HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Mar '15 (Reso 2760-2015) - PC Housing Element Hearing Draft 2015-2023 Exhibit ASouth San FranciscoHOUSINGELEMENTSouth San FranciscoHOUSINGELEMENTSouth San FranciscoHOUSINGELEMENT
March 2015
2015-2023
heari
n
g
draf
t
South San FranciscoHOUSINGELEMENT
Prepared by
March 2015
2015-2023
heari
n
g
draft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Role and Content of Housing Element ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Relationship with General Plan ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Related Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Organization of Housing Element ................................................................................................. 5
2 Review of Housing Element Past Performance ....................................................... 6
2.1 Promote New Housing Development ......................................................................................... 6
2.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development ........................................................................ 8
2.3 Conserve Existing Housing and Neighborhoods ....................................................................... 9
2.4 Maintain and Improve the Quality of Life ................................................................................... 9
2.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs .................................................................. 10
2.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing ................................................................................................ 10
2.7 Energy Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.8 Housing Element Changes ........................................................................................................... 11
3 Housing Needs Assessment ..................................................................................... 12
3.1 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Population and Household Trends ............................................................................................ 13
3.3 Employment Trends ...................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 18
3.5 Market Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Housing Affordability .................................................................................................................... 30
3.7 Projected Housing Needs ............................................................................................................ 35
3.8 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................................. 36
4 Housing Constraints ................................................................................................. 49
4.1 Government Constraints ............................................................................................................. 49
4.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ....................................................................................... 73
4.3 Non-Governmental Constraints ................................................................................................ 76
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
ii
4.4 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints ........................................................................... 78
4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation .................................................................................. 79
5 Housing Resources .................................................................................................... 81
5.1 Available Sites for Housing .......................................................................................................... 81
5.2 Financial Resources ....................................................................................................................... 99
5.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 100
6 Housing Plan ............................................................................................................ 102
6.1 Promote New Housing Development .................................................................................... 103
6.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development ................................................................... 107
6.3 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods ..................................................................... 110
6.4 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life ...................................................................................... 114
6.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs ................................................................ 116
6.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing .............................................................................................. 122
6.7 Energy Conservation ................................................................................................................... 124
6.8 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................................. 126
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments ..................................... 127
Table of Contents
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2014 .................................................... 33
Figure 2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area ................................................................. 85
Figure 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area ...................................................................... 93
LIST OF TABLES1
Table 1.4-1: 21 Elements Meetings - Panels of Experts ............................................................................. 4
Table 2.1-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2007 – 2014 ............................................................... 7
Table 2.1-2: Housing Production by Income Level, 2007 – 2014 ........................................................... 8
Table 3.2-1: Population and Household Trends, 2000 to 2012 ............................................................ 14
Table 3.2-2: Age Distribution, 2012 ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 3.2-3: Household Income Distribution, 2012 ................................................................................ 15
Table 3.3-1: Jobs by Sector 2012 .................................................................................................................. 16
Table 3.3-2: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2012 .................................................................... 17
Table 3.3-3: Employment Trends, 2005 to 2010 ...................................................................................... 17
Table 3.3-4: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2010 to 2040 ........................................... 18
Table 3.4-1: Housing Conditions by Neighborhood ................................................................................ 19
Table 3.4-2: Housing Structures, Year Built .............................................................................................. 20
Table 3.4-3: Housing Conditions, 2012 ...................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.4-4: Housing Units By Type, 2000 to 2013 ................................................................................. 21
Table 3.4-5: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 2002 to 2012 ....................... 22
Table 3.4-6: Overcrowded Households, 2012 .......................................................................................... 23
Table 3.4-7: Inventory of Deed-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2014 ................................... 24
Table 3.4-8: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis ................................................................................ 26
Table 3.5-1: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco ........... 28
Table 3.5-2: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco ....................................................................... 29
Table 3.5-3: Units Sold and Median Price, South San Francisco, 1990-2013 ..................................... 30
Table 3.6-1: Household Income Limits - San Mateo County, 2014 ..................................................... 31
Table 3.6-2: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2013 ....................... 32
1 Tables are numbered according to the section of the text in which they appear.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
iv
Table 3.6-3: Maximum Funds Available for Housing, by Income Category ........................................ 34
Table 3.6-4: Housing Need by Income Level, 2010 ................................................................................. 35
Table 3.7-1: Projected Housing Need by Income .................................................................................... 36
Table 3.8-1: Household Size by Tenure, 2012 .......................................................................................... 37
Table 3.8-2: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2012 ............................. 37
Table 3.8-3: Family Characteristics, 2012 ................................................................................................... 38
Table 3.8-4: Housing Needs of Extremely Low-Income Households, South San Francisco,
2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 3.8-5: Households by Age and Tenure, 2012 ................................................................................. 40
Table 3.8-6: Household Income of Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2010....................... 40
Table 3.8-7: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2010 ......................................... 41
Table 3.8-8: Persons with Disability by Age, 2012 ................................................................................... 42
Table 3.8-9: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2012 ....................................................... 42
Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012 ............................................. 43
Table 3.8-11: Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Type of Residence and Age ..................... 45
Table 3.8-12: Homeless Population, San Mateo County, January 2013 .............................................. 47
Table 3.8-13: Farm workers in San Mateo County, 2012 ...................................................................... 47
Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2014 .................................. 50
Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts ................................................................................. 53
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014 ................... 59
Table 4.1-4: Residential Parking Requirements ......................................................................................... 62
Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements ................................................... 63
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014 .......................... 65
Table 4.1-7: Typical Application Processing Time, 2014 ........................................................................ 71
Table 4.1-8: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type, 2014 .................................................... 72
Table 4.3-1: Disposition of Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, 2012 .............. 77
Table 5.1-1: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development Capacity Under Existing
Zoning and Under Adoption of Proposed Downtown Plan .......................................... 82
Table 6.8-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives, 2015-2023 ............................................................... 126
Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments ........................................................................ 129
1
1 Introduction
Housing is of critical importance to the City of South San Francisco. The long-term vitality of the
South San Francisco community and local economy depend on a full range of housing types to
meet the needs of all segments of the City’s population. As South San Francisco looks towards the
future, the increasing range and diversity of housing options will be an integral aspect of the
City’s growth and development. Consistent with South San Francisco’s long-term commitment to
providing suitable, decent, and affordable housing for its residents, this plan sets forth a vision for
guiding future residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing existing
residential areas.
1.1 Role and Content of Housing Element
The purpose of this Housing Element is to adopt a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the
housing needs of the City of South San Francisco. The State mandates the inclusion of seven
elements in all General Plans; one of these is the Housing Element. The Housing Element is South
San Francisco’s primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and
preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population within the City’s boundaries.
Accordingly, this Housing Element identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing
needs of the City and states goals, policies, quantified objectives, and implementation programs
for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including a discussion of
available financial resources.
The Housing Element must also identify sites for housing development that are adequate to
accommodate the City’s allocation of the regional housing need. South San Francisco intends to
implement a set of programs and projects to meet the goals, policies, and objectives included
herein. The City will also coordinate its housing efforts with those occurring within the other
areas of San Mateo County and the broader Bay Area region.
AUTHORITY
All California localities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections 65580-
65590) to adopt Housing Elements as part of their general plans, and submit draft and adopted
elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review with
compliance with State law. HCD is required to review Housing Elements and report its written
findings within 60 days for a draft Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585(b)) and
within 90 days for an adopted Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585(h)). In
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
2
addition, Government Code Section 65585(c) requires HCD to consider written comments from
any group, individual, or public agency regarding the Housing Element under review.
STATUS
This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco General
Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in
2010, and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on October 13, 1999.
This updated Housing Element corresponds to the planning period of January 31, 2015 to January
31, 2023 and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projection period of January 1,
2014 to October 31, 2022, which are the periods established by State law for San Francisco Bay
Area jurisdictions.
1.2 Relationship with General Plan
State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements “comprise an integrated,
internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” This implies that all elements have
equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element
must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and it must
be closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element
must also be consistent with area Specific Plans including those currently being developed in
South San Francisco. As part of the implementation process for this Housing Element, the City of
South San Francisco will initiate and complete amendments to the City’s General Plan as
necessary to achieve internal consistency.
1.3 Related Planning Efforts
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
The City has recently adopted (February 2015) the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
(DSASP), which is a twenty-year plan that will guide development in the half-mile radius of the
City’s Downtown Caltrain Station. The DSASP aims to create a vibrant, transit-supportive,
diverse Downtown core. It includes strategies to enhance connectivity and improve accessibility
to the Downtown and the Caltrain station area for all community members and various modes of
transportation, including pedestrians and bicycles. The DSASP identifies opportunities for
development near the transit station, and it includes design guidelines and standards for all types
of development in the planning area.
Introduction
3
1.4 Public Participation
This Draft Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members of
the South San Francisco community, as well as housing advocates, developers, and other
interested parties. The City hosted a Stakeholders Workshop on February 11, 2014. This
workshop was primarily intended for housing service providers, housing developers (market rate
and affordable), stakeholders, and representative organizations to take part in an open discussion
about the City’s long-term housing goals, needs, and polices. Attendees included representatives
from the Sierra Club, Rotary Club, San Mateo County Union Community Alliance, Office of
Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, the Housing Leadership Council, and neighborhood
organizations. In conducting outreach for the workshop, care was taken to recruit potential
participants who would reflect the City’s full ethnic and economic diversity. The public outreach
efforts for the Stakeholder Meeting included:
Newspaper advertisement printed 10-days prior to the meeting;
Direct mail flyer to 21 Elements Stakeholder list-65 recipients;
Direct mail flyer to HOAs, Chamber, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural
organizations, and community members-65 recipients;
Public television notice;
Facebook posting (on Library page);
Flyers posted at 10 kiosks along Centennial Trail;
Flyers posted at both libraries, City Hall, Annex;
E-blast with Parks & Recreation (approximately 8,000 subscribers);
21 Elements website posting;
Nextdoor webpage posting; and
City website posting.
In addition, the City of South San Francisco participated in the 21 Elements project, a
collaborative effort of the 21 jurisdictions within San Mateo County to share resources, ideas,
data, policy direction, and outreach for the fifth Housing Element cycle. At the request of local
jurisdictions, 21 Elements organized four panels of experts to provide information and policy
suggestions on affordable housing and special needs populations. As shown in the table below, the
four panels focused on the needs and perspectives of people with developmental disabilities;
developers (for-profit and non-profit, as well as architects); advocates and funders; and special
needs and sustainability.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
4
Table 1.4-1: 21 Elements Meetings - Panels of Experts
Activity/Meeting Description Date
21 Elements Meeting Stakeholder Meeting - Golden Gate Regional Center's
info on needs and services for people with
developmental disabilities
June 13, 2013
21 Elements Meeting Developer Panel -- addressed concerns in housing
development, such as community politics, growing
senior population, and need for more workforce
housing
December 5, 2013
21 Elements Meeting Advocates and Funders Panel -- answering questions
about greatest housing needs in the County
February 6, 2014
21 Elements Meeting Stakeholder Meeting - Special Housing Needs
Advocates
April 10, 2014
These panels were well-attended by housing advocates, city representatives, and other
stakeholders from throughout San Mateo County, and provided valuable insight for South San
Francisco into the most pressing needs and constraints that developers and other service
providers face in the area. Several themes emerged from all the panels. Many speakers talked
about the importance of multi-family housing in mixed use, transit-oriented neighborhoods. This
type of development is necessary because it accommodates seniors and people with disabilities
who cannot depend on cars for transportation. The reduced dependence on cars and increased
density also helps meet sustainability goals. Additionally, many jurisdictions in San Mateo County
have little or no vacant land and therefore cannot meet their RHNA requirements without
rezoning. Panelists also discussed the importance of adding predictability to the development
process and the necessity of removing excessive regulations to encourage development.
Finally, the South San Francisco Planning Commission discussed housing needs, constraints, and
proposed policies at a study session held on November 6, 2014. The City Council held a similar
study session to discuss housing needs, constraints, and proposed policies at a meeting on
December 10, 2014. Their comments have collectively been incorporated into the draft Housing
Element.
As a result of the public outreach process, the City heard from a number of individuals and
organizations on the draft Housing Element, including the Housing Leadership Council. In
response to the public comments received, a number of issues were carefully considered by the
City and incorporated into the Housing Element Update. Changes to the Housing Element as a
result of public comments include the addition of 11 programs to the Housing Plan, such as
Policy 3-4 and Program 3-4B to address displacement, as well as additional programs to preserve
and maintain affordable and market-rate units in the city.
Introduction
5
1.5 Organization of Housing Element
Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components:
A review of the prior Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production over
the previous Housing Element planning period (2007-2014).
An analysis of the City’s current and future housing needs.
An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production.
An inventory and analysis of housing resources.
A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to
address the City’s housing needs.
6
2 Review of Housing Element Past
Performance
A key component of each Housing Element update is a review of performance under the previous
Housing Element, including a quantitative and qualitative description of outcomes, a comparison
of outcomes against stated goals, and an evaluation of the continued appropriateness of existing
goals, objectives, policies, and programs.
Accordingly, this chapter reviews progress under the previous Housing Element, which covered
the period from 2007 to 2014. This review is organized around the following seven overarching
goals of the previous Housing Element:
Promote new housing development;
Remove constraints to housing development;
Conserve existing housing and neighborhoods;
Maintain and improve the quality of life;
Support development of special housing needs;
Assure equal access to housing; and
Energy conservation.
Summarized below are key findings of this review of past performance. Analysis includes the
progress on implementation, effectiveness of the element, and the appropriateness of the goals,
objectives, and performance. A more detailed review of each of the 45 policies adopted under the
previous Housing Element is included in Appendix A.
2.1 Promote New Housing Development
The first goal of the previous Housing Element was to promote the provision of new housing by
both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community, a goal that the City
actively pursued during the previous Housing Element cycle. The City’s Redevelopment Agency
(RDA) acquired property within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and in the
Downtown area before the Agency was eliminated in 2011. The City is continuing to work with
Review of Housing Element Past Performance
7
developers on potential projects; however, due to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency,
funding is limited and depends on the ultimate outcome of distribution of funds and property.
In 2010, the City adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update. It incorporated a variety
of tools and measures to encourage a variety of residential unit sizes, a mix of housing types,
mixed-use development, and more intense mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real
Corridor and in the Downtown. The updated Zoning Ordinance expanded permissions for
residential and mixed-use development, and it included Design Guidelines and an EIR for a
General Plan Amendment for the South El Camino Real corridor. The City also supported the
development of secondary dwelling units through provisions in its Zoning Ordinance and with
brochures at the Permit Center Counter.
Detailed land use and design guidelines were created in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan,
which was adopted in 2011 and included regulations for some of the Redevelopment Agency’s
Successor Agency properties. In addition, the City received a grant in 2012 and began work on the
Downtown Station Area Plan. This plan increased residential and mixed use densities near the
Caltrain Station and was adopted in early 2015.
A number of new residential development projects were completed under the previous Housing
Element between 2007 and 2014. Park Station, a residential project near the City’s BART station
completed in 2007, added to the City’s housing stock and included seven new low income units
and eight new moderate income units. A total of seven secondary units were constructed between
2007 and 2012. The recently completed the 636 El Camino Real affordable housing development
project provided 108 affordable units, including 40 three-bedroom units to accommodate large
families.
The following section evaluates the City’s progress in accommodating its “fair share” of the region
wide need for additional housing, also referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), including an examination of new construction activity. As shown in Table 2.1-1, the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined a need for 1,635 additional housing
units in South San Francisco during the prior Housing Element cycle from 2007 to 2014,
including a need for 956 units for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households.
Table 2.1-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2007 –2014
Income Category RHNA 2007-2014 Percent of Total
Extremely Low (0-30% AMI) 187 11%
Very Low (31-50% AMI) 186 11%
Low (51-80% AMI) 268 16%
Moderate (81-120% AMI) 315 19%
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI) 679 42%
Total Units 1,635 100%
Source: ABAG, 2014; Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
8
The “Great Recession” of 2008 greatly affected the housing market in South San Francisco during
the RHNA period of 2007 to 2014. As shown in Table 2.1-2, within the last planning period, the
City issued a total of 251 permits. In addition, the City approved but has not yet issued permits
for three other development projects totaling 330 units.
Table 2.1-2: Housing Production by Income Level, 2007 –2014
Income Category
RHNA
2007 –
2014
Permitted Approved but not Permitted
Number of
Units
Percent of
RHNA
Number of
Units
Percent of
RHNA
Extremely Low
and Very Low
373 108 29.0% 0 0.0%
Low 268 72.6% 1 0.3%
Moderate 315 82.5% 3 0.9%
Above Moderate 679 128 18.9% 326 48.0%
Total 1,635 251 15.6% 330 20.2%
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
While the dissolution of the City’s Redevelopment Agency and the economic recession did impact
the ability of the City to meet their RHNA for housing production during this housing cycle,
progress was still made towards producing South San Francisco’s “fair share” of housing.
2.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development
The City has taken a number of actions during the previous Housing Element period to remove
constraints to housing development, the second goal of the previous Housing Element. To
provide support for private market construction, the City’s One Stop Permit Center continues to
provide accessible services by the departments of Planning, Building, and Public Works in one
building. The One Stop Permit Center is operated by accessible staff from 8am to 5pm, and
permit processing is efficient and timely. To ensure timely processing of applications, the
Planning Commission meets twice each month, and the Design Review Board meets once a
month.
To encourage residential development, the City strives to ensure the availability of adequate
public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout residential areas. For
specific development projects, the City collects “sewer impact fees” to support the ongoing
maintenance and upgrading of the City’s infrastructure. In addition, the City adopted a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) budget that included several projects to repair and upgrade
infrastructure to support added populations. To ensure that new development promotes quality
design and harmonizes with existing neighborhood surroundings, the City adopted a Residential
Design Guide and design standards in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Plan.
The City continually provides material to the public regarding affordable housing opportunities,
programs, and inclusionary units, including at the City’s Economic Development and Housing
Review of Housing Element Past Performance
9
Division, City’s Community Learning Center, on community calendars, on the City’s website, and
at the Citizen’s Academy.
2.3 Conserve Existing Housing and Neighborhoods
The third goal of the previous Housing Element was to conserve existing housing and
neighborhoods. Related to this goal, the City has continued to encourage private residential
reinvestment in older neighborhoods and fund lower-income housing rehabilitation. The
Economic Development and Housing Division manages the Community Development Block
Grants Program, which provides funding for a number of housing rehabilitation activities for low
income residents. These activities include the following: low interest loans and/or grants through
the City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Program; free accessibility modifications to houses
through the Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities’ (CID) Housing
Accessibility Modification Program; free home repairs to South San Francisco households
through Rebuilding Together Peninsula programs; and through 2012, free home repairs to
households through the now-disbanded North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center House
Helpers.
The City aggressively enforces housing, building, and safety codes. The City’s Code Enforcement
Division is operated through the Fire Department, and Building Division staff members also
enforce the codes when they are out on inspections. To upgrade and maintain housing, streets,
sidewalks, and other municipal systems, the City’s CIP budget includes projects in older
neighborhoods. The City also strives to limit the number of apartment units that are converted to
condominium units and the number of subsidized units that are converted to market rate units,
through regulations in the zoning code.
2.4 Maintain and Improve the Quality of Life
The fourth goal of the previous Housing Element strived to maintain and improve the quality of
life in South San Francisco, and the City accomplished this goal in several ways. The City has
adopted policies to prohibit residential development in areas with major environmental hazards,
to abate existing hazards, and to mitigate airport noise for residents. These policies continue to be
implemented through the CEQA process as well as the City-Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation
Program, minor home repair program, and airport noise insulation program.
The City’s General Plan has been updated to be consistent with the SFO Airport Land Use Plan
and its aircraft noise contours. Disclosures are provided to potential buyers of homes that are
located in the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour areas, and there are added restrictions placed
on new homes within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour. In addition, the updated Zoning
Ordinance includes a Special Environmental Studies Overlay District that applies to areas of the
City that the General Plan identifies as ecologically sensitive habitats or susceptible geologic
hazards.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
10
2.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs
The fifth goal of the previous Housing Element was to provide housing for people with special
needs. Through its policies and programs, the City has worked to address the needs of special
needs populations in the City, particularly large families with children, seniors, persons with
disabilities, and people who are homeless or in need of transitional housing. The City
accomplishes its goal of serving special needs populations in several ways.
Housing that serves special needs populations continues to be constructed in South San
Francisco. The recently completed affordable housing development at 636 El Camino Real
includes 108 units, including 40 three-bedroom units to accommodate large families and 20 units
for San Mateo County Mental Health clients. The City provides annual grant funds to the Center
of Independence of Individuals with Disabilities to allow for disabled access to homes.
The Zoning Ordinance allows for requests for parking reductions for senior housing
developments and developments near transit. The updated Zoning Ordinance also provides
provisions for reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to housing by allowing the
Chief Planner authority to grant relief from zoning requirements. The Zoning Update also
included a district where an emergency shelter is permitted by right and subject only to the same
development and management standards applicable to other uses in the zone. Similarly,
transitional and supportive housing are also subject only to those restrictions that apply to other
residential uses of the same type in the zone.
The City’s support for various non-profit organizations varies each year based on the amount of
funding available and the organizations’ capacity and need. To serve South San Francisco
residents who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, the City provided funding to a variety of
San Mateo County service agencies, including Samaritan House, which operates a 90-bed year-
round shelter for the homeless in South San Francisco. The City also supported the not-for-
profits Shelter Network, which provides emergency and transitional housing for homeless
individuals and families, and Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which
provides emergency shelter for battered women.
2.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing
The sixth goal of the previous Housing Element was to promote equal opportunity to secure safe,
sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of age, race, gender,
religion, marital status, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary factors.
In conjunction with San Mateo County, Daly City, Redwood City, and San Mateo, the City
developed the Analysis of Impediments for Fair Housing Choice. It was adopted by the City
Council in 2013.
Review of Housing Element Past Performance
11
To support equal housing opportunities in South San Francisco, the City contracts with Project
Sentinel, a fair housing provider and tenant/landlord service organization, to address fair housing
complaints and resolve landlord/tenant disputes in the City. In addition, City staff provides
referrals regarding fair housing to appropriate agencies and advocacy groups.
2.7 Energy Conservation
The final goal under the previous Housing Element related to energy conservation. To
incorporate energy and water conservation in construction and rehabilitation projects, the City
recently adopted a Green Building Ordinance. City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan on
February 12, 2014, which will promote energy information and sharing. The City’s rehabilitation
and repair programs have benefited numerous low-income households with weatherization
projects. The City also continues to implement Title 24 requirements for energy conservation in
residential development, and it encourages residential developers to employ the use of solar
access, landscaping, building siting, lot configuration, and street design energy conservation
measures.
2.8 Housing Element Changes
As presented above, the City of South San Francisco has been successful at promoting housing
development consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the prior Housing Element.
Given the patterns of land use and development in the city, this Housing Element continues the
approach of its predecessor by promoting medium- and high-density housing development on
infill sites. In South San Francisco, these sites will be located mainly in mixed-use zones near
transit, providing the City with the opportunity to promote high-quality transit and pedestrian-
oriented neighborhoods that include a full range of housing types and affordability levels.
For the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element planning period, the Housing Plan has been organized to
complement the City’s planning efforts in medium-density, high-density, and mixed-use zones,
particularly in the Transit Village and in Downtown. In addition, the guiding policy framework
has been simplified by consolidating and eliminating redundancies wherever possible, ultimately
resulting in a more efficient and straightforward plan to encourage high-quality residential
development, as well as to ensure a full range of affordable housing.
The proposed Goals, Policies, and Programs contained in this Housing Element Update have
been modified from the prior Housing Element in light of the findings discussed above, and also
based on the Housing Needs Assessment, Constraints Analysis, and Housing Resources inventory
contained within the document. Most of the programs that have been modified for this Housing
Element Update were previously funded and operated by the City’s Redevelopment Agency,
which was eliminated in 2011. A more detailed description of changes to programs based on their
previous successes can also be found in Appendix A.
12
3 Housing Needs Assessment
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and
demographic conditions in South San Francisco, assess the demand for housing for households at
all income-levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs
populations. The Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist South San Francisco in
developing housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local housing
needs.
To facilitate an understanding of how the characteristics of South San Francisco are similar to, or
different from the larger area in which it is situated, this Housing Needs Assessment presents data
for South San Francisco alongside comparable data for all of San Mateo County and, where
appropriate, for the San Francisco Bay Area and the state of California.
This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous sources, including the United States
Census; American Community Survey; the Association of Bay Area Governments; and the State
of California, Department of Finance.
3.1 Regional Context
Located in northern San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula, the City of South San
Francisco is known as the birth place of the biotechnology industry. The City measures 9.6 square
miles and was incorporated in 1908. Its population has tripled since the Second World War, but
population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has become increasingly
developed. The City is served by Highway 101, Interstate 280, Interstate 380, BART, and Caltrain.
In addition, the City is adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport and is served by a
Ferry Terminal that began operating in June 2012. South San Francisco is adjacent to the cities of
Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, and San Bruno, as well as portions of unincorporated San
Mateo County. The City is home to a collection of compact neighborhoods, including an active
and walkable downtown. The area east of Highway 101 contains research and development,
office, and industrial uses, and is where many of the City’s biotechnology businesses are located,
as well as the Oyster Point Marina, situated on the San Francisco Bay.
Housing Needs Assessment
13
3.2 Population and Household Trends
POPULATION
With a population of nearly 64,000 residents, South San Francisco is the fourth largest city in San
Mateo County. As shown in Table 3.2-1, between 2000 and 2010, the City’s population grew at a
faster rate than San Mateo County, averaging an increase of 0.50 percent per year. Since 2010,
growth in the City has slowed substantially, reflecting its increasingly developed character.
Between 2010 and 2012, average annual population growth in the City was just 0.09 percent,
about half the population growth rate for San Mateo County (0.19 percent).
HOUSEHOLDS
According to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, there were 21,436 households in
South San Francisco in 2012, a total increase of approximately 1,300 households since 2000 or
approximately 100 households per year.2 Consistent with population growth trends, since 2000
the City has added new households at a faster rate than the county — approximately 0.40 percent
per year compared to -0.10 percent per year.
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND TYPE
Average household size is a function of the number of people living in households divided by the
number of occupied housing units in the area. In South San Francisco, the average household size
in 2012 was 3.0 persons per household, indicating significantly larger households compared to the
countywide average of 2.8.
Consistent with a larger average household size, the City of South San Francisco has a high
proportion of family households. As of 2012, 72 percent of South San Francisco households
contained related individuals, compared to 68 percent countywide.
HOUSEHOLD TENURE
Households in South San Francisco have about the same homeownership rate compared to the
county. Approximately 59 percent of households living in the City owned their own homes in
2012, compared to 60 percent countywide.
2 A household is defined as a person or group of persons living in a housing unit, as opposed to persons living in group
quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent homes, or prisons.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
14
Table 3.2-1: Population and Household Trends, 2000 to 2012
2000 2010 2012
Avg. Annual %
Change 2000-2010
Avg. Annual %
Change 2010-2012
South San Francisco
Population 60,552 63,632 63,742 0.50% 0.09%
Households 20,138 20,938 21,436 0.39% 1.18%
Average Household Size 3.1 3.0 3.0
Household Type
Families 74% 73% 72%
Non-Families 26% 27% 28%
Tenure
Owner 63% 60% 59%
Renter 37% 40% 41%
San Mateo County
Population 707,163 718,451 721,183 0.16% 0.19%
Households 260,578 257,837 257,369 -0.11% -0.09%
Average Household Size 2.7 2.8 2.8
Household Type
Families 67% 68% 68%
Non-Families 33% 32% 32%
Tenure
Owner 61% 59% 60%
Renter 39% 41% 40%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Table 3.2-2 presents the age distribution and median age of South San Francisco and San Mateo
County. South San Francisco has a median age of 38.1 years compared to 39.3 countywide.
Similarities are also considerable in the age distribution of these jurisdictions. Persons under the
age of 18 years account for approximately 22 percent of the population for both geographies, and
persons age 18 to 24 years account for about 8 percent of each. Adults, age 25 to 44 years and age
45 to 64 years, account for a similar share of the population in each geography, ranging from 26 to
30 percent. Seniors, age 65 years and older, account for nearly 14 percent of the population in
each geography.
Housing Needs Assessment
15
Table 3.2-2: Age Distribution, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Age Cohort Number Percent Number Percent
Under 18 14,268 22.4% 159,384 22.1%
18 to 24 5,250 8.2% 55,413 7.7%
25 to 44 19,033 29.9% 209,011 29.0%
45 to 64 16,549 26.0% 199,775 27.7%
65 + 8,642 13.6% 97,600 13.5%
Total 63,742 100.0% 721,183 100.0%
Median Age 38.1 39.3
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
As shown in Table 3.2-3, South San Francisco households tend to have less income than
households living elsewhere in the County. As of 2012, the median household income in South
San Francisco was $73,568, substantially below the countywide median of $87,751. Similarly, per
capita incomes for South San Francisco residents were lower. In 2012, the per capita income in
South San Francisco was $31,466, compared to $45,458 at the county-level. On a per capita basis,
South San Francisco residents earned 31 percent less than the average County resident.
Despite lower median and per capita incomes, South San Francisco had a relatively high
proportion of households earning in the middle income range. The majority (53 percent) of South
San Francisco households were estimated to earn between $50,000 and $150,000 in 2012,
compared to 47 percent in the County. However, South San Francisco households were less likely
to earn over $150,000 compared with San Mateo County; only 15 percent of City households
earned more than $150,000, compared to 26 percent of County households.
Table 3.2-3: Household Income Distribution, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Household Income Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $15,000 1,393 6.5% 15,185 6%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,501 7.0% 14,155 6%
$25,000 to $34999 1,629 7.6% 16,214 6%
$35,000 to $49,999 2,208 10.3% 24,707 10%
$50,000 to $74,999 4,223 19.7% 40,664 16%
$75,000 to $99,999 2,808 13.1% 31,914 12%
$100,000 to $149,999 4,373 20.4% 48,385 19%
$150,000 to $199,999 1,758 8.2% 25,994 10%
$200,000 or more 1,543 7.2% 40,407 16%
Total 21,436 100.0% 257,369 100%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
16
3.3 Employment Trends
South San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area’s biotechnology and life science industry,
including the headquarters location for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotech firms.
Genentech and other biotech and pharmaceutical companies account for an important share of
local jobs and offer well-paying careers for persons with advanced scientific, business, and
technical training. Proximate to the San Francisco International Airport, the City is also home to
a cluster of “blue collar” jobs, including logistics and shipping operations and a manufacturing
cluster that includes various food processors.
JOBS BY SECTOR
Table 3.3-1 presents a distribution of employment in South San Francisco by broad industrial
classifications. As shown, Educational, Health, and Social Services accounts for the largest share
of jobs (21 percent), followed by Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food
Services (13 percent); Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (12 percent);
Manufacturing, including pharmaceutical and food manufacturing (10 percent); and Retail Trade
(10 percent). Rounding out the top 10 categories are Other Service; Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate, and Rental and Leasing; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Construction; and
Wholesale Trade.
Table 3.3-1: Jobs by Sector 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Industry Sector Jobs Percent Jobs Percent
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting and Mining 0 0.0% 1,767 0.5%
Construction 1,577 5.1% 21,287 5.6%
Manufacturing 2,942 9.5% 27,785 7.3%
Wholesale Trade 1,238 4.0% 8,788 2.3%
Retail Trade 2,768 8.9% 36,990 9.8%
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 1,962 6.3% 19,160 5.1%
Information 433 1.4% 12,991 3.4%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and
Leasing 2,309 7.4% 26,929 7.1%
Professional, Scientific, Management,
Administrative, and Waste Management Services
3,581 11.5% 66,453 17.5%
Educational, Health and Social Services 6,425 20.7% 83,940 22.1%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation,
and Food Services 3,980 12.8% 37,845 10.0%
Other Service (Except Public Administration) 2,633 8.5% 22,543 5.9%
Public Administration 1,195 3.8% 12,719 3.4%
Total 31,043 100.0% 379,197 100.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Housing Needs Assessment
17
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Table 3.3-2 lists major employers in the City of South San Francisco. These include biotech and
medical device companies such as Genentech, Life Technologies Corporation, Amgen San
Francisco, and a range of other companies including a security firm, retailer, food manufacturers,
a janitorial service company, and a beverage distributor.
Table 3.3-2: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2012
Name of Employer Type of Business Number of Employees
Genentech Biotechnology 7,777
Life Technologies Corporation Biotechnology 650
Costco Wholesalers (2 stores) Retail 508
Amgen San Francisco LLC Biotechnology 419
Successfactors, Inc. Technology 400
Guardsmark LLC Security 351
American Etc Inc/ Royal Laundry Service 318
The New French Bakery, Inc Food Manufacturing 300
DBI Beverage Beverage Distributor 232
Oroweat/Entenmann's Food Manufacturing 230
Source: South San Francisco Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 2013.
EMPLOYED RESIDENTS
Table 3.3-3 presents recent trends in employment for the City of South San Francisco and San
Mateo County. South San Francisco is a “jobs rich” city with substantial in-commuting from
other jurisdictions. As shown, in 2010 there were approximately 30,000 employed residents in the
City compared to 44,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.4 jobs per every working resident of the City. By
comparison, San Mateo County has a much closer balance between the number of employed
residents and total jobs, with approximately 342,000 employed residents and 345,000 jobs, a ratio
of 1.0 jobs per every working resident of the county. Since 2005, job growth in South San
Francisco has been faster than that of the county, increasing at an average annual rate of 2.8
percent, adding substantially to a need to provide additional housing opportunities to support a
fast-growing economy.
Table 3.3-3: Employment Trends, 2005 to 2010
South San Francisco San Mateo County
2005 2010
Average Annual
Rate of Change
2005 to 2010 2005 2010
Average Annual
Rate of Change
2005 to 2010
Employed Residents 26,240 30,100 2.8% 318,600 342,060 1.4%
Total Jobs 42,240 43,550 0.6% 337,350 345,190 0.5%
Total Jobs/Employed Residents 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0
Unemployment Rate 5.3% 10.3% 4.3% 8.8%
Source: ABAG 2009 and 2013 Projections; California Employment Development Department, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
18
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects South San Francisco’s population to
increase from 63,632 to 87,700 between 2010 and 2040, a 38 percent increase over 30 years.
Household growth is expected to be slightly lower, rising from 20,938 households to 27,900, a
gain of 33 percent. These projections reflect the growing need for residential development in
South San Francisco.
As illustrated in Table 3.3-4, South San Francisco will continue to contain more jobs than
households over this 30-year period, deepening its reputation as a “jobs-rich” community.
Compared with San Mateo County and Bay Area figures, South San Francisco’s jobs-housing
imbalance is disproportional; 2040 estimates for both the county and the region hover around 1.4
jobs per household compared to 1.9 in South San Francisco.
Table 3.3-4: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2010 to 2040
2010 2020 2030 2040
Total Change
2010-2040
Percent Change
2010-2040
South San Francisco
Population 63,632 71,000 78,800 87,700 24,068 37.8%
Households 20,938 23,250 25,570 27,900 6,962 33.3%
Jobs 43,550 51,510 52,020 53,790 10,240 23.5%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.9
San Mateo County
Population 718,451 775,100 836,100 904,400 185,949 25.9%
Households 257,837 277,200 296,280 315,100 57,263 22.2%
Jobs 345,190 407,550 421,500 445,070 99,880 28.9%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4
Bay Area
Population 7,150,739 7,786,800 8,496,800 9,299,100 2,148,361 30.0%
Households 2,608,023 2,837,680 3,072,920 3,308,090 700,067 26.8%
Jobs 3,385,300 3,987,150 4,196,580 4,505,230 1,119,930 33.1%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4
Source: ABAG Projections, 2013.
3.4 Housing Characteristics
HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS
The last comprehensive survey of the condition of the City’s housing stock was completed in the
1990s. While much has changed since this time, the general findings of this survey, presented
below, are still considered to be generally applicable. At the time of this survey, Irish Town,
located north of the downtown commercial area, had by far the greatest percentage of structures
Housing Needs Assessment
19
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.
Table 3.4-1: Housing Conditions by Neighborhood
Structures
Surveyed
Housing Condition
Neighborhood Good Fair Poor
Avalon/Brentwood 198 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
Buri-Buri/Serra Highlands 193 93.0% 7.0% 0.0%
Grand Avenue Area 103 88.4% 11.6% 4.8%
Irish Town 277 73.3% 26.7% 10.1%
Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace 119 82.4% 17.6% 0.0%
Paradise Valley 166 88.6% 10.8% 0.6%
Parkway 119 98.3% 1.7% 0.0%
Peck's Lots 77 83.1% 13.0% 3.9%
Southwood 78 93.6% 6.4% 0.0%
Sunshine Gardens 136 91.2% 8.8% 0.0%
Town of Baden 85 84.7% 14.1% 1.2%
Westborough 155 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
Winston Manor 156 93.6% 6.4% 0.0%
Total 1,862 87.3% 10.7% 2.0%
Source: Economic and Community Development Department Windshield Survey, May 1990.
To supplement this first-hand survey data, the following section presents data gathered from the
2008-2012 American Community Survey regarding the condition of the City’s housing stock.
The age of South San Francisco’s housing stock is similar to that of San Mateo County. As shown
in Table 3.4-2 the largest proportion of homes (27 percent) was built between 1950 and 1959 in
South San Francisco. According to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey, nearly half (45
percent) of the City’s housing stock was built before 1960, indicating a relatively old housing
inventory. Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can create health, safety, and welfare
problems for occupants. Even with normal maintenance, dwellings over 40 years of age can
deteriorate, requiring significant rehabilitation.
Despite the presence of older homes in South San Francisco, virtually all housing units contain
complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. As shown in Table 3.4-2, less than one percent of homes
lack these facilities.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
20
Table 3.4-2: Housing Structures, Year Built
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Year Built Number Percent Number Percent
1939 or earlier 1,659 7.4% 24,412 9.0%
1940 to 1949 2,403 10.8% 30,815 11.4%
1950 to 1959 6,080 27.2% 65,210 24.1%
1960 to 1969 3,519 15.8% 46,746 17.3%
1970 to 1979 3,774 16.9% 47,152 17.4%
1980 to 1989 1,554 7.0% 25,762 9.5%
1990 to 1999 1,525 6.8% 16,273 6.0%
2000 to 2009 1,790 8.0% 13,672 5.1%
2010 or later 22 0.1% 625 0.2%
Total: 22,326 100.0% 270,667 100.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Table 3.4-3: Housing Conditions, 2012
Facility Number Percent
Plumbing Facilities
Owners
Complete plumbing facilities 12,647 99.6%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 50 0.4%
Total Owners 12,697 100.0%
Renters
Complete plumbing facilities 8,635 100.0%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 104 0.0%
Total Renters 8,739 100.0%
Kitchen Facilities
Owners
Complete plumbing facilities 12,625 99.4%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 72 0.6%
Total Owners 12,697 100.0%
Renters
Complete plumbing facilities 8,525 97.6%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 214 2.4%
Total Renters 8,739 100.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE
As shown in Table 3.4-4, a majority of housing units in South San Francisco are single-family
detached homes; 60 percent of homes were single-family detached dwelling units in 2013. Both
South San Francisco and San Mateo County maintained a constant share of single-family
Housing Needs Assessment
21
detached units since 2000, when the City and County’s shares made up 59 and 58 percent of the
overall housing stock, respectively. Large multifamily housing units (defined as units in structures
containing five or more dwellings) represent the second largest housing category in South San
Francisco and have experienced the most rapid growth between 2000 and 2013. The number of
large multifamily housing units grew by 17 percent while single-family detached dwellings grew
by 11 percent between 2000 and 2013. At 20 percent in 2013, however, South San Francisco still
has a smaller proportion of large multifamily housing units compared to San Mateo County,
where over a quarter (26 percent) of all housing was in large multifamily structures.
Single-family attached homes comprised the third largest housing category in South San
Francisco at 13 percent in 2012, a higher figure than San Mateo County, at 9 percent. The
remaining housing categories, small multifamily homes (defined as units in structures containing
2 to 4 dwellings) and mobile homes, represented relatively small proportions of South San
Francisco’s housing stock in 2013 and have experienced little or no growth since 2000.
Table 3.4-4: Housing Units By Type, 2000 to 2013
2000 2013 Percent Change
2000-2013
Number
of Units
Percent
of Total
Number of
Units
Percent of
Total
South San Francisco
Single Family Detached 11,815 59% 13,064 60% 11%
Single Family Attached 2,485 12% 2,798 13% 13%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 1,668 8% 1,336 6% -20%
Multifamily 5+ Units 3,761 19% 4,404 20% 17%
Mobile Home 409 2%331 2%-19%
Total 20,138 100% 21,933 100% 9%
San Mateo County
Single Family Detached 150,286 58% 155,475 57% 3%
Single Family Attached 22,702 9% 25,079 9% 10%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 18,252 7% 17,510 6% -4%
Multifamily 5+ Units 65,854 25% 71,247 26% 8%
Mobile Home 3,484 1%3,166 1%-9%
Total 260,578 100% 272,477 100% 5%
Bay Area
Single Family Detached 1,376,861 54% 1,505,153 54% 9%
Single Family Attached 224,824 9% 258,633 9% 15%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 266,320 10% 278,450 10% 5%
Multifamily 5+ Units 623,388 24% 705,899 25% 13%
Mobile Home 61,011 2%59,673 2%-2%
Total 2,552,404 100% 2,807,808 100% 10%
Source: California Department of Finance, 2014.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
22
Building Permit Trends
Building permit trends in South San Francisco support the evident growth in multifamily units
experienced between 2000 and 2012. Since 2002, large multifamily units have made up the
majority of new development. Since 2002, South San Francisco issued 857 building permits for
these larger complexes, while only 279 permits were issued for new single family development,
leading to a relatively small increase in the city’s single-family housing stock (see Table 3.4-5).
Table 3.4-5: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 2002 to 2012
Building Type 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Single Family 71 126 18 6 30 12 3 0 10 0 3 279
2 Units 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9
3 & 4 Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 or More Units 0 1 360 96 192 99 0 0 0 109 0 857
Total 71 130 380 102 222 111 5 2 10 109 3 1,145
Notes:
Includes only reported building permits. U.S. Bureau of the Census provides construction statistics by permit-issuing
place and by county on new privately-owned residential housing units authorized by building permits. Data updated
monthly.
Source: U.S. Census, Building Permit Estimate 2012.
OVERCROWDING
Overcrowding refers to a household with an average of 1.01 or more persons per room, with those
rooms including all rooms in a house except bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and closets. Units
with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered to be severely overcrowded. As shown in
Table 3.4-6, South San Francisco households were as likely to be overcrowded as San Mateo
County households in 2012. Of all households in South San Francisco, 7 percent of households
were overcrowded or severely overcrowded, equal to San Mateo County with 7 percent.
Overcrowding was more common in South San Francisco’s renter-occupied households, with 10
percent overcrowded, while only 5 percent of owner-occupied households in South San Francisco
were overcrowded.
Housing Needs Assessment
23
Table 3.4-6: Overcrowded Households, 2012
Owners Renters Total
Persons Per Room Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent
South San Francisco
2.01 or more 10 0% 35 0% 45 0%
1.51 to 2.00 86 1% 259 3% 345 2%
1.01 to 1.50 496 4% 575 7% 1,071 5%
1.00 or less 12,105 95%7,870 90%19,975 93%
Total 12,697 100% 8,739 100% 21,436 100%
Percent Overcrowded
by Tenure 5% 10% 7%
San Mateo County
2.01 or more 359 0% 1,435 1% 1,794 1%
1.51 to 2.00 748 0% 4,217 4% 4,965 2%
1.01 to 1.50 3,923 3% 7,978 8% 11,901 5%
1.00 or less 148,626 97%90,083 87%238,709 93%
Total 153,656 100% 103,713 100% 257,369 100%
Percent Overcrowded
by Tenure 3% 13% 7%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE UNITS
As presented in Table 3.4-7, the City of South San Francisco is home to 994 deed-restricted
affordable housing units, including 650 family units and 344 senior units. South San Francisco
contributed $9,989,000 towards the construction of 108 new affordable units at 636 El Camino
Real by MidPen Housing. In addition, the City leases the land, valued at $4.5M, for $1.00 per year
to MidPen. The project was completed in 2012 and is now fully occupied.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
24
Table 3.4-7: Inventory of Deed-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2014
Name of Development Location
Number of
Affordable Units
Family
206 Grand Ave 206 Grand Ave 6
260 Hillside Blvd 260 Hillside Blvd 1
310-314 Miller Ave 310-314 Miller Ave 8
317-321 Commercial Ave 317-321 Commercial Ave 15
339-341 Commercial Ave 339-341 Commercial Ave 4
440 Commercial Ave 440 Commercial Ave 4
636 El Camino Real 636 El Camino Real 108
714 Linden Ave 714, 716, 718 Linden Ave 3
90 Oak Ave 90 Oak Ave 2
Archstone South (Solaire) 101 McLellan Dr 72
Fairway Apartments 77 Westborough Blvd 74
Grand Hotel 731 Airport Blvd 24
Grand Oaks 99 Oak Ave 43
Greenridge Housing 1565 El Camino Real 33
Metropolitan Hotel 220 Linden Ave 65
Oak Farms Oak and Grand Aves 5
Park Station 1488 El Camino Real 15
South City Lights Gellert & Westborough Blvds 41
SSF Housing Authority 350 C Street 80
Sundial Apartments 215 4th Ln 11
Willow Gardens Willow Gardens 36
Senior Housing
Chestnut Creek Senior Apartments 65 Chestnut Ave 40
Magnolia Plaza 630 Baden Ave 125
Rotary Plaza 433 Alida Way 179
Total Affordable Housing Units 994
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION DURING NEXT TEN YEARS
The California Housing Partnership Corporation identifies one affordable housing development
in South San Francisco at “very high” risk for conversion to market rate housing during the next
10 years. The Fairway Apartments, located at 77 Westborough Boulevard, contains 74 nonelderly
units and is a development that is owned by a private, for-profit entity and was financed using
Section 221(d)(4) funds with Project-Based Section 8; its affordability restrictions were set to
expire in December 2014. Since the time that the California Housing Partnership Corporation
Housing Needs Assessment
25
was contacted, the affordability restrictions on the Fairway Apartments were extended for another
five years; however, this leaves the development still at risk of conversion within the next 10 years.
Given the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the City's ability to acquire such at risk units
is hampered. Options for retaining these affordable housing resources in the community include
preserving the units by working with nonprofit and other public agencies, or replacing them. An
analysis of options to preserve affordable housing resources is as follows.
Preserving Affordability
In Project-Based Section 8 properties, such as the Fairway Apartments, the owner of the building
receives rent from each unit equal to the HUD-established Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the area.3
Where the FMR is less than actual market rents, the owner realizes less income from the property
than he or she would without affordability restrictions. Hence, in order to incentivize a property
owner to continue to contract out his or her buildings as a Project-Based Section 8 property once
mortgage restrictions expire, an ongoing subsidy is required to make up for the gap between FMR
and actual market rent. As shown in Table 3.4-8, there is a gap of approximately $504 per unit per
month between FMR and actual market rent in South San Francisco. Hence, for a 74-unit
development, the average monthly gap is $37,300. If the property owner were willing to enter into
a rental subsidy agreement with the City or some other entity that would subsidize the rents on
behalf of the lower-income renters, this would require an ongoing annual payment of
approximately $448,000. Currently there is no funding available for the City to implement a rental
subsidy program. In previous years (and in the most recent renewal), HUD worked with the
owner of the Fairway Apartments to extend the affordability period. Another option would be for
the City to work with a nonprofit housing provider to negotiate the purchase of the building;
however, the City acknowledges that this option is unlikely given the lack of available funding
sources required for the acquisition.
Replacing Affordable Units
As an alternative to providing ongoing monthly rent subsidies, the City or another entity could
attempt to purchase or develop replacement housing units that could be rented to the displaced
lower-income households at similar rents. In order to make this possible, it would be necessary to
provide a subsidy for the purchase or construction of the replacement units that would be the
equivalent of $448,000 per year in current dollars. The initial investment in existing or new
housing units that would be necessary to allow a $448,000 reduction in annual rent can be
estimated by calculating the net present value of mortgage payments equal to $37,300 per month,
on the theory that if the owner (e.g., a non-profit housing organization) can reduce its required
mortgage payments by $37,300 per month, it could then reduce the rents that it needs to charge
3 FMRs are defined by HUD as the 40th percentile rent drawn from the distribution of rents of all units occupied by
recent movers.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
26
its tenants by a similar amount. Hence, as shown in Table 3.4-8, based on a 30-year mortgage
term at 7.5 percent interest rate, it would take an initial investment of approximately $5.3 million
to reduce the monthly debt service by $37,300 per month.
This analysis likely understates the true cost of preserving or replacing the units, as it would be
quite difficult to assemble an appropriate combination of subsidies to acquire the property or
develop a similar project with the same mix of unit sizes and affordability levels.
Table 3.4-8: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis
# Units FMR1 Market Rent2 Per Unit Gap3 Total Gap4
74 $1,956 $2,460 $504 $37,296
Annual Preservation Cost5 $447,552
Total Replacement Cost6 $5,285,762
Notes:
1. 2014 Fair Market Rent for 2-bedroom apartment in San Mateo County established by HUD.
2. Prevailing market rent for 2-bedroom apartment in South San Francisco per RealFacts.
3. Difference between FMR and market rent per unit.
4. Total difference between FMR and market rent if all units were rented at market rents.
5. Annual rent subsidy needed to preserve current affordability levels in current 2009 dollars, equals
total monthly gap multiplied by 12.
6. Net present value of the annual rent subsidy based on a 30-year mortgage at an interest rate of 7.5
percent.
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014; RealFacts, 2014;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2014.
Financial Resources Available to the City to Assist in Preservation
Clearly, the costs are substantial to preserve or replace housing units that currently rent below
market rates, yet the City has access to a range of different funds that could potentially assist in a
preservation effort, including the following:
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
State Grant Programs, such as the Affordable Housing Innovation Program and the
Transit Oriented Development Housing Program
Federal Grant Programs (Section 202 funds only- Supportive Housing for the Elderly)
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
HUD Section 8 “Mark to Market” Program
Where affordable units are at risk of conversion to market rate, it is the City’s policy to work to
preserve them, if possible. However, with the dissolution of the City’s Redevelopment Agency, the
City is no longer able to acquire such at-risk units. Some properties are less at risk of conversion
than others in the City; for example, the owner of the Rotary Plaza property has a motivation to
keep the units affordable. Therefore, the City has focused its efforts on working with county and
Housing Needs Assessment
27
federal agencies to secure housing vouchers for tenants in properties at higher risk of conversion
to subsidize keeping them in place or to assist with relocation.
To monitor the status of affordable housing properties and advocate for tenants, South San
Francisco Economic Development and Housing staff has met with Congresswoman Jackie Speier;
Ophelia Basgal, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Regional
Administrator; and William Lowell, the Executive Director of the San Mateo County Housing
Authority. Key potential partners in this effort include HUD as well as a range of affordable
housing developers and property managers who have expressed an interest in working with local
communities on preservation of affordable housing projects, including such well-known
affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., EAH, Inc., BRIDGE Housing Corporation,
the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and Eden Housing. Numerous other organizations
working to preserve affordable housing units are listed in a database maintained by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development.
3.5 Market Conditions
This section of the Needs Assessment provides information on market conditions for housing in
South San Francisco and San Mateo County. This information is important because it reveals the
extent to which the private housing market is providing for the needs of various economic
segments of the local population. The information on housing market condition is combined with
local demographic and employment information to identify those segments of the population that
face difficulties in securing housing in South San Francisco at costs that do not place them under
excessive housing cost burden.
RENTAL MARKET OVERVIEW
A review of rental market trends in South San Francisco was conducted for this Housing Element
by reviewing data from RealFacts, a commercial database service that tracks rental apartment
occupancy statistics and rents within South San Francisco and other California cities. Data from
RealFacts focuses on large, professionally-managed apartment complexes with 50 units or more,
which accounts for approximately 11 percent of the total rental market in South San Francisco.
There are approximately 7,500 renter-occupied housing units in the City. As shown in Table 3.5-
1, RealFacts reports rents for studio units in South San Francisco averaging $1,279 per month;
one-bedroom, one-bath units averaging $2,293 per month; two-bedroom, two-bath units
averaging $3,076 per month; and three-bedroom townhouses averaging $2,695 per month. Asking
rents fluctuate frequently; therefore, the data presented here represent one point in time that may
or may not be indicative of long-term trends. Typically, three-bedroom units rent at higher rates
than two-bedroom units; however, the fact that two-bedroom units are renting at higher prices
than three-bedroom units in South San Francisco at the point in time at which the data were
collected may reflect lower inventory of two-bedroom units and/or lower quality housing stock of
three-bedroom units.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
28
Table 3.5-1: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes,
South San Francisco
Current Market Data, 4Q 2013
Unit Type Number Percent of Mix Avg. Sq. Ft Avg. Rent ($)
Avg. Rent/
Sq. Ft.
Studio 55 6.50%400 $1,279 $3.20
1 BR/1 BA 327 38.50%798 $2,293 $2.87
1 BR Townhouse 10 1.20%1,112 $3,102 $2.79
2 BR/1BA 90 10.60%798 $2,142 $2.68
2 BR/1.5 BA 12 1.40%920 $1,650 $1.79
2 BR/2 BA 188 22.10%1,134 $3,076 $2.71
2 BR Townhouse 144 16.90%950 $1,916 $2.02
3 BR Townhouse 24 2.80%1,200 $2,695 $2.25
Totals 850 100%889 $2,332 $2.62
Average Rent History
Unit Type 4Q 2011 4Q 2012
2011-2012
% Change 4Q 2013
2011-2013
% Change
Studio $1,175 $1,176 0%$1,279 9%
1 BR/1 BA $1,869 $2,328 25%$2,293 23%
2 BR/1BA $1,959 $1,967 0%$2,142 9%
2 BR/2 BA $2,529 $3,025 20%$3,076 22%
2 BR Townhouse $1,896 $1,863 -2%$1,916 1%
3 BR Townhouse $2,595 $2,495 -4%$2,695 4%
Average Annual
Rent $2,013 $2,296 14%$2,332 16%
Occupancy Rate
Year
Average
Occupancy Rate
2009 91.70%
2010 94.40%
2011 96.60%
2012 95.80%
2013 97.60%
4Q 2013 97.50%
Source: RealFacts, Inc., 2013.
Consistent with trends elsewhere in the Peninsula and in San Francisco, RealFacts reports that
rental rates rose sharply between 2011 and 2013. Overall rents increased 16 percent between the
fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2013. One-bedroom, one-bathroom units
registered a particularly steep increase during this period, with monthly rents jumping from
$1,869 to $2,293, a 23 percent increase. RealFacts reported a relatively low vacancy rate of
approximately 2.5 percent among large apartment complexes in the City in 2013, a marked
Housing Needs Assessment
29
decrease compared to 2009 when the vacancy rate was 8.3 percent, indicating that demand
continues to outpace supply.
As RealFacts focuses on large apartment complexes, Dyett & Bhatia also reviewed online listings
for all rental units posted to Craigslist during April of 2014. These data show average asking rates
that are substantially lower than for just the subset of large, professionally-managed complexes.
Among all units listed for rent in the City during this period, average asking rents were $1,674 per
month for one-bedroom units, $2,226 for two-bedroom units, $3,173 for three-bedroom units,
and $3,470 for four-bedroom units.
Table 3.5-2: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco
Unit Type Number Percent of Mix Avg. Asking Rent
Studio 5 10% $1,161
1 Bedroom 6 13% $1,674
2 Bedroom 16 33% $2,226
3 Bedroom 16 33% $3,173
4 Bedroom 5 10% $3,470
Total 48 100% $2,491
Source: Craigslist Apartment Listings, April 2014.
OWNERSHIP MARKET OVERVIEW
A review of for-sale housing market conditions in South San Francisco was also conducted for
this Housing Element by reviewing data from Data Quick, a commercial database service that
tracks sales statistics in South San Francisco and other California cities. As shown in Table 3.5-3,
the median sale price of a single-family home was $625,000 as of 2013. This was off substantially
from a peak of $745,000 in 2006, but nonetheless represents a more than doubling of price since
1990. For condominiums, the median sale price stood at $414,500 in 2013, down from a high of
$555,000 in 2006, but still more than double the price in 1990.
Examining the for-sale residential market as a whole, including condominiums and single-family
homes, Data Quick reported a median home sale price of $580,000 in South San Francisco during
2013, well below the countywide median of $738,250.4
Consistent with the recent drop in prices has been a notable decline in sales. During 2013, only
406 homes sold in South San Francisco, one of the lowest levels in approximately 20 years.
Similarly, with only 124 sold during 2013, condominium sales volumes were also near a 20-year
low.
4 Source: California Home Sale Activity by City Recorded in the Year 2013, DQnews.com.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
30
As described in the following section, while sale prices have dropped from their 2006 peak, they
nonetheless have escalated much faster than wages across the past 20 years, meaning that finding
affordable housing remains a pressing challenge for many South San Francisco households.
Table 3.5-3: Units Sold and Median Price, South San
Francisco, 1990-2013
Condos Single Family Homes
Year # Units Sold Median Price # Units Sold Median Price
1990 154 $185,500 465 $262,500
1991 111 $181,000 438 $250,000
1992 104 $175,000 422 $237,500
1993 63 $165,750 409 $230,000
1994 89 $158,500 444 $232,500
1995 96 $169,000 402 $233,000
1996 101 $155,000 458 $230,000
1997 171 $171,000 660 $260,000
1998 145 $185,500 838 $302,850
1999 189 $225,000 815 $354,750
2000 136 $285,000 734 $445,000
2001 132 $339,000 542 $450,000
2002 179 $349,000 730 $485,000
2003 182 $370,000 805 $535,000
2004 197 $415,000 815 $630,000
2005 194 $535,000 618 $723,500
2006 163 $555,000 513 $745,000
2007 78 $495,000 329 $713,500
2008 140 $390,000 334 $555,000
2009 282 $350,000 418 $515,000
2010 139 $344,000 372 $510,000
2011 108 $300,000 375 $480,000
2012 159 $300,000 471 $490,000
2013 124 $414,500 406 $625,000
Source: Dataquick, DQNews.com, 2014.
3.6 Housing Affordability
According to the federal government, housing is considered “affordable” if it costs no more than
30 percent of the household’s gross income. Often, affordable housing is discussed in the context
of affordability to households with different income levels. Households are categorized as very
low income, low income, moderate income, or above moderate income based on percentages of
the Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by the California Department of Housing
Housing Needs Assessment
31
and Community Development (HCD). Income limits vary by household size. Table 3.6-1
provides the maximum income limits for households ranging from one to four people in size in
San Mateo County in 2014. Very low- and low-income households are eligible for federal, State,
and local affordable housing programs. Moderate-income households are eligible for some State
and local housing programs. These income categories are also used by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Table 3.6-1: Household Income Limits - San Mateo County, 2014
Number of Persons per Household:
Income Category Definition 1 2 3 4
Extremely Low 0% to 30% $23,750 $27,150 $30,550 $33,950
Very Low 31% to 50% $39,600 $45,250 $50,900 $56,550
Low 51% to 80% $63,350 $72,400 $81,450 $90,500
Median 81% to 100% $72,100 $82,400 $92,700 $103,000
Moderate 101% to 120% $86,500 $98,900 $111,250 $123,600
Source: "Memorandum: Official State Income Limits for 2014." California Department of Housing
and Community Development, February 28, 2014.
INCOMES BY OCCUPATION
As a way to illustrate the types of jobs available in South San Francisco and the typical wage paid
by each, Table 3.6-2 presents average wages for the top 20 occupations for the Census
Metropolitan Division comprised of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties. As shown,
the top 20 occupations include a range of well-paid jobs in the fields of law, management,
engineering, health, and business as well as lower-paid jobs as security guards, clerks, cashiers,
and janitors.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
32
Table 3.6-2: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2013
Top 20 Occupations Average Annual Wage
Lawyers $176,820
General and Operations Managers $150,364
Computer Software Engineers, Applications $114,211
Registered Nurses $112,137
Market Research Analysts $89,492
Business Operations Specialists, All Other $87,487
Accountants and Auditors $86,642
Sales Representatives, Services, All Other $82,994
First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Office and Administrative Support Workers $67,160
Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants $66,281
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $49,710
Secretaries, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $44,579
Customer Service Representatives $43,632
Office Clerks, General $36,475
Security Guards $32,354
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $28,955
Retail Salespersons $28,427
Cashiers $26,906
Waiters and Waitresses $25,009
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food $23,880
Source: BLS Occupation Employment Statistics Survey, 2013.
Housing Needs Assessment
33
Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2014
Notes:
Above figure is based on a figure presented in The Face of Inclusionary Housing, a report prepared by the Nonprofit
Housing Association of Northern California.
Wages are the average wage per occupation in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties as of August 2008.
Social Security income is based on the national average retiree benefit as of August 2008.
Sources: NPH, 2007; California EDD and BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2008; Social Security Administration,
2008; BAE, 2008.
Based on these wage data, Figure 1 shows representative households, with hypothetical jobs and
family compositions.
AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING
Households earning the 2012 median income for South San Francisco ($73,568) could afford to
spend up to $22,070 a year, or $1,839 per month, on housing without being considered
“overpaying.” For renters, this is a straightforward calculation, but home ownership costs are less
transparent. A household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is 2.5 to 3.0 times the
annual income of that household, depending on the down payment, the level of other long-term
obligations (such as a car loan), and interest rates. In practice, the interaction of these factors
allows some households to qualify for homes priced at more than three times their annual
income, while other households may be limited to purchasing homes no more than two times
Moderate-Income Family Profile:
Dad works as a carpenter, mom works
as a bookkeeping clerk; they have two children.
Estimated annual income: $104,000
Low-Income Family Profile:
Dad works as an security guard, mom works
as a customer service representative; they have one child.
Estimated annual income: $71,000
Very-Low-Income Family Profile:
Mom works as a retail sales person and is the only source
of financial support in her family; she has one child.
Estimated annual income: $29,000
Extremely-Low-Income Family Profile:
A grandparent living alone on Social Security.
Estimated annual income: $13,000
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
34
their annual incomes. Table 3.6-3 below calculates the estimated maximum affordable purchase
price by household income category.
Table 3.6-3: Maximum Funds Available for Housing, by Income Category
Household Income Category
Annual
Income1
Maximum
Affordable Rent2
Maximum Affordable
Purchase Price3
30 percent of county median $33,950 $849 $138,822
50 percent of county median $56,550 $1,414 $231,233
80 percent of county median $90,500 $2,263 $347,655
100 percent of county median $103,000 $2,575 $370,055
120 percent of county median $123,600 $3,090 $505,402
Notes:
1. HCD's 2014 Limits. Assumes a four-person household.
2. Assumes 30 percent of income available for housing cost.
3. Assumes interest rate of 30-year fixed rate loan, 4.5%, interest rate, down payment of 50%
of yearly salary, 1% property tax, and 5% insurance rate.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013; 21 Elements, 2014.
As noted earlier, the median purchase price of a home in South San Francisco was $580,000 in
2013. This purchase price is too high for all but the highest of household income categories listed
in Table 3.6-1 to afford. Indeed, households must have an income that is more than 120 percent
of the county median ($123,600) to afford the median home price. This is consistent with the fact
that over 45 percent of renters in South San Francisco spend more than 30 percent of their
income on housing (see Table 3.6-4).
OVERPAYMENT
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes that a household is
“cost-burdened” (i.e., overpaying for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income
on housing-related costs. A “severe housing cost burden” occurs when a household pays more
than 50 percent of its income on housing costs. The prevalence of overpayment varies
significantly by income, tenure, household type, and household size. The Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provides detailed information in this regard for
different types of households.
In general, overpayment disproportionately affects lower-income households. Table 3.6-4 shows
the relationship between low-income households and the varying degrees of cost burden. The
data show that renter households are much more likely to be overpaying than owners. The 2006-
2010 American Community Survey provides the most recent data on overpayment by tenure for
South San Francisco. According to these data, 61 percent of extremely low-income, 44 percent of
very low-income, and 57 percent of low-income homeowners were cost-burdened. At the same
time, 84 percent of extremely low-income, 72 percent of very low-income, and 42 percent of low-
income renter households were cost burdened.
Housing Needs Assessment
35
Table 3.6-4: Housing Need by Income Level, 2010
Total Renters Total Owners Total Households
Extremely Low 1730 940 2,670
% with any housing problems 1,295 75% 475 51% 1,770 66%
% Cost Burden 30-49% 195 11% 130 14% 325 12%
% Cost Burden >50% 1,255 73% 445 47% 1,700 64%
Very Low 1,425 1,255 2,680
% with any housing problems 670 47% 470 37% 1,140 43%
% Cost Burden 30-49% 430 30%95 8% 525 20%
% Cost Burden >50% 600 42% 455 36% 1,055 39%
Low 2,100 2,680 4,780
% with any housing problems 425 20% 850 32% 1,275 27%
% Cost Burden 30-49% 820 39% 760 28% 1,580 33%
% Cost Burden >50% 60 3% 755 28% 815 17%
Moderate and Above Moderate 2,905 7,790 10,695
% with any housing problems 280 9.6% 940 12.1% 1,220 11.4%
% Cost Burden 30-49% 310 10.7% 1,620 20.8% 1,930 18.0%
% Cost Burden >50% 0 0.0% 625 8.0% 625 5.8%
Source: 2006-2010 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, May 2013.
3.7 Projected Housing Needs
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of
government (in this case, ABAG), and local governments must collectively determine each
locality's share of regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing
Element update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their Housing Elements by
January 31, 2015, ABAG allocated housing unit production needs for each county within the Bay
Area and, with the exception of San Mateo County, also allocated housing unit production need
to the city level. These allocations set housing production goals for the RHNA projection period
that runs from January 1, 2014 through October 31, 2022.
In the case of San Mateo County, the county formed a subregion in partnership with all twenty
cities in its jurisdiction for the purposes of conducting the RHNA, as allowed by State law. The
San Mateo subregion designated the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the
entity responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. Their
process paralleled, but was separate from, the Bay Area’s RHNA process. San Mateo County
created its own methodology, issued draft allocations, and handled the revision and appeal
processes. They also issued final allocations to members of the subregion. Although the subregion
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
36
worked independently of the regional RHNA process, the final allocation methodology was
ultimately similar to ABAG’s methodology.
Shown below in Table 3.7-1, the countywide RHNA process determined a need for 1,864 housing
units in South San Francisco between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2022. This need is divided
among various income categories with 15 percent of the need identified for extremely low-income
households, 15 percent for very low-income households, 15 percent for low-income households,
17 percent for moderate-income households, and the remaining 38 percent for above moderate-
income households.
Table 3.7-1: Projected Housing Need by Income
Income Category Projected Need Percent of Total
Extremely Low (less than 30% AMI) 282 15%
Very Low (30-49% AMI) 283 15%
Low (50-79% AMI) 281 15%
Moderate (80-120% AMI) 313 17%
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI) 705 38%
Total Units 1,864 100%
Source: ABAG, 2013.
3.8 Special Housing Needs
This section of the needs assessment profiles populations with special housing needs, including
large families, single parent families, extremely low income households, persons with disabilities,
elderly households, farm workers, and homeless persons and families. The end of the section
addresses resources available to address special housing needs in South San Francisco.
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
In 2012, South San Francisco contained a greater proportion of large households (defined as five
or more persons) than San Mateo County as a whole. As shown in Table 3.8-1, 15.4 percent of
South San Francisco’s households contained five or more persons in 2012, versus San Mateo
County’s 11.8 percent. Large households were equally common among owners and renters in
South San Francisco, with 15.4 percent of homeowner households and 15.3 percent of renter
households having five or more persons.
Housing Needs Assessment
37
Table 3.8-1: Household Size by Tenure, 2012
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
South San Francisco
1-4 persons 10,742 84.6% 7,403 84.7% 18,145 84.6%
5+ Persons 1,955 15.4% 1,336 15.3% 3,291 15.4%
Total 12,697 100.0% 8,739 100.0% 21,436 100.0%
San Mateo County
1-4 persons 135,794 88.4% 91,295 88.0% 227,089 88.2%
5+ Persons 17,862 11.6% 12,418 12.0% 30,280 11.8%
Total 153,656 100.0% 103,713 100.0% 257,369 100.0%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
While the prevalence of large households was relatively similar between renters and owners, as
shown in Table 3.8-2, renters were much less likely to live in housing units with four or more
bedrooms. Only 4 percent of South San Francisco renter households lived in units with four or
more bedrooms, despite the fact that 15 percent of renter households had five or more members.
By comparison, 23 percent of owner households lived in units with four or more bedrooms, while
15 percent of owner households had five or more members. Overall, these data point to the need
for additional rental housing opportunities for large households in South San Francisco.
Table 3.8-2: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2012
Owner Households Renter Households Total Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
South San Francisco
Studio 68 1% 443 5% 511 2%
1 bedroom 612 5% 2,499 29% 3,111 15%
2 bedrooms 1,880 15% 3,590 41% 5,470 26%
3 bedrooms 6,549 52% 1,793 21% 8,342 39%
4 bedrooms 2,863 23% 333 4% 3,196 15%
5 or more bedrooms 725 6% 81 1% 806 4%
Total 12,697 100% 8,739 100% 21,436 100%
San Mateo County
Studio 921 1% 7,735 7% 8,656 3%
1 bedroom 5,747 4% 35,292 34% 41,039 16%
2 bedrooms 28,846 19% 38,549 37% 67,395 26%
3 bedrooms 70,019 46% 16,620 16% 86,639 34%
4 bedrooms 37,332 24% 4,290 4% 41,622 16%
5 or more bedrooms 10,791 7% 1,227 1% 12,018 5%
Total 153,656 100% 103,713 100% 257,369 100%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
38
FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Single female-headed households with children tend to have a higher need for affordable housing
than family households in general. Single female-headed households with children often need
larger houses than other populations who need affordable housing, such as the elderly. In
addition, such households are more likely to need childcare since the mother is often the sole
source of income and the sole caregiver for children within the household.
Table 3.8-3 shows that in 2012, there were 1,177 single female households with children in South
San Francisco. As a proportion of all families, such households represented 5 percent of all
households in South San Francisco and 8 percent of family households.
San Mateo County contained a similar proportion of female-headed households, totaling 12,004
households in 2012, or 5 percent of all households present in the county. In addition, both South
San Francisco and San Mateo County contained a significantly smaller proportion of male
households with children; this household type made up 2 percent of both the city and the county.
At the city level, there were 265 single female-headed households with children living in poverty
in South San Francisco in 2012.
Table 3.8-3: Family Characteristics, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Number Percent Number Percent
1-Person Household: 4,757 22%65,999 26%
Male-Headed Household 2,240 10% 28,435 11%
Female-Headed Household 2,517 12% 37,564 15%
2 or More Person Household: 16,679 78%191,370 74%
Family Households 15,423 72% 173,782 68%
Married-couple family 11,857 55% 135,302 53%
With own children under 18 years 5,656 26% 62,702 24%
Other Family: 3,566 17% 38,480 15%
Male-headed household, no wife present 1,038 5% 12,316 5%
With own children under 18 years 334 2% 4,648 2%
Female-headed household, no husband present 2,528 12% 26,164 10%
With own children under 18 years 1,177 5% 12,004 5%
Non-Family Households 1,256 6% 17,588 7%
Male-Headed Household 710 3% 8,915 3%
Female-Headed Household 546 3% 8,673 3%
Total Households 21,436 100% 257,369 100%
Total Households Under Poverty Level 735 100% 8,509 100%
Female-Headed Households Under Poverty Level 265 36% 3,758 44%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Housing Needs Assessment
39
EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Extremely low income households are defined as households earning less than 30 percent of area
median income (AMI). These households may require specific housing solutions such as deeper
income targeting for subsidies, housing with supportive services, single-room occupancy units, or
rent subsidies or vouchers.
In 2010, 2,675 South San Francisco households earned less than 30 percent of AMI. Extremely
low-income (ELI) households represented 21 percent of all renter households and 7 percent of all
owner households in the City. A majority of extremely low-income households were severely
overpaying for housing; 72 percent of renters and 47 percent of homeowners paid more than 50
percent of their gross income on housing.
Table 3.8-4: Housing Needs of Extremely Low-Income Households,
South San Francisco, 2010
Renters Owners Total
Total Number of ELI Households 1,735 940 2,675
Percent with Any Housing Problems 86% 65% 79%
Percent with Cost Burden (30% to 49% of Income) 11% 14% 12%
Percent with Cost Burden (>50% of income) 72% 47% 64%
Total Number of Households 8,160 12,670 20,830
Percent ELI Households 21% 7% 13%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Special Tabulations from 2006-2010
American Community Survey.
SENIORS
Generally, senior households tend to have higher rates of homeownership than other households,
but also tend to earn less and in many instances face a significant housing cost burden.5 Shown in
Table 3.8-5, 77 percent of senior-headed households in South San Francisco owned their own
home, compared to 54 percent of younger households.
5 Refers to a household whose householder identified him/herself to the US Census Bureau as being 65 or older.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
40
Table 3.8-5: Households by Age and Tenure, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Number Percent Number Percent
Householder 15-64 years
Owner 8,973 54.0% 109,578 54.3%
Renter 7,654 46.0% 92,172 45.7%
Total 16,627 100.0% 201,750 100.0%
Householder 65 years and over
Owner 3,724 77.4% 44,078 79.2%
Renter 1,085 22.6% 11,541 20.8%
Total 4,809 100.0% 55,619 100.0%
Total Households 21,436 100.0% 257,369 100.0%
Percent Households 65 plus years 22.4% 21.6%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Table 3.8-6: Household Income of Elderly Households,
South San Francisco, 2010
Number Percent
Elderly Renter Households
30% MFI or Less 695 45%
30% to 50% MFI 375 24%
50% to 80% MFI 295 19%
80% MFI or Greater 183 12%
Total 1,548 100%
Elderly Owner Households
30% MFI or Less 690 13%
30% to 50% MFI 935 17%
50% to 80% MFI 1,290 24%
80% MFI or Greater 2,465 46%
Total 5,380 100%
Total Elderly Households
30% MFI or Less 1,385 20%
30% to 50% MFI 1,310 19%
50% to 80% MFI 1,585 23%
80% MFI or Greater 2,648 38%
Total 6,928 100%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). Special Tabulations
from 2006-2010 American Community Survey.
Housing Needs Assessment
41
Among elderly households, most earn well below the county Median Family Income (MFI).
Shown in Table 3.8-6, only 12 percent of elderly renter households and 46 percent of elderly
owner households earn 80 percent of MFI or more. 6
For elderly residents, homeownership provides some level of security against increasing housing
costs. Shown in Table 3.8-7, approximately 28 percent of elderly homeowners paid 30 percent or
more of their income toward housing costs. This compares to 39 percent of homeowners in South
San Francisco overall. While elderly homeowners are less likely than younger homeowners to face
a cost burden, elderly renters are much more likely to overpay for housing. Overall, 52 percent of
elderly renter households paid 30 percent or more of their income toward housing, compared to
45 percent of renters citywide.
Table 3.8-7: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2010
Extremely Low Very Low Low
Moderate and
Above Moderate
All Elderly
Households
Elderly Renter Households 625 290 80 145 1,140
% with any housing problems 74% 53% 13% 0% 55%
% Cost Burden >30% 15% 17% 0% 0% 13%
% Cost Burden >50% 59% 26% 0% 0% 39%
Elderly Owner Households 675 830 930 1,290 3,725
% with any housing problems 56% 24% 38% 12% 29%
% Cost Burden >30% 19% 8% 19% 9% 13%
% Cost Burden >50% 33% 16% 18% 3% 15%
Total Elderly Households 1,300 1,120 1,010 1,435 4,865
% with any housing problems 65% 32% 36% 11% 35%
% Cost Burden >30% 17% 10% 18% 8% 13%
% Cost Burden >50% 45% 19% 17% 3% 21%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Special Tabulations from 2006-2010 American Community
Survey.
PERSONS WITH DISABILITY
Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding
employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. Based on the 2008-2012
American Community Survey, approximately 10 percent of South San Francisco residents were
affected by one or more disability, compared to 8 percent of people countywide.
6 As distinguished from a senior-headed households (age 65 or older), an “elderly household” as defined by HUD is a
household with one or more member who is 62 years of age or older.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
42
As shown in Table 3.8-8, among the adult population with a disability, there was a much higher
likelihood of not having a job than among the general population. This high rate of joblessness
remains a contributing factor affecting the ability to find affordable housing.7
Table 3.8-8: Persons with Disability by Age, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Population
with
Disability
Total
Population
Percent
with
Disability
Population
with
Disability
Total
Population
Percent
with
Disability
Age 5 to 17 371 10,359 3.6% 3,569 112,877 3.2%
Age 18 to 34 510 14,699 3.5% 4,523 154,474 2.9%
Age 34 to 64 2,139 26,096 8.2% 18,871 307,474 6.1%
Age 65 to 74 1,127 4,468 25.2% 8,656 50,337 17.2%
Age 75 and Over 1,915 4,037 47.4% 20,095 44,465 45.2%
Total Over Age 5 6,062 59,659 10.2% 55,714 669,627 8.3%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Table 3.8-9: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2012
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Number Percent Number Percent
Working Age Population with Disability1
Employed 1,121 44% 9,210 40%
Not Employed2 1,431 56% 13,532 60%
Total 2,552 100% 22,742 100%
Working Age Population with no Disability
Employed 28,753 78% 333,660 79%
Not Employed2 8,229 22% 90,215 21%
Total 36,982 100% 423,875 100%
Percent of Working Age
Population with Disability 6% 5%
Notes:
1. Working age population refers to persons age 20 to 64.
2. Not employed persons include persons not currently part of the active labor force (e.g.,
full-time students, stay-at-home parents, other people not currently seeking employment).
The unemployment rate is calculated based on the active labor force and would be a lower
number than presented above.
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
7 It should be noted that the percentage of people who are not employed is not the same as the unemployment rate. The
unemployment rate refers to the percentage of people actively seeking employment who are not currently employed.
Where people are not actively seeking employment (e.g., full-time students or persons unable to work due to a
disability), they are not considered to be part of the labor force and are not counted in the unemployment rate.
Housing Needs Assessment
43
Table 3.8-10 provides an inventory of the licensed community care facilities in South San
Francisco that serve some of the City’s special needs groups. Residential Care Facilities for the
Elderly (RCFE), also known as “assisted living” or “board and care” facilities, provide assistance
with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more independent than in
most nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities, also known as nursing homes, offer a higher level
of care, with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day. Adult residential facilities offer 24-hour
non-medical care for adults, ages 18 to 59 years old, who are unable to provide for their daily
needs due to physical or mental disabilities. Group homes, such as small residential facilities that
serve children or adults with chronic disabilities, provide 24-hour care by trained professionals.
Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012
Name Location Capacity
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly
Aegis Assisted Living of San Francisco 2280 Gellert Blvd 100
Alhambra Home 498 Alhambra Road 6
Alta Mesa Care Home 306 Alta Mesa Drive 6
Araville Residential Care Home 744 Palm Avenue 6
Araville Residential Care Home II 106 Sycamore Ave 6
Bautista Board and Care I 708 Circle Court 6
Bel Amor II 608 Theresa Drive 6
Bel Amor III 169 San Felipe Avenue 6
Bel Amor IV 648 Joaquin Drive 6
Chad Corner Assisted Living 2901 Shannon Drive 6
Chester's Home 2315 Tipperary Avenue 6
Damenik's Home 851 Baden Avenue 15
Delia's Retirement Home 52 Arlington Drive 6
Double Happiness Care Home 859 Camarita Circle 6
Elizabeth's Care Home 2530 Olympic Drive 6
Elizabeth's Care Home VII 2530 Wentworth Drive 6
Ellen's Board and Care 1242 Mission Road 5
Family Affair Care Home 264 Southcliff Avenue 6
Fook Hong Care Home 117 Arroyo Drive 6
Friendly Neighbors Residential Care 2675 Shannon Drive 6
Garrison Care Home 7 Hermosa Lane 6
Gentry Home 2725 Shannon Drive 6
Harrison Care Home 706 Palm Avenue 6
Heirloom Gardens 2305 Tipperary Avenue 6
House of Love Care Home 675 Shannon Drive 6
JBA Residential Care Home 2585 Ardee Lane 6
Lilies Care Home 2535 Shannon Drive 6
Lilies Care Home 2505 Tipperary Ave 6
Manalo's Board and Care III 853 Newman Drive 6
Manalo's Board and Care IV 840 Camaritas Circle 6
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
44
Table 3.8-10: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2012
Name Location Capacity
Manalo's Board and Care 807 Byron Drive 6
Manalo's Board and Care V 840 Alta Loma Drive 6
Mccaffrey's Care Home 2381 Olympic Drive 6
Nobis Care Home 505 Palm Avenue 6
Noralyn's Care Home 2780 Tipperary Avenue 6
Oikos Care Home 2311 Tipperary Avenue 6
Olympic Residential Care Home 2470 Olympic Drive 6
Savali's Residential Care Home 419 Hazelwood Drive 6
St. Catherine Home 2530 Ardee Lane 6
Sta Ines Care Home 779 Parkway Street 6
Sunvill Board and Care Home 409 Holly Avenue 6
Sunvill Board and Care Home II 771 Camaritas Avenue 6
Victoria 1252 Crestwood Drive 5
Westborough Royale 89 Westborough Blvd 99
Winston Manor Home 20 Elkwood Drive 6
Adult Residential Facilities
Albright Home 2501 Albright Way 6
Care Plus Residential Care Facility 34 Capay Circle 6
Chester's Home 2315 Tipperary Avenue 6
Gentry Home 2725 Shannon Drive 6
Healthy Lifestyles - Sherwood Way 108 Sherwood Way 6
Lexy's Adult Residential Facility 108 Greenwood Avenue 4
Rainbow Bright Adult Residential Facility 29 Duval Drive 6
Group Homes
Mac's Children and Family Services, Inc. 403 West Orange Avenue 6
Tipperary Home 2465 Tipperary Avenue 6
Source: California Department of Social Services, 2008; California Healthcare Foundation, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Developmentally Disabled Persons
According to Section 4512 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code a “developmental
disability” is a disability that originates before an individual reaches adulthood (18 years old),
continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for
that individual. This includes intellectual disabilities (characterized by significantly sub-average
general intellectual functioning), cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes
disabling conditions found to be closely related to other intellectual disabilities or that require
treatment (i.e., care and management) similar to that required by individuals with intellectual
disabilities; however, it does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in
nature.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional
housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment
Housing Needs Assessment
45
where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional
environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental
disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally
disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of
independence as an adult.
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) supports approximately 216,000
children and adults with developmental disabilities and 29,000 infants at risk of developmental
delay or disability throughout the state. Services are provided through state-operated
developmental centers and community facilities, as well as through contracts with 21 non-profit
agencies called regional centers. The regional center is a private, non-profit community agency
that contracts with local business to offer a wide range of services to individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families.
Table 3.8-11 below summarizes the number of persons with development disabilities and their
place of residence. The majority of the people with developmental disabilities in this area reside
with their parents through age 29. People with autism comprise more than 30 percent of all those
with developmental disabilities for the ages 4 through 14 years and approximately 17 percent of
all those with developmental disabilities for ages 15 through 29 years. Due to improvements in
health care prevention, treatment, and maintenance, people with developmental disabilities are
expected to live much longer than in the recent past.
Table 3.8-11: Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Type of Residence and Age
Residence Age 0-3
Age
4-14
Age
15-29
Age
30-44
Age
45-59
Age
60-74
Age
75-89
Age
90-104 Total
Home of Parent
or Guardian
56 78 93 34 18 6 2 - 287
Own Home - - 1 6 9 5 - - 21
Licensed Group
Home
- 2201334 21 4 - 95
Licensed Health
Care Facility
- - 7 7 17 25 4 - 60
Foster-type
Care
1 --22 -- - 5
Homeless - - 1 - - - - - 1
Subtotal of
Autism Only
(No diagnosis
yet)
25 21 1 6 1 - - 54
Total of all Diagnoses 57 80 121 62 80 57 10 1 468
Source: Golden Gate Regional Center, 2014.
There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability:
rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing,
Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 homes. The
design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
46
availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are
important in serving the needs of this group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all, new multi-
family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important
to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be
given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS OR
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
According to the 2013 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, there were 2,281
homeless people reported in San Mateo County on the night of January 24, 2013. This point-in-
time study counted 1,299 homeless people living either on the street or in vehicles, a population
referred to as “unsheltered.” An additional 982 homeless people were staying in shelters,
transitional housing, jails, hospitals, or treatment facilities or were using a voucher to stay in a
motel, a population referred to as “sheltered.” Using an annualization formula, the County’s
survey estimated 7,151 homeless people in San Mateo County on an annual basis. The Homeless
Census and Survey did not provide an estimate of homeless people in San Mateo County on a
seasonal basis.
Within this dataset, 260 homeless individuals were counted in South San Francisco, including 172
unsheltered persons and 88 sheltered persons. With a total population of approximately 63,742
residents as of 2012, South San Francisco contained approximately 9 percent of the San Mateo
County population. By comparison, it was home to 13 percent of the county’s unsheltered
persons and 9 percent of the sheltered population.
Government Code Section 65583(a) requires that each city must include sufficient capacity to
accommodate the need for emergency shelters. According to an inventory of shelter capacity in
the county, there are 168 emergency beds.8 Accordingly, the Safe Harbor Shelter in South San
Francisco, which provided 90 beds, accounts for 53 percent of emergency shelter capacity
countywide, far exceeding the City’s share of countywide general and homeless populations.
Hence, the City goes well beyond its obligation to provide for a share of the countywide
emergency shelter facilities. It also supports not-for-profit organizations that provide emergency
shelter, counseling, and housing referral services, such as the organizations Community
Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) and the Shelter Network.
8 Shelter and Safety Net Service Report. County of San Mateo Human Services Agency. January 2009.
Housing Needs Assessment
47
Table 3.8-12: Homeless Population, San Mateo County, January 2013
South San Francisco San Mateo County
Number Percent Number Percent
Homeless Population
Sheltered 88 33.8% 982 43.1%
Unsheltered 172 66.2% 1,299 56.9%
Total Homeless Population 260 100.0% 2,281 100.0%
Homeless Households
Without Dependent Children 1,646 90.1%
With Dependent Children 180 9.9%
Total Homeless Households 1,826 100.0%
Source: San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, 2013.
Farm Workers
Farm workers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through
seasonal agricultural labor. Most jurisdictions in San Mateo County have no farms or farm
workers; however, there are 334 farms and 1,722 farm workers in the county, primarily located in
coastal communities. Of these 1,722 farm workers, 88 are migrant workers and 329 work less than
150 days annually (and are therefore considered to be “seasonal labor”). Farm workers who are
migrant or seasonal workers have special housing needs because of their relatively low income
and the unstable nature of their job (i.e. having to move throughout the year from one harvest to
the next). These workers generally face higher rates of overcrowding and other substandard
housing conditions. Continued efforts to provide affordable housing, especially affordable
housing suitable for families, will help meet the needs of these farm workers.
Table 3.8-13: Farm workers in San Mateo County, 2012
2007 2012
Total Number of Farms 329 334
Acres of Farm Land 57,089 48,160
Hired Farm Labor - 1,722
Migrant labor - 88
Working > 150 days annually - 718
Working <150 days annually -329
Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 2012.
AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
The City and the County provide funding and subsidies, with support from State, federal, local,
and private resources, for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of housing units to
support those with special housing needs in South San Francisco. Many of these programs are
described in greater detail in Section 5.2 of this Housing Element.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
48
The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local
governments for a wide range of housing and community development activities through the
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The City of South San Francisco
expects to receive CDBG funds during the 2014 to 2022 period, which can be used for site
acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, emergency and transitional shelters,
and fair housing/housing counseling activities. In particular, CDBG funds have been used in
South San Francisco to provide free accessibility modifications to houses through the Center for
Independence of Individuals with Disabilities’ Housing Accessibility Modification Program.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program is a federal program that has been used
in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of
rental housing for lower-income households in South San Francisco. The HOME Investment
Partnership Act, which is under the National Affordable Housing Act, provides a source of
federal financing for a variety of affordable housing projects. The City of South San Francisco is a
participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for
funding from the Consortium’s annual grant allocation. The Section 8 Program is a federal
program that provides rental assistance to very-low income persons in need of affordable
housing, and the program is administered locally by the San Mateo County Housing Authority.
South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART),
which raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo
County. In addition, the City provides financial support for the not-for-profit organization
Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which provides emergency shelter for
battered women, and two agencies that provide housing referral and counseling services, the
Shelter Network and the Human Investment Project.
49
4 Housing Constraints
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must
analyze “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures.” Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take
action to mitigate or remove them.
In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the
production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. These include infrastructure
availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion
regarding affordable housing development.
4.1 Government Constraints
Government regulations affect housing costs, standards and allowable densities for development,
and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. With respect to the housing
market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to consumers
in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land
use policies (as defined in a community’s general plan), zoning regulations and their
accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, urban limit lines, and
development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may
be regulatory constraints.
GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1999 and has been
amended since to incorporate the 2001 BART Transit Village Plan, the 2007-2014 Housing
Element Update, the 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, and the 2011 El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which allowed residential land use through mixed-use
development. In early 2015, the General Plan was amended to incorporate the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (DSASP).
As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses
and densities at various locations in the City. Listed below are the primary residential land use
designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential development.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
50
Under existing designations, the City permits the construction of a range of housing types,
including opportunities for higher density housing up to 100 dwelling units per acre.
Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Residential Low Density 8 du/acre
Residential Medium Density 18 du/acre
Residential High Density 30 du/acre
Downtown Residential Low Density 15 du/acre
Downtown Residential Medium Density 25 du/acre
Downtown Residential High Density 40 du/acre
Downtown Commercial No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors
Transit Village Residential Medium Density 30 du/acre
Transit Village Residential High Density 50 du/acre
Transit Village Commercial 30 du/acre
Transit Village Retail 50 du/acre
El Camino Real Mixed Use 60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with density bonus and incentives)
Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre
(up to 120 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Grand Avenue Core 60 du/acre
(up to 100 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Downtown Residential Core 80 du/acre
(up to 125 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Neighborhood Center 60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Commercial Center 40 du/acre
Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing
opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below.
In order to balance community interests and assure continued support for medium- and high-
density housing in South San Francisco, the City established Policy 2-G-1, which calls for the
preservation of “the scale and character of established neighborhoods” and the protection of
“residents from changes in non-residential areas.” Consistent with this policy, the General Plan
Land Use map designates medium-and high-density residential areas along major transit
corridors and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts with existing neighborhoods. The City’s
political leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent multi-family housing development
with minimal opposition from neighborhood or other interest groups.
Housing Constraints
51
Policy 2-G-6 calls for the maximization of “opportunities for residential development, including
through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts
with industrial operations.” Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of “mixed-use residential,
retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where
they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in
corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality.” The City has worked
to realize these policies in recent years with several key developments along El Camino Real in the
Transit Village area. The City continues to encourage development of high density housing near
transit with the recent adoption (February 2015) of the DSASP, partially funded by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The major goals of the plan are to:
Revitalize downtown South San Francisco - encourage the retention of existing and local
business while also promoting new improvements to bring a focus back to the historic
downtown;
Promotes new residential development downtown-primarily on underutilized or vacant
parcels, while retaining the existing land use and density standards for residential
neighborhoods outside of the Downtown Core; and
Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown with
the East Employment area.
The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the siting or design of housing. Those
policies that do exist include Policy 2-I-2, which establishes height limits within the downtown
and along major commercial corridors. These height limits range from 50 to 80 feet and are
consistent with residential development of 30 dwelling units per acre and higher and are not
considered an impediment to housing development. However, with the adoption of the DSASP in
February 2015, the height limits in downtown have increased to promote higher densities. Policy
2-I-19 limits the allowable density of housing development on steep slopes by up to 50 percent
compared to existing land use designations to prevent excessive grading. While this policy does
work to limit the amount of housing development, it applies to a relatively small area of the city
(only parcels with a slope greater than 20 percent) and provides some certainty as the minimum
amount of housing development that will be allowed on steep sites, consistent with the General
Plan. Finally, Policy 2-1-18 specifically allows for senior housing development in the City to be at
a density of up to 50 dwelling units per acre regardless of underlying land use designations and
allows for reduced parking standards to be applied to this type of development. With the adoption
of the DSASP, qualifying affordable senior housing will be allowed densities limits in excess of 50
dwelling units per acre to upwards of 125 dwelling units per acre.
Based on a review of the General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including developers,
the General Plan is not an obstacle to housing development and is supportive of the development
of a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density
residential development. The General Plan does not constitute an obstacle to housing
development for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
52
disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional
housing, and those needing factory-built housing.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The City updated the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to ensure that current standards and guidelines
support the implementation of the General Plan, including the 2010 Housing Element Update.
Shown below is a list of existing districts that allow housing development, along with existing
development standards.
The City’s main residential districts are the Single Family Districts in RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, and RL-
8; Medium Density Residential Districts in RM-10, RM-15, and RM-17.5; and Multiple Family
Residential Districts in RH-30 and RH-35. Residential development is also allowed the Transit
Village (TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH) Districts, El Camino Real Mixed Use District
(ECRMX), and Downtown Districts (DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, and DRH), as well as in the
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX) District. The district that corresponds with the adopted El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan – El Camino Real/Chestnut District – includes three
districts that allow mixed-use residential development (ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/MXH).
There are five districts that correspond to the DSASP area and permit residential development
(DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, and LNC). The Parks and Recreation (PR) and Open Space (O-S)
districts cover a very small portion of the city, and are intended for the preservation of open-space
and/or the rural character of certain unincorporated areas; residential development is not allowed
in these districts.
The Zoning Ordinance does not constrain or unreasonably limit the types of housing that can be
developed in South San Francisco. It supports populations with special housing needs by
permitting many supportive and transitional residential uses across many zones. These uses
include multiple-unit developments, group residences, residential care facilities, mobile homes,
elder and long-term care facilities, family day care, and shelters. These uses are supported in
Medium Density Residential Districts, Multiple Family Residential Districts, Transit Village
Districts, Downtown Districts, DSASP Districts, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Districts, and the
El Camino Real Mixed Use District.
Table 4.1-2 shows the various residential uses permitted in the city and lists whether they are
permitted (P) or permitted subject to a conditional use permit (C) or minor use permit (MUP).
This table is followed by a narrative discussion of each residential use and its permitting
requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance does not impede housing development and enables development of a wide
range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density
residential development. The Zoning Ordinance is not an obstacle to housing development for
farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, persons
needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional housing, and those needing
factory-built housing.
53
Housing Constraints Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts P=Permitted Use; C=Conditionally Permitted Use; MUP=Use Permitted with Minor Use Permit Use Classification RL-1.3 RL-5,6, and 8 RM-10, 15, and 17.5 RH-30 and 35 DC DMXDRLDRMDRHTV-CTC-RTV-RMTV-RHECRMX CMXECR/C-MXH ECR/C-MXM ECR/C-RH DTCGACDRCLCCLNC Single-Unit Dwelling Single Unit Detached P P P P - - P P C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Second Unit P P P P - - P P P - - - - - P - - - - - - - - Single Unit Semi-Attached - C P P - - P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single-Unit Attached - - P P - MUP1P P P - - P P P1 C P1 P P - - - - - Multiple-Unit Residential Duplex - - P P - MUP1P P P P1 P1 P P - C - - - - - - - - Multi Unit - - P1 P C1 P/ MUP1P P P P1 P1 P P P1 P1 P1 P P P P P P P Senior Citizen Residential C C C MUP C1 P/ MUP1P P P P1 P1 P P P1 P1 P1 P P P - P P P Elderly and Long-term Care - C C C - - - - - - - C C P1 C C1 C C - - - - - Domestic Violence Shelter - - P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 - - - - MUP1 MUP1- - - - - P1 - -
54
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts P=Permitted Use; C=Conditionally Permitted Use; MUP=Use Permitted with Minor Use Permit Use Classification RL-1.3 RL-5,6, and 8 RM-10, 15, and 17.5 RH-30 and 35 DC DMXDRLDRMDRHTV-CTC-RTV-RMTV-RHECRMX CMXECR/C-MXH ECR/C-MXM ECR/C-RH DTCGACDRCLCCLNC Family Day Care Home Large P P P P MUP1 MUP P P P - - P P - P - - - - - P - - Small P P P P - P P P P - - P P P1 P P1 P P P - P P P Group Residential - - - MUP - MUP - - C P1 P1 - C MUP1 MUP1- - - - - C - - Mobile Home Park - C C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Residential Care Facilities General - - C C MUP1 C C C C P1 P1 P P C1 C - C C C1 - C1 - - Limited P1 P1 P1 P1 - C1 P1 P1 P1 C - - C C1 C1 P1 P P C1 - C1 - - Senior - - C MUP C1 MUP C C MUP - - C C P1 P1 - C C MUP1- MUP1C1 C1 Notes: 1. Subject to additional regulations in Zoning Ordinance.
Housing Constraints
55
Single-Unit Dwelling. A dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one household, and located on
a separate lot from any other unit (except second living units, where permitted). This
classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system
pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Zoning Ordinance
permits various types of single-unit dwellings in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15,
RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, DRL, and DRM zones.
Detached. A single-unit dwelling, on a single lot, within which all rooms are internally
accessible and that is not attached to any other dwelling unit.
Attached. A single-unit dwelling on a single lot that is attached through common vertical
walls to one or more dwellings on abutting lots. An attached single-unit dwelling is
sometimes called a “townhouse.”
Semi-Attached. A single-unit dwelling with only the garage wall abutting, or in common
with, the garage of the dwelling unit on the adjacent lot.
Multiple-Unit Residential. Two or more dwelling units on a single lot. Multi-unit development
types include townhouses, single-unit groups, garden apartments, senior citizen residential
developments, multi-story apartment buildings, and transitional residential development. The
Zoning Ordinance permits multiple-unit developments in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30,
RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX,
ECRMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Duplex. A single building on a separate lot that contains two dwelling units or two single-
unit dwellings on a single lot. This use is distinguished from a Second Dwelling Unit,
which is an Accessory residential unit as defined by State law and this ordinance.
Multi-Unit. Three or more dwelling units on a site or lot. Types of multiple family
dwellings include townhouses, garden apartments, senior housing developments, and
multi-story apartment buildings.
Senior Citizen Residential. A multi-unit development in which individual units are
occupied exclusively by one or more persons 62 years of age or older.
Caretaker Unit. A dwelling unit occupied by employees or caretakers of the primary use on the
site. Caretaker units are conditionally permitted in the employment district MI.
Domestic Violence Shelter. A facility where victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse are
provided temporary housing, food, and other specialized services in compliance with California
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18290 et seq. The Zoning Ordinance permits domestic
violence shelters in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, DRH,
and DRC zones.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
56
Elderly and Long-term Care. Establishment that provides 24-hour medical, convalescent or
chronic care to individuals who, by reason of advanced age, chronic illness or infirmity, are
unable to care for themselves. The facility is licensed as a skilled nursing facility, and includes but
is not limited to, rest homes and convalescent hospitals, but not Residential Care, Hospitals, or
Clinics. These facilities are permitted in the ECRMX zone and permitted conditionally in the RL-
5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-
MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Family Day Care. A day-care facility licensed by the State of California that is located in a single-
unit residence or other dwelling unit where an occupant of the residence provides care and
supervision for children under the age of 18 for periods of less than 24 hours a day. These
facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35,
DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH,
and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Small. A facility that provides care for 8 or fewer children, including children under the
age of 10 who reside at the home.
Large. A facility that provides care for 7 to 14 children, including children under the age
of 10 who reside at the home.
Group Residential. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for
each room or unit, offered for rent for permanent or semi-transient residents on a weekly or
longer basis. This classification includes rooming and boarding houses, dormitories and other
types of organizational housing, private residential clubs, and residential hotels intended for long-
term occupancy (30 days or more) but excludes Hotels and Motels, and Residential Care
Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance permits these facilities in the TV-C and TC-R zones, and
conditionally permits them in the DRH, DRC, and TV-RH zones.
Organizational Housing. A residential facility operated by a membership organization
for its members and not open to the general public that typically provides individual
sleeping quarters together with common dining and living areas. This use type includes
fraternity and sorority houses, convents, student dormitories and similar residential
accommodations.
Mobile Home Parks. A development designed and occupied by mobile homes including
development with facilities and amenities used in common by occupants who rent, lease, or own
spaces for mobile homes through a subdivision, cooperative, condominium or other form of
resident ownership. Mobile home parks are only conditionally permitted in the RL-5, RL-6, RL-8,
RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35 zones.
Residential Care Facilities. Facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide
permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for
Housing Constraints
57
persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the
activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without
separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities
that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-for- profit institutions,
including hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons
with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug additions (supportive housing).
This category excludes transitional housing and community social service facilities. The Zoning
Ordinance permits general residential care facilities in the TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH
zones and conditionally permits them in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DMX,
DRL, DRM, DRH, ECRMX, CMX, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, DTC, and DRC zones. Limited
residential care facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5,
RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones; they are
conditionally permitted in the DMX, DTC, DRC, TV-C, TC-RH, ECRMX, and CMX zones.
Senior residential care facilities are permitted in the CMX and ECRMX zones and conditionally
permitted in the RM-10, RM-15, 4M-17.5, DC, DRL, DRM, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-MXM,
ECR/C-RH, LCC and LNC zones.
Residential Care, General. A facility that requires a State license or is licensed by the
State to provide 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for more than 6
persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining
the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or
without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification
includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-
for-profit institutions, including hospices. This category excludes transitional residential,
foster family homes and any facilities supervised by or under contract with the State
Department of Corrections.
Residential Care, Limited. A facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and
provide 24-hour non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of
personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of
daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons
employed as facility staff. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or
without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification
includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-
for-profit institutions, including hospices. Residential care facilities for 6 or fewer persons
are considered a single-unit residential use.
Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the
resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person; where residents are 60 years
of age or older and where varying levels of care and supervision are provided as agreed to
at time of admission or as determined necessary at subsequent times of reappraisal. Any
younger residents must have needs compatible with other residents, as provided in
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
58
Health & Safety Code § 1569.316 or a successor statute. This classification includes
continuing care retirement communities and lifecare communities licensed for residential
care by the State of California.
Second Unit. A dwelling unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more
persons that is located on a lot with another primary, single-unit dwelling. A second unit may be
within the same structure as the primary unit, in an attached structure, or in a separate structure
on the same lot. Second units are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-
17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, and CMX zones.
Table 4.1-3 below shows the residential development standards for each district, including
minimum and maximum density of units per acre. Based on a review of applicable development
standards, including building heights, lot coverage standards, maximum FARs and setbacks, it is
feasible for developers to achieve maximum allowable residential densities within each district,
while complying with other applicable development standards.
59
Housing Constraints
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014 Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size District Maximum Building Height (ft) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Maximum Residential FARMinimum Front Yard (ft)Minimum Interior Side Yard (ft)Minimum Street Side Yard (ft)Minimum Rear Yard (ft) Minimum Lot Area (sqft)Minimum Lot Width (ft)Minimum Density (Units per Acre)Maximum Density (Units per Acre)Minimum Site Area per Dwelling Unit (sqft)RL-1.3 30 40 0.5 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 20 10 10 20 32,600 120 (none) 1.3 32,600RL-5 28 50 0.5 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 5 8,710RL-6 28 50 0.5 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 6 7,260RL-8 28 50 0.5 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 8 5,445RM-10 35 50 0.5 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 10 4,360RM-15 35 50 0.5 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 15 2,904
60 60
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014 Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size District Maximum Building Height (ft) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Maximum Residential FARMinimum Front Yard (ft)Minimum Interior Side Yard (ft)Minimum Street Side Yard (ft)Minimum Rear Yard (ft) Minimum Lot Area (sqft)Minimum Lot Width (ft)Minimum Density (Units per Acre)Maximum Density (Units per Acre)Minimum Site Area per Dwelling Unit (sqft)RM-17.5 35 50 0.5 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 17.5 2,500RH-30 50 65 1.0 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 (none) 30 1,452RH-35 50 65 1.0 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 (none) 35 1,090DC 60 100 3.0 0 0-10 0 0-10 5,000 50 14.1 (none) (none)DMX 50 50 (none) 0 0-10 0 0-10 5,000 50 14.1 40 (none)DRL 23 80 0.7 or to allow 2,000 sq ft., whichever is great 15 5 0 20 5,000 50 5.1 15 (none)DRM 35 90 1.25 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 15.1 25 (none)DRH 50 90 (none) 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 20.1 40 (none)TV-C 25-55 100 (none) 0-16 0 0 6 10,000 (none) (none) 30 1,000TV-R 55 100 (none) 0-16 0 0 6 5,000 (none) (none) 50 1,000TV-RM 23-35 75 (none) 0-16 5 10 6 5,000 (none) (none) 30 1,500TV-RH 45-55 75 (none) 0-16 5 10 6 5,000 (none) (none) 50 1,000ECRMX 80-120 90 2.5-3.5 12 0-10 10 15 20,000 50 (none) 60-80 (none)
61
Housing Constraints
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014 Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size District Maximum Building Height (ft) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Maximum Residential FARMinimum Front Yard (ft)Minimum Interior Side Yard (ft)Minimum Street Side Yard (ft)Minimum Rear Yard (ft) Minimum Lot Area (sqft)Minimum Lot Width (ft)Minimum Density (Units per Acre)Maximum Density (Units per Acre)Minimum Site Area per Dwelling Unit (sqft)CMX 50 50 (none) 10 0-10 10 0-10 15,000 501,432; 2,000 on lots30; 21.8 on lots less than 10,000 sqft1,452; 2,000 on lots less than 10,000ECR/C-MXH (varies) 90 (none) 0-15 0-10 0-10 0 20,000 50 (none) 80 (none)ECR/C-MXM (varies) 90 (none) 0-15 0-10 0-10 0 20,000 50 (none) 40 (none)ECR/C-RH (varies) 90 (none) 0-10 10 10 0 20,000 50 80 120 (none)DTC 85 100 8.0 (varies) 0-10 (varies) 0-10 5,000 50 80 100 (none)GAC 45-65 100 4.0 (none) 0 (none) 0 5,000 50 14 60 (none)DRC 65 90 3.25 (varies) 0-10 (varies) 20 5,000 50 40 80 (none)LCC 50 75 (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) 5,000 50 20.1 40 (none)LNC 50 90 (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) 5,000 50 40 60 (none)O-S 30 25 (none) 20 10 10 0-10 43,560 (none) (none)1 per 20 acres (none)Note: 1. Densities expressed are as-of-right. Does not include the maximum density that may be achieved with incentive or bonus programs. Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
Housing Constraints
62
PARKING
Developers and other key stakeholders identified the City’s multi-family parking standard as an
obstacle to housing development. The Zoning Ordinance includes the following parking
requirements in Table 4.1-4 for residential uses in all zones except Downtown districts, which are
shown in Table 4.1-5.
Table 4.1-4: Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 2,500 square feet
and less than 5 bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit General Requirements for all Single-unit
Residential Parking:
At least one space must be within a garage.
A carport shall not be substituted for a
required garage except for existing dwellings
on lots adjacent to a lane.
2,500 to 2,999 square feet or
5 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit
3,000 square feet or more or
more than 5 bedrooms
4 spaces per dwelling unit
Second Unit 1 space for each
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit General Requirements for all Multi-unit
Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be designated for
each unit.
One additional guest parking space must be
provided for every 4 units for projects
greater than 10 units.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1.5 spaces per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to
1,100 sq ft
1.8 spaces per unit
Three or more bedrooms
and 1,101 sq ft or larger
2 plus an additional 0.5 space
for each additional sleeping
room over 3
Small Family Day Care None in addition to what is required for the residential use.
Large Family Day Care 1 per employee plus an area for loading and unloading children, on or off-site.
(Required spaces and the residential driveway for the primary residential use
may be counted toward meeting these requirements).
Elderly and Long Term Care 1 for every 7 residents plus 1 for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more
than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and
doctor on-site at any one time.
Group Residential 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus 1 for every 5 beds and 1 for each non-
resident employee.
Mobile Home Park 2 on-site spaces for each dwelling unit. At least one required space must be in
a carport or garage.
Residential Care, Limited None in addition to what is required for the residential use.
Residential Care, General 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus 1 for every 5 beds and 1 for each non-
resident employee.
Residential Care, Senior 1 for every 7 residents plus 1 for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more
than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and
doctor on-site at any one time.
Housing Constraints
63
Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 900 sq ft and less
than 3 bedrooms
1 space per dwelling unit, 2
spaces maximum per unit
General Requirements for all Single-
unit Residential Parking:
For new construction, required
parking up to 2 spaces must be
within a garage. For existing
development, all existing garage
spaces, up to a maximum of two
spaces, must be maintained.
A carport shall not be substituted
for a required garage except for
existing dwellings on lots adjacent to
a lane.
900 to 2,500 sq ft or 3 or 4
bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
2,501 sq ft or more or more
than 4 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
Second Unit 1 space for each.
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi-
unit Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be
designated for each unit.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1 space minimum, 1.5
spaces maximum per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100
sq ft
1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8
spaces maximum per unit
Three or more bedrooms and
1,101 sq ft or larger
1.5 spacies minimum, 2
spaces maximum per unit
According to the 2010 Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement may be reduced through a
Conditional Use Permit, if it meets the criteria for approval, including reduced parking demand
as evaluated by a parking demand study. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a reduced parking
requirement for any land use except residential single-unit and duplex development; if any
portion of the lot is located within a quarter mile of a BART or CalTrain station, the number of
required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the normally required number of spaces
with Conditional Use Permit approval. This reduction does not apply in the TV or Downtown
districts. Additionally, under certain conditions and with a Conditional Use Permit, the provision
of a shared parking facility can result in a reduction of up to 50 percent of the number of parking
spaces normally required.
FEES AND EXACTIONS
The City charges residential developers fees for planning and construction services performed by
the City. Developers of new residential projects also pay various impact fees to finance
improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve new housing in the city.
In order to determine fees charged by the City of South San Francisco and other jurisdiction in
San Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all jurisdictions in the
County, asking that each provide fee information for the following three different developments:
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
64
Development 1 - Single Family Infill: A new home on an empty lot in an existing
neighborhood, with no significant grading or other complicating factors. The two-story
home is 2,400 square feet with a 500 square foot garage, and it has four bedrooms and
three bathrooms.
Development 2 - Single Family Home Development: A new development consisting of
50 units, each on their own lot, on an 8-acre parcel. There are three models of homes in
the development: Model A (20 units total) is 1,600 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model B (15 units total)
is 2,000 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500
square foot garage; Model C (15 units) is 2,400 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 4
bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage. All units have HVAC
systems. The project would result in 98,000 total square feet of development, with public
streets and no sprinklers. It is estimated the development would generate 50 peak hour
trips.
The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned
development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of medium
complexity. It would require significant grading work (10,000 CY), with Type 1
erosion/sediment control. The construction of public streets would cost about $1,300,000
in public improvements (no public landscaping or traffic signal work).
Development 3 - Multi-family Development: A new development consisting of 96 units
in 16 buildings on 8 acres. There are three models of units in the development: Model A
(28 units) is 1,250 square feet and 2 stories, with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as
a 500 square foot garage; Model B (34 units) is 1,500 square feet and 2 stories, and it has 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model C (34 units) is
1,750 square feet and 2 stories, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500
square foot garage. All units have HVAC systems. It would result in a total of 145,000
square feet, without sprinklers, and generate 72 peak hour trips.
The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned
development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of high
complexity. It would require significant grading work (5,000 CY) and Type 1
erosion/sediment control. On the existing public street frontage, $400,000 of frontage
improvements would be required, and $600,000 in private improvements would be
required for construction of new private streets. No public landscaping or traffic signal
work would be involved.
Fees for the City for each of these hypothetical developments are listed below in Table 4.1-6. As
shown, planning, construction, and impact fees would be nearly $17,000 per unit for a single
family unit as described above; approximately $390,000 for the development project with 50
single family homes; and approximately $369,000 for the multi-family development project with
96 units.
Housing Constraints
65
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
Entitlement Fees
Planned
Development
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 + actual cost +
$2,000.00 deposit
Tentative
Subdivision Map
$0.00 $1,250.00 +
$800=$2,050
$3,200.00
General Plan
Amendment
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Fish and Game $0.00 $2,101.50 $2,101.50
Design Review $300.00 $0.00 $1,000.00
Legal Notice $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
Cat Ex $20.00 $0.00 $20.00
San Mateo
County CEQA
Handling Fee
$50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Entitlement Fee
Subtotal
$670.00 $9,801.50 $10,671.50
Construction Fees
CBSC (California
Building Standards
Commission)
$17.00 $637.00 $942.00
Energy PC
Residential In
$0.00 $9,279.60 $0.00
COM – Building
Fee
$0.00 $0.00 $97,247.00
General Plan
Maintenance Fee
$605.78 $23,872.80 $35,322.00
Microfilm
Commercial or
Residential
$149.58 $2,734.68 $4,862.35
PC Commercial In $1,944.48 $35,550.78 $63,210.55
Permit Program
Maintenance Fee
$25.00 $25.00 $25.00
RES – Building
Permit Fee
$2,991.50 $54,693.50 $0.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge Non-Res
per Fx U
$3,381.72 $158,004.00 $158,004.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge
Residential per Fx
U
$264.21 $13,210.50 $25,364.16
SMIP Residential $0.00 $1,591.52 $2,354.80
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
66
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
State-Mandated
Training
$10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Valuation based
Electrical
$351.56 $2,640.63 $4,226.56
Valuation based
Mechanical
$250.00 $2,598.75 $437.50
Valuation Based
Plumping
$250.00 $2,598.75 $2,187.50
Waste
Management 1%
Fee – Residential
$19.44 $0.00 $0.00
Construction Fee
Subtotal
$10,260.27 $307,447.51 $394,193.42
Impact Fees
Schools $6,312.00 $257,740.00 $381,350.00
Public Safety Fee
(Police and Fire)2
$1,285.00 $40,500.00 $54,048.00
Childcare $0.00 $98,950.00 $178,368.00
Impact Fee Subtotal $7,597.00 $397,190.00 $613,766.00
Total $17,857.27 $704,637.51 $1,007,959.42
Notes:
1. In addition to the above fees, the City requires parkland dedication in accordance with Quimby Act and
requires the provision of affordable housing units on site through its inclusionary housing ordinance. Developers
have the option to pay in-lieu fees to avoid these exactions.
2. Per City Resolution 97-2012 Public Safety Fee, calculation assumes Development 1 is Low Density Residential
($1,285 per unit), Development 2 is Medium Density Residential ($810 per unit), and Development 3 is High
Density Residential ($563 per unit).
3. Does not include fees that may result because of Inclusionary Housing policy. The City is currently
considering adjusting the in-lieu fee calculation to encourage more use of the in-lieu fee; this may result in a
reduced in-lieu fee.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett and Bhatia, 2015.
Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, South San Francisco’s fees were found to
be comparatively low, and they do not to pose a significant constraint to housing development in
the city.9
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Revised in 2010, Chapter 20.380 of the Zoning Ordinance details the City’s inclusionary housing
regulations. The City’s objective is to ensure that all residential development provides a range of
9 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
Housing Constraints
67
housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including low-
and moderate-income households. The inclusionary housing regulations require that all approved
residential development projects with four or more units have a minimum of 20 percent of the
units restricted to and affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Additionally, the City
requires that at least 20 percent of all new dwelling units are restricted to and affordable to low- or
moderate-income households. Development projects must provide affordable units on-site,
although under certain conditions, alternatives are provided to this requirement as a means of
providing affordable units in the City. Housing developments can pay an in-lieu fee as an
alternative to the requirement of constructing inclusionary units. These requirements apply to all
residential market-rate dwelling units that are newly constructed for sale as well as the conversion
of apartments to condominiums that will be for sale.
Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate
homes, studies have shown evidence to the contrary. One school of thought is that the cost of an
inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a
lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through
higher market rate sale prices. Another significant body of research and analysis suggests that in
fact the cost of inclusionary housing and any other development fee “will always be split between
all players in the development process.”10 Some academics have pointed out that over the long
term, it is probable that landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other
homeowners or the developer (Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985).
The most definitive empirical study on inclusionary housing was completed in 2008 by the
Furman Center of New York University working for the Center for Housing Policy of the
National Housing Conference. Entitled “The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing
Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas,” this
study measured the impact of inclusionary housing ordinances on median homes sale prices and
residential development activity in these three regions. While findings for the DC and Boston
regions were mixed, the study found definitive evidence that inclusionary ordinances do not lead
to higher home prices or a decrease in building activity in the Bay Area. This is attributed in large
part to the more flexible nature of the ordinances in the Bay Area region and to the number of
options that developers have to meet inclusionary requirements.
In addition to this study, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities
throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that
inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study
10 W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1999.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
68
found that housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary housing
ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.11
In keeping with the Furman Center study findings cited above, the City of South San Francisco
recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain production. In order
to ensure maximum flexibility so as not to constrain production, the City’s Zoning Ordinance
allows alternatives to constructing new affordable units on-site as a means of providing affordable
units in the City. If the City Council finds that new construction of affordable housing units
would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship for a developer, an alternative may be
approved (for example, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units or the construction of
special needs housing projects or programs). Additionally, under certain circumstances,
developers may satisfy the affordable housing requirement with off-site combined inclusionary
housing projects or in-lieu fees. The City also offers a series of developer incentives, per State
Density Bonus Law, that help offset the added cost of the inclusionary units. Finally, the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to seek modification of the requirements
due to undue hardship. These policies are in line with recommendations in On Common Ground:
Joint Principles on Inclusionary Housing Policies, published by the Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern California (NPH) and the Home Builders Association of Northern
California (HBA) in 2005. The report points to the need for flexible inclusionary housing
requirements, such as those established by South San Francisco, to allow for financially feasible
residential development.
PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of
development applications adding to financing costs, in particular. The City has worked to
establish transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development
applications.
Explained below are the typical processing and permit procedures for a single family housing
development in a single family district and for a multi-family housing development in a multi-
family district.
Single Family Residential Procedure
For single family homes proposed in a residential district (RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-
15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35) steps in the permit and approvals process are as listed below:
1. Pre-application meeting with staff (required)
11 David Rosen. “Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets.” NHC Affordable Housing
Policy Review 1(3). 2004
Housing Constraints
69
2. Application submittal
3. Review of application by City staff
4. Design Review Board review/recommendation
5. Decision by Chief Planner
6. Appeal to Planning Commission (if applicable)
7. Building permit issuance
As listed above, approvals for single family development in a single family district do not
generally require action by the Planning Commission or City Council. The process does, however,
require review by the Design Review Board (DRB), which makes a recommendation to the Chief
Planner to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application.
Design review is required of all new construction in South San Francisco, including single family
residential, multi-family residential, and commercial development. For residential development
of three or fewer units, design review is limited to height, bulk, lot coverage, and general
compatibility with the neighborhood. If the DRB recommends approval of a project and the Chief
Planner approves the project, it may proceed without requiring any action by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
Design review applications submitted before the submittal deadline at the end of a given month
are generally heard during the Design review meeting scheduled for the following month.
Depending on the outcome of the Design Review Board meeting and the specific timing when an
application is submitted (whether toward the beginning or end of a month), the typical timeframe
for approval of a single family residential unit and issuance of building permits varies between
eight and 18 weeks.
Multi-Family Residential Procedure
For a typical multi-family housing development of 20 or more units proposed in a multi-family
district (RM-30, RM-35, TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, DRC, and ECRMX) steps in the permit
and approvals process are as listed below:
1. Pre-application meeting with staff
2. Application submittal
3. Review of application by City staff
4. Design Review Board review/recommendation
5. Planning Commission Hearing
6. City Council Hearing (if applicable)
7. Building permit issuance
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
70
As listed above, approval of multi-family housing requires action by the Design Review Board to
recommend the project to the Planning Commission for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial. Design review may address any of the following topics: exterior design, materials, textures,
colors, means of illumination, landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access,
security, safety, and other usual on-site development elements.
Design review is typically completed within four weeks for simple projects and can take up to
twelve weeks if plans require revision. The submittal requirements are clearly delineated in an
application check list, with some latitude given to the Planning Division to waive certain
requirements for small projects or to add additional requirements, such as a shadow study where
taller development will be located adjacent to single-story residential uses.
Following the Design review process, the Planning Commission reviews the project. For smaller
projects not involving an affordable housing agreement or a development agreement, the
Planning Commission is the final decision making body for the development. However, more
typically in South San Francisco, larger scale multi-family housing developments require an
affordable housing agreement and/or utilize a development agreement, requiring action by the
City Council.
In total the typical approval time for a multi-family development application from the time the
application is submitted to the Planning Division until issuance of building permits is between 18
and 36 weeks, depending on the complexity of the project and the outcome of the design review
process and Planning Commission meeting.
Other Permit Processing Times and Procedures
Listed below are the typical processing times for various types of planning actions. Where
possible, when multiple planning approvals are required for a single project (e.g., a Zoning
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit), both approvals are considered together as part of the
same hearing, such that times listed below are not necessarily additive.
In general, South San Francisco’s processing and permit procedures are reasonable and
comparable to those in other San Mateo County communities. The permit process only increases
in complexity and duration when the circumstances of individual projects warrant extra
consideration on the part of local staff and officials. This is especially true of the environmental
review component of the process. However, the City has little flexibility to change this, since the
California Environmental Quality Act specifies procedures that local jurisdictions must observe in
reviewing the impacts of development projects.
Housing Constraints
71
Table 4.1-7: Typical Application Processing Time, 2014
Typical Processing Time in weeks
(straight-forward proposal)
Typical Processing Time in weeks
(complicated proposal)
Permit/Procedure
Ministerial Review 1 2
Conditional Use Permit 6 12
Zoning Amendment 4 12
General Plan Amendment 34 72
Site Plan Review 2 3
Architectural/Design Review 4 12
Tract Maps 24 48
Parcel Maps 24 48
Initial Environmental Study 4 8
Environmental Impact Report 34 72
Specific Plan Amendment 4 12
Specific Plan 8 24
Precise Plan Amendment 6 12
Precise Plan 10 48
Master Plan 96 96
Developments
Single Family Unit 8 18
Second Unit 6 10
Subdivision 48 48
Multi-family less than 20 units 12 20
Multi-family more than 20 units 18 36
PUD 8 36
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
Housing Constraints
72
Housing Constraints
72Table 4.1-8: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type, 2014 Subdivision Single Family Home Second Unit Multi-family < 20 Units Multi-family 20+ Unit+ Step 1 Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Step 2 Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Step 3 Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Step 4 Begin Environmental Review Design Review Board2 Design Review Board2 Begin Environmental Review Begin Environmental ReviewStep 5 Planning Commission Building Permit Building Permit Design Review Board Design Review Board Step 6 City Council Planning Commission Planning Commission Step 7 City Council City Council Step 8 Building Permit Building Permit Notes: 1. A Use Permit may be required depending on the Zoning District. Use Permits are subject to Planning Commission review and approval. 2. Decisions of the DRB can be appealed to the Chief Planner and then to the Planning Commission. Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
Housing Constraints
73
CODES AND ENFORCEMENT AND ON/OFF SITE IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS
New construction in South San Francisco must comply with the California Building Codes
(2013). Thus, there are no extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect the
ability to construct housing in the city.
The City requires that developers complete certain minimum site improvements in conjunction
with new housing development. Required on-site improvements include grading and installation
of water, sewer, storm drainage, gas, electricity, and cable utilities. Required off-site
improvements include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, full street sections, and street lighting.
Based on conversations with local developers, these site improvement standards are typical of
many communities, and do not adversely affect housing production in the city.
EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
As described above, current regulations, standards, and procedures in the City reflect several
efforts to accommodate all housing types and promote housing production, including the
following:
Diverse housing and development types and uses allowed in the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance;
Provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the amount of parking required;
Comparatively low fees and exactions for San Mateo County;
Inclusionary housing regulations to provide a range of housing opportunities for all
identifiable economic segments of the population;
Transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development
applications; and
No extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect housing production in
South San Francisco.
4.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Consistent with State Law, the following section analyzes governmental constraints to housing for
persons with disabilities and describes ongoing and needed future actions to remove constraints
or provide reasonable accommodations for such housing.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
74
STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
The City’s standards and processes are analyzed below, within several categories identified by
HCD as potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities.
Reasonable Accommodations. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make
reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are
necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable
accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal
access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or
reductions to parking requirements.
ZONING AND LAND USE
The 2010 Zoning Ordinance included updates to Chapter 20.510 Waivers and Modifications, to
facilitate compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It provides reasonable accommodation to
persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through modification of the application of
the City’s Zoning Ordinances. Chapter 20.510 allows the Chief Planner to grant relief from the
Zoning Ordinance’s dimensional requirements when necessary to provide access to housing. It
also allows the Planning Commission to grant exceptions and waivers when necessary to
accommodate religious uses protected by the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000. Below is a discussion of existing zoning and land use policies in the City
affecting the development of housing for persons with disabilities.
Provision for Group Homes. Consistent with State law, the City allows for Limited Residential
Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning districts, as well as DRL,
DRM, DRH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, districts, without a special use permit and
not subject to any special restrictions.1 These facilities are also conditionally permitted in the
DMX, TV-C, TC-RH, CMX, DTC, DRC, and ECRMX zones. The City also permits General
Residential Care Facilities serving six or more persons in the TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH
districts. General Residential Care Facilities are conditionally permitted in all multi-family
districts, the ECRMX district, the DTC and DRC districts, and all Downtown districts except the
DC district. These are not subject to any minimum distance requirements in relationship to other
special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use requirements.
1 A Limited Residential Care Facility is a facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and provides 24-hour
non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or
assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or
persons employed as facility staff. See SSFMC 20.080 and 20.630.002.
Housing Constraints
75
Broad Definition of Family. Consistent with State Law, the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for
a broad definition of family as “one or more persons living together as a single nonprofit
housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members
of a ‘family’ need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel,
club, fraternity or sorority house.” (Section 20.630) This definition of family does not limit the
number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related.
Reasonable Accommodation. The City’s Zoning Ordinance facilitates the development of
housing and residential parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities by allowing waivers
and modifications to required dimensional requirements, such as encroachments into front, side,
and rear yards for wheelchair access structures. Section 20.330.111 establishes procedures for
private residential handicap parking, while Chapter 20.510 establishes the rules and procedures
for requests for reasonable accommodation to ensure access to housing.
BUILDING CODE AND PERMITTING
Uniform Building Code. In 2014, the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2013 California
Administrative Code and the 2013 California Building Code published by the International
Conference of Building Officials. In addition, the City adopted and implemented the 1997
Uniform Housing Code, which provides requirements for the conservation and rehabilitation of
housing. The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the California
Administrative Code, California Building Code, or Uniform Housing Code that might diminish
the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.2
Site and Building Accessibility. The City complies with all State and federal standards and laws
pertaining to the accessibility of sites and buildings for disabled persons.
Permitting. The City does not require special permitting that could impede the development of
group homes for six people or fewer. As discussed above, Residential Care Facilities are permitted
uses in all residential zoning districts. Furthermore, there are no siting requirements or minimum
distances between facilities that apply to Residential Care Facilities or Group Care Facilities.
EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
As described above, current regulation standards and procedures in the City reflect several efforts
to accommodate housing for persons with disabilities, including the following:
Provision for small group homes in all residential zones by right;
Use of a broad definition of family;
2 As a practical matter the City has been following the 2013 California Building Code in evaluating projects, which was
formally adopted in December 2013.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
76
Provisions to allow encroachment into required setbacks for wheelchair access structures
and waivers and modifications to other dimensional requirements when necessary to
provide reasonable accommodation; and
Provision of alternative parking requirements for special needs housing; and
Implementation of the Uniform Building Code.
4.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors that may
constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions such as
land and construction costs as well as public opinion toward new development.
CONSTRUCTION & LAND COSTS
Land costs in San Mateo County are high, due in part to the desirability of housing in the county
and because available land is in short supply. These costs vary both between and within
jurisdictions based on factors like the desirability of the location and the permitted density.
The following land costs are approximate, and derived from conversations with local developers.3
For a typical multi-family construction project in San Mateo County, land costs add
approximately $90,000 per unit. Land for a single family home often costs $400,000 or more per
lot.
Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such as
architectural and engineering services, development fees and insurance. For multi-family homes
in San Mateo County, hard costs account of 60-65 percent of the building cost and soft costs
average around 15-20 percent (the remaining 15-20 percent is land costs). For single family
homes, hard costs often are roughly 40 percent of the total cost, soft costs are 20 percent, and land
is 40 percent.
According to housing developers in San Mateo County, construction costs for multi-unit
buildings vary based on the form of parking (structured vs. surface) in addition to other
environmental factors such as topography, pre-existing structures, etc. For a larger, multi-unit
building, costs can vary from $185,000/unit to as high as $316,000/unit. The cost per square foot
ranges from $172-$200.
For the least expensive production single family homes, the cost of preparing the vacant land is
around $100,000/lot, and the cost of construction is approximately $145/sf. For more expensive,
3 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
Housing Constraints
77
custom homes, however, the construction costs can be higher than $435/sf. In general, soft costs
add another approximate third to the subtotal.
MORTGAGE FINANCING
Until mid-2008, home mortgage financing was readily available at attractive rates throughout San
Mateo County and California. Rates vary, but ranged around 6.25 percent to seven percent from
2006-2008 for a 30 year fixed rate loan (HSH Associates Financial Publishers). However, rates
have been as high as ten or 12 percent in the last decade.
As part of the aftermath of the subprime crisis in 2008, interest rates are very low. In San Mateo
County, rates range from 4.0-4.5 percent for a fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage. One remaining
challenge is that many mortgages in San Mateo County are for more than $417,000, meaning they
qualify as jumbo loans and often have higher interest rates.
The data in the table below is from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and represents
loan applications in 2012 for one- to four-unit properties, as well as manufactured homes, for the
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and metropolitan division (MD) that includes South San
Francisco (MSA/MD: 41884 – San Francisco – San Mateo – Redwood City, CA). More than 65
percent of the loan applications were filed by households earning above a moderate income
(greater than 120 percent of AMI). Moderate income households (80-120 percent of AMI)
represented 18 percent of loan applicants, low income households (50-80 percent of AMI)
represent 12 percent, and very low income households (less than 50 percent of AMI) only 4
percent. Almost 75 percent of all loans were approved and accepted by the applicants, and 10
percent were denied. Above moderate-income households had the highest rates of approval of
any group. Loan approval rates have improved since the subprime crisis.
Table 4.3-1: Disposition of Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, 2012
Income Level
Number of
Loan
Applications
Percentage
of All Loans
Percentage
of Loans
Originated
Percentage
of Loan
Applications
Denied
Percentage
Other1
Less than 50% AMI (Very
Low Income) 700 4% 57% 22% 21%
50-79% AMI (Low Income) 1,968 12% 67% 14% 20%
80-120% AMI (Moderate
Income) 3,017 18% 73% 11% 17%
120%+ 11,381 67% 76% 8% 16%
All 17,066 100% 74% 10% 17%
Notes:
1. Includes loans applications approved but not accepted, loan applications withdrawn, and incomplete files.
Source: HMDA Data, 2012 for San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City MSA.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
78
CONSTRUCTION FINANCING
Construction loans for new housing are difficult to secure in the current market. In past years,
lenders would provide up to 80 percent of the cost of new construction (loan to value ratio). In
recent years, due to market conditions and government regulations, banks require larger
investments by the builder.
Due to federal and State budget cuts, affordable housing developers have had a much harder time
securing funding. Since 2009, the federal government has cut programs such as Community
Development Block Grant, HOME, and HOPE VI funding by 27-50 percent (ABAG).
Traditionally, these programs have been a large source of affordable housing funds. In addition to
federal cuts, the State dissolved Redevelopment Agencies in 2012, leaving San Mateo County with
a loss of $25.5 million in funds for affordable housing.4 However, some funding opportunities
remain from the federal and state governments, such as the federal Low Income Housing Tax
Credit program, which still provides an important source of funding for developers.
PUBLIC OPINION
In some communities, public opinion is a significant constraint to the production of higher
density and affordable housing. To date, housing developers, City staff, and elected officials do
not report significant public opposition to recent multi-family housing developments. As key to
this success, elected officials stress the need to continue to work with neighbors to address
concerns and the importance of the City’s policies to protect single family neighborhoods from
significant change, while finding opportunities for multi-family housing development along key
transit corridors and in the downtown area. In addition, city officials and developers can work to
assuage these concerns by requiring design review, emphasizing management of new
developments, and engaging in public education to address myths about high density, low-
income, and supportive housing (HUD).5
4.4 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints
South San Francisco is a largely developed community with sufficient infrastructure in place to
accommodate anticipated levels of development on most sites. A more detailed analysis of specific
sites is included in the review of Housing Opportunity sites. The City Engineer reports that there
are no significant issues related to the capacity of water, stormwater, or sewer systems that would
preclude future housing development as anticipated by the General Plan.
As a largely urbanized community, most housing sites in South San Francisco are infill in nature
and present few environmental issues. In recent years, developers of multi-family housing have
4 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
5 Ibid.
Housing Constraints
79
submitted Negative Declarations rather than EIRs for their projects, e.g., Park Station Lofts
development. An Environmental Impact Report was recently published to analyze the proposed
development under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which contemplates a 25 percent
build out over a 20-year span.
Looking forward, certain sites in the downtown area are thought to have some level of
environmental contamination. Overall, such sites represent a small portion of the land available
for development in the City. These sites are discussed in more detail in the Housing Opportunity
sites section of this document.
4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green
building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In
addition, these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced dependence on vehicles,
and can significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gases.
South San Francisco has been a leader in the promotion of green building techniques in new
residential construction and residential rehabilitation. The City renovated a formerly vacant
residential unit to transform it into a model demonstration project for green building materials
and techniques. This home is known as the Green X-Ray House and is used as an educational tool
for local homeowners and members of the local builders community to create healthier, more
energy-efficient homes.
At a minimum, new housing construction in South San Francisco must meet the standards
contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards
for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and
most recently updated in 2013 with amended standards going into effect in 2014. Energy
efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process.
All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit
application is made.
The City funds various minor housing rehabilitations programs using CDBG funds. As part of
these rehabilitation projects the City incorporates green retrofit improvements including
insulated windows, roof insulation, tankless water heaters, and other weatherization techniques.
Currently the City provides funding to CID (Center of Independence for Individuals with
Disabilities), Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and El Concilio of San Mateo County.
The City recently adopted a Green Building Ordinance, in line with the State standards, in 2014.
This ordinance applies to residential development as well as non-residential development and
requires new homes or substantial remodels to be constructed using sustainable building practices
to reduce environmental impacts. In addition to the design and construction of individual
buildings, the development industry is becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
80
conservation at the site planning level and even at the community planning level. New
developments are increasingly being planned so that building orientations will take advantage of
passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use planning is increasingly considering benefits of
compact urban form (i.e., higher densities) as a means to reduce auto dependency for
transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use land use patterns to make neighborhoods more self-
contained so that residents can walk or bicycle to places of work, shopping, or other services.
Compact urban development patterns are also necessary to improve the effectiveness of buses and
other forms of public transit. If effective public transit is available and convenient, energy will be
conserved through reduced auto use. In the future, the City will consider incorporating these
and/or other sustainable development principles into new developments that are planned within
South San Francisco.
In addition, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2014, which supports
these ideas as well. The CAP includes a Program of Reduction Strategies that promote energy
conservation. It also includes implementation tools that will be used by the City to track
greenhouse gas reductions. A Development Review Checklist will be used on a project-by-project
basis to track project-level contributions to the CAP target including energy conservation.
81
5 Housing Resources
5.1 Available Sites for Housing
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that the City of South San Francisco
has a sufficient amount of land to accommodate its fair share of the region’s housing needs during
this planning period. The State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an
“inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the
potential for redevelopment.” (Section 65583(a)(3)) It further requires that the Element analyze
zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the
planning period.
Demonstrating an adequate supply of vacant or underutilized land is only part of the task of the
adequate sites analysis. The City must also show that this supply is capable of supporting housing
demand from all economic segments of the community and for various housing types, including
multi-family rental, manufactured housing, group housing, and transitional housing. High land
costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing on sites that are
designated for low densities. The State has generally held that the most appropriate way to
demonstrate adequate capacity for low and very low income units is to provide land zoned for
multiple-family housing with an allowed density of 30 dwelling units per acre or more. Hence this
analysis focuses on the identification of sites that could accommodate this level of density, in
order to accommodate the need for lower-income housing units.
For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in South San Francisco have been grouped into
two geographic areas. Each of these areas is described below, with accompanying maps and tables
to identify sites and quantify development potential. The following analysis of sites in South San
Francisco indicates the potential to develop 2,169 units of new housing with the adoption of the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) (in February 2015).
Nearly all opportunity sites would support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater,
providing favorable prospects for affordable units. As discussed before, the City has a determined
need of 1,864 units during the planning period. Compared against the RHNA, the City’s housing
opportunity sites offer a development capacity that exceeds the needs determination by more than
300 units.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
82
Table 5.1-1: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development
Capacity Under Existing Zoning
Area Acreage Unit Capacity Percent of Total
Transit Village 16.9 1,731 80%
Downtown 6.1 438 20%
Total Capacity 23.0 2,169 100%
RHNA Target 1,864
Excess Capacity 305 116%
The available sites inventory conducted for the Housing Element focuses on sites with near-term
development potential, where the site is currently vacant, highly underutilized, or where
developers have come forward with plans to redevelop existing uses. There may be additional sites
in South San Francisco with housing potential, including individual vacant lots and developed
sites with marginally viable existing uses.
Approximately 80 percent of the City’s near-term residential development potential is in the
Transit Village area, which is already zoned for medium (30 dwelling units per acre) to high (120
dwelling units per acre) density residential development.
Almost 20 percent of near-term residential development potential is in the Downtown area.The
City was engaged in preparation of the DSASP over the past two years, and it was recently
adopted in February 2015. The DSASP focuses on properties within 0.5 mile of the City’s Caltrain
station. The overarching aim of the Plan is to create a successful and vibrant downtown, including
new high-density, mixed-use development in areas that are best poised to take advantage of
improved access to the City’s Caltrain station and SamTrans bus routes; affirming the historic
Grand Avenue Corridor as the focus of the community; and providing improved connections to
the East of Highway 101 employment district. The DSASP includes pedestrian- and bicycle-
friendly upgrades, landscaped green spaces, widened sidewalks, new streets, and mass transit
connections designed to improve the business and residential quality of life in the City. The
DSASP is a twenty year policy document that is intended to govern development in the
Downtown area. Under the new Plan, residential development potential in the Downtown area
has increased to 60 dwelling units per acre, with up to 100 dwelling unit per acre allowed
depending on the zoning district. FARs have increased to range from 3.0 to 6.0 depending on the
zoning district.
TRANSIT VILLAGE SITES
The Transit Village is located in the heart of South San Francisco, and it is well connected with to
transit services, regional crossroads, and I-280. This area has been a focus of some of the City’s
recent planning efforts, in support of the General Plan’s vision of the area as a distinct, vibrant
district and a regional destination. With the adoption of the BART Transit Village Plan in 2001,
the City of South San Francisco established zoning standards and design guidelines to promote a
vibrant mixed-use district consistent with the area’s role as an important transit hub. A key
element of the plan was to up zone various parcels to allow for more intensive residential
Housing Resources
83
development, and since the plan’s adoption, much housing has been built in the area. Additional
regulations were adopted in 2010 for a specific area in the Transit Village; the South El Camino
Real General Plan Amendment, Zoning, and Design Guidelines targeted higher intensities and
mixed-use development in the Transit Village area along El Camino Real.
The City adopted the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in 2011, which focused on
another area within the Transit Village. This plan provided specific principles, policies, design
standards and guidelines, and recommendations for implementation to guide the development of
the area into a vibrant, mixed use district. It included locations for land uses, a classification
system, density/intensity standards, and total development potential for each land use type. This
plan included detailed block-by-block development projections for a focus area in the Transit
Village to determine probable environmental impacts and infrastructure needs, but they were not
adopted as part of the plan. To the extent that any future development project is consistent with
the plan’s land use designations and development intensities and standards, any necessary
environmental review will be limited to site-specific impacts, rather than cumulative and area-
wide impacts (which were fully evaluated in the program EIR prepared on the plan).
Many of the sites in and around the Transit Village area are vacant or underutilized parcels that
present an excellent opportunity for housing development. The sites are composed of
combinations of vacant and underutilized parcels, and the table that follows takes their current
status into account in determining realistic capacity. The fact that many of these sites are owned
by a single entity makes them especially good candidates for housing development during the
planning period. The largest property owners in the area are the City, Kaiser Permanente, and
BART. Listed in Table 5.1-2 and shown in Figure 2, these five sites in the Transit Village contain
16.9 acres of land with combined capacity for 1,731 units of housing.
84
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015
84 Table 5.1-2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area Site APN Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses Zoning Maximum Dwelling Units Per AcreEstimated Actual Dwelling Units Per AcreUnits1 011-171-500 0.1 Vacant SFR SFR, MFR TV-RM 30 30 31 011-171-330 1.5 Vacant BART TV-RM 30 30 44Site 1 Total 1.6 472 010-292-130 1.3 Vacant motel Hospital, MFR ECR/C-MXH 80 80 1042 010-292-280 1.3 Vacant ECR/C-MXH 80 80 1042 010-292-270 3.1 Lumber yard ECR/C-MXH 80 80 248Site 2 Total 5.7 4563-Block A 093-312-060 Vacant MFR, Colma Creek, Public uses ECR/C-RH 120 108 4193-Block B Vacant MFR, Colma Creek ECR/C-MXH 80 76 433-Block C Vacant MFR, Colma Creek ECR/C-MXH 80 72 943-Block D Commercial, vacant MFR, Colma Creek ECR/C-MXH 80 64 1393-Block E Commercial, vacant MFR, Colma Creek ECR/C-MXH 80 54 1503-Block H 093-312-050 Commercial Vacant, public uses ECR/C-MXH 80 70 2233-Block J Commercial Vacant, public uses ECR/C-MXH 80 39 45Site 3 Total1 7.6 1,1134 011-327-050 0.3 Utility MFR RH-30 30 23 7Site 4 Total 0.3 75 011-322-030 1.7 Commercial MFR ECR/C-MXH 80 64 108Site 5 Total 1.7 108Total 16.9 1,731Notes: 1. Includes blocks A, B, C, D, E, H, and J from the Focus Area of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan. Buildout assumptions reflect those in the Area Plan.
Housing Resources
85
Housing Resources
85Figure 2: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
86
Capacity Analysis
This section contains analysis of the realistic development capacity of the five housing
opportunity sites in the Transit Village area. This analysis considers factors including vacant and
underutilized site status, recent regulatory changes and development trends, lot size, physical
constraints, and infrastructure.
The recently updated Zoning Ordinance (2010) includes four districts specific to the Transit
Village area: Transit Village Commercial (TV-C), Transit Village Retail (TV-R), Transit Village
Residential High Density (TV-RH), and Transit Village Residential Medium Density (TV-RM).
One key housing opportunity site is in the TV-RM district. The High Density Residential (RH-30)
district covers one key housing site in the Transit Village area as well.
In addition, the El Camino Real/Chestnut District in the updated Zoning Ordinance provides
regulations, standards, and development review procedures to implement the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. There are several sub districts in this zone: the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use Medium Density District (ECR/C-MXM), the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High Density District (ECR/C-MXH), and the El Camino Real
Residential High Density District (ECR/C-RH). The ECR/C-MXH and ECR/C-RH districts
include three key housing sites in the Transit Village area.
The five key housing sites in the Transit Village total 16.9 acres and would accommodate 1,731
housing units.
Transit Village Residential Medium Density Zone
The TV-RM district permits multi-unit residential uses, with a maximum density of 30 units per
acre. The minimum site area per unit is 1,500 square feet and the maximum lot coverage is 75
percent. Setbacks of 5 feet on the side and 10 feet on the street side are required, as is a rear yard.
There are also controls over the pedestrian orientation and vehicle accommodations.
Site 1 is the housing site located in the TV-RM zone. It is composed of two parcels: one is 0.1
acres in size and has a vacant single family home, and one is 1.5 acres in size and is vacant. The
low density residential district RL-8 is adjacent to Site 1. At the TV-RM density of 30 units per
acre, Site 1 can comfortably accommodate 47 units.
El Camino Real/Chestnut District
The ECR/C-MXH designates sites for mixed-use development at high intensities, and it permits
single-unit attached and multi-unit residential development, except at the ground floor level
along key rights-of-way. The maximum FAR is 2.0, but can increase to 3.0 with the incentive
program. The maximum residential density is 80 units per acre, and the maximum can increase to
110 units per acre with the incentive program. There is no minimum residential density in the
ECR/C-MXH zone.
Housing Resources
87
The ECR/C-RH zone provides for high density residential development in the form of high rises
and townhomes near the BART station. It permits single-unit attached and multi-unit residential
development, and it has no minimum or maximum FAR. The minimum residential density is 80
units per acre, and the maximum density is 120 units per acre, and up to 180 units per acre with
the incentive program.
The building envelopes for both the ECR/C-MXH and ECR/C-RH zones are controlled by
minimum and maximum street wall heights, front building setbacks, and build-to lines.
Minimum setbacks apply to building walls with windows and facing side or rear yards, to provide
light and air for residential units. The maximum lot coverage is 90 percent for both zones, and
maximum tower dimension is 125 feet, with a minimum separation of 30 feet between towers.
Site 2 is 5.7 acres and is composed of three parcels, which are each zoned ECR/C-MXH. Two of
the parcels are vacant, while another is occupied by a lumber yard. Eighty dwelling units are
allowed per acre in this zone, and Site 2 would accommodate 456 residential units.
Site 3 was included in the Focus Area of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. Detailed
development projections were calculated for the Focus Area block-by-block, based on the
application of land use, density, and intensity regulations. This Housing Element relies on those
block-by-block projections for the build out assumptions. Site 3 is composed of seven parcels; six
are zoned ECR/C-MXH, while one is zoned ECR/C-RH. Together, these parcels total 7.6 acres
and would comfortably accommodate 1,113 housing units.
Site 5 contains one parcel that is 1.7 acres and zoned ECR/C-MXH, and it would accommodate
108 units.
Together, Sites 2, 3, and 5 in the ECR/C District would accommodate 1,677 units.
RH-30 Zone
The RH-30 is a residential zoning district that provides for high residential density at 30 units per
acre, with no minimum or maximum FAR. Single unit dwellings and multi-unit dwellings are
permitted in the RH-30 zone. The maximum building height is 50 feet, with a maximum of 4
building stories. Setbacks are required on all sides of the building. The maximum lot coverage is
65 percent is allowed. The only site in the Transit Village in the RH-30 zone, Site 4 is a small
parcel of 0.3 acres and is currently occupied by utilities. It is adjacent to multi-family residential
uses, and it is expected to accommodate 7 housing units.
Ownership
Publicly-Owned. Sites 3 and 5 were owned by the City’s Redevelopment Agency before it was
dismantled in 2012. In the Long Range Property Management Plan, the dissolution plan of the
City’s Redevelopment Agency, a number of the properties have been transferred to the City’s
Successor Agency, including Sites 3 and 5. These sites are among the best near-term opportunities
for housing development in South San Francisco, as they are primarily vacant and have been
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
88
identified for future housing and mixed-use development through the General Plan, the El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. The City has expressed an
intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize residential mixed-use development on
the sites. In total these sites measure 9.5 acres with a capacity for 1,215 dwelling units.
Privately-Owned. Site 2 is owned by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. This site is composed of
three parcels and is currently occupied by a vacant motel, a lumberyard, and a vacant lot. Site 1 is
privately owned.
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
There are no known environmental issues that would limit development of the identified sites in
the Transit Village area. Recent residential developments in the area have submitted negative
declarations. The sites are outside of the airport noise contours, and no sites in the area are listed
with the State as having known or potential contamination.1 Periodic flooding occurs in certain
areas along Colma Creek in South San Francisco, which runs through the Transit Village;
however, improvement projects in this area have greatly reduced the concern of flooding, such
that it is not an issue that would limit development in this area.
The City Engineer has confirmed that infrastructure in the area is sufficient to support identified
levels of development, including the capacity of sewer, water, and wastewater treatment facilities.
As is common practice in the City, developers may be required to pay for intersection or other
infrastructure improvements to offset project-specific impacts.
DOWNTOWN SITES
Downtown South San Francisco is situated just west of Highway 101 and has retained a historic
character with fine-grained, mixed-use development. The City’s General Plan seeks to reinforce
the Downtown’s identity and role as the physical and symbolic center of South San Francisco.
General Plan strategies include increased residential development in the Downtown and better
connections to surrounding areas. The comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update has provided
zoning districts and development regulations to support this vision. Much of the Downtown
neighborhood is located within a half-mile of the City’s Caltrain commuter rail station, which is
located on the east side of Highway 101. As discussed above, the City has recently adopted the
DSASP, which identifies further development opportunities and allows higher densities.
The City’s historic Downtown area encompasses a range of underutilized publicly- and privately-
owned parcels that are suitable for either mixed-use or residential development. Even before
adoption of the DSASP, through the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update in 2010 and
related efforts, the City has paved the way for housing on key parcels in the Downtown area in
keeping with the long-term goal of creating a vibrant and sustainable urban center. The DSASP
1 Source: Department of Toxic Control Substances, March 2009.
Housing Resources
89
will continue to support those goals and will enhance this vision further. For this Housing
Element, the City has identified 12 key sites in the Downtown with near-term redevelopment
potential. The sites are composed of combinations of vacant and underutilized parcels, and the
table that follows takes their current status into account in determining realistic capacity. Listed
below in Table 5.1-3 and shown in Figure 3, all of these sites are owned by the City of South San
Francisco Successor Agency. In total, these sites represent 6.1 acres with a combined development
capacity for 438 units under the DSASP.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update September 2014
90
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015
90 Table 5.1-3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown AreaSite APN Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses Under DSASP Regulations Zoning Maximum Dwelling Units Per AcreEstimated Actual1 Dwelling Units Per Acre3Total Units6 012-145-370 0.3 Vacant SFR, MFR, Commercial Linden Neigh-borhood Center 60 48 14Site 6 Total 0.3 147 012-174-300 0.3 Parking Lot SFR, MFR, Commercial Linden Neigh-borhood Center 60 48 14Site 7 Total 0.3 148 012-314-010 0.3 Vacant SFR, MFR, Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 24Site 8 Total 0.3 249 012-311-330 0.3 Parking Lot Hotel, MFR, Public Downtown Residential Core 80 64 19Site 9 Total 0.3 1910 012-311-260 0.3 Parking Lot Hotel, MFR, Public Downtown Residential Core 80 64 1910 012-311-250 0.1 Parking Lot MFR Downtown Residential Core 80 64 610 012-311-240 0.1 Parking Lot MFR Downtown Residential Core 80 64 610 012-311-230 0.1 Parking Lot MFR Downtown Residential Core 80 64 6Site 10 Total 0.6 3811 012-334-130 0.3 Office Building Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 2411 012-334-160 0.2 Parking Lot Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 16
Housing Resources
91
Housing Resources
91Table 5.1-3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown AreaSite APN Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses Under DSASP Regulations Zoning Maximum Dwelling Units Per AcreEstimated Actual1 Dwelling Units Per Acre3Total Units11 012-334-030 0.1 Office Building Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 811 012-334-040 0.2 Retail Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 16Site 11 Total 0.8 6412 012-316-100 0.1 Parking Lot Commercial Grand Avenue Core 80 64 612 012-316-110 0.1 Parking Lot Commercial Grand Avenue Core 80 64 612 012-316-090 0.2 Parking Lot Commercial Grand Avenue Core 80 64 1312 012-316-080 0.1 Commercial Building Commercial Grand Avenue Core 80 64 612 012-316-060 0.1 Vacant Commercial Grand Avenue Core 80 64 612 012-316-040 0.2 Parking Lot Commercial Grand Avenue Core 80 64 13Site 12 Total 0.8 5113 012-335-100 0.2 Vacant Fire Station Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 1613 012-335-110 0.3 Parking Lot Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 24Site 13 Total 0.5 4014 012-318-080 0.5 Commercial Building Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 41
South San Francisco Housing Element Update September 2014
92
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015
92 Table 5.1-3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown AreaSite APN Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses Under DSASP Regulations Zoning Maximum Dwelling Units Per AcreEstimated Actual1 Dwelling Units Per Acre3Total UnitsSite 14 Total 0.5 4115 012-314-220 0.4 Parking Lot Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80 32Site 15 Total 0.4 3216 012-317-110 Parking Lot Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 8016 012-317-100 Commercial (vacant?) Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 8016 012-317-090 Parking Lot Commercial Downtown Transit Core 100 80Site 16 Total 1.1 8517 012-314-100 0.2 Parking Lot Commercial, Parking Downtown Transit Core 100 80 16Site 17 Total 0.2 16Total 6.1 438Notes: 1. Numbers may not sum precisely due to rounding. 2. Estimated actual density does not include density bonuses and incentives that may be achievable. Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett & Bhatia, 2015.
Housing Resources
93
Figure 3: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
94
Capacity Analysis
This section contains an analysis of the realistic development capacity of housing opportunity
sites in the Downtown area. This analysis considers factors including vacant and underutilized
status, recent development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure.
Under the newly adopted DSASP, there are four new districts that cover the Downtown
opportunity sites identified in Figure 9: Linden Neighborhood Center, Downtown Transit Core,
Downtown Residential Core, and the Grand Avenue Core. Two of the sites would be in the
Linden Neighborhood Center, seven of the sites would be in the Downtown Transit Core, two of
the sites would be in the Downtown Residential Core, and one of the sites would be in the Grand
Avenue Core. In total, the opportunity sites total approximately 6.1 acres and would
accommodate 438 housing units.
Downtown Transit Core
The Downtown Transit Core (DTC) district allows for multi-unit residential construction, with a
minimum density of 80 units per acre and a maximum density of 100 units. The minimum FAR is
2.0 and the maximum FAR is 6.0. Within the DTC district, the main development standards
controlling the building envelope are maximum lot coverage of 100 percent and a maximum
building height of 85 feet. There is no setback requirement except for lots that abut a residential
district, which requires a 10 foot setback.
Sites 8, 11, and 13-17 are individual parcels or groups of assembled parcels that range from 0.2
acres to 1.1 acres in size in the DTC district. Surface parking lots or vacant buildings occupy many
of the sites, and no site is adjacent to a residential zoning district. Site 14 and Site 16 are adjacent
to the Public/Quasi Public District on Airport Boulevard. Based on the following development
standards for Site 17, which is representative of the sites in the DTC district, all of the sites in the
DTC district could comfortably accommodate approximately 80 dwelling units per acre:
Lot size: 0.2 acres or 7,596 square feet
Minimum Setback Requirement: 0 feet (No abutting of Residential districts)
FAR: 6.0
Maximum Building Size: 45,576 square feet (Lot size multiplied by FAR)
Gross Residential Square Footage: 31,903 square feet (Assumes 70 percent of building is
residential)
Net Residential Square Footage: 22,332 square feet (Assumes 70 percent of gross
residential square footage, with 30 percent of gross residential space devoted to common
spaces)
Average Unit Size: 1,400 square feet (Typical for a two-bedroom unit)
Housing Resources
95
Expected Number of Units: 16 units (Net residential square footage divided by average
unit size)
Maximum Density: 80 units per acre (Lot size divided by number of units)
When this density is applied to all of the sites in the DTC district, 302 housing units could be
accommodated in the zone.
Downtown Residential Core
The Downtown Residential Core district (DRC) allows for multi-family residential construction.
The maximum FAR is 3.0, exclusive of structured parking. A minimum of 40 residential units per
acre is required, with a maximum density of 80 units per acre (up to 100 or 125 under the
incentive program). The main development standards controlling the building envelope are
maximum lot coverage of 90 percent and maximum building height of 65 feet. Setbacks are
required in the rear yard (20-foot setback) and when the lot abuts a residential district (10-foot
setback on the interior side).
Sites 9 and 10 are existing parking lots in the DRC district near City Hall in Downtown. These
sites are adjacent to residential and hotel uses. Site 9 is about 0.3 acres, while Site 10 is composed
of several smaller lots totaling 0.6 acres. Under the current density standards for the DRC district,
it is estimated that Site 9 would accommodate 19 units, while Site 10 would accommodate 38
units.
Linden Neighborhood Center
The Linden Neighborhood Center district (LNC) allows for multi-family residential construction
(except on the ground floor), with a minimum density of 40 units per acre and a maximum
density of 60 units per acre. The maximum FAR is 3.0 for development, exclusive of structured
parking. Within the LNC district, the main development standards controlling the building
envelope are maximum lot coverage of 90 percent and a maximum building height of 50 feet.
There are no setback requirements.
Both in the LNC Zone, Site 6 is a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface parking lot. These sites are
corner lots at the intersection of Pine and Linden avenues, each situated on opposite sides of Pine
Avenue. These lots are adjacent to existing single and multi-family homes. Each site is about
13,000 square feet, and under the current density standards for the LNC Zone, it is estimated that
each site would accommodate 14 units.
Grand Avenue Corridor
The Grand Avenue Corridor district (GAC) allows for multi-family residential construction
(except on the ground floor). The required minimum density is 14 units per acre, with a
maximum density of 60 units per acre. The maximum FAR is 3.0 for development, exclusive of
structured parking, and the minimum required FAR is 1.5. The main development standards
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
96
controlling the building envelope in the GAC district are maximum lot coverage of 100 percent
and a maximum building height ranging from 45 to 65 feet. There are no setback requirements.
Site 12 is in the GAC district and is composed of multiple sites, which are currently vacant,
parking lots, or occupied by a commercial building. a vacant lot and Site 7 is a surface parking lot.
These lots are on Grand Avenue, which is intended to be the “main street” of Downtown. These
lots are adjacent to commercial uses, and they total about 0.8 acres. Under the current density
standards for the GAC district, it is estimated that Site 12 would accommodate 51 units.
Ownership
Publicly-Owned. Many of these sites were owned by the City’s Redevelopment Agency before it
was dismantled in 2012. In the Long Range Property Management Plan, Sites 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15,
16, and 17 have been transferred to the City’s Successor Agency for ownership. These sites are
among the best near-term opportunities for housing development in South San Francisco. Sites 8,
9, 10, and 13 in the Downtown are owned by the City of South San Francisco. Under the DSASP,
the goals support creating a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse downtown, and these sites can
provide opportunities for dense housing construction to contribute to the vitality of downtown.
These sites fall into three categories: vacant, occupied by surface parking lots, or occupied by
vacant buildings. Regardless of their present state, these sites have been identified for future
housing and mixed-use development through the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as
in the DSASP. The City has expressed an intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize
residential and mixed-use development on the sites. In total, these sites measure 6.1 acres with a
capacity for 438 dwelling units under the DSASP.
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
The Downtown area is outside of the airport noise contours and any flooding hazard zones.
However, certain sites within the Downtown area have been suspected of environmental
contamination, which may require clean up, in order to facilitate housing development. These
include Site 14, which has undergone Phase I Environmental Site Assessments; Site 16, which has
undergone Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments; and Sites 6 and 7, which have not
undergone environmental site assessments.
As with the Transit Village area, the City Engineer indicated that infrastructure in the Downtown
area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer,
water, and wastewater treatment facilities.
In the past, one obstacle to development of public parking lots has been the need to first develop a
replacement garage. The City opened such a project, the Miller Avenue Garage, in 2010, thus
creating the potential for the redevelopment of City-owned parking lots in this planning period.
Housing Resources
97
ANALYSIS OF ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES
As described, housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village and Downtown areas are able to
accommodate a range of housing types.
Lower Income Multi-family Residential. Nearly all sites identified can realistically
accommodate densities of 30 dwelling units per acre or greater, which is a level of density
that the State acknowledges is consistent with providing lower-income multi-family
housing. Thirty dwelling units per acre is the “default density” assigned by HCD to
jurisdictions with more than 25,000 people in San Mateo County. Housing sites that are
zoned for a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre are assumed to be able to
accommodate lower-income housing.
Residential Care Facilities, including Supportive Housing. This housing type would be
permitted with conditional use permits and minor use permits on the housing
opportunity site identified in the Transit Village area in the RH-30 zone and in the
Downtown area sites in the DC and DMX zones.
Elderly and Long-term Care Facilities. These facilities would be permitted with a
conditional use permit on the housing opportunity site in the Transit Village area located
in RH-30 zone.
Transitional Housing. As part of the Zoning Ordinance update, the City explicitly
addressed transitional and supportive housing to assure it is allowed subject only to those
restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Thus,
transitional housing would be a permitted use on all of the housing opportunity sites.
Group Residential. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Group Residential uses
would be permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the RH-30 zone in the Transit Village
and the DMX zone in the Downtown area. Group Residential is a broad category
encompassing housing that is occupied by persons not defined as a family on a weekly or
longer basis.
ANALYSIS OF ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE EMERGENCY SHELTER
FACILITIES
In accordance with the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City already has satisfied
requirements regarding emergency shelters by providing an existing emergency shelter facility
within its jurisdiction that can accommodate more than the City’s individual need for emergency
shelter space (see Gov’t Code, § 65583(a)(4)(C)). South San Francisco’s existing emergency shelter
provides 90 beds, accounting for more than half of emergency shelter capacity countywide. In
addition, as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City identified the Mixed Industrial (MI)
district as a zone in the City where an emergency shelter would be permitted as an allowed use,
subject only to the same development standards applicable to other uses in the zone. Emergency
shelter facilities are also permitted with a Minor Use Permit in the Business Commercial district.
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
98
The MI combines the City’s previous industrial zoning districts to provide an area that is
appropriate for a range of uses, including manufacturing and related uses, small-scale retail and
service uses, live-work uses, and social service uses. The western portion of the MI district, west of
101, is adjacent to the City’s Downtown area, which allows residential, commercial, and retail
uses. The eastern portion of the MI district is adjacent to Business Commercial, Business
Technology Park, Freeway Commercial, and Public/Quasi Public districts. The City’s existing
shelter is located immediately adjacent to the MI district on a parcel zoned as Public/Quasi
Public, where the zoning does not allow new emergency shelters, but allows existing emergency
shelters to remain.
Adjacent to the Downtown, the MI district is situated near a full range of retail services and is
located near existing social service providers, including the San Mateo County Human Services
Office, Salvation Army, the St. Vincent De Paul Society, and the North Peninsula Neighborhood
Services office. Moreover, the district is served by several public transit routes, providing good
accessibility to local and regional destinations.
The MI district is large and provides numerous sites that are underutilized and could potentially
accommodate an emergency shelter. Conversations with commercial brokers in South San
Francisco indicate that there are several industrial properties for sale in the district, many of
which are marketed as “redevelopment opportunities.” This finding was confirmed through a
search of the LoopNet.com website, a commercial listing service for properties for sale, which
showed multiple properties for sale with substantial additional built out potential or potential to
replace warehouse buildings with different uses.
A more detailed capacity analysis of sites in the MI district reveals that there are numerous vacant
and underutilized sites that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency shelter. The
Needs Assessment in Chapter 3 determined that the unsheltered homeless population in South
San Francisco is 172 people. The existing emergency shelter in South San Francisco has 90 beds
and is in a single-story building that is estimated to be about 8,600 square feet in size. Thus, two
additional shelters of the same size as the existing shelter would be needed to provide beds for the
city’s unsheltered homeless population. Under current development standards in the MI district,
an additional emergency shelter that is the same size as the city’s existing shelter would fit
comfortably on a parcel that is about a half-acre in size. Table 5.1-4 shows the current vacant and
underutilized parcels in the MI district that could potentially be redeveloped with an emergency
shelter and accommodate the city’s need for two additional shelters.
Housing Resources
99
Table 5-1.4: Vacant or Underutilized Sites in MI District with Potential Capacity for
Emergency Shelter
APN Address Existing Use on Parcel Size in Acres
014091060 146 S Maple Avenue Open Storage 1.0
014091070 146 S Maple Avenue Light Manufacturing 1.34
014091110 434 Victory Avenue Vacant 0.27
014091100 124 S Maple Avenue Warehouse 1.5
014102080 70 S Linden Avenue Open Storage/Vacant 0.98
014212030 123 S Linden Avenue Mini Warehouse 0.42
014091120 170 S Maple Avenue Warehouse/Vacant 0.52
015164070 326 Shaw Road Food Processing 1.15
014092180 141 S Maple Avenue Warehouse 1.53
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett & Bhatia, 2015.
5.2 Financial Resources
The City of South San Francisco has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources
available for affordable housing activities, including programs from federal, State, local and
private resources.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS
Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the U.S Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments for a wide range
of housing and community development activities for low-income persons.
Based on previous allocations, South San Francisco expects to receive approximately $2.8 million
in CDBG funds during the 2014 to 2022 period. In accordance with the policies established by the
City Council, South San Francisco is committed to increasing and maintaining affordable housing
in the City. CDBG funds can be used for site acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer
assistance, emergency and transitional shelters, and fair housing/housing counseling activities.
Additionally, funds can be used for activities that support the new construction of affordable
housing such as site clearance and the financing of related infrastructure and public facility
improvements.
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ACT FUNDS
The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National
Affordable Housing Act provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing
projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County
HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the Consortium’s annual grant
allocation. Funds are distributed on a competitive basis through a request for proposals process
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
100
administered by San Mateo County. HOME funds may be used by the City for direct expenditure
or may be issued as low-interest loans to a private or not-for-profit developer to jointly undertake
the production of housing units that will be affordable to low-income residents. Under the
program, 30-year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded with the property to ensure future
affordability.
HEART
South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART),
which raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo
County. Formed in 2003 as a public/private partnership among the cities, the County, and the
business, nonprofit, education, and labor communities, to date, HEART has received over $12
million in funding gifts and pledges to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County.
LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS
Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program
has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and
rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households. The program allows investors an
annual tax credit over a ten-year period, provided that the housing meets the following minimum
low-income occupancy requirements: 20 percent of the units must be affordable to households at
50 percent of area median income (AMI), or 40 percent of the units must be affordable to those at
60 percent of AMI. The total credit over the ten-year period has a present value equal to 70
percent of the qualified construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically
sold to large investors at a syndication value.
SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE
The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income
persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference
between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30 percent of their
gross income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment
standard but the tenant must pay the extra cost. This program is administered by the San Mateo
County Housing Authority.
5.3 Summary
Consistent with the City’s long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential
development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing production.
These include primarily sites for housing development, and a variety of funding sources, as
summarized below:
South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the
regional housing need in the planning period. The City has no carryover obligation
Housing Resources
101
because it was able to identify adequate sites to meet its RHNA for the 2007-2014
Housing Element. There is sufficient land to support the production of 2,169 new
housing units.
Nearly all of the City’s development capacity consists of higher density housing sites
(densities exceeding 30 units per acre), and all are located within developed areas already
served with needed infrastructure, including sewer, water, stormwater, and
transportation facilities.
The City’s housing capacity is found primarily in two areas: the Transit Village and the
Downtown area.
South San Francisco has a variety of financial resources to support affordable housing
production.
102
6 Housing Plan
Based on the needs, constraints and resources identified above, the following section of the
Housing Element sets forth South San Francisco’s housing plan for the 2015 to 2023 planning
period. The City has established this plan in consideration of its own local needs and priorities, as
well as its obligations under State Housing Element law.
The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related implementing policies.
Accompanying each implementing policy are one or more programs that the City will implement
over the 2015 to 2023 planning period. These programs are summarized in an eight-year Action
Plan, which presents the programs together with implementing agencies, funding sources and
time frames for implementation. Finally, the Housing Plan sets forth quantified objectives for
housing construction, rehabilitation and conservation for the Housing Element planning period.
The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation
programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element.
Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature.
Implementing Policies: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment.
Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy. Implementation
programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated time
frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the calendar year in which the activity is
scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted based
on City staffing and budgetary considerations.
Quantified Objective: The number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed,
conserved, or rehabilitated, and the number of households the City expects will be assisted
through Housing Element programs based on general market conditions during the timeframe of
the Housing Element. Quantified objectives for the housing plan overall are summarized in a
table at the end of this chapter, rather than being attributed to individual policies or programs.
Housing Plan
103
6.1 Promote New Housing Development
GOAL 1: PROMOTE THE PROVISION OF HOUSING BY BOTH THE PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC SECTORS FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY
Implementing Policies
Policy 1-1: The City shall implement zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of land to meet
its 2014 to 2022 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 565 very low income units,
281 low income units, 313 moderate income units, and 705 above moderate income units.
Program 1-1A - Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory: The City shall periodically
update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels identified in this Housing
Element. The City shall also conduct a periodic review of the composition of the housing
stock, the types of dwelling units under construction or expected to be constructed during
the following year, and the anticipated mix, based on development proposals approved or
under review by the City, of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the
period covered by the Housing Element. This analysis will be compared to the City’s
remaining 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any
changes in land use policy are warranted.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: Staff time
Policy 1-2: The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Program 1-2A – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The City shall continue to implement
the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with State law, requiring new for sale
residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percent
low- and moderate-income housing.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Staff time
Program 1-2B - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Review: The City shall periodically
review the success of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SSFMC 20.380, to determine
if the objectives of the ordinance are being met. Consideration shall be made to revising
provisions of the ordinance to ensure that a range of housing opportunities for all
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
104
identifiable economic segments of the population, including households of low-and
moderate incomes, are provided.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Housing and
Economic Development Division and Planning Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: Staff time
Policy 1-3: As feasible, the City will investigate new sources of funding for the City’s affordable
housing programs.
Program 1-3A – Investigate Commercial and Housing Linkage Fee: Through
participation in the 21 Elements group, the City will investigate the feasibility of
commercial and housing linkage fees to support affordable housing.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; City Council
Time Frame: 2015
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 1-4: The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers to promote the
development of housing for extremely low-, very low-, and lower-income households.
Program 1-4A - Site Acquisition: The City shall work with for-profit and nonprofit
housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or developed with underutilized,
blighted, and/or nonconforming uses for the development of affordable housing. As
needed, the City will meet with developers to discuss and identify development
opportunities and potential funding sources.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division and Planning Division; Planning Commission; City
Council
Time Frame: Annually and Ongoing
Funding Source: Various
Program 1-4B – Support and Pursue Funding Applications for Affordable Housing:
Consistent with existing practice, the City shall continue to support funding applications
for federal and state funds to promote the development of affordable housing.
Housing Plan
105
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Annually and Ongoing
Funding Sources: Various. Directory of funding provided in the HCD Financial
Assistance Program Directory.
Program 1-4C – Consider Waivers or Deferrals of Planning, Building and Impact Fees for
Affordable Housing Development: Consistent with SSFMC section 20.310.004, the City
shall continue to consider the waiver of application and development fees for affordable
housing development in order to support the financial viability of affordable housing
development. Waiver of such fees will be on a case-by-case basis at the City Council’s
discretion and will balance the goal of affordable housing production with the need to
collect fee revenues to support other City goals.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; City Manager; City Council
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Sources: NA
Program 1-4D - Review New Development Requirements for Condominiums, SSFMC
19.36: The City shall review SSFMC 19.36, which requires a minimum of 5 units in order
to construct new condominiums, to look at the possibility of reducing unit requirements
with the intent of promoting home ownership.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning
Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: Staff time
Policy 1-5: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses in the areas
designated as Planned Development Areas (PDAs), properties located in the South San Francisco
BART Transit Village Zoning District and in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations and along El
Camino Real, consistent with the Grand Boulevard Initiative.
Program 1-5A - Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area: Through
implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, support increased
residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in the downtown
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
106
area to realize the objectives of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and General
Plan policies.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Planning Commission; City Council
Time Frame: Specific Plan adopted in February 2015; ongoing as development projects
are proposed in the planning area
Funding Source: Staff time; possible support from One Bay Area Grant funding for
projects in PDAs consistent with adopted specific plans
Program 1-5B – Support Grand Boulevard Initiative Polices: Continue to support the
guiding principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which encourages the provision of
medium- and high-density housing along El Camino Real in Peninsula communities, in
order to create an environment that is supportive of transit, walkable, and mixed-use. The
City shall reference this policy direction when considering future land use and zoning
changes along El Camino Real, and assess the opportunity for housing development along
this key corridor as development proposals arise.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Policy 1-6: The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family
designated and zoned parcels.
Program 1-6A - Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units and
educate the community about this program: Actively promote community education on
second units, as permitted in SSFMC 20.350.035, by posting information regarding
second units on the City’s website and providing brochures at the public counter in the
Centralized Permit Center.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Planning Commission
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Staff time to promote program; second units developed by private
property owners
Housing Plan
107
Policy 1-7: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill and
redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts
with industrial operations.
Program 1-7A – Continue to identify opportunities for residential development through
infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites: Through completion and implementation
of the Downtown Specific Area Plan and ongoing implementation of the El Camino Real
/ Chestnut Area Specific Plan, the BART Transit Village Plan, the El Camino Real Mixed
Use Zoning Districts the City will maintain an inventory of residential development
opportunities on infill and underutilized sites with proper zoning to support both
affordable and market rate housing development.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division, Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds (planning) and private funds (development)
6.2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development
GOAL 2: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO
REMOVE GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS TO
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, AND
PERMIT STREAMLINING.
Implementing Policies
Policy 2-1: The City shall continue to operate the centralized “Permit Center” in order to provide
assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of local
ordinances and policies, to stimulate housing development consistent with local needs.
Program 2-1A - Expedite Permit Review: To support affordable and market rate housing
construction, the City shall work with property owners, project sponsors, and developers
to expedite the permit review process; promote housing design and projects that meet the
goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; provide timely assistance and
advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and affordable housing
agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval; and interface with community
groups and local residents to ensure public support of major new housing developments.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division, Building Division, and Economic Development and Housing Division
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
108
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 2-2: The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets,
water, sewer, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential development
will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services and
facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements are already
committed or planned. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public
rights-of-way.
Program 2-2A – Ensure coordination among departments: Early in the development
application process, the Planning Division shall work with the applicant and consult with
other departments and divisions to ensure that necessary infrastructure is planned or is in
place to support the proposed project.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division, Building Division, and Economic Development and Housing Division; Public
Works Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 2-3: The City shall continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an
active interest in seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems. The City supports efforts such as
the San Mateo County Sub RHNA effort, which seeks to bring the 21 jurisdictions of San Mateo
County together to address common housing and planning needs.
Program 2-3A – Support regional funding programs: The City shall continue to
participate with other government agencies to support regional funding programs, such
as participating with San Mateo County in its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage
Credit Certificate programs.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: California Debt Limit Allocation Committee
Policy 2-4: The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes
with existing neighborhood character and surroundings.
Housing Plan
109
Program 2-4A – Continue to implement adopted design guidelines: Implementation of
design guidelines applies to rehabilitation and renovation of existing structures as well as
to new construction.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Design Review Board
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 2-5: The City shall ensure that developers and city residents are made aware of key housing
programs and development opportunities.
Program 2-5A – Disseminate Information on Affordable Housing Programs: To widen
the availability of information to interested residents, the City will continue to update its
website and other promotional/informational materials to include information on
affordable housing, housing programs, and inclusionary units.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development –Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
110
6.3 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods
GOAL 3: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL STRIVE TO MAINTAIN AND
PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING RESOURCES, INCLUDING BOTH AFFORDABLE AND
MARKET-RATE UNITS.
Implementing Policies
Policy 3-1: Encourage reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and rehabilitation of
housing, especially housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income households. As appropriate,
the City shall use local, State, and Federal funding assistance to the fullest extent these subsidies
exist to facilitate housing rehabilitation.
Program 3-1A – Minor Home Repair: The City will provide funds to non-profit
organizations providing free minor home repairs to assist extremely low- to low-income
homeowners to bring houses into a good state of repair and maintain them as viable units
in the local housing stock.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Program 3-1B – Funding Prioritization: The City shall continue to give housing
rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds. Funds shall be targeted towards older housing stock and to families
earning less than 80 percent of AMI.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Program 3-1C - Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation: The City shall provide
low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing by
supporting the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Housing Plan
111
Funding Source: CDBG
Program 3-1D – Financial Assistance for SROs: The City shall provide financial
assistance, when feasible, for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms and
Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: CDBG, as available
Policy 3-2: The City shall maintain and improve neighborhoods through the use of systematic code
enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs and other
available incentives. The City shall focus on properties in older neighborhoods such as Village Way,
Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck’s Lots.
Program 3-2A - Enforce Housing, Building and Safety Codes: The City shall continue to
aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes as well as eliminate
incompatible uses or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods through
targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures.
Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department; Department of Economic and
Community Development - Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 3-3: The City shall continue to support the revitalization of older neighborhoods by keeping
streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in good repair. The City shall continue to work
cooperatively with other agencies and utilities concerning the maintenance of their properties and
equipment in South San Francisco.
Program 3-3A - Capital Improvement Program for Older Neighborhoods: The City shall
maintain its capital improvement program to upgrade infrastructure in older
neighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or
Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck’s Lots.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development; Public Works
Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
112
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 3-4: The City shall support the preservation of public affordable housing stock.
Program 3-4A - Support SSF Public Housing Authority (PHA): The City shall support
the South San Francisco PHA in its continued operation and rental of 80 units of public
housing.
Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents
Program 3-4B – Examine Displacement of Affordable Housing and Lower-Income
Households: The City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County,
under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop and
evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents. The City
will use this analysis, in addition to other analysis, to develop potential measures and
programs and the City will implement those programs, as it considers and deems
appropriate, to address the risk of displacement of existing lower income
residents. Displacement might be direct, caused by the redevelopment of sites with
existing residential properties, or indirect, caused by increased market rents as an area
becomes more desirable. The City shall monitor any such implemented programs
annually for effectiveness and make adjustments as necessary.
Responsibility: 21 Elements, Department of Economic and Community Development –
Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: At least annually
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 3-5: The City shall strive to limit the conversion of apartment units to condominiums.
Program 3-5A – Condominium Conversion Limitations: The City shall continue to
enforce limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified in
Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are allowed only if they
meet the following general criteria:
a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists;
b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City’s available housing stock;
c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting
condominium projects;
Housing Plan
113
d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the
time of conversion;
e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan; and
f. The conversion creates at least five (5) condominium units.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Policy 3-6: The City shall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing units at
risk of converting to market rate housing.
Program 3-6A – Monitor At-Risk Units: The City shall monitor its supply of subsidized
affordable housing to know of possible conversions to market rate, including taking the
following actions:
a. Publicize existing State and federal notice requirements to nonprofit developers and
property owners of at-risk housing.
b. Respond to any federal and/or State notices including Notice of Intent to Pre-Pay,
owner Plans of Action, or Opt-Out Notices filed on local projects.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Program 3-6B – Assist Tenants: The City shall assist tenants displaced by the
conversation of at risk units by providing information about tenants’ rights, providing
referrals to relevant social service providers, endeavoring to establish a funding source to
assist nonprofit organizations that support tenants, and facilitating other support as
appropriate.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2015-2023
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
114
6.4 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life
GOAL 4: THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE,
SAFETY AND HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS IS A HIGH
PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO.
Implementing Policies
Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation
measures are taken.
Program 4-1A - Review Projects for Major Environmental Hazards during the
Environmental Review Process: The City shall review residential projects for major
environmental hazards during the environmental review process. The City shall not
approve the projects unless the hazards are adequately mitigated.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 4-2: The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with
adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property-related crimes.
Program 4-2A - Administer Minimum Building Security Standards: The City shall
continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security Standards, of the
Municipal Code by continuing to route all new development applications and additions
to both the Police and Fire Departments to ensure compliance with the code and to
ensure that security measures are considered during the design process.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division; Police Department; Fire Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 4-3: The City shall not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in the 70 dB+
CNEL areas impacted by the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) operations and shall
require aviation easements for new residential development in the area between 65 and 69 dB
CNEL SFO noise contours.
Housing Plan
115
Program 4-3A – Ensure that applications for new residential land uses proposed within
the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study: The City shall
require that the acoustical study be prepared by a professional acoustic engineer and
specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and
construction of the new units, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB,
based on measured aircraft noise events at the land use location.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
116
6.5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs
GOAL 5: SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SAFE,
DECENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR GROUPS WITH SPECIAL HOUSING
NEEDS.
Implementing Policies
Senior Housing
Policy 5-1: The City shall encourage developers and non-profits to provide housing for the elderly
citizens of South San Francisco. The City should encourage the development of senior housing in
higher density areas close to shopping and transportation.
Program 5-1A – Density Bonus for Senior Housing: The City shall include density bonus
incentives specifically targeted for senior housing projects and permit reduced parking
standards.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development- Planning
Division and Economic Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Program 5-1B – Reduced Parking Requirement for Board and Care Facilities: Encourage
development of residential board and care facilities for seniors by continuing to allow
reduced parking requirements for these types of facilities.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Housing for the Disabled
Policy 5-2: Consistent with State law, the City shall require the inclusion of handicapped accessible
units in all housing projects. In all new apartment projects with five or more units, State law
requires that five percent of the units constructed be fully accessible to the physically disabled.
Program 5-2A - Ensure Consistency with State Accessibility Laws: The City shall review
development plans to ensure consistency with state handicap and accessibility laws and
require modifications for accessibility as needed.
Housing Plan
117
Responsibility: Fire Department - Fire Prevention Division; Department of Economic and
Community Development - Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Program 5-2B – Promote Disabled Housing Resources and Programs: The City shall
ensure that its website and handout materials regarding housing resources, requirements,
and services for the disabled are updated regularly and made available to the public.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning
Division and Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds, Staff time
Policy 5-3: The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the
needs of disabled citizens.
Program 5-3A – Accessibility Modification Programs: The City shall continue to support
programs that provide modifications that make housing units accessible to the disabled.
Responsibility: Department Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Policy 5-4: The City shall provide reasonable accommodation, as per SSFMC 20.510, for individuals
with disabilities to ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of this is to provide a process for
individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodations in regard to relief
from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the
City.
Program 5-4A – Reasonable accommodations: The City shall create a public information
brochure on reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and provide that
information on the City’s website.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Timeframe: Ongoing
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
118
Funding Source: City funds
Program 5-4B – Resources for the developmentally disabled: The City shall support the
Golden Gate Regional Center in its mission to serve those with developmental disabilities,
disseminate information about the Center and its services, and make referrals as
appropriate.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Source: Staff time
Housing for Large Families
Policy 5-5: The City shall encourage provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large
families.
Program 5-5A – Support a variety of housing unit designs, including larger housing units
that can accommodate large families: The City shall seek to broaden the diversity of its
housing stock that is affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households to
include more units that are suitable to large families. Currently, much of South San
Francisco’s affordable housing consists of single-room occupancy units and one- and
two-bedroom units. The City shall work with housing developers during the entitlement
process and encourage them to provide a unit mix with at least 10 percent of units having
three or more bedrooms.
Housing and Emergency Shelter for the Homeless
Policy 5-6: The City shall assist the homeless and those at risk of being homeless by being an active
participant in the County of San Mateo Continuum of Care, the county-wide planning body that
coordinates the federal funding for emergency shelters, temporary housing, transitional programs,
and general housing assistance and services for the homeless.
Program 5-6A – Support Continuum of Care Planning: The City shall continue to be an
active participant in the Continuum of Care planning process and support its efforts to
address the needs of South San Francisco residents in need of emergency shelter or
temporary housing.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Housing Plan
119
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff Time
Program 5-6B - Support non-profits that offer housing solutions and services for
homeless: The City shall continue to support non-profit organizations that offer solutions
to solving homelessness and/or provide housing related services for the homeless or at-
risk homeless.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG, as available
Program 5-6C - Support Ongoing Operation of 90-Bed Emergency Shelter in South San
Francisco: The City shall continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year round
homeless shelter within the city limits.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG, as available
Program 5-6D - Social Services for Housing and Homeless Prevention. The City shall
continue to provide referrals to organizations helping families with social services for
housing and homeless prevention.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Fund/Staff Time
Home Sharing
Policy 5-7: The City shall support Home Sharing as part of a collection of policies, programs and
practices for addressing the housing needs of those at the lowest income levels including seniors,
those living with disabilities, those at risk of homelessness and female head of households.
Program 5-7A – Support and Promote Home Sharing: The City shall support the efforts
and services of the HIP Home Sharing Program to provide an alternative housing
solution for extremely low and very low income individuals and families; female-headed
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
120
households; those at risk of homelessness; and others in need. The Economic
Development and Housing Division will provide information about the HIP program,
provide referrals, and support residents of South San Francisco who are interested in
participating.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
Housing for Veterans
Policy 5-8: The City shall support programs to assist Veterans with housing needs.
Program 5-8A – Provide referrals to Veterans who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness: The City shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate families
that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Resources for referrals include the Veteran’s
Administration (VA) National Call Center of Homeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET
and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint effort between the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to
move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into permanent housing
through a voucher program that allows homeless Veterans to rent privately owned
housing.
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development – Economic Development and
Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
Housing for Employees
Policy 5-9: The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance to comply with Health and Safety Code
Section 17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees.
Program 5-9A – Amend the Zoning Code to comply with Health and Safety Code Section
17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees. The City shall amend its
Zoning Ordinance to allow employee housing in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 17021.5, to permit and encourage the development and use of sufficient numbers
and types of employee housing facilities as are commensurate with local needs.
Housing Plan
121
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development; Planning Commission; City
Council
Time Frame: Within 18 months of adoption of the Housing Element Update
Funding Source: City Funds/Staff time
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
122
6.6 Assure Equal Access to Housing
GOAL 6: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VALUES DIVERSITY AND STRIVES TO ENSURE
THAT ALL HOUSEHOLDS HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE CITY’S HOUSING
RESOURCES.
Implementing Policies
Policy 6-1: The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in
housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic
background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent
housing.
Program 6-1A – Support Equal Housing Opportunity Laws: The City shall require that all
recipients of locally-administered housing assistance funds and other means of support
from the City acknowledge their understanding of fair housing law and affirm their
commitment to the law. The City shall provide materials to help with the understanding
of and compliance with fair housing law.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
Program 6-1B – Regional Cooperation: The City shall participate with other jurisdictions
in San Mateo County to periodically update the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
in San Mateo County, a report that helps jurisdictions identify impediments to fair
housing and develop solutions.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Policy 6-2: The City shall provide fair housing information and referrals regarding fair housing
complaints, tenant-landlord conflicts, habitability, and other general housing assistance.
Program 6-2A - Legal Counsel and Advocacy Assistance: The City shall support non-
profits providing legal counseling and advocacy assistance concerning fair housing laws,
rights, and remedies to those who believe they have been discriminated against. Persons
requesting information or assistance related to housing discrimination are referred to one
Housing Plan
123
or more fair housing groups for legal services. Consistent with existing practice,
brochures providing information on fair housing and tenants’ rights are available at City
Hall, public libraries and on the City’s website. The brochures are also available at
nonprofit organizations serving low-income residents. The brochures are available in
English and Spanish. As funding allows, the City shall provide funding assistance to
organizations that provide fair housing, tenant/landlord, and habitability counseling and
other general housing assistance.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG or HOME Administrative funds, as available
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
124
6.7 Energy Conservation
GOAL 7: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL PROMOTE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY, INCLUDING
REDUCTION OF ENERGY USE THROUGH BETTER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
IN INDIVIDUAL HOMES, AND ALSO THROUGH ENERGY EFFICIENT URBAN DESIGN.
Implementing Policies
Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new
and existing residential structures.
Program 7-1A - Assist with energy/weatherization and water conserving modifications/
features in existing residential rehabilitation projects: The City will continue to provide
funds to non-profit organizations that provide energy efficiency upgrades and/or
weatherization improvements for very low- and low-income households.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Policy 7-2: When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to respond to
climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shadow patterns.
Program 7-2A - Continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for
residential buildings: The City shall promote the use of passive and active solar systems in
new and existing residential buildings to ensure that State residential energy conservation
building standards are met. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in February
2014, also includes measures to promote energy efficiency, which will be actively
implemented.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development - Building
Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Policy 7-3: The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving design and
construction techniques in all types of projects (including new construction and remodeled and
rehabilitated structures).
Housing Plan
125
Program 7-3A - Title 24: The City shall continue to enforce State requirements, including
Title 24 requirements, for energy conservation in residential development and encourage
residential developers to consider employing additional energy conservation measures
with respect to the following:
1. Street and driveway design
2. Lot pattern and configuration
3. Siting of buildings
4. Landscaping
5. Solar access
Responsibility: Fire Department- Fire Prevention; Department of Economic and
Community Development - Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Program 7-3B – Promote Green Building Features: The City will utilize the following
tools to promote green building and energy conserving features in new and existing
residential construction.
In 2009, the City completed the Green X-Ray House, transforming an existing
single-family home into an energy efficient model home. The City will use the
Green X-Ray House as a public outreach tool to disseminate information
regarding energy-saving opportunities, offering regular tours to homeowners and
homebuilders as well as for promotional events. This home features an array of
products including solar panels, radiant floor heating and recycled glass tiles.
Staff has recently adopted the a Green Building Ordinance.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development - Economic
Development and Housing Division
Time Frame: 2014 and ongoing
Funding Source: NA, Staff time
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
126
6.8 Quantified Objectives
The following table summarizes quantified objectives for the construction, rehabilitation, and
conservation of housing in the City of South San Francisco for this Housing Element.
Table 6.8-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives, 2015-2023
Income Category
RHNA 2014-
2022
New
Construction Rehabilitation
Conservation/
Preservation Total1
Extremely Low
(Less than 30% of
AMI)2
282 250 30 20 300
Very Low (30-50%
of AMI)
283 250 30 20 300
Low (50-80% of
AMI)
281 230 30 40 300
Moderate (80-
120% of AMI)
313 390 10 0 400
Above Moderate
(Greater than
120% of AMI)
705 800 0 0 800
Total 1,864 1,920 100 80 2,100
Notes:
1. Totals in each category are estimated based on site inventory, income category of existing units to be conserved,
past performance in rehabilitation, and current and projected funding availability in the absence of redevelopment
funding.
2. The “extremely low income” category is not formally included in the RHNA. However, cities are charged with
addressing the housing needs of this population in the Housing Element. The extremely low income totals are based
on an estimated average of 50 percent of all very low income households, per HCD direction.
127
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element
Accomplishments
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
March 2015
128
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 129 Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation Goal 1 Promote New Housing Development 1-1A Inventory Vacant and Underutilized Land and Progress toward the RHNA. Ensure Land Use Policies will Enable Accomplishment of RHNA Goals. Annually update the inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels. In addition, annually review the composition of the housing stock as well as of units under construction or expected to be constructed during the planning period. Compare this analysis to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any changes in land use policy are warranted to ensure an adequate supply of land to meet RHNA target of 373 very low income, 268 low income, 315 moderate income, and 679 above moderate units. Due to the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency this task was not completed. Retain program 1-2A Implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance with the aim of constructing 40 low-income and 60 moderate-income units by 2014. Goal 40 low-income/60 moderate income by 2014; Park Station constructed in 2007 resulted in 7 new low-income units and 8 new moderate income units. Retain program 1-3A Investigate a Commercial Linkage Fee for Affordable Housing By 2010, investigate the feasibility of a commercial linkage fee to support affordable housing. The City continues to explore funding options for affordable housing. As part of the 21 Elements group Cities are looking at cost to share in a nexus study for a commercial linkage fee to support affordable housing. Retain program; update date and status 1-4A Acquire Sites for Affordable Housing Development The Redevelopment Agency shall acquire or work with nonprofit housing developers to acquire vacant or underutilized land or sites with blighted and/or nonconforming uses to ensure sufficient capacity for the development of 60 affordable housing units by 2014. During this housing cycle (2007-2014) the Redevelopment Agency acquired property within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and in the Downtown area. The City continues to work with developers on potential projects. However, due to dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency in 2011, funding for property acquisition is limited and the future depends on the ultimate outcome of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Retain but recognize limitations. City will consider acquisition as feasible, but focus on facilitation. 1-4B Consult with Non-Profit Housing Developers to Identify Development Opportunities The Redevelopment Agency shall continue to meet with nonprofit housing developers annually to discuss and identify development opportunities, including opportunities for the reuse of publicly-owned parcels, for affordable housing. Policy 1-4 Achievements above. Retain program but consider combining with others to reduce redundancy. 1-4C Pursue Funding and Support Funding Applications for Affordable Housing The Redevelopment Agency shall continue to apply on an annual basis for federal and State funds to promote the development of affordable housing and support funding applications by non profit housing developers. Policy 1-4 Achievements above. Amend to clarify that City is not applying for funding but rather supporting those who do. 1-4D Consider Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing Continue to consider waiver of fees on a case by case basis for affordable housing development. Policy 1-4 Achievements above. Retain program 1-5A Complete the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update By December 2009, complete the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update to ensure consistency with General Plan policies, appropriate zoning for the Housing Opportunity Sites, and incorporation of the tools and flexibility needed to encourage: 1) a variety of unit sizes; 2) a mix of housing types; 3) mixed use development; and 4) more intense mixed use development in the South El Camino Real corridor. Measures to accomplish these goals include expanding permissions for residential and mixed use development in new areas, Design Guidelines and an EIR for a General Plan Amendment for the South El Camino Real corridor, and potentially reducing parking requirements for areas near transit. In addition, the Update will designate a district where an emergency shelter is permitted by right and subject only to the same development and management standards applicable to other uses in the zone. It will also ensure that transitional and supportive housing are subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the zone. Updated Zoning Ordinance was adopted August 2010. Accomplished; remove program 1-6A Review the Density Bonus Ordinance By December 2009 and in conjunction with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, review the Density Bonus Ordinance and make modifications as necessary to construct 50 additional units by 2014 and for consistency with State law. SSFMC 20.380-Inclusionary Housing Regulations was updated to be consistent with State law as part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update adopted in August 2010. Accomplished; remove program
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 130 Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation 1-7A Increase Residential Densities in Downtown Explore increased residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in the downtown area to support the objectives of the Downtown Strategy and General Plan policies. The Zoning Ordinance was updated in 2010 and includes changes that encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the Downtown and near transit. In 2012 the City received a grant and began work on the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which was adopted in January 2015 and increased densities near the Caltrain Station. Retain program; ongoing, update target dates 1-8A Support the development of secondary dwelling units Support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family designated and zoned parcels with the goal of developing 20 second units by 2014. Brochures are provided at the Permit Center Counter; in addition staff explores second unit options during counter discussions and during building permit plan checks. A total of 7 second units have been constructed from 2007-2012 (2 for the 2012 calendar year) and have been recorded with the County to reflect the legal second unit. Retain but combine with 1-8B 1-8B Promote Second Dwelling Unit Education Actively promote community education on second units by posting information on the City’s website and providing brochures at the One Stop Permit Center public counter. See Policy 1-8 Achievements above. Retain but combine with 1-8A 1-9A Identify Residential Development Opportunities on Infill and Underutilized Sites Identify residential development opportunities on infill and underutilized sites as part of the Zoning Ordinance update, South El Camino Real General Plan update, and the El Camino Real / Chestnut Specific Plan process. The South El Camino Real Plan was adopted in April 2010 and the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan was adopted in May 2011 to promote infill and redevelopment projects. Retain program but revise to reflect new opportunity site areasGoal 2 Remove Constraints to Housing Development 2-1A Provide Support for Private Market Construction through Expedited Review and Other Means Support private market construction by: working with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; designing housing projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; providing timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval; and interfacing with community groups and local residents to ensure public support for major new housing developments. The One Stop Permit center continues to provide accessible services by Planning, Building and Public Works in one building. The One Stop Permit Center hours are from 8am-5pm. Permit processing is efficient and timely, with accessible staff. Our Planning Commission meets twice a month and our Design Review Board meets once a month to ensure the timely processing of applications. Revise to clarify that the City will not be designing projects itself, rather supporting good design of housing projects 2-2 Ensure Adequate Public Facilities Ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the City in order to encourage residential development to support population growth and fulfill improvement commitments. On specific development projects the City collects "sewer impact fees" to help support the ongoing maintenance and upgrading of the City's infrastructure. The City of SSF adopted a CIP budget of approximately $99million dollars for fiscal year 2011-2012, and a CIP budget of approximately $33 million dollars for fiscal year 2012-2013, with several projects slated for the repair and upgrade of infrastructure to support added populations. Retain policy; add specific program to implement 2-3A Advance the Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate Programs Cooperate with the County to implement its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs with the goal of assisting 20 moderate income households with home purchases. The City continues to participate in the 21 Elements TAC meetings. The City also collaborates with HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) of San Mateo County as well as the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County. The Housing Rehab Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate Programs were not utilized because the new construction of the Park Station project (2007) had purchase prices so low that it was unnecessary to implement these programs. Retain but revise to clarify the City's role better 2-4A Implement Design Guidelines By 2010, implement design guidelines as part of the Zoning Ordinance update in order to ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes with existing neighborhood surroundings. Residential Design Guide was adopted by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 2471. In addition, the recently adopted El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Plan includes Design Standards and Guidelines. Accomplished; can retain as "continue to…" 2-5 Support Excellent Design & CEQA Review While Ensuring Expeditious Permit Processing Support excellent design through the continued use of the design review board and/or staff as well as adherence to CEQA while ensuring an efficient process. Our Design Review Board meets once a month to provide comments on new construction and additions to residential development. Remove; redundant
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 131 Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation 2-6A Disseminate Affordable Housing Program Information Update the City's website to include information on affordable housing, housing programs, and inclusionary units. The City continually provides material to the public regarding affordable housing programs and inclusionary units including at the City's Community Learning Center, on our community calendars, on the City's website, and at our Citizen's Academy. We also regularly send information to local non-profits that serve low income residents in SSF, including the North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center. The Housing and Community Development Department provides the public with affordable housing resource packets that contain specific information on how to find affordable housing programs, along with listings of affordable housing locations and properties with open wait lists. Retain; revise to update a few details Goal 3 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods 3-1 Encourage Private Residential Reinvestment in Older Neighborhoods Encourage private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and private rehabilitation of housing. The Department of Housing and Community Development manages Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Programs which provides funding to Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP). RTP rehabilitates housing in older neighborhoods. Project funding ranges from replacement of water heaters to the repair of leaky roofs. Remove; combine with 3-2 3-2A Fund Lower Income Housing Rehabilitation By 2014, provide funds to assist 40 very low and low income owner and renter households to undertake repairs and maintain their dwellings as viable units. CDBG funds were used for the following housing rehabilitation activities • City sponsored Housing Rehab Program FY 12-13: o Issued 3 Housing Rehab Loans o Issued 3 emergency home repair vouchers o Issued 2 debris box vouchers o Covered emergency gas/sewer line repairs at 7 city-owned affordable rental units • Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID) – The City uses CDBG funds to support CID’s Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) Program. FY 12-13 the HAM program has provided accessibility modifications to 8 South San Francisco households. • Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP) – The City uses CDBG funds to support two RTP programs: National Rebuilding Day and Safe at Home. FY 12-13 the two programs provided free home repairs to 18 South San Francisco households; • North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) House Helpers – Although NPNSC disbanded this program in December 2012, the program did provide free home repairs to 9 South San Francisco households. Retain; combine with other relevant programs (see below) 3-3 Prioritize Funding for Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Lower Income Units in Older Neighborhoods Prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of units in older residential neighborhoods that house low income families earning less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). See 3-2A achievements above. Combine with 3-2 and 3-7A 3-4A Enforce Housing, Building and Safety Codes Continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes. The City operates a Code Enforcement Division through the Fire Department. For 2012 there were 5 enforcement officers on staff that enforce housing, building and safety codes. Building Division staff enforces these codes as well when they are out on inspections. Incompatible uses are addressed in zoning code section 20.320. Retain but combine with 3-4B 3-4B Eliminate Blight in Residential Neighborhoods Seek to eliminate incompatible land uses and blight in residential neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures. See Policy 3-4 Achievements above. Retain but combine with 3-4A 3-5A Create a Capital Improvement Program for Older Neighborhoods Create a capital improvement program to upgrade and keep in good repair housing, streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in older neighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck’s Lots. The City of SSF adopted a CIP budget of approximately $99 million dollars for fiscal year 2011-2012, and a CIP budget of approximately $33 million dollars for fiscal year 2012-2013, with projects set for street repairs and sidewalk and municipal upgrades in the older residential neighborhoods of SSF. Accomplished; keep as "maintain" rather than "create"
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 132 Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation 3-6 Ensure High Quality Design in Rehabilitation Ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2471 adopted the Design Review Guide for residences and additions to homes in SSF. Staff works with architects and home owners to ensure that proposed designs complement and blend in with the character of the existing neighborhood. In addition, staff consults the City's historic resource list to ensure that any design changes are consistent with the architectural character of existing historic structures. Remove; state in other design policy that it applies to new construction and rehab as well. (2-4A and 2-5) 3-7A Provide Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation Provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing through the Housing Rehabilitation Program and with CDBG funds. Give priority to homes in the Downtown Target Area with a goal of rehabilitating 40 units by 2014. CDBG Housing Rehab Loan Program issued 1 loan during FY 11-12 and 3 loans to date during FY 12-13. Retain; combine with 3-2 and 3-3 3-7B Work with the Housing Authority to Preserve Public Housing The City shall support the South San Francisco Housing Authority in the continued operation and rental of 80 units of public housing. See Policy 3-7 Achievements above. Retain program 3-8A Improve and Preserve Boarding Houses and SRO Developments Provide financial assistance for physical improvements to boarding houses and single room occupancy developments in the Downtown area in order to ensure preservation of these resources. There have been no loans/grants issued in 2012 for the preservation or improvement to existing boarding houses or SROs. Retain; combine with other housing rehabilitation programs 3-9A Enforce Condominium Conversion Limitations Continue to enforce limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are allowed only if they meet the following general criteria: a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists; b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City’s available housing stock; c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting condominium projects; d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the time of conversion; and e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan. SSFMC section 19.80 sets forth the regulations for condominium conversions, all requirements must be met for conversions. In addition, zoning code section 20.390.004 has additional regulations for condominium conversions which are quite stringent and require that a minimum of 33% of the total units be affordable low or moderate-income units, and 15% must be set aside for lower-income units. Retain program 3-10A Monitor and Address Potential Conversion of Subsidized Units to Market Rates Monitor the supply of subsidized affordable housing to anticipate possible conversions. Publicize State and federal notice requirements to nonprofit developers and property owners of at-risk housing. Respond to any federal and/or State notices including Notice of Intent to Pre-Pay, owner Plans of Action, or Opt-Out Notices filed on local projects. Currently according to the California Housing Partnership Corporation there are two properties in SSF that are at risk of converting to market rate housing. Given the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency the City's ability to acquire such at risk units is hampered. However, one of the properties is owned by Rotary International (Rotary Club), a nonprofit organization, that has a motivation to keep the units affordable. Retain program 3-10B Provide Assistance to Maintain Affordability of At-Risk Units Prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds and support funding applications to preserve at-risk units through acquisition, rehabilitation, or refinancing by nonprofit housing developers. See Policy 3-10 Achievements above. No longer feasible; delete 3-10C Assist Tenants Displaced or At-Risk for Displacement from Affordable Housing Prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds to assist tenants displaced by the conversation of at-risk units and provide referrals to relevant social service providers for affected tenants. See Policy 3-10 Achievements above. Retain but revise to clarify City's role: City can only advocate, provide referrals, etc. Goal 4 Maintain and Improve the Quality of Life POL 4-1 Prohibit Residential Development on Environmentally Hazardous Sites Prohibit new residential development in areas containing major environmental hazards (such as floods and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation measures are taken. SSF zoning code section 20.160 provides a Hillside (HS) Overlay District for properties that have an average slope of 15% or more and sets forth specific standards for safe development. In addition, zoning code section 20.170 has a Special Environmental Studies (ES) Overlay District that applies to areas of the City that the General Plan identifies as ecology sensitive habitats or susceptible to geologic hazards. Retain policy; move Program 4-3A under here to implement
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 133 Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation 4-2A Administer Minimum Building Security Standards Continue to ensure that all new residential units comply with the Minimum Building Security Standards contained in Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code to decrease burglary and other property-related crimes. All new development applications and additions are routed to both the Police and Fire Departments to ensure that SSFMC Chapter 15.48 is implemented and that security measures are considered during the design process. Specific attention is paid to landscaping to make sure lines of sight are retained. Retain program 4-3A Review Residential Project Sites for Major Environmental Hazards and Prohibit Development on Hazardous Sites Review residential projects for major environmental hazards during the environmental review process, and prohibit the development of projects on sites containing such hazards unless adequately mitigated. During the CEQA review process staff looks at all potential hazards to residential development. In addition, the Code Enforcement and Building Divisions both work with property owners to address unsafe building conditions. Move to be a program under Policy 4-1 4-4A Require Mitigation Measures for All Housing Development in the 65 to 69 dB CNEL SFO Aircraft Noise Contour Require an acoustical study conducted by a professional acoustic engineer for all new residential project applications in the 65 to 69 dB CNEL SFO aircraft noise contour. Noise mitigation measures are required to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB for all new units. The SSF General Plan is updated to be consistent with the SFO Airport Land Use Plan. Prior to purchase of new homes located in the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour area, disclosures are provided to potential buyers. There are added restrictions placed on new homes that disclose locations that within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft contour. Retain, but check consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Goal 5 Support Development of Special Housing Needs 5-1 Prioritize Special Needs Housing Continue to give special attention in housing programs to the needs of special groups, including the disabled, large families, the elderly, and families with low incomes. The new development at 636 El Camino Real has 20 units set aside for San Mateo County Mental Health clients and onsite case management for those clients. Additionally the development at 636 El Camino Real has 40 three-bedroom units for large families. Remove; redundant with the rest of this section 5-2 Encourage Housing Development for the Elderly Encourage the development of housing for elderly. The City has been in discussions with representatives of Rotary Plaza (an existing senior housing complex with 181 units) with regards to a potential new development project for seniors housing. However, the future of these discussions is uncertain at this time given the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency. Combine policies 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4; remove program 5-3B as it is redundant and not specific to seniors 5-3A Grant Density Bonuses for Senior Housing With the aim of building 10 senior housing units over the 2007-2014 planning period, continue to grant density bonuses for senior housing projects, allowing up to 50 units per acre. Permit reduced parking requirements as well. There were 28 SSF seniors served by the City's Minor Housing Repair Program for Seniors in FY 12-13 including the following: Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID) served 6 elderly heads of households Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP) National Rebuilding Day served 1 elderly head of household Safe @ Home Program served 14 elderly heads of households North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) House Helpers served 7 elderly heads of households Combine under a single policy with 5-3B and 5-4A 5-3B Fund Minor Housing Repairs for Senior Homeowners Continue to provide funding for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by low-income senior citizens. Aim to assist 100 units over the 2007-2014 planning period with repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. See Policy 5-5 Achievements above. Combine; see above 5-4A Allow Reduced Parking Requirement for Residential Board and Care Facilities In order to encourage a range of housing types for seniors, continue to allow reduced parking requirements for residential board and care facilities. The SSF zoning code allows for requests for parking reductions for senior housing developments and developments near transit. Combine; see above 5-5A Ensure Development Plans Comply with Accessibility Requirements Review development plans to ensure consistency with State and federal handicap and accessibility laws, making modifications for accessibility as necessary. During the review of all new development projects and applications for modifications to existing buildings, the Building Division staff plan checks projects to ensure that all State Accessibly Laws are met in accordance with California Building Code Section 1134B. Retain policy 5-5B Ensure Housing Access for People with Disabilities in the Zoning Code and Permit Procedures Complete a review of its Zoning Ordinance and other development procedures to ensure compliance with fair housing laws and ensure that these regulations do not create a hardship for persons with disabilities. By December 2009, amend its Zoning Ordinance and change permit processing procedures, as needed, to facilitate accessibility for disabled persons. See Policy 5-5 Achievements above. Remove; accomplished
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 134 Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation 5-6A Modify Housing to Accommodate the Needs of People with Disabilities Continue to fund programs to modify existing housing units to make them accessible to people with disabilities, with the goal of modifying 125 units during the 2007-2014 period. The City provides annual grant funds to the Center of Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID), which has a Housing Accessibly Modification (HAM) Program that provides financial assistance to people that need to make modifications to their home to allow for disabled access. Retain; update target dates/goals 5-7A Ensure Equal Housing Access in the City Code Amend the Municipal Code as necessary to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures to ensure equal access to housing. The zoning ordinance update in 2010 included the addition of SSFMC section 20.510, Waivers and Modifications, that provides provisions for reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to housing by allowing the Chief Planner authority to grant relief from zoning requirements. Remove; accomplished 5-7B Provide Reasonable Accommodation Information Provide information on reasonable accommodation for the disabled through a brochure and on the City’s website. See Policy 5-7 Achievements above. Retain policy 5-8 Encourage Affordable Housing for Large Families Encourage provision of affordable housing suitable for large families. The recently completed affordable housing development at 636 El Camino Real includes 40 three bedrooms units to accommodate large families. In addition, at pre-application meetings staff discusses providing a range of housing sizes with developers during the planning stages of residential development projects prior to the submittal of a formal application. Retain policy 5-9 Assist the Homeless and Maintain Operation of an Emergency Shelter Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. At least one site shall remain available in the City for the operation of an emergency shelter. There is a County run homeless shelter located in South San Francisco on North Access Road. The former Redevelopment Agency regularly fund provided funding to the County for the operation of the shelter. Retain; combine with policies below to reduce redundancy 5-10A Support Continuum of Care Planning Continue to actively participate in the Continuum of Care planning process in order to address emergency shelter or temporary housing needs. HCD staff attends regular quarterly Continuum of Care meetings with the County. The City continues to provide referrals to families and individuals for social services including case management and referrals for housing and homeless prevention. Retain policy 5-10B Fund Organizations Offering Solutions and Services for the Homeless Continue to fund non-profit organizations that offer creative solutions to solving homeless and/or provide housing related services for the homeless or at-risk homeless. See Policy 5-10 Achievements above. Retain; revise to say "support" rather than "fund" 5-10C Fund Transitional Housing Organizations Continue to fund organizations that provide transitional housing, with the goal of 200 placements of families and/or individuals between 2007 and 2014. See Policy 5-10 Achievements above. Retain; revise to say "support" rather than "fund" 5-10D Support Emergency Shelter Operation Continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year round homeless shelter within the city limits. See Policy 5-10 Achievements above. Retain policy 5-10E Fund and Provide Referrals to Housing and Homeless Prevent Case Management Organizations Continue to fund and make referrals to organizations providing social services including case management for housing and homeless prevention. Aim to deliver case management and referrals for 500 individuals and families per year from 2007 to 2014. See Policy 5-10 Achievements above. Retain; revise to say "support" rather than "fund" Goal 6 Assure Equal Access to Housing 6-1 Eliminate Unlawful Discrimination Work to eliminate all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors. The City, in conjunction with San Mateo County, Daly City, Redwood City and San Mateo developed the Analysis of Impediments (AI) for Fair Housing Choice. This was developed in 2012 and was adopted by the SSF City Council on May 1, 2013 by Resolution #36-2013. Retain; fund as available 6-2A Ensure Legal Counsel and Advocacy Assistance for Fair Housing and Landlord-Tenant Cases Provide access to and referrals to organizations that provide legal counseling and advocacy concerning fair housing laws, rights, and remedies for those who believe they have been discriminated against. Aim to pursue 5 discrimination cases and 10 tenant-landlord cases per year from 2007 and 2014. The City provides an annual grant to a fair housing service provider using its HOME Administrative funds. For FY 12-13 the City provided funds to Project Sentinel (a fair housing provider and tenant/landlord service organization). Project Sentinel served 50 SSF residents in 2012. In prior years (2007-2011) the City funded the Legal Aid Society (tenant/landlord services) but due to funding cuts, the City no longer funds this organization. Retain; fund as available; combine with 6-2D and 6-2E
Appendix A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments 135 Table A: Previous Housing Element Accomplishments Housing Element Program Name/Number Program Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation 6-2B Provide Funding to Address Housing Habitability Cases Fund organizations that provide counseling on tenant-landlord issues and habitability as well as other general housing assistance, with the goal of pursuing 100 habitability cases per year from 2007 and 2014. See Policy 6-2 Achievements above. Retain; fund as available 6-2C Work with Other Jurisdictions to Update the Impediments to Fair Housing Report Work with other jurisdictions in the County to periodically update the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County report as a means of identifying impediments and development solutions. See Policy 6-2 Achievements above. Retain policy 6-2D Disseminate Fair Housing Information Disseminate fair housing information through the City website, in public locations, and through nonprofit organizations serving low-income residents. Brochures will continue to be available in English and Spanish. See Policy 6-2 Achievements above. Combine with 6-2A 6-2E Promote and Overcome Impediments to Fair Housing Fund and work with nonprofit organizations to promote fair housing and to identify and overcome impediments to fair housing. See Policy 6-2 Achievements above. Combine with 6-2A Goal 7 Energy Conservation 7-1A Incorporate Energy and Water Conservation in Residential Rehabilitation Assist with energy and water conserving modifications and features in 10 residential rehabilitation projects annually. Staff is currently working on a Green Building Ordinance that is slated for implementation in January 2014. During residential rehabilitation projects, like Rebuilding Together, replacement of appliances/utilities includes energy and water conserving models. Retain; combine with 7-3A and 7-4A 7-1B Promote Green Building and Energy Conserving Features Use the Green X-Ray House and the Green Corp training program to promote green building and energy conserving features in new and existing residential construction. Provide tours to homeowners and homebuilders of the Green X-Ray House, a project funded by the Redevelopment Agency and Community Development Block Grant Recovery funds, in order to provide education about energy saving features and products. Through the Green Corps training program, by 2009, train 12 low income and/or disadvantaged youth to perform energy audits and weatherization of homes and support them to provide services and community education for the remainder of the planning period. See policy 7-1 Achievements above. Retain; update to reflect accomplishments (see above) 7-2A Provide Residential Energy Efficiency Information Provide information to promote the use of passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential buildings in order to meet State residential conservation standards. The City promotes the use of solar panels. In addition, the staff is currently working on a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that sets forth reduction measures that will apply to residential development. Draft measure 3-5 in the CAP promotes energy information and sharing, and educating the community about energy-efficiency behaviors and construction. Retain; update to reflect implementation of CAP 7-3A Fund the Housing Energy Efficiency Rehabilitation Program Continue to fund a non-profit organization to conduct home repairs for very low- and low-income owner and renter households and to weatherize homes. 30% of the Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant funds will be used for energy conservation retrofits and weatherization, including an attic insulation program, for 120 homeowners by 2014. Through our loan and grant programs, the use of weatherization programs is included in part of the overall funding for rehabilitation. Retain; combine with 7-1A and 7-4A; revise to reflect new goals/timeframe 7-4A Enforce Title 24 and Encourage Additional Energy Conservation Measures Enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation in residential development, and encourage residential developers to employ additional solar access, landscaping, building siting, lot configuration, and street design energy conservation measures. The CAP will include a reduction measures that encourages the integration of higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and community faculties, and to reduce the dependents on autos through smart parking practices. In addition, the City continues to implement Title 24 requirements. Retain; combine as indicated above 2337434.1
South San Francisco Housing Element Update March 2015 136 This page intentionally left blank.
DYETT & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94111
415 956 4300 415 956 7315