regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 1998 (effective date of July 1, 1999).
Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process. All
new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made.
The California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66473-66498) allows local governments
to provide for solar access as follows:
66475.3. For divisions of land for which a tentative map is required pursuant to Section 66426, the
legislative body of a city or county may by ordinance require, as a condition of the approval of a
tentative map, the dedication of easements for the purpose of assuring that each parcel or unit in
the subdivision for which approval is sought shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent
parcels or units in the subdivision for which approval is sought for any solar energy system,
provided that such ordinance contains all of the following:
(1) Specifies the standards for determining the exact dimensions and locations of such
easements.
(2) Specifies any restrictions on vegetation, buildings and other objects which would
obstruct the passage of sunlight through the easement.
(3) Specifies the terms or co~ditions, if any, ttnder which an easement may be revised or
1-73
Housing Element
...,y of South San Francisco
terminated.
(4) Specifies that in establishing such easements consideration shall be given to feasibility,
contour, configuration of the parcel to be divided, and cost, and that such easements shall
not result in reducing allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which may be occupied
by a building or a structure under applicable planning and zoning in force at the time such
tentative map is filed.
(5) Specifies that the ordinance is not applicable to condominium projects which consist of
the subdivision of airspace in an existing building where no new structures are added.
The City of South San Francisco recognizes the need for greater energy efficiency in both existing dwelling
units and in new construction. The existing City of South San Francisco Housing Element contains one
policy (5.E) and two implementation programs (5E-1 and 5E-2) under Goal E related to energy conservation:
Policy 5E.
Foster efforts to conserve energy in residential structures.
Action 5E- 1
Continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for residential buildings (e.g.,
brochures and other information). The City promotes the use of passive and active solar
systems itt new and existing residential buildings. It will continue to ensure that State
residential energy conservation building standards are met.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame:On-going
Funding Source: City Budget
Quantified Objective: State Standards enforced in all new construction.
Action 5E-2 Assist energy and water conserving modifications in existing residential buildings. The CDBG
division will work with Neighborhood Services and PG&E to provide winterization and minor repairs.
Responsibility of.'CDBG Division
Time Frame:On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: ten units annually.
The 1999 General Plan does not contain any policies or programs that address energy efficiency.
8.0 CURRENT AND PAST HOUSING PROGRAMS IN SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO
8.1 CURRENT PROGRAMS
The City of South San Francisco utilizes local, State, and Federal funds to implement its housing strategy.
Because of the high cost of new construction, more than one source of public funds is required to construct
an affordable housing development. The City does not act as a developer in the production of affordable
units, but relies upon the private sector or NGO's to develop new units with the assistance of these various
funding sources.
The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is the primary source of housing funds for the city's
housing programs. According to current Five Year Implementation Plan, the City is expected to have
approximately $7 million in housing set-aside funds that will be available to support affordable housing
activities within the City over the five-year period (FY2000 - FY 2004). The Agency anticipates using the
majority of these funds for the Willow Gardens acquisition and rehabilitation project and for the Chestnut
Senior Housing Project. The major housing programs included in the Agency's Five Year Plan are as
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-74 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
follows:
Housing Element
· Program #1: Encourage the development of affordable housing.
· Program 4/2: Provide housing opportunities and support services for very low-income renters
and persons with special needs.
· Program #3: Provide services-enriched shelter and transitional housing for homeless persons
and families and prevent households at-risk from becoming homeless.
· Program//4: Provide opportunities for Iow and moderate-income homeowners to maintain and
repair their homes and promote neighborhood revitalization.
· Program #5: Provide homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers earning less than
120 percent of income.
During the past five years, the City has used housing set-aside funds for the following projects:
· Metropolitan Hotel - This hotel, consisting of 66 SRO units, was rehabilitated with a
combination of housing set-aside funds ($853,000) and HOME funds ($430,000).
· Grand Hotel - The City provided $900,000 in redevelopment funds for substantial rehabilitation
and seismic upgrade of this hotel (16 SRO units), which opened in early 1999.
Greenridge Housing - This project of 34 townhouse units for very low-income residents
developed by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition was completed in 1999. The Agency required
Greystone Homes, the developer of the McClellan single family home site, to provide one acre
of land for the development of affordable housing units to meet the Agency's housing production
requirement. The Agency committed $940,000 of housing set-aside funds for this development.
Commercial Avenue Duplexes - Four units at 339-341 Commercial Avenue were acquired and
rehabilitated for very low-income households. Funding included housing set-aside funds
($107,500), CDBG ($430,000), and HOME ($322,500).
The City currently (January 2002) operates a number of housing programs. These are summarized in Table
1-42 and include the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, the Minor Repair Program, and the Voucher
Program for housing repairs, which are funded with CDBG and/or housing set-aside funds.
1-75
Housing Element
~.,ty of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-42
Funding
Housing Programs Source
Housing CDBG
Rehabilitation Loan
Program
Emergency Code CDBG
Violation Vouchers
Window Bar
Replacement
Vouchers
CDBG
Debris Box Vouchers CDBG
HOUSING PROGRAMS
City of South San Francisco
Target Group
Low and
moderate-income
households
Low-income
households
Low-income
households
Low and
moderate-income
households in the
CDBG target
area
Minor Home Repair CDBG Low-income
(House Helpers) homeowners
RDA funds
Transitional Housing
Very low and
Iow-income
homeless families
HIP (Human Very low afl~l}~-dndsme households
Investment Project)
Housing
Center for CDBG Very low and
Independence of the low-income
Disabled - Housing households
Accessibility Program
Benefits
Provides Iow-interest and/or
deferred loans for housing repairs.
Maximum loan is $25,000.
Provides homeowners a grant of up
to $2,500 to clear up code violations
in their homes.
Provides grants to owners to replace
dangerous fixed window bars that
prevent exit from a building.
Helps residents remove accumulated
debris and yard waste from their
properties.
Provides home repairs such as roof
and gutter repairs, water heater
replacement and installation of
security devices free of charge. The
program is administered by the
North Peninsula Neighborhood
Services Center.
Shelter-Network (Crossroads and
Maple Street) provides two to four
months of transitional housing and
comprehensive support services.
Offers affordable housing services
including a home equity conversion
program for seniors, shared housing
referrals and a homeless prevention
program.
Helps eliminate architectural
barriers and provides modifications
such as grab bars to make homes
safer and more accessible for
persons with disabilities and/or frail
elderly.
# of Households
Assisted
Funding available to
assist 3 to 5 per year.
Funding available to
assist 12 per year.
As needed
Funding available to
assist 10 per year.
Funding available to
assist 50 per year.
Funding available to
serve 30 families
annually at the two
shelters.
HIP is expected to
provide referrals to 80
households during the
year.
Funding available to
assist 30 per year.
Public Review Draft Background Report
1-76
February2002
City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-42
Housing Element
Housing Programs
Fair Housing
Counseling
Funding
Source
HOME
HOUSING PROGRAMS
City of South San Francisco
Target Group
Primarily low
and
moderate-income
households
Benefits
Project Sentinel and La Raza Centro
Legal provide fair housing
education and counseling as well as
dispute resolution
Source: City of South San Francisco and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc., December 2001.
# of Households
Assisted
Project Sentinel is
expected to provide
casework for 12
residents experiencing
housing
discrimination and
respond to 120
telephone inquiries.
La Raza will provide
200 residents with
information and
referral, legal advice,
counseling and legal
representation.
South San Francisco residents may also benefit from programs that are administered by the San Mateo
County, such as the Section 8 Voucher Program or the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program.
HOME Investment Partnership Act Program Funds
The Urban County and the cities of Daly City and South San Francisco formed San Mateo County HOME
Consortium for purposed of applying to HUD for HOME funds. Approximately $1.9 million in HOME funds
are allocated to the Consortium annually. All projects funded with HOME funds must be targeted to very
low and low-income households and must have permanent matching funds from non-federal resources equal
to 25 percent of the i'equested funds.
Section 8 Voucher Program
Rental assistance is available from the San Mateo County Housing, which administers the Section 8 Voucher
Program. As of JanUary 2002, 455 households in South San Francisco were receiving rental assistance from
this program, which is funded by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The iow
vacancy rate of rental housing in the county has meant that the Housing Authority has had difficulties in
getting landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. The lack of knowledge of Section 8 on the part of landlords
as well as cultural barriers have also contributed. The waiting list for Section 8 has been closed since 1994,
but is expected to be opened for new applications this year.
1-77
Housing Element
~,,[y of South San Francisco
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program
The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (authorized via Section 25 of the IRS code) is targeted to
households whose incomes do not exceed 115 percent of area median income. This program permits public
jurisdictions to issue tax credit certificates for a portion of the mortgage interest paid by first-time
homebuyers. In this program, the buyer and the lender cover most of the direct expenses. The County Office
of Housing administers this program in the county. From 1999 through 2001, eight South San Francisco
residents have participated in the MCC program.
First-Time Homebuyer Program
The City is pursuing several options to increase opportunities for first-time homebuyers in South San
Francisco. First, the City is participating in the Countywide Housing Investment Project (CHIP). This is a
consortium of several San Mateo cities, the County of San Mateo, lenders, school districts, and other
interested parties to establish a countywide first-time homebuyer program. CHIP members are working to
create a set of common loan documents pre-authorized by the lending community and are seeking investment
capital from county employers and pension funds. These funds will be used to leverage public funds.
8.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Subsidized housing projects in South San Francisco, not including Housing Authority units, are summarized
in Table 1-43 below.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-78 February 2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Name of Year
Development Built
Sponsor
FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING
Greenridge
Housing
1565 El Camino
Real
1999
Sundial Studios 1989
Eight-Plex
739 Airport
Boulevard
339-341
Commercial
Avenue
1999
2001
Bronstein 1993
Apartments
Mid-Peninsula
Housing
Coalition
Mid-Peninsula
Housing
Coalition
Redevelopment
Agency
Redevelopment
Agency
Total
Number
of Units
34
11
TABLE 1-43
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
City of South San Francisco
2002
Number .of
Affordable Type Target Funding
Units(l) of Group(s) Source(s)
Units
34 2-bdr 2 and 4 bdrm Tax
m (17 30%, 40%, Credits
units) 50% Median
3-bdt Income
m 3-bdrm 20%
(13) (1 unit), 30%,
4-bdr 40%, 50%,
m (4) 60% (1 unit)
11 All Very Iow RDA,
studio income County
S
8 1- Very low HOME
bdrm income
4 2- Very low HOME
bdrm income CDBG
(3) RDA
3-
bdrm
(1)
6 1- -- HOME
bdrm CDBG
Expiration
Date
Permanent
affordability
restrictions
2029
Permanent
affordability
restrictions
Waiting
List
(Spring
200])
200
families
(list is
closed)
15
people
No
No
Handicap
Accessible
Units
Will install
according
to need
No
No
Comments
SRO units (22)
of old Sundial
were acquired,
rehabilitated and
converted to
studio units.
Acquired by
Redevelopment
Agency to be
rehabilitated with
CDBG funds.
1-79
Housing Element
Name of Year
Development Built Sponsor
Schreir 1994 Private Owner
Apartments
109 Longford -- Private Owner
Avenue
Total
Number
of Units
Subtotal 66 66
SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING
Fairway 1980 J&K Property
Apartments Management
77 Westborough
Boulevard
74 74
City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-43
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
City of South San Francisco
2002
Number of
Affordable Type Target Funding Expiration
Units(l) of Group(s) Source(s) Date
Units
2 1 - -- CDBG
bdrm
(1)
2-
bdrm
(1)
I 3- Very Iow
bdrm income
1 -bdt 40% HUD
m extremely 221 (d)(4)
(71) low; 60% low
2-bdt
m (3) Section 8
7/30/00
Waiting
List
(Spring
2001)
200
people;
4to5
years
Handicap
Accessible
Units
Comments
The City leases
this transitional
housing to
Shelter Network
Magnolia Plaza 1988 BRIDGE
630 Baden Housing
Avenue Corporation
Rotary Plaza 1971 SSF Rotarian
433 Alida Way
125 66
181 140
l-bdr $2,000 or RDA --
m less/ Section 8
month
1-bdt Singles Section 8
m ($240-$2120 HUD
(45) month) Section
Studio Couples 236
(136) ($850-$2400
month)
Renewable
20
people;
2 years
Studio
(1.5 to 2
years)
l -bdrm
(4to 5
years)
19
(some units
available)
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-80 February 2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Name of Year
Development Built Sponsor
Subtotal
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNED
Chestnut Creek BRIDGE
Senior Project Housing
65 Chestnut Corporation
Avenue
Willow Gardens Mid-Penisula
Rehabilitation Housing
Project Coalition
Total
Number
of Units
380
40
60
TABLE 1-43
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
City of South San Francisco
2002
Number of
Affordable Type Target Funding
Units(l) of Group(s) Source(s)
Units
280
Expiration
Date
40 Very Iow HUD
income Section
202 RDA
60
Households
with incomes
at 50% to
60% of
median
income.
HOME,
RDA,
Section
108 Loan,
Tax-
exempt
bonds,
Tax
credits
Waiting
List
(Spring
2001)
Handicap
Accessible
Units
Comments
Scheduled to ~
open by end of
2002. :
Three buildings f!
(12 units)
acquired thus far.
Subtotal 100
TOTAL 546
Source: Vemazza Wolfe Associates, January 2002.
100
346
1-81
, ~F=
Housing Element ~ ~' ~ ~,mty of South San Francisco
In 1999 the first residents moved into Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition's Greenridge project, the first new
affordable housing project in the city in ten years. The project provides 34 units for very low and
Iow-income families, with over half of the units serving large families (three or more bedrooms). The project
was financed with redevelopment funds ($940,000) as well as tax credits. Another new development,
Chestnut Senior Housing (40 units), is expected to be available for occupancy before the end of 2002. This
project received HUD Section 202 funding and redevelopment funds ($2.7 million).
In 1998 the City initiated the Willow Gardens Revitalization Project with Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition.
The project involves the acquisition and rehabilitation of 17 four-plex structures, or 64 units in the El Camino
Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. The units will be converted to permanently affordable housing for
households at 50 to 60 percent of median income. The project leverages redevelopment housing funds with
public/private bonds and tax credits in a $14 million financial package. Thus far (January 2002), the City
and Mid-Peninsula have acquired three buildings (12 units), which are being rehabilitated. The City will
continue to acquire buildings as they become available.
The South San Francisco Housing Authority manages 80 units of public housing in the city, which serve very
low-income residents. The units, built in 1977 and 1980, include 22 one-bedroom units, 26 two-bedroom
units, 26 three-bedroom units, and 6 four-bedroom units. Federal funds ($700,000) were allocated to
rehabilitate these units and bring them up to code. This work was completed in 1998. There is a waiting list
of more than 150 families. It would take a new applicant from three to five years to reach the top of the list
and have the opportunity to rent a unit.
In addition to the housing units included in Table 1-43, there are 249 SRO units in the city that are an
important part of the affordable housing market (see Table 1-44). SROs generally do not have either kitchens
or bathrooms within individual units. They serve as residences primarily for Iow- and very iow-income
single people. This type of housing unit is found primarily in the downtown area. The City has helped to
upgrade and preserve this housing by providing funds for rehabilitation and seismic upgrade of the Grand
and Metropolitan Hotels. Work on both was completed in 1999. Occupancy is restricted to very low-income
persons.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-82 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-44
Name
Welte's
Doon Building
Christie's
Grand Hotel (1)
Metropolitan Hotel (2)
S&L Hotel
Industrial Hotel
El Escape Building
Merriam Building
SUBTOTAL
Units Not on the Rental Market
Giffra Buildings
Be~olucci'sRestaurantBuilding
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
SINGLE OCCUPANCY HOTELS
City of South San Francisco
Location
254 Grand Avenue
317 Grand Avenue
309 Airport
309 Airport
220 Linden Avenue
400 Miller Avenue
505 Cypress Avenue
204-206 Grand Avenue
Corner of Airport and Grand Avenue
No. of Rooms
6
9
16
16
68
23
45
8
19
210
230 Grand Avenue
421 Cypress Avenue
40 (units have not been retired for 30
years)
9
39
249
(1) Rehabilitated with City redevelopment funds ($900,000) and reopened in 1999. Restricted to very low income until 2019.
(2) Renovation was initiated in 1993 and completed in 1999 with funding from redevelopment and HOME funds. The units
are restricted to very low income through 2029.
Source: City of South San Francisco Police Department, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
1-83
Housing Element
~.,~y of South San Francisco
Inclusionary Housing Program
In December 2001, the City Council adopted the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure that all
residential development including all master planned and specific planned communities provide a range of
housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the community, including households of
lower and moderate income. The following are the major requirements of the ordinance:
· All new housing developments in the city consisting of four or more units, must make 20 percent
of those units available to and affordable to low and moderate income households;
Of that 20 percent, 12 percent (or 60 percent of inclusionary units) must be affordable to
households earning 81 to 120 percent of median income and eight percent (or 40 percent of
inclusionary units) affordable to households earning 50 to 80 percent of median income
(adjusted for family size);
· Housing Developments consisting of four to nine units may pay an in-lieu fee rather that
producing the affordable units;
· Fractional units will be subject to an in-lieu fee or the fractional unit rounded to a whole and
constructed at the developer's option;
· The in-lieu fee shall amount to the developers cost of producing the market-rate unit;
· A density bonus of up to 25 percent will be available to housing developments which include
affordable units, assuming build out at the maximum density allowed for that site;
· Housing development consisting of 10 or more units must produce the units on site; and
Alternatives to in-lieu fees and the production of the affordable units, at the sole discretion of
the City Council, may include: off-site development, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing
units, project subsidies, and/or other, to be defined.
At-Risk Units
The owners of the Skyline View Gardens, a 160-unit project that was funded under the HUD Section 236
program, prepaid the project's HUD loan in July 1996 and opted out of the program. As a result, 78
project-based Section 8 units were lost, and all of the units at the project are now market-rate.
Fairview Apartments, a senior project with 74 units with Section 8 subsidies, is classified as "at risk" by the
California Housing Partnership. The Section 8 contract was up for renewal as of July 30, 2000.
8.3 POTENTIAL FUNDING PROGRAMS
There are several local, State, and Federal funding programs that can be used to assist first-time homebuyers,
build affordable housing, and help special needs groups, such as seniors and large households meet their
housing needs. Because of the high cost of new construction, more than one source of funds is almost always
required to construct an affordable housing development. Funds provided may be low-interest loans that need
to be repaid, or in some instances, grants are provided that do not require repayment.
In most cases other entities, including for-profit and non-profit developers apply for funds or other program
benefits. For example, developers apply directly to HUD for Section 202 and Section 811 loans or to the
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-84
February2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for low-income tax credits. The City of South San
Francisco does not act as a developer in the production of affordable units, but relies upon the private sector
to develop new units with the assistance of these various funding sources, such as BRIDGE Housing
Corporation's Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project with $3.5 million in Section 202 funding and $2.7
million in redevelopment housing set-aside funds. The City can help sponsor grant and loan applications,
provide matching funds, or furnish land at below market cost. However, there are also programs, such as
the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program (HOME), to which the City applies directly to the San Mateo
HOME Consortium. Finally, there are a few programs, such as the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)
Program or the Lease Purchase Program, to which individual households apply to directly.
City financial support of private sector applications for funding to outside agencies is very important.
Funding provided by the City can be used as matching funds required of some programs. Local funding is
also used for leverage. City support of private sector applications enhances the competitive advantage of each
application for funds.
In addition, as mentioned above the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency provides funds for housing
and is expected to have approximately $2 million in available housing set-aside funds during the five-year
period ending in June 2004. In addition, City receives $748,000 annually in CDBG funds, which includes
funding for community services and economic development as well as housing activities. The City recently
(October 2001) adopted an inclusionary housing policy, which allows for payment of an in-lieu fee if
affordable units are not provided. If developers choose to pay in-lieu fees they will augment the Agency's
housing set-aside and CDBG funds and increase the City's ability to encourage and assist affordable housing
development.
9.0 EVALUATION OF 1992 HOUSING ELEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The following section reviews and evaluates the City' s progress in implementing the 1992 Housing Element.
It reviews the results and effectiveness of programs, policies, and objectives for the previous Housing
Element planning period. It also analyzes the difference between projected need and actual housing
production.
The 1992 Housing Element was intended to serve a planning period from 1991 to 1996. However, this
planning period was extended by State law to 1999.
Table 1-45 shows the total number of all housing units (single family, multi-family, and townhomes/condos)
receiving permits in the city by year from 1989 to 1999. During this period, 1,247 units were built or
approved including 758 single family units, 154 multi-family units, and 335 townhomes/condos.
1-85
Housing Element
,.,~y of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-45
ANNUAL HOUSING PRODUCTION
PREVIOUS HOUSING PERIOD
1989-1999
Townhomes/
Year Single Family Multi Family Condos
1989-1994 193 154 8
1995-1999* 565 0 327
TOTAL 758 154 335
*Includes units built and approved.
Total
355
892
1,247
Source: Economic and Community Development Department; South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and
Planning Issues Report, 1997.
Table 1-46 shows a comparison of the ABAG-assigned regional fair share allocation of housing units for the
1990 to 1995 period for South San Francisco to the housing produced between 1989 and 1999, by income
group.
Total Allocation
Total Built: 1989-
1999
Net
Deficit/Surplus
TABLE 1-46
COMPARISON OF HOUSING NEED TO HOUSING PRODUCTION,
PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT PLANNING PERIOD 1990-1999
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
535 450 619 1,210
104 0 0 1,143
Total
2,814
1,247
431 450 619 67 1,567
Source: Economic and Community Development Department.
Evaluation of 1992 Housing Element Policies and Programs
Tables 1-47 and 1-48 provide an evaluation of existing City of South San Francisco Housing Element policies
and implementation programs.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-86 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-47
EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Policy #
Goad I
lA:
lB:
lC:
Goal 2
2A:
2B:
Existing Policy I Evaluation
Encourage a supply of housing units sufficient to assure each resident an attractive, healthful, safe environment
within a wide range of designs, types, sizes, and prices
Avoid deterioration due to lack of maintenance of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
existing dwelling units and provide low cost oversees a program that funds minor repairs for South
rehabilitation programs for their improvement San Francisco residents. The Building Division is
expanding its code enforcement staff to respond to
code violations.
Provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and Since 1997, the City has approved over 1,500 new
levels of City government, within the bounds of local residential units, primarily market rate. The
ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing Promenade and Greenridge residential project was
development consistent with local needs approved on land formerly designated for a
commercial use. The General Plan encourages the
development of higher density residential housing in
the transit oriented development areas and in
Downtown South San Francisco.
Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a ~;he General Plan land use policies encourage the
variety of housing units in well planned neighborhoods development of a variety of housing types. The
Planned Unit Development process ensures that
subdivisions conform to area standards and
neighborhood characteristics.
Continue to support the provision of housing by both the private and public sector for all income groups in the
community.
Eliminate constraints to affordable housing The inclusionary Housing Ordinance was approved
Stimulate the construction of lower cost units by
providing incentives and encouraging mixed use
projects, second units, density bonuses, and
manufactured housing.
by the City Council in December 2001. It requires
that the developer reserve 20% of the proposed
housing for moderate and Iow income households.
The inclusionary Housing Ordinance was approved
by the City Council in December 2001. It requires
that the developer reserve 20% of the proposed
housing for moderate and low income households.
The City Council also adopted a Density Bonus
Ordinance and the South San Francisco Transit
Village Ordinance.
2C:
2D:
2E:
Goal 3
3A:
3B:
Support efforts of non-governmental sponsors to
generate affordable housing
Involve the City directly in retaining and increasing the
supply of affordable housing
Continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies
and take an active interest in seeking solutions to area-
wide housing problems
Provide housing for groups with special needs.
Encourage non-profit groups to provide housing for the
elderly citizens of South San Francisco
Encourage the establishment of residential board and
care facilities for the elderly in the community
The City contributed to the development of very low
income senior housing project with Bridge Housing
(Chestnut Creek) and will be purchasing units at
Willow Gardens for rehabilitation for very low
income households, in conjunction with Mid-
Peninsula Housing.
Refer to 2C.
The City participates in several regional planning
groups, including maintaining a representative on
ABAG, SAMCEDA, C/CAG, and the Bay Area
Council.
Re~rto2C.
The City approved the Aegis project last year. The
City funds the Magnolia Senior Center programs.
1-87
Housing Element
~,~ty of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-47
EVALUATION OF EXISTING (1992) HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
Policy #
3C:
3D:
3E:
3F:
3G:
Goal 4
4A:
Goal 5
5A:
5B:
5C:
5D:
5E:
Existing Policy
Require the inclusion of handicapped accessible units in
all housing projects
Continue to support programs to modify existing units to
better serve the needs of disabled citizens
Foster amenities needed by female-headed households
Insure provision of adequate affordable housing suitable
for large families
Assist the homeless and those at risk of being homeless
Assist citizens in locating and retaining affordable housing
Strive to eliminate housing discrimination by race, sex,
age, religion, and natural origin
Evaluation
The City has been consistent with state law and
building codes.
The City has been active in supporting programs to
modify existing units to better serve the needs of
disabled citizens.
This should be changed to reflect single parent
households. No policy or program exists at this time.
Follow-up to the Inclusionary Ordinance will include
requirements for number of bedrooms.
The City has worked with San Mateo County to build
a homeless center on North Airport Boulevard. The
City has assisted SAFE HARBOR which has been in
operation for the past two years. In FY 2000, the City
allocated in CDBG money.
without discrimination.
The City actively strives to eliminate housing
discrimination. The City funds LaRaza and Project
Sentinnel.
Protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards.
Prohibit new residential development in the areas
containing major environmental hazards (such as floods,
and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate
mitigation measures are taken
Require the design of new housing and neighborhoods
to comply with adopted building security standards that
decrease burglary and other property-related crimes.
Require new residential developments to comply with
the Aircraft Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for
the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as
contained i-n the San Marco County Airport Land Use
Plan
Assist owners of existing dwellings to mitigate the
impact of airport noise
Foster efforts to conserve energy in residential structures
The City limits residential development in the East of
101 Area Plan and has the agreement with the San
Francisco International Airport which limits housing
north of the airport..
The Police Department reviews of all development
applications.
This is accomplished through General Plan policies,
C/CAG requirements, and the agreement with the San
Francisco International Airport.
The City is involved with the Airport Noise Program
to fund the installation of new windows.
This is accomplished through building code
requirements.
Source: City of South San Francisco Planning Department, January 2002.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-88 February 2002
City of South San Francisco Housing Element
TABLE 1-48
EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
City of South San Francisco
Program#
IA-I
lA-2
lB-1
lB-2
lC-I
1C-2
1C-3
2A-1
2B-I
2B-2
2B-3
2B-4
2B-5
Implementation Program
Support the Housing Rehabilitation Program
with continued CDBG funding
Aggressively enforce uniform housing, building,
and safety codes
Support Private Market Construction
Work with the owner to develop a plan for
annexation of the R.I. McClellan property (Site
No. 10 on Figures 26 and 27)
Review the Zoning Ordinance
Provide adequate public facilities, including
streets, water, sewerage, and drainage,
throughout the residential areas of the city
Ensure new development and rehabilitation
efforts promote quality design and harmonize
with existing neighborhood surroundings
Promote affordable housing
Encourage a mix of uses in Commercial and
Office Zoning Districts
Support the development of "Second Housing
Units"
Grant a "Density Bonus" to developments that
include low-income, very low-income, or senior
citizen units
Complete a study of increasing residential
densities around future BART station and
required implementation
Study the land use compatibility of increasing
residential densities along major streets in the
downtown redevelopment area
Accomplished?
CDBG and
Redevelopment
Agency
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments
The City contributed $400,000 to the
Commercial Avenue rehabilitation,
$130,000 to Willow Gardens rehab.,
and $50,000/yr. to other rehab, efforts.
Code Enforcement division has been
enlarged.
Development approvals (see Major
Projects List)
The Promenade/Greenridge project
formerly on Mclellan Nursery site and
part of the County was annexed with
the approval of the development.
The City is currently (January 2002)
reviewing the Zoning Ordinance.
The City is completing the Water
Quality Control Plant upgrade, Airport
Boulevard improvements, roadway
improvements on Chestnut and El
Camino Real.
This is accomplished through General
Plan policies, Transit Village Plan,
Zoning Ordinance (Design Review
process)
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
was approved by the City Council in
December 2001. It requires that the
developer reserve 20% of the proposed
housing for moderate and low income
households.
This was accomplished with the South
San Francisco Transit Village District
and Ordinance; General Plan policies
in Downtown.
The Zoning Ordinance permits second
unit housing in residential areas,
subject to specific development and
parking standards.
In December 2001, the City adopted a
Density Bonus Ordinance that allows
for a 25% bonus for developments that
include affordable units.
The City created the South San
Francisco BART Transit Village
District, which permits higher density
development and reduced parking
standards.
The 1999 General Plan increased
residential densities in designated
residential and commercial
neighborhoods. The Transit Village
District permits high density
development (up to 50 units/acre)
1-89
Housing Element
· .-,,y of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-48
EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
City of South San Francisco
Program # Implementation Program Accomplished? Comments
2B-6
2C-1
2C-2
2C-3
2D-1
2D-2
2D-3
2D-4
2D-5
2D-6
2E-I
2E-2
2E-3
2E-4
Appoint a Housing Programs Administrator to Yes
oversee Housing Element Programs and maintain
the element
Maintain a list of major agencies and Yes
organizations participating in housing-related
activities
Allocate Redevelopment funds to non-profit
housing agencies that assist in providing or
developing low-income housing
Support non-profits in the placement of
individuals and small households needing
housing with people who have excess space in
their homes and who are willing to share that
space
Continue to operate and rent 80 units of public
housing
Provide financial assistance for physical
improvements to existing boarding rooms and
Single Room Occupancies
Acquire land for rental projects
Subsidize purchases or buy down the developer's
cost of rental units in new for-profit
developments
Continue to enforce limits on conversion of
apartment units to condominiums
Yes
Yes
HSG Authority
- SSF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Retain 268 units subsidized under Department of No
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section
8 contracts for lower-income seniors and families
Support State and federal legislation to make Yes
housing more affordable for owners and renters
Participate with San Mateo County in its Yes
Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit
Certificate programs
Continue to support San Mateo County's Federal Yes
Section 8 Housing Assistance Program
Provide lnterest-~e loans for rehabilitating
apartments
Discontinued
along the El Camino Real corridor.
The HCD was reorganized and
expanded (with new staff) to
incorporate required tasks.
HCD staff coordinates with San Mateo
County and non-profit housing groups
in supporting housing projects,
programs, social services, and shared
funding.
See above project, including
Commercial Avenue, Willow Gardens,
Greenridge, and Downtown
(Metropolitan Hotel)
The City has cooperated with Human
Investment Project (HIP).
The City has allocated $700,000 to
support the project
The City assists rehabilitation of
existing units by provided $1.2 million
in improvements for the Grand Hotel
and $1.2 million for the
Metropolitan Hotel.
Mission/Chestnut Senior Housing
Project $1.0 million, 2 units on Pine
and I unit on Hillside.
The City adopted the lnclusionary
Housing Ordinance that provides the
developer flexibility to provide rental
units.
The Municipal Code includes the
Condominium Conversion Ordinance,
which requires 5 percent vacancy prior
to conversion.
San Mateo County is losing the
Skyline project. City HCD has lobbied
to extend Section 8 another 2 years.
This is accomplished through the
lnclusionary Ordinance and General
Plan policies.
Ongoing.
The County of San Mateo manages the
program. However, HCD staff works
directly with Federal Agencies and the
County of San Mateo to inspect
properties.
The City still provides loans based on
available funding.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-90 February 2002
City of South San Francisco
Housing Element
TABLE 1-48
EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
City of South San Francisco
Program # Implementation Program AccompLished?
3A-I Offer a density bonus for senior housing Yes
3A-2
3B-I
3C-1
3D-I
3E-1
3F-I
3G-I
3G-2
4A-I
5A-1
5B-I
5C-1
Provide funding for minor repairs of homes Yes
owned and occupied by low-income senior
citizens
Continue to allow reduced parking requirements Yes
for this use
Review development plans and require Yes
modification for accessibility
Provide CDBG funds to the Center for the Yes
Independence of the Disabled to make housing
units accessible to the disabled
The City will strongly encourage the inclusion of Yes
childcare and after-school-care facilities within
or near affordable and higher density housing
and mixed use developments
Require that 20 percent of all below-market-rate
housing are three- and four-bedroom units
No
Provide emergency rent funds to assist eligible Yes
persons to avoid eviction, or to rent an apartment
Provide funds for transitional housing Yes
Provide legal counseling and other advice and Yes
services concerning fair housing laws, rights, and
remedies to those who believe they have been
discriminated against
Residential Projects will be reviewed for major Yes
environmental hazards during the environmental
review process
Continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Yes
Building Security Standards, of the Municipal
Code
All new residential development shall be
Yes
Comments
The 1999 General Plan include
policies that encourage a density bonus
for senior housing. The Density Bonus
Ordinance permits a density bonus for
all residential projects with affordable
housing.
The City expanded services include
$40,000/yr. for home improvements
and $25,000/yr. For vouchers.
Transit Village Ordinance and General
Plan policies specifically permit
reduced parking standards near transit
centers.
Zoning Ordinance development
standards and review criteria.
$13,000/yr is allocated from HCD.
The General Plan contains policies that
require child care facilities in both
residential and commercial
developments, The Transit Village
Ordinance designates a specific parcel
for development of a child care
facility. The City recently adopted the
Child Care Ordinance which creates a
development fee to support child care
services in the city.
Not required at this time. The City
does enter into specific Development
Agreements with developers to ensure
that there is a variety of units for all
families.
Industrial Hotel residents were
provided direct assistance
HIP program - $25,000
Home Admin - $38,000 over three
years
The HCD provides the following
funding: La Raza - $15,000/year and
Project Sentinnel - $6,000
Environmental review is required
under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
The Municipal Code and the Uniform
Building Code set standards for
security. The City's Police
Department enforces requirements
through the City's development
entitlement process.
The General Plan contains policies that
1-91
Housing Element
~.~,y of South San Francisco
TABLE 1-48
EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER EXISTING (1992) HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
City of South San Francisco
Program # Implementation Program Accomplished? Comments
reviewed for compliance with the County Airport
Land Usc Plan
5D-I Continue to assist homeowners in insulating Yes
units adversely affected by airport noise,
pursuant to the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979
5E-I Continue to provide information on energy- Yes
efficient standards for residential buildings
5E-2 Assist energy and water conserving Yes
modifications in existing residential buildings
Source: Economic and Community Development Department, January 2002.
require review of certain projects by
the San Francisco International
Airport. Airport Land Use review is
also a requirement of C/CAG.
The SFO/City Agreement gave the
City funds to create the Noise
Insulation Program, which is nearly
completion.
Building Code requirements
Building Code requirements
This section describes how the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the South San
Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update will incorporate what was learned from the
programs and initiates resulting from policies in the existing Housing Element.
The City of South San Francisco was able to make significant inroads in the production of
housing for all households, particularly in light of limited funding and limited vacant land. As
described above, the City met nearly all of its goals listed in the existing Housing Element
(1992). The bulk of the production occurred after 1997, when the economy was growing due
to advances in the high technology industry in the Silicon Valley and the local biotechnology
industry.
Housing Element Achievements
As shown in the above sections, the City met nearly all of its goals through implementation of
General Plan policies, programs, zoning ordinances, and projects. The existing Housing
Element's key goals include:
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-92
February 2002
DRAFT
City of South San Francisco .~. . ~ Housing Element
Encourage a supply of housing units sufficient to assure each resident an attractive, healthful,
safe environment within a wide range of designs, types, sizes, and prices.
Continue to support the provision of housing by both the private and public sector for all income
groups in the community.
Provide housing for groups with special needs.
Assist citizens in locating and retaining affordable housing without discrimination.
Protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards.
The City increased its affordable housing supply for lower income groups by leveraging limited
housing funds into the rehabilitation of existing housing units and adding these units into
affordable housing stock.
South San Francisco General Plan Update
This Housing Element Update follows a intensive and comprehensive General Plan Update
process that lasted more than two years. Beginning in spring 1997, the City conducted meetings
with the City Council, the Planning Commission, other City commissions and boards, the
Chamber of Commerce, and the community organizations. The City Council recognized early
in the General Plan process that, given the city's land use and environmental constraints,
provisions of adequate land for residential development would become a major issue to be
address in the Land Use Element.
The South San Francisco General Plan (October 1999) provides the following policies that
encourage new housing development:
Establishes higher density/intensity standards for medium and high residential districts.
Establishes higher density standards for Downtown Residential area near the Caltrain Station.
Creates Transit-Oriented Development areas near the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART
Stations.
Designates a Loft Overlay District in the older industrial area.
The City has amended the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to implement General Plan policies,
including the following:
Designation of the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District which contains
standards for higher density development on infill sites and reduced parking standards
1-93
Housing Element ~-~'~' ~- % ..... ~ ~ ~.,ry of South San Francisco
Adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as a necessary to encourage affordable housing
production.
Adoption of the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Adoption of the Childcare Ordinance.
In summary, South San Francisco is well positioned to meet the General Plan housing goals and
meet the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination allocation. Indeed, of 768 very-low,
low, and moderate income units required, the City of South San Francisco has already approved
or built 286 units. The remaining 482 units should result from a continuation of efforts between
now and 2006.
Public Review Draft Background Report 1-94 February 2002
APPENDIX A
HOUSING ELEMENT GLOSSARY
Assisted Housing Developments - Multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance under
federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of {}65863.10, state and local muitifamily revenue bond
programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program,
or local in-lieu fees. The term also includes multifamily rental units that were developed pursuant to a
local inclusionary housing program or used to a quality for a density bonus pursuant to {}65915.
Below-Market-Rate (BMR) - Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low- or moderate-
income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of the unit. Both the State of California
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which
households qualify as "low income" or "moderate income." The financing of housing at less than
prevailing interest rates.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - A State law requiring State and local agencies to regulate
activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for
a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and
certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project.
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) - A State agency, established by the Housing and Home
Finance Act of 1975, which is authorized to sell revenue bonds and generate funds for the development,
rehabilitation, and conservation of Iow-and moderate-income housing.
City - City with a capital "C" generally refers to the City of South San Francisco government or
administration..City with a lower case "c" generally refers to the geographical area of the city, both
incorporated and unincorporated territory (e.g., the city bikeway system).
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - A grant program administered by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities, and by the
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This
grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development,
including public facilities and economic development.
Compatible - Capable of existing together without conflict or ill effects.
Consistent - Free from variation or contradiction. Programs in the General Plan are to be consistent, not
contradictory or preferential. State law requires consistency between a general plan and implementation
measures such as the zoning ordinance.
Contract Rent - The monthly rent agreed to, or contracted for regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or
services that may be included.
Dedication, In lieu of - Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for
a dedication of land, usually calculated in dollars per lot, and referred to as in lieu fees or in lieu
contributions.
February 2002 A-1 Draft Housing Element
City of South San Francisco
Appendix A. ,lousing Element Glossary
Density, Residential - The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities
specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre.
Density Bonus - The allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional
square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Under
Government Code Section 65915, a housing development that provides 20 percent of its units for lower
income households, or ten percent of its units for very low-income households, or 50 percent of its units
for seniors, is entitled to a density bonus and other concessions.
Developable Land - Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of
hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.
Dwelling Unit - A room or group of rooms (including sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation facilities, but
not more than one kitchen), that constitutes an independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for
occupancy by one household on a long-term basis.
Encourage, v. - To stimulate or foster a particular condition through direct or indirect action by the private
sector or government agencies.
Enhance, v. - To improve existing conditions by increasing the quantity or quality of beneficial uses or
features.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - A report that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an
area and determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed
action.
Fair Market Rent - The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development for purposes of administering the Section 8 Existing Housing Program.
Family - (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2)
An individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single-family
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons
occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [California].
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) - A federal agency providing loans and grants for improvement
projects and Iow-income housing.
Feasible - Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Goal -The ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable.
Gross Rent - Contract Rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (water, electricity, gas) and
fuels (oil, kerosene, wood, etc.) To the extent that these are paid for by the renter (or paid for by a
relative, welfare agency, or friend) in addition to the rent.
Household - All those persons -- related or unrelated -- who occupy a single housing unit.
Households, Number of - The count of all year-round housing units occupied by one or more persons. The
concept of household is important because the formation of new households generates the demand for
housing. Each new household formed creates the need for one additional housing unit or requires that
Draft Housing Element A-2 February 2002
Appendix A: Housing Element Glossary
city of South San Francisco
one existing housing unit be shared by two households. Thus, household formation can continue to take
place even without an increase in population, thereby increasing the demand for housing.
Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) - The State agency that has principal
responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low- and
moderate-income households.
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD) - A cabinet-level department of the federal
government that administers housing and community development programs.
Housing Authority, Local (LHA) - Local housing agency established in State law, subject to local
activation and operation. Originally intended to manage certain federal subsidies, but vested with broad
powers to develop and manage other forms of affordable housing.
Housing Unit - The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be
a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a
cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law. A housing unit has,
at least, cooking facilities, a bathroom, and a place to sleep. It also is a dwelling that cannot be moved
without substantial damage or unreasonable cost.
Impact Fee - A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a city, county, or
other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce.
Inclusionary Zoning - Provisions established by a public agency to require that a specific percentage of
housing units in a project or development remain affordable to very low- and Iow- income households
for a specified period.
Implementation Program - An action, procedures, program, or technique that carries out general plan
policy. Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and a
time frame for its accomplishment.
Infili Development - Development of vacant land (usually individual lots or left-over properties) within
areas that are already largely developed.
Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio - The availability of affordable housing for employees. The
jobs/housing ratio divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of employed residents. A ratio
of 1.0 indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a
net out-commute.
Lease - A contractual agreement by which an owner of real property (the lessor) gives the right of possession
to another (a lessee) for a specified period of time (term) and for a specified consideration (rent).
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) - The countywide commission that reviews and evaluates
all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or
cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. LAFCo is empowered to approve,
disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals.
Low-income Housing Tax Credits: Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for
investors in housing for low-income households.
Mean - The average of a range of numbers.
February 2002 A-3 Draft Housing Element
City of South San Francisco
Appendix A. ,dousing Element Glossary
Median - The mid-point in a range of numbers.
Mitigate, v. - To ameliorate, alleviate, or avoid to the extent reasonably feasible.
Mixed-use - Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are
combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant
functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A "single site" may include contiguous
properties.
Mobile Home - A structure, transportable in one or more sections, built on a permanent chassis and
designed for use as a single-family dwelling unit and which (1) has a minimum of 400 square feet of
living space; (2) has a minimum width in excess of 102 inches; (3) is connected to all available
permanent utilities; and (4) is tied down (a) to a permanent foundation on a lot either owned or leased
by the homeowner or (b) is set on piers, with wheels removed and skirted, in a mobile home park.
Multi-family Dwelling Unit - A building or portion thereof designed for or occupied by two or more
families living independently of each other, including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, apartments, and
condominiums.
Overcrowding - Households or occupied housing units with 1.0! or more persons per room.
Parcel - A lot in single ownership or under single control, usually considered a unit for purposes of
development.
Poverty Level - As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above
or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or "poverty
thresholds" varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs
are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Quantified Objective - The housing element must include quantified objectives which specify the maximum
number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved by income level within a
five-year time frame, based on the needs, resources, and constraints identified in the housing element
(§65583 (b)). The number of units that can be conserved should include a subtotal for the number of
existing assisted units subject to conversion to non-low-income households. Whenever possible,
objectives should be set for each particular housing program, establishing a numerical target for the
effective period of the program. Ideally, the sum of the quantified objectives will be equal to the
identified housing needs. However, identified needs may exceed available resources and limitations
imposed by other requirements of state planning law. Where this is the case, the quantified objectives
need not equal the identified housing needs, but should establish the maximum number of units that can
be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved (including existing subsidized units subject to conversion
which can be preserved for lower-income use), given the constraints.
Redevelop - To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or
both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.
Regional Housing Needs Share - A quantification by a COG or by HCD of existing and projected housing
need, by household income group, for ali localities within a region.
Rehabilitation - The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.
Residential, Multiple Family - Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the
Draft Housing Element A-4 February 2002
Appendix A: Housing Element Glossary
City of South San Francisco
same or separate buildings.
Residential, Single-family - A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Rezoning - An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature,
density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.
Second Unit - A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the
primary residential unit on a single lot. "Granny Flat" is one type of second unit intended for the elderly.
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program - A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main
sources of federal housing assistance for Iow-income households. The program operates by providing
"housing assistance payments" to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the
difference between the "Fair Market Rent" of a unit (set by HUD) and the household's contribution
toward the rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of the household's adjusted gross monthly income
(GMI). Section 8 includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate
housing rehabilitation.
Seniors - Persons age 65 and older.
Shall - That which is obligatory or necessary.
Should - Signifies a directive to be honored if at all feasible.
Site - A parcel of land used or intended for one use or a group of uses and having frontage on a public or an
approved private street. A lot.
Sphere of Influence - The probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency (City
or district) as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of the County.
Subdivision - The di'vision of a tract of land into defined lots, either improved or unimproved, which can be
separately conveyed by sale or lease, and which can be altered or developed.
Subdivision Map Act - Section 66410 et seq. of the California Government Code, this act vests in local
legislative bodies the regulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions, including
the requirement for tentative and final maps.
Subsidize - To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting of terms or favors that reduce the
need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms of mortgage interest deductions
or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to
be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.
Substandard Housing - Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe
and sanitary housing.
Vacant - Lands or buildings that are not actively used for any purpose.
Zoning - The division of a city or county by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, which specify
allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that
implements policies of the General Plan.
February 2002 A-5 Draft Housing Element
City of South San Francisco ; ~ Appendix A: ,~ousing Element Glossary
Draft Housing Element A-6 February 2002
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Bibliography
Association of Bay Area Governments. Regional Housing Needs 1999-2006 Allocation: San Francisco Bay
Area. November 16, 2000.
Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections 2000. December 1999.
Association of Bay Area Governments. Draft Projections 2002. October 2001.
Bay Area Social Services Consortium. San Mateo County Human Service Agency and Hunger and Homeless
Action Coalition of San Mateo County, San Mateo Homeless Needs Assessment. December 1995.
California, State of, Governor's Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. November
1998.
California, State of, Department of Finance. City/County Population and Housing Estimates. January 1991 -
January 2000.
New Beginning Coalition. Strategic Plan for Services to Older Adults and Adults with Disabilities,
1995-2000. October 17, 1995.
San Mateo County. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in San Mateo County, CA.
San Mateo County Aging and Adult Services. Strategic Plan for Services for Older Adults and Adults with
Disabilities. Fiscal Year 2000-Fiscal Year 2005.
San Mateo County HOME Consortium. Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan.
1999-2003.
Social Security Administration, Office of Research. Evaluation, and Statistics, SSI Recipients by ZIP Code
Area, IX San Francisco Region. December 1996.
South San Francisco, City of. BART Transit Village Plan: Zoning District Standards and Design Guidelines.
June 2001.
South San Francisco, City of. Consolidated Plan for Housing, Community and Economic Development.
1998-2003.
South San Francisco, City of.
South San Francisco, City of.
South San Francisco, City of.
Downtown Housing Survey. August 1999.
General Plan. October 1999.
General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999.
February 2002 B-1 Draft Housing Element
City of South San Francisco~,~ ~ ~.:~/~., -~'. ~:~-~. ~ = . Appendix B: Bibliography
South San Francisco, City of. General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues. September 1997.
South San Francisco, City of. Housing Element 1990-1995. December 9, 1992.
South San Francisco, City of. One-Year Action Plan. 2001-2002.
South San Francisco, City of. StaffReport: Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus Ordinances. September
26, 2001.
South San Francisco, City of. Zoning Ordinance. May 1999.
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, City of. Five Year Implementation Plan. January 2000.
State Independent Living Council. Independent Living, Report to the California Legislature on State Services
Which Foster the Ability of People to Live Independently. March 1998.
United States Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing. 1990.
United States Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing. 2000.
Agencies/Organizations Consulted
California Housing Partnership Corporation
Clara-Mateo Alliance
Center for Independence of the Disabled
Economic & Community Development Department, City of South San Francisco
Golden Gate Regional Center
Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility
Human Investment Project, Home Sharing Program
North Peninsula Neighborhood Services
Mental Health Association, Spring Street Shelter
Peninsula Associaticin for Retarded Children and Adults (PARCA)
Rental Housing Owners Association
Safe Harbor Shelter
St. Vincent de Paul's Society
The Salvation Army
San Mateo County Association of Realtors
San Mateo County Mental Health
San Mateo County Office on Homelessness
San Mateo Interfaith Hospitality Network
Shelter Network of San Mateo County
South San Francisco Unified School District
South San Francisco Police Department
Standard Builders
City of South San Francisco- Senior Program
San Mateo County Office of Housing
Draft Housing Element B-2 February 2002