HomeMy WebLinkAboutHousing Element 1990-1995 General Plan 12-09-1992City of South San Francisco
GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING ELEMENT
1990-1995
Adopted by the City Council
December 9, 1992
~~
HOUSING ELEMENT
Amendments to the Hnal g h lum ng
reflect the additi
opportunities which will be pr P~3 ~ to
the El Camino Corrid
adoption, additional technicaa h~an ins wihle
be made to update the
Housing Element to reflect onet mclnor
activities and to mak
corrections to the 1992 document.
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
r
B. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
1. Availability of Sites
Land is available to build up to ~,~BA 3.90(I, new dwelling units in South San Francisco.
Significant sites (i.e., those one acre in size or larger) suitable for residential development
have been identified and are shown in Figure 26. Approximately 342 346 acres of land are
suitable for development and could accommodate ~-'~8A 3,5.98 dwelling~units. The estimates
of potential units in Figure 26 do not take into account the possibility of density bonuses
for low- and median-income or senior citizen housing. Potentially, all sites located in R-3,
C-1, and P-C zones could take advantage of density bonuses. As there are a total of ~3
39.8 vacant acres in these zones, and density in these zones is typically 30 units per acre ~~t
~s greater in" the ~I Ca~it~o` Corr~doa), a 25 percent density bonus means of ~eas~ an
additional ~ 299:- units of housing could be built, for a maximum of 2-;~ 3,$9'1R
The City has considered the use of under-utilized industrial sites for housing, but has
determined that only one such site is suitable--the Guy F. Atkinson property at the
southwest corner of Railroad and Magnolia Avenues (Site #24 on Figure 2~. The majority
of South San Francisco's industrial ]and is east of the 101 freeway, and most of this property
is not suitable for residential development because it is near the International Airport and
other active industrial uses.
Estimates are not available for the vacant acreage specifically suited for development of
manufactured housing, mobile home parks, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.
However, in accordance with State law, the City's Zoning Ordinance permits manufactured
homes to be used as dwelling units in any single-family area. Mobile home parks arc
permitted in R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, and P-C Zoning districts.
Under the City's zoning provisions, emergency shelters are classified as lodging services and
are conditionally permitted in any commercial zone. Transitional housing is classified as a
group residential use and is conditionally permitted in the R-3 Multi-family zone, in ad
commercial zones, and in the P-I Planned Industrial zone. 'These zones comprise substantial
portions of the city.
Page 37
•
C
~ •
a
~ £
O
j U v ~ ~
~ ,
,
a ~ ~° ° ~ ~ ~ LL v~ .
.~ ~ ~ ~~ e ~ a ~
°
s ' nci a o ~
cs3c
N V N U
~
C1 0 ~ > '
~
~;a
> M
o ~.
>~
a
m
o. s W W = N
r C r
W
~ W W W
~ r, r N
N O
~
~ ~
Q
N ~
Q ~
Ct ~ C Q ~ Q
.
..
~, ~ w
a
~ m N
V m N A ~
~ O ~ p~~ M 1~
!9
N E IA d N r
i O .~ K
Q
~
~ o <a
~ t
O
~ ~
~
~
$ ~
N~~ o
C (A ~
o r -
'C G
m ~ ~ E ~I
°
~ U a
. c
f
o °
v ~ ~~
~ c < 8
~.
t
~ c ~c 'o t • ~ ~ ~ C7 c
C cc
~s 2D
m e
L ~~
'
~ _~
-~~ 2L
~ ~ a
; <
~'c ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ E~ m
c~ W
~ e i
w = S ~ Q, m
~8 0~ ~ _~
~U ~ ~~
a t ~ ~_
~ `~ ~
N N UJ c
~ N ~
o~
$~> ~~ffi
mw< < ~ ~
m ~~ ~~~
a
t~~m ~ aQ
N ~
~ ~ O ~
~ ~
m3~ ~ • ~ao
O ~ ~ ~(_'~
~ b O
a
r;
!' ~ a
v ~
a
~ c
P •
a ~
2
..!
O ~
~ ~~ ~
3~
.;
>~
G e C-±.
p~ ~
C t ~1V
N M ~:.
a ~:
N
x • "'
a ~`
a~
<Q
a
c ~
g~
.~ Q
~ ~a
~ ~ c
~ ~ e
r
> ~
= C3
N
Q
~ N ~
r N
T
_~ ~ R ~
~~
S ~ w
r
oE~
d~
~ a
~ ~~ ~
s ~~ ~~
..s ~ ~~
O
~ ~ •
.7 ° s v~
~ a ~ °~° w ~
~ _~ ~ ~ ~
d =~ ~ a
~~z ~ 3
O '' ~
~ r ~
~ ~
c ~
o
~
U ~
~_
~ i
V
~ U
c
> > > ~
J J J J
Q Q ~ ~
I ~ c ~ o
o
r ~
.. g~
.a ~ ~
e
:a < .~
~<
~~ a
J {
u
d, d
~-
~:~ ~
r
o ~
~ ~ •~ ~ ~ :~
•
~ ~ ~
e ~
b $
~ ~ ~o
p c~ v N~
N ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ S ~~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ d~
o ~~ ~ ~
a Z: ~m
N A ~
~ ~. r
~ .. ~-
~ ~ ~Q
O J W
v ~ :~
~~ ~ ;~
~~ ~ _~
3~ ~ i~
v+
i ~
2'~
rn
a
d
~~
~I S
d
S~
V
~~~ '
~ •
~ ~
>~
C
J
c ~
ro a d
a
0
0
x e ~-
a~
a~
aQ
~ m
•8 ~
,
Q N C
~..
~
~
3"r C
V
C
~ >,
~ C
~ Y
~
~
> ~c:€ > > >
~
: ~
a,
.- a
~o r> o
~ ~ a
m
. ~;> ~
Q '~;` v o~
F e~S ~ ~ `~
~ ~ a r;>
r
O ; ~
d c
r
O
c C
~s
~ ~ .~
~~. U
W
~
a a v
~ C ~
O
~ ~~ ~
a ~
~~
to a
a R
~'
cam'
G
d
Z Q
.-. c
~ O
~
~ 0
O
~
~ om ~
t
J
la-
c ~c
~A ~ ~
~°~o .. ~
~
a
a C
~ C
~ C
c4' ~
~ ~,,
~~~ r
a~
w .
v,
~ 33-
N N ~ N
~ ~~ ~..
x ~'
~~
M ~`
O ~
r
B
C 3 '
L
s/j.
V /~ ~•
°. ~ <>
~'
o a ~~,
c ~e
4 3
~ ~ ~_
~ g
V ~>
.~ ~ ,a z
~ . ~<
~~ ~;
a t~ '"'
~ ., ~ ~'>
~~ ~
~, ~ a
~... '
fir,:..>.
~ : >ta:c:
~~
w
~.
~:
r,.<: 3 ~
g,
~ A
7
~ ~~
~Cj
t `~ ~ ~ • 3
c" ~~~
°~
M ~ ~ ~.
M ~
M
8 ~
Z ~ ~ ~ ~,
OWO.~ ~ c~
a
Z ~ ~
~~C
.ate
2~
4
a
y
~~'' \ \\
~ ~ i
~ 1 ~
,; ~ ;,
(''
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
! ~J ~~
1.''i , F S
~, j \
~~
~ ~ ~r
~ %'
,~
~ ~ ~ ~~
--~ ~
'\ --~ ~ -~--- _ _1~
3
~ ~-,~ ~/
a ~~ ,,~:
® 1/ ~~
~ 1 / R
/ ~ N ' ~ ;
;~ N fir` ~ ~~ ~
/ f ~~ ^ :.
~~ ! ~':
~ ~ \ ~~
3 ~ ~ Q `~
i
~ ~~ ~ .
~ ' /
,.
.~;\ `
O ~ ~ ~ ~~~
~'
\ ~ 1
~~ ~
O
~ m /~
.~ ~ ~~l
1 ,, `~,
-~ o
,.
=-.
..
.: ~ ~;
i ~ ~j~.
~ / j
i '
t ~i
i ~' /.
f ' ~ ~ ~.
~ -
vvvv..~r~• .~~~
South San Francisco mousing ~~r~nn~~~ ~~
The land inventory clearly indicates that sufficient land is available to enable the city to
meet its remaining "fair share" housing need (2,376 units by 1995). About SSA 3,5.98
dwelling units (up to 2;98 3,857 with density bonuses) could be constructed on the available
sites identified in this Element (see Figure 2~. This total (2~ 3,$97) exceeds ABAG's
projected need by ~ .1,521 units.
The city currently has limited land zoned for higher densities to meet the need for housing
affordable to low- and very-low-income households. There are ~3 39$ acres in the city's
highest density zoning categories. 'Ibis land would provide 8~ 8-f_,least r~` units. If all
development on these parcels takes advantage of the City's density bonus provisions, an
additional ~ 29:9: units can be built, for a total of ~~ I~93. By comparison, the 1995
"remaining need" is for 974 units-•524 very low income and 450 low income.
Since not all developers will take advantage of density bonus provisions, the City recognizes
the need for additional land zoned at sufficiently high densities to accommodate low- and
very low-income housing.
Page 42
'The sites and acreage discussed in Figure 26 represent only those sites larger than one acre
that are available without substantial redevelopment or major rezoning. Small infill sites
(less than one acre in size) could provide additional housing.
South San Francisco h~~sing Element December 1992
Figure 28
Housing Potential by Type and Affordability
City of South San Francisco, Calrfornia
AFFORDABILITY
Site HOUSING TYPE Very Above
No. Units SF Condo M-F Low Low Mod Mod
30
1 30 30 33
2 33 33 17
3 17 17 11
4 11 11 12
5 12 12 54
6 54 54 80
7 80
3>3 5 80
5
38
9
' ~~
~-5 2;
..
23 42
..::
8 81
g 81
10 354 ~7~: 81 354 77:5. ~ 2~a S~ 354
11 -::22 22
13 22
20
12 33 33 12 18
13 30 30 135
14 135 135 12 18
15 30 30 120
16 120 120
330 ~T 24 #3~ 2;~~ a-9>~ 82
17 330 44~
19 300 300 18 12 15 255
20 55 55 55
45
21 45 45 719
22 719 125 594 88 38
23 126 126
~
24 80 80 33~ 3Q ~J ~30
25 335 _ - _
TOTALS
2~
4,2-6
~
}8
~
30b
2,445
3~ 568 t~72~t: "i,3Q9 i~3 fit: 1 ~,O>
Percent of 206 44y6 ~ 4~-,`
~
~ 44~
~ 88-~
Totals 100°k ~8°Ib 4$ 36% 39~ ._
+.., ~
~..~`
Addftional Units from Density ~
2A6 2~6 465
Bonuses 29$. --- --- 2J9 0
Source: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, City of South San
Francisco. May 1993
Page 14
South San Francisco Housing Element
2, Zoning Controls
esi nation of each potential housing development siteCouns~d in Figure 26.
The zoning d g
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance can be made by the City
nin is one tool used to unplement the policies and' pen rwimths the General Plan and
Zo g
Zoning establishes location and density constraints con
' s residential uses away from incompatible uses and the on be rof dwel]ing u is
guide
conflicts. The South San Francisco ZoningG en that ~ city currently has about 19,000
to a maximum of about 22,000 to 25,000• lained in section B of this
housing units, the city is close to being, "built-out" As exp
will allow the construction of about
chapter, current zoning and General ~~ans?gnat~ons
~~AA 3,900: new units on vacant and rede'velopable saes.
nin. can also create opportunities for housing, pamcubo useso"da'~us zoning isonot
Zo g
developed with the use of mechanisms such as den ty
inherently a constraint to housing development.
districts: R-E (Rural Estates), R-1
South San Francisco has four residential zoning
e-Famil Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residtheebal)S commercial, industrialY,
(S~ngl Y
Residential). In addition, residential uses are allowed in
nd o en space zoning districts, subject to conditional use permit approval. 'Ibe City rs
a p
ey(~ected to study the lands East of U S 101 reg••afr{d}ing their suitab~Lty for noise sensitive
C2tr1~4 Ctfrrii~0]C.
^j' ~ lia iiiV .... ...:c .....M aa~w~^...a»rncbo6
.... :.. .
..
land uses anal to mitrate transit re le ~ontng
......, ...,<a... <..,.........
e South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance may needOodinancee pravis'ons thatsaffed
'I'h
with the updated Ha scusgsed below. Specific Zoning
residential uses are
Page 54
VCGCIIIUCi 1~7L
South San Francesco Housing Element ~/1
Action 2B-4• .. .... .. , .: _,
. l~t3ate~rezoni.ng~of propetUes,m flee
Canino:Corridor to iavide.for transif onented dense residential land use
p ...,......tY ...
The.. Ba ~~.. Area Rapid Transit District is proposing an extensiont o~~
y Co3ma to the San Francisco Airpo
commuter rail line from P~rly-C~+ k; _,.; _~.v as
proposal includes a station in South San Francisco.
-- --_...,e ~_
pmenc~men~ ulc~uu~~ :~.
density residential uses i
~1`Camino Corridor. Ta
to .the cgrndor, densrt3e
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
of the BARS
stage of the in
Sil ~,nitslacre
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Currently in Progress
General Fund
SSA '~"fS units by 1995.
~:<:.::
Page 66
South San trancisco n~uai+.y ~.~~~~~~~~•
~~
~J/
Policy 2D. Involve the City directly in retaining and increasing the supply of affordable
housing.
Action 2D-1. Continue to operate and rent 80 units of public housing.
No additional such units are planned in the future, but the City vh7l continue
to support the South San Francisco Housing Authority's Public Housing
Rental Program by co-operating with the Authority in such areas as unit
rehabilitation.
Responsibility of: South San Francisco Housing Authority
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents
Quantified Objective: Preserve 80 units.
The next three action programs de of owin edback pound oneDedeve pment law Band
understand these programs, the f g g
redevelopment in South San Francisco is provided.
The City's Redevelopment Agency operates t#~e fvur redevelopment areas: Gateway,
Shearwater, a~ DowntownlCentral, andvH~lACamu~o torr~dor.:. State law requires the
Redevelopme4nt Agency to spend 20 percent o~ its tax increment from these projects to
increase and improve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing.
Eligible activities include acquiring land or sites, certain off-site improvements, construction
of buildings, rehabilitation, providing subsidies, and the payment of principal and interest
on bonds, loans, and advances.
Page 76
South San Francisco Housing tieme~i ~~~~~~~~~~ •-~-
~J
'Ibe City estimates that housing construction programs in this chapter could produce as
many as 2,988 units during the five-year planning period from January 1, 1990, to
January 1, 1995. This estimate was derived by projecting the number of units that could be
built on the available sites listed in Figure 26. It is assumed that the developers of these
sites would take advantage of density bonuses and maximize the possible number of low-
andvery low-income units. Thus, the figure of 2,988 includes the additional units that could
be built, by then appropriate income group, under either the Low- and Very Low-income
or Senior Density Bonus Programs. (Figure 28 indicates the additional units which might
be derived from density bonuses.)
While the figures represent the amount of housing for which land is available in South San
Francisco, not all of the numbers are expected to be reached within the 1990-1995 planning
period. A realistic production rate of 150 to 280 units per year would produce 705 to 1,400
units compared to the total of 2,9$8 units shown w Figure 28 a p~eltmtnar~Repart 1«
...
.~. ~ ~~;;~;n~~rr~rtnr Re~evelo~m~nf ~'roiect anticipates on~he McL.ellan.3qursery: Stu
On the other hand, if the housing market is stimulated by economic forces, a total of 2,988
new housing units is possible, which is 612 above the remaining ABAG-projected need of
2,376 units.
The city recognizes that there is a gap between (1) the number of units tbat ABAG says is
South San Francisco's "fair share new construction need" (for which adequate land is
available in South San Francisco) and (2) the number of new units that are likely to be
built, given past trends and the realities of the housing market. Nevertheless, the City will
strive to meet its housing objectives to the fullest extent possible within the constraints
imposed by the regional and national economies.
Page 92
~~
~ v
bA
00
a
ao
ba
ao
~m
~°~
H~
av
v1
O ~
a
a~
0
«~
w
0
a
m
m m
•~
.~ ~n ~
•.~ ~n ~
-.~ ~n
"~ ~ d
y
~ ao~ ao+ ~
~~ .~
~ x ~ ~ ~
Z
~~ 33
HA N A ~ .0 V
c
~ ~ ~
a
w
a
x a ~
x z ~ o i
a
o
a
a~ ~ ~
c~
a
~
rr °' d'
~ c
p
.~ ID ~ ,
.
O ,.1
O N
p1
a- a G
ti' ~ ~ ~
o ~ a
O o 0
a
`~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
c°
a H
~
~ .~
~
a
~ '>O ~ M '-r '~
a ~
°" C4
H~ a ° a
b
w
a
a
~
o o
s
o
i
a
~ s+
a ° c 0
°
o
~ °'
a w -~c v o
'~~ ~ +,1 IA O ~N ~~~ tll~~~
a •.~
' o0
y o
o a
~
~U
O~
~G3C
•~
~ p .
c -
~ w m C a
O
~
O
N m ~ o v w
w p
p
.
i
~ C
b
~ c oa a ~ a ~ a o •.~ m> ,~
n
a
+'o
Qcai°
~m a o a o~ ~
oa ox = goo
as ~ ~a ~N i c i°o~a
~o
O r-I ~ m
fr N •.~ a1 O a p p O U G a1 1 tll
O> w O •~+~ o .~e
+o v
ao ~o
am 0>3
wool+
y~d
a~ w a
o a ~o
oa,a ~+
a ~
m o wu w= c~b~ o
~ a
N N
N
N
n ~
f,
~ N ~
a N a N N
~ $ N
a
a ~
~+ ~
~ ~
s~
a ~
H
a A
a a
b
0
. ab
~ mo
~ ~ 3
x~ ~+ ~O
9 ~~
~~
w ~o
~~
o ac
b N '~C
~ ~
N N
~~
N
1
Figure 35
summary of Quantified Objectives by Income Level
City of South San Francisco, California
Construction Programs
1B-1. Private Market Construction
2B-1. Mixed Use'
2B-2. Second Units
2B-3. Density Bonus
2B-4. Rezoning near BART station
2C-2. Funds to non-profits
2D-3. Land for rental projects
2D-4. Buy-down cost of rental units
Total Construction
Rehabilitation Programs
lA-1. Single-Family Rehabilitation
2D-2. Improvements to SROs
2E-4. Apartment Rehabilitation
3A-2. Low-income senior home repair
3D-1. Disabled Access
5D-1. Airport noise insulation
Total Rehabilitation
Conservation Programs
2D-1. Public Housing
2D-6. Retain units "at-risk"
2E-3. Section 8
Total conservation
Assistance Programs
2C-3. Home Sharing
2E-2. Mortgage Credit Certificate
Total Assistance
Total very Above
Units Low Low Moderate Moderate
1,567 18 12 217 1,320
126 88 38
2 2
206 165 41
775 2fi 50 5~0
60 30 30
60 30 30
5 5
2,, 801:: 10.3 ;294 : ', $~5 1, 533
50 25 25
60 60
85 65 20
200 190 10
125 120 5
300 300
820 460 60 300 0
80 80
268 268
342 342
690 690 0 0 0
200 135 40 25
15 15
215 135 40 40 0
May 1993
93
~, /,
II.
LAND USE DIAGRAM
00't~
7 M ~
r-~-<
r
r
l•,.r
c
~ O ~
o •
•
~i° a
i~
•~
t r
Z S'~
0
7 R R
~ r
~ t 7
A r
M ~ r
•~•
r ~
~ ~h
A
~~
s °'
a •
~ ?
ass
7
O ~
G ~1
r ri
~~
G
go
•C 7
A A r y
n
7
r
'.~< •
~~ ~r
0
~~:a
c
poi
osi
a. r
cnp
O r
~ r0
7~
s ~~
n •
s ~
~ "`
Vi ~
r~0
O ~
w
d •
~<
N~
i0 ~
c..r
M 0 r
6 ~ A
~ d ~
O=~i
„s
CK ~
a i
r
~ 7
~"s
A
~
a
v
;
Z
~ >r
Z
E
~
~
; o
Z
~
~ Z
v O
~i
N
~ ~
; ~
'>
m
~ ~ ;
A ;
A
~ ~ 3
_
P
~
~ ~
An
1I m
o c ~ v y
~
Z
i =
N
a z
N 3
i
3 70
v
nC = A O
~
}!
~ ~ _
O (9 ~ Z
.{
}
I ~ r
A ~ m
to v
7e
~ ~j y
~
~
~
°
o v
~
~
v
,
i
H ~
~ ~
>
r ~ ~
C ~ ~%/
A
O N
,/,
~i
r ,` •
\
.~~
o
--7 ran
'- Z ,i
~ x D d co
.N~, ~ ' rt
T
v
r
O
.,~.. 3
.o ~ m
d ~ n
~ r
r
v
c
rn
v
n
~o
a
~r
~m
m m
m 3 ~ -Zi Z
?~~Dv
c r-
3
Z_J
~/
CITY COUNCIL
Roberta Teglia, Mayor Joseph Fernekes, Vice-Mayor
Jack Drago John Penna
Robert Yee
PLANNING COMMISSION
Louis Matteucci, Chairman Mazgazet Warren, Vice-Chairman
Robert Mantegani Michael DeZordo
Beverly Boblitt Joy-Ann Wendler
Alan Zellmer
STAFF
Steve Solomon, Chief Planner
Steve Cazlson, Senior Planner
Susy Kalkin, Associate Planner
1992 Revisions and Update
Naphtali H. Knox & Associates, Inc., Menlo Park
Contents
1
IN TRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
A. Intent and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1
B. Major Findings and Goals .......................................................................................... 2
C. Format of the Housing Element ................................................................................ 3
D. The Housing Element Process and Public Participation ..................................... 4
E. Progress in Implementing the 1984 Housing Element ......................................... 5
F. Appropriateness and Effectiveness of the Housing Element .............................. 6
BACKGROUND ON HOUSING NEEDS ...........................................................10
A. Population, Employment, and Housing Trends and Needs .............................. 10
1. Population Trends ............................................................................................... 10
2. Employment Projections :................................................................................... 12
3. Existing and Projected Housing Needs .......................................................... 12
B. Housing and Household Characteristics .............................................................. 15
1. Household Composition and Income .............................................................. 15
2. Housing Unit Mix and Household Size ........................................................... 18
3. Housing Costs ...................................................................................................... 20
4. Level of Payment Compared with Ability to Pay ............................................ 21
5. Overcrowding ....................................................................................................... 22
C. Special Housing Needs ........................................................................................... 25
1. Disabled ................................................................................................................ 25
2. Elderly .................................................................................................................... 26
3. Large Households ............................................................................................... 26
4. Single-parent Households ................................................................................ 27
5. Homeless .............................................................................................................. 28
6. Farmworlcers ......................................................................................................... 29
III. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND CONSTRAINTS...........31
A. Existing Housing Stock ............................................................................................31
1. Number and Types of Units ...............................................................................31
2. Condition of the Housing Stock ........................................................................34
B. Residential Development Potential ........................................................................37
1. Availability of Sites ..............................................................................................37
2. Housing Development Projections, 1990-1995 ............................................42
3. Public Facilities and Services ...........................................................................43
Contents
C. Availability of Assistance Programs .......................................................................45
1. Housing Programs ..............................................................................................45
2. At-risk Units ...........................................................................................................45
D. Government Constraints ..........................................................................................48
1. General Plan Land Use Controls .....................................................................48
2. Zoning Controls ...................................................................................................54
3. Building Codes ....................................................................................................58
4. City Permit Processing and Fees .....................................................................58
6. Infrastructure Improvements ..............................................................................60
E. Market Constraints .................................................................................................... 62
1. Land Costs ............................................................................................................ 62
2. Construction Costs .............................................................................................. 62
3. Cost and Availability of Financing .................................................................... 64
4. Recent Market Experience ................................................................................. 64
F. Opportunities for Energy Conservation ................................................................. 65
IV. HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAMS ..................................................................66
APPENDICES
A. Summary of Policies, Actions, and Responsibilities ......................................... A-1
B. South San Francisco Housing Element Glossary ............................................. B-1
C. Housing Element Review Worksheet .................................................................. C-1
D. ABAG Projections MethodologY ........................................................................... D-1
E. Housing Rehabilitation Program .......................................................................... E-1
List of Figures
Page
1. Analysis of the 1984 Housing Element .............................................................. ..8
2. Historic Population Trends ................................................................................ 10
3. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts ......................................... 11
4. Population Characteristics ................................................................................. 12
5. Existing and Projected Housing Needs ............................................................. 14
6. Projected Housing Need by Income Category .................................................. 15
7. Remaining Housing Need by Income Category ................................................ 15
8. Number of Households by Household Type, 1990 ............................................ 16
9. Population by Age Group, 1970 to 1990 ........................................................... 17
10. Population by Age Group, 1970 and 1990 ........................................................ 17
11. Number, Type of Units and Household Size, 1980 and 1990 ........................... 18
12. Housing Occupancy Status 1990 ...................................................................... 19
13. Number of Persons in Units by Type of Structure ............................................. 19
14. Median Home Values, 1980, 1989, and 1990 ................................................... 21
15. Overpayment, 1980 and 1990 ........................................................................... 22
16. Overcrowding .................................................................................................... 23
17. Census Tracts ................................................................................................... 24
18. Size of Units Compared with Size of Households ............................................. 25
19. Number of Households with Five or More Persons ........................................... 27
20. Housing Units by Date of Construction .............................................................. 31
21. Number of New Housing Units Added by Year and Type ................................. 32
22. Percentage of Units by Type of Structure .......................................................... 33
23. SRO Hotels in South San Francisco .................................................................34
24. Housing Conditions by Neighborhood ............................................................... 35
25. Residential Neighborhoods ...............................................................................36
26. Land Suitable for Residential Development ...................................................... 38
27. Sites Available for Residential Development .................................................... .41
28. Housing Potential by Type and Affordability ......................................................44
29. Low-income Units at Risk of Conversion .......................................................... .49
30. Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations .......................................................... .55
31. Zoning Density Regulations .............................................................................. .56
32. Parking Requirements ...................................................................................... .57
33. Comparison of Developer Fees ........................................................................ .61
34. Components of Housing Cost ........................................................................... .63
35. Quantified Objectives by Income Level ............................................................ .93
I. INTRODUCTION
A. INTENT AND PURPOSE
Every city in California is required to prepare a Housing Element
as part of its General Plan. The Housing Element is a plan to
identify and meet the housing needs of the community, including
households of all income levels and persons with special housing
needs. The Housing Element is one of seven State-required ele-
ments that make up the City's general plan. In adopting the State
Housing Element legislation, the Legislature recognized the impor-
tance of local planning and program commitment and found:
a. The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance,
and early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for every California family is a priority of the
highest order.
b. The early attainment of this goal requires cooperative par-
ticipation of government and the private sector in an effort
to expand housing opportunities and to accommodate the hous-
ing needs of Californians of all economic levels.
c. The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-in-
come households requires the cooperation of all levels of
government.
d. Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the
powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and de-
velopment of housing to make adequate provision for the hous-
ing needs of all economic segments of the community.
e. Local and State governments, in carrying out this responsi-
bility, must consider economic, environmental, and fiscal
factors, and community goals set forth in the General Plan
and must cooperate with all levels of government in order to
adequately address regional housing needs.
Article 10.6 of the Government Code, Sections 65580 through
65589.5, requires that a housing element consist of an analysis of
existing and projected housing needs, and a statement of goals,
policies, programs, and quantified objectives for the preserva-
1
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
tion, improvement and development of housing. The housing element
must be reviewed and revised at least every five years.
The South San Francisco Housing Element has been prepared to con-
form to the requirements of State law and to provide for the hous-
ing needs of all economic segments of the community.
B . MAJOR FINDINGS AND GOALS
This Housing Element made seven major findings:
1) Housing is expensive in relation to the ability of resi-
dents to pay.
2) Overcrowding is a significant problem.
3) Much of the existing housing (one of every eight units)
needs to be rehabilitated.
4) The need for
parts of town.
Irish Town
Mayfair Villa
Peck's Lots
Grand Avenue
Town of Baden
rehabilitation is
36. S percent
~e/Francisco Terrace
16.9 Percent
16.4 percent
15.3 percent
greatest in the older
17.6 percent
5) Adequate land is available to meet future housing needs,
including the provision of housing affordable to lower-income
households.
6) Constraints imposed on development by the City do not
unduly restrict housing construction in South San Francisco; and
7) The primary barrier to the construction of adequate
amounts of new housing is not local, but the condition of the na-
tional and regional economy.
The Housing Element has five major goals:
1) Assure each resident attractive, healthful, and safe
housing.
2
Chapter 1. Introduction
2) Provide new housing through both private and public ef-
forts.
3) Provide housing for persons with special needs.
4) Eliminate housing discrimination; and
5) Prohibit housing development in areas with major haz-
ards.
These goals are broad statements of what the community desires.
They are backed up by policies that commit the City to future ac-
tions--actions that are spelled out in terms of who will do what,
when, and with what funding sources, to accomplish specific quan-
tified objectives.
C. FORMAT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
The South San Francisco Housing Element consists of four chapters
including this introduction. The goals, policies and actions are
spelled out in Chapter 4. The first three chapters provide an in-
troduction to the process and product, an analysis of existing and
future housing needs, and a description of the housing in the com-
munity and the constraints that affect the production of future
housing.
Chapter II offers a detailed analysis of current and projected
housing needs in the City of South San Francisco. Within this an-
alysis is an inventory of population, households, household size,
employment trends, and a discussion of groups with special housing
needs.
Chapter III analyzes housing characteristics and describes the ex-
isting housing stock and recent additions to the stock. An inven-
tory of vacant and redevelopable sites that could accommodate new
housing units is used to estimate the potential number of new
units that could be provided, with or without governmental incen-
tives. Chapter III also analyzes housing constraints--factors
that act as barriers to the construction of housing. These include
both governmental and market constraints to housing production.
3
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
Chapter IV presents a list of goals, objectives, policies, and
housing programs necessary to address the housing needs of house-
holds living within the city. While goal and policy statements are
general in nature, the housing programs are specific actions in-
tended to implement these goals and policies. Wherever relevant,
the Housing Element provides quantified objectives for the number
and types of housing units expected to be constructed under the
various housing programs.
The Appendices include A) Summary of Goals, Policies and Objec-
tives; B) a Glossary of Housing Element terms; C) a completed
Worksheet to assist the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) in its review of the Housing Element; D) the
forecasting methodology developed by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) and background information for the population
and employment projections cited in Chapter II; and E} details of
the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program as described in Chapter
IV, Action 1A-1, including the qualifying requirements to receive
City and CDBG funds for home rehabilitation based on household
size and income and other criteria.
D. THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Citizens were involved in preparing the South San Francisco Hous-
ing Element through Planning Commission study sessions and Plan-
ning Commission and City Council public hearings during the first
half of 1990. These hearings were widely publicized in an effort
to obtain input from all segments of the community. Notices were
sent to all homeowners associations, the Chamber of Commerce, the
Downtown Merchants Association, the North Peninsula Neighborhood
Services Center, all churches in the community, and to others who
asked to be notified.
As required by State law, the Draft Updated Housing Element was
referred to the State Department of Housing and Community Develop-
ment (HCD) and to the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee
(ALUC) for review. The ALUC submitted written comments which were
reviewed by the Planning Commission and incorporated in the docu-
ment. HCD telephoned its comments to staff early in May and for-
warded written comments in a letter dated June 4, 1990.
4
Chapter 1. Introduction
On May 31, 1990, after incorporating recommended changes, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2422 recommending that
the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 684 and adopt
the amended Housing Element. The City Council took those actions
on June 27, 1990, and the Updated Housing Element was adopted on
that date by Resolution No. 94-90.
On July 23, 1990 and again on January 18, 1991, HCD responded that
the City was still not in compliance with Article 10.6 of the Gov-
ernment Code. In addition, a new law effective January, 1992, re-
quires the Housing Element to analyze and provide programs to pre-
serve low-income subsidized units that are at risk of conversion
to market rate.
For these reasons, the City decided to revise the 1990 Housing
Element. Work on this revision began in December, 1991. The
first hearing before the Planning Commission took place on Febru-
ary 20, 1992. A draft was completed in May and sent to HCD for
review, and a public workshop on the Housing element was held in
South San Francisco on June 3.
Upon completion of the Housing Element revision process, the city
will review other Elements of the General Plan for consistency
with the adopted Housing Element. Amendments will be made to the
other elements as may be necessary to bring them into conformity
with the Housing Element.
E . PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE 1984 HOUSING ELEMENT
The following programs and projects were accomplished between the
time that the previous Housing Element was adopted in July 1984
and 1990:
1. 287 single family units, 28 duplex units, 72 townhome/condo-
minium units and 242 multi-family units were constructed.
2. An estimated 86 units were conserved or rehabilitated under
various programs funded by CDBG funds.
3. An additional 75 Section 8 units were occupied by low- and
moderate-income households.
5
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
4. The City's shared housing program accommodated 131 new occu-
pants.
5. The City's airport noise insulation program benefited 162
households of all income levels and two schools. A benefi-
cial side effect of this program is energy conservation.
6. $900,000 in City redevelopment set-aside funds were allocated
to a 125-unit senior citizen rental housing project developed
by Bridge Housing Corporation. The City purchased the land
and provided a density bonus allowing 50 units per acre. In
return, 50 percent of the units will remain affordable to
low- and very low-income tenants for at least 75 years, after
which the property and improvements revert to the City.
7. The City provided $120,000 in redevelopment housing set-aside
funds to assist the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition in con-
verting boarding rooms into 11 studio apartment units. All
units are affordable to very low-income persons.
Figure 1 on pages 7 and 8 compares the quantified objectives and
actual achievements for all of the housing programs included in
the previous element. while some programs achieved their objec-
tives, others did not. Among the causes were the low rate of
housing production during this period and the consequent lack of
interest on the part of developers in some of the City's incentive
programs. While it is beyond the power of the City to alter na-
tional and regional economic conditions that determine the rate of
housing construction, the City intends to promote its programs
more aggressively to the private and non-profit sectors. (See
Chapter IV, Action Programs 1B-1, 2A-1, and 2B-6.)
F. APPROPRIATENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
In adopting this Housing Element, the City of South San Francisco
finds that its housing goals, objectives, and policies are appro-
priate in contributing to the attainment of the State's housing
goal in that:
1. The City supports increased housing availability through
identification of adequate sites, and support for new housing
construction and the use of innovative techniques such as
6
Chapter 1. Introduction
shared housing, mixed land uses, and factory-built and manu-
factured housing.
2. The City supports early attainment of decent housing and a
suitable living environment for families through new housing
construction, housing rehabilitation and conservation pro-
grams, and by making adequate sites available.
3. The City fosters cooperation of the public and private sec-
tors in expanding housing opportunities and accommodating
housing needs through rezoning efforts, density bonuses,
mixed land uses, housing revenue bonds, and rehabilitation
programs.
4. The City supports the provision of housing affordable to low-
and moderate-income households through new single-family and
multiple-family housing construction, use of factory-built
housing and mobile homes, creation of second units and shar-
ing of homes, and construction of senior housing.
5. The City facilitates the adequate provision of housing for
all economic segments of the community through site avail-
ability, new housing construction, housing conservation, and
rehabilitation.
7
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
' c i
°
o
~ -
~_
~ ~ ~
~
o N ~
c ~ E
~
'" ~ ~
o
3 ~
3
c ~~ ~°,
d v cn c N Q c
o cc cc
C N 0 U
~ U
U Ncc ~~ rni'~
o ._. o a~
IL- E o Z E o- cZ
c
0
c° ~
~
~
T
~n .
_
o
Ln
~ ~ M T O
T
Z
Z N
T
Z
~~
~ O
t4 0 ~ T
o ~ o w
C O
(,~ T •
Z Q c
W
~ U
W co
'
J
W c
L
~
+y+
_
d
o
C7
Z O
U
= c
~
c Z ~
L
CA
~ ~ o ~ ~n n- c
O o
.
_ .a ~ T Ln O Ln O ~, Q O In O U' d
~ 'Zj N
~ ~ ' ~ ~ N N C Z O O ~ O Z O
i
=
~
V~
d
~ T T
~
'
to
C M
N
LL O
T (
~ _ O
~i ~ ~ a Z U
L
~
O ~ m
~ ~
L
~ ~
J
Q
~ C ~
O C
O
O .r
~ ~
a O
.~
Z ~ o a U c ~ N ~
..
Q ca °>
~ c
a ~
- ~ ~
o 4.
?
. ~ t
~
,.-
o a p
c
co ~
'a
o
2
L _
~
o
L ~.
c
m
c o
o
~
3 L
o o
c
ti
~
, ¢ ~
~v _
U d
O
J ~
O
o
N
U
~
~ ~
a
L 2~
~ o = L m
• ~ c
•N cc
~ v'
oa c
o c
o
~ °
~ o
d c ~
o r
n c
ca
a
U°
•~
m
c c
°
p ~•
m _
L~
~
°
o ~ N o d °
m u' •c E ~ ~ ~ c
cn
'a c
~ c ~
c
a, o
~ m
U o.
o r o ~ m
~~
o
~
~,
o
~ ..
o
d
L
m o ~
o. c
~
a
o
a~ ~
>
! c
> c
> ~
c ~ L c
~ ~
m ~.
~ w
o ~
~ a~
U m 2 ~
n >
~ 2 =
=
m ~
~
~
p
~
~ ~
a0 a
i
U
2 ~ c cts
m
~ a~ c a> L
n
c ~ o
V c`c v c
N~ ~ ~
E ~
O s
~ ~
cu ~ c ~
O O v
N .~
a
O~
p 0
U d~ L
(n O
(q ~ ~ O
to o~ 2 2 ~ O
~ U 2 (A (n m
T N M ~t ~ CO f~ 00 O O
T T
T N
T
8
Chapter 1. Introduction
w
c
m
E
E
0
U
.a
m
c
c
O
V
T
d
L
3
m
LL
0
oZ
a .
oa~~
~ c ~
m 3 3
~ o >,
c
c ~ U
t
v o 3
~ c
ca o ~
3~iv a~a
~,~Ea~
m
'oo~'coa
dvc~oi
a~
m N
Y E
c o
~ ~
z
z
z
z
z
'~ '~ z z i° o a ° ~
~
°' ~ n
r '
Q C r
= Y
,
W
M
W
N
•~
O
~~ M Q Q O N N ° ° O C3 O O C'J
++ ~ O Z Z ° r OD '; M ~ Z Z Z Z Z
d ~ N r ~ ~
~
~
'O
i
a
c
0
+°
~
•c
=
c ~
d ~
~ i
a
¢
N c
°
.o
m
~
c'
~
o
c' ~
-a
O N 7 ~ p) C O U
O
v ~ .
LL = ~ ~
~, m
S 2 c
O
~
E ~ ~ o -a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ca
~ ~
O m m ~ cn ~
c
E
'v~
~ ~ ~ O N >, O N ~ -~
O U
~ tC C m ~ .C _
~ L ~ C p E = O
a
~`
rn ~
a
o
~
i
~ O
=
c _
~
~ a
a
~
c
o_
O
~
Q i
N
~
t
~
o
;..
•c
U
~ ~
~ m
i rn
c
~ '~ c~ -
E ~, o. rn ~ ~ N c d o 'v~
U
2
c
~
>
> 0
Z 0
~ o
c p o
U
~ U
,~ o
o
c
'
N w O ~
' d (~ ;4 ~ O O O c
' S O O
~ U ~ N
. ~'
ca E ~ •-
m-
c S Z
'C E ~ C
o
~ ~
~ > o
O 2 ~ ~ ~ U N ~
~ Q -p c
'N m
C_
O
?< cC ~ a~ cC ~ O O O p
' O O O O L
~ ~ ac o~ cn a U ac U u. a cn U = ~ a
M ~ ~ CO I~ 00 M O r N M ~ Ln CO
T T T T r r r N N N N N N N
9
II. BACKGROUND ON HOUSING NEEDS
A. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING TRENDS AND NEEDS
1. Population Trends
South San Francisco was incorporated in 1908. By 1920, the city
had grown to a population of more than 4, 000 (see Figure 2) . By
1970, the city had a population over 46, 000. As shown in Figure 2,
the 1940s and 1950s saw the most rapid increases in population.
The rate of population growth slowed in the 1960s and 1970s, in-
creasing by only six percent in the 1970s. In the 1980s, growth
increased slightly to almost 10 percent.
Figure 2
Historic Population Trends, 1920-1990
City of South San Francisco, California
Percent
Year Population Increase
1920 4,411 -------
1930 6,193 40%
1940 6,290 2%
1950 19,351 308%
1960 39,418 104%
1970 46,646 18%
1980 49,393 6%
1990 54,312 10%
Source: U.S. Census, various years.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) publishes projec-
tions of population, household, and job growth for the Bay Area
and its cities and counties. The projections for individual ci-
ties include not just the area within the city limits, but also
for a "Sphere of Influence" (SOI) defined by the County's Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The South San Francisco
Sphere of Influence includes a small unincorporated area contain-
ing 49 housing units and 152 people. Whenever possible, this
Housing Element uses figures for the City and its SOI, to maintain
comparability with ABAG projections.
10
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
The ABAG document is called "Projections 90: Forecasts for the San
Francisco Bay Area," (December 1989). (See Appendix D for a brief
explanation of ABAG forecasting methodology. ) Figure 3 shows the
latest ABAG projections for South San Francisco and its Sphere of
Influence (SOI). ABAG predicts that population growth in South
San Francisco will not keep pace with San Mateo County during
1990-2005. The city's total population is expected to increase by
3.5 percent during this 15-year period, compared with a 7 percent
increase countywide. ABAG expects household sizes to continue
their downward trend in South San Francisco and elsewhere, but the
city would continue to have a larger household size than either
the county or the region as a whole.
Figure 3
Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts,
1990-2005
City of South San Francisco, California
1990 s 2QQQ z
Total Population 54,000 54,900 55,800 55,900
Household Population 53,900 54,800 55,700 55,800
Households 19,230 20,010 20,400 20,680
Employed Residents 30,200 31,400 31,600 31,400
Total Jobs 41,150 44,970 47,960 48,900
Population per Household 2.79 2.74 2.73 2.70
Jobs per Household 2.14 2.25 2.35 2.37
Jobs per Employed Resident 1.36 1.43 1.52 1.55
Source: ABAG, Projections 90, 1989.
ABAG's Projections for 1990 population and household population
were quite close to the numbers counted by the Census. ABAG, how-
ever, overestimated the number of households and underestimated
the number of persons per household. Census data indicate that
average household size has actually been increasing recently, fol-
lowing a long period of decline. (See Figure 4. ) The much lower
figure for number of households (18,568 versus ABAG's 19,230) and
the higher number of persons per per household (2.91 versus ABAG's
2.79) may mean that ABAG has overestimated the number of new
households, and thus the number of new housing units needed in
11
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
South San Francisco by 1995. On the other hand, the higher number
of persons per household may be a temporary aberation--a result of
families doubling-up in the tight and expensive housing market of
the late 1980s.
Figure 4
Population Characteristics, 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
sivc ~ s~ux~ CouMv
Total Population 54,312 152 54,464 649,623
Household Population 53,823 152 53,975 637,628
Households 18,519 49 18,568 241,914
Families 13,726 41 13,767 162,317
Non-Family Households 4,793 8 4,801 79,597
Persons per Household 2.91 3.10 2.91 2.64
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
2. ~~oyment Projections:
Between 1990 and 2005, ABAG projects a growth of 7,750 jobs in the
South San Francisco Sphere of Influence--an increase of 19 percent
over 1990 employment . (Figure 3) At the same time, San Mateo County
is expected to gain 75,250 jobs, a 25 percent increase. During
the same period, ABAG foresees a smaller increase of 1,450 house-
holds in South San Francisco, resulting in a higher jobs-per-
household ratio (2.37 in 2005 compared to 2.14 in 1990). This is
higher than the ratio predicted by ABAG for San Mateo County
(1.38) and for the region as a whole (1.46). Because South San
Francisco is expected to strengthen its role as a major employment
center, the city will have a higher ratio of local jobs to em-
ployed residents (1.55) than it has now (1.36), despite projected
increases in the resident population.
3. Existing and Projected Housing Needs
ABAG is responsible for housing needs determinations for the Bay
Area. Its most recent calculations are reported in its publica-
tion Housing Needs Determinations (January 1989). The housing
12
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
needs projections are based on the region-wide population, employ-
ment, and household forecasts contained in Projections 87, an ear-
lier version Projections 90. ABAG determined the projected (1988-
1995) housing need for the Bay region, and distributed a share of
the total regional need to each city and county.
"Existing Housing Need" is defined as the number of units that
would be needed to raise the vacancy rate in each city to 4.5 per-
cent. The vacancy rate in South San Francisco as of January 1,
1988 was 3.58 percent. The 1988 existing need in South San Fran-
cisco was 567 housing units.
The "Projected Housing Need" for South San Francisco is the City's
share of the region's housing need for the years 1988-1990 and
1990-1995. (The 1988-1990 projected need also includes the 1988
existing need.) The ABAG housing needs projections are shown in
Figure 5 .
The "Alternative Zoning Projected Need" shown in Figures represents
the number of additional housing units needed to reduce the
imbalance between job growth and labor supply growth in South San
Francisco. ABAG's housing needs determinations are generally
based on a model which incorporates the following considerations:
(1) the number of units needed to achieve an "ideal" vacancy rate
of 4.5 percent: (2) growth projections for the city based on the
City's existing plans; and (3) a regional goal of providing
housing for 50 percent of the anticipated job growth in South San
Francisco between 1988 and 1995. This goal was applied to 38
cities--out of the Bay area's 106--that are experiencing the most
rapid job growth. These thirty-eight cities, including south San
Francisco, will each add at least 500 more jobs than residents
between 1988 and 1995.
According to ABAG, the "alternative zoning"..."does not mean that,
in every single case, existing zoning ordinances must be modified
to accommodate the projected need." (ABAG, Housing Needs Determi-
nations, pages 22-24.) This component of projected need is meant
to be considered, however, as part of the Housing Element.
According to City of South San Francisco Building Department
records, 299 housing units were added to the city's housing supply
in 1988 and 1989. A total of eight housing units were demolished
13
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
during those two years. An additional 154 units were built in
1990-91, while seven units were demolished. The net increase in
the city's housing supply during this period was, therefore, 438
units. This amount subtracted from the the total projected need
of 2,814 units leaves a balance of 2,376 units as the remaining
unmet need. In order to meet this need, approximately 475 units
per year would need to be produced during the five-year planning
period (January 1, 1990, to January 1, 1995).
Figure 5
Existing and Projected Housing Needs, 1988-1995
City of South San Francisco, California
1988-1990 1990-1995 Alternative
Existing Projected Projected Zoning
Need Need Need ~~
567 1,532
513
Source: ABAG, Housing Needs Deferminations,Danuary 1989.
Total
Projected
Need
1988-1995
769 2,814
State law requires that housing needs be determined so that the
shelter requirements of all income groups are identified. Accord-
ingly, ABAG has prepared estimates of housing needs for the fol-
lowing income categories:
Very-low income--less than 50 percent of the area median;
Low income--50-80 percent of the area median;
Moderate income--80-120 percent of the area median.
The projected need by income category is shown in Figure 6.
Of the 438 new units built 1988-1991, the City estimates that 11
units were affordable to very-low-income households, 35 to moder-
ate-income households, and the remaining 392 units were affordable
only to above-moderate-income households. Figure? shows the remain-
ing need by income category after taking into account units al-
ready constructed.
14
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
Figure 6
Projected Housing Need by Income Category
City of South San Francisco, California
Total Very Above
Projected Low- Low- Moderate- Moderate-
lyeed 1Q.~.ms Income lIIS~mS Income
2,814 535 450 619 1,210
(100%) (19%) (16%) (22%) (43%)
Source: ABAG, Housing Needs Determinations, January 1989.
Figure 7
Remaining Housing Need by Income Category
City of South San Francisco, California
Income Level ABAG Built Remaining
Need, 1988-1995 1988-91 Need, 1992-1995
Very Low 535 11 524
Low 450 0 450
Moderate 619 35 584
Above Moderate 1.214 ~2 ~
Total
2,814
438
2,376
Income limits as of February, 1992 for a family of four were Very-low: $26,800; Low: $38,000; Moderate:
$59,800. The median income for San Mateo County was $49,900.
B. HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
1 , Hn»cchnl t9 Comx~osition and Income
The 1990 Census defines the term ~~household" as the person or per-
sons occupying a housing unit. This general category includes
families, defined as two or more persons, including the house-
holder, who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption and who
live together as one household. The family definition includes
15
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
both married couples and single-parent families. Despite in-
creases in single-parent families and unrelated households, mar-
ried couples remain the majority of households in South San Fran-
cisco. Flgure8 shows the number and percentage of different types
of households. Households that do not meet the definition of
"family" are classified as "non-family households."
Figure 8
Number of Households by Household Type, 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
Igoe of Household
Number Percent of
Households
Total Households 18,568 100.0
Families 13,767 74.2
Married Couple 10,651 57.4
Single Male Head 817 4.4
Single Female Head 2,299 12.4
Non-family 925 5.0
Male 539 2.9
Female 386 2.1
Single-person 3,876 20.9
Male 1543 8.3
Female 2,333 12.6
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Mean household income in South San Francisco (in constant 1988
dollars) was $39,181 in 1980, and increased to $43,100 in 1990.
ABAG projects that the city's mean household income will continue
its upward trend, increasing to $45,200 in 1995, $46,900 in 2000,
and $49,600 in 2005. This represents a 15 percent increase be-
tween 1990 and 2005. By comparison, mean household income for San
Mateo County as a whole is estimated at $51,700 in 1990, and is
projected to increase (also by 15 percent) to $59, 500 by 2005.
Thus, although the average income for the county overall is higher
than that of South San Francisco, average income for both the city
and the county are expected to increase at about the same rate
(ABAG Projections 90, December 1989, page 215) .
16
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
Figure 9
Population by Age Group, 1970 to 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
Age Groups 7 1980(%)
65+ 5.0 8.3
55-64 7.6 10.6
45-54 13.0 12.0
35-44 13.6 12.0
25-34 13.2 17.2
15-24 17.0 19.2
0-14 30.6 20.8
Source: U.S. Census, 1980, 1990.
~ nnnioi ~
11.4
9.7
10.5
15.4
18.6
13.7
20.7
Figure 10
Population by Age Group, 1970 and 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
65+
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
15-24
0-14
Source: U.S. Census 1970 and 1990
17
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
The population of South San Francisco is aging: the proportion of
the population over age 65 is increasing, while the proportion of
those under 25 is declining. The population between 25 and 64 has
remained about the same over the last decade. Housing needs of
the elderly are discussed in Section C.2.
2. x~~~sing Unit Mix and Household Size
A total of 19,081 housing units were counted in the City of South
San Francisco during the 1990 U. S. Census, and there were an addi-
tional 49 units in the Sphere of Influence, for a total of 19,130
units (1, 086 units more than in 1980) . After a sharp decline in
the 1970s, average household size in the 1980s increased from 2.74
to 2.91. A detailed breakdown of occupancy status and household
size by type of dwelling unit is provided in Figures 11, 12, and 13.
Figure 11
Number, Type of Units, and Household Size,
1980 and 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
City City + SOI
1980 1990
Total Units 17,995 19,130
Percent Single-family 76% 70%
Percent Multi-family 24% 30%
Vacant Units 461 562
Percent Vacant 2.56% 2.94%
Household Population' 49,393 53,975
Persons per Occupied Unit 2.74 2.91
' Household population excludes persons in group quarters.
Source: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census
18
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
Number of units
Single-family detached
Single-family attached
2-unit
3- or 4-unit
5 or more
Mobile homes
Other
Total
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
Figure 12
Housi ng Occupancy Status 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
Occupied Owner-
Units to Occ ~ ied
10,743 57.9 8,767
2,264 12.2 1,594
551 3.0 93
1,002 5.4 169
3,347 18.0 264
336 1.8 297
s ._1..$ .~?~
18,568 100.0 11,410
Renter-
ls Occu iced 1~
76.8 1,976 27.6
14.0 670 9.4
0.8 458 6.4
1.5 833 11.6
2.3 3,083 43.1
2.6 39 0.5
~4 ~ ~4
61.4 7,158 38.6
Figure 13
Units in
Single-family detached
Single-family attached
2-unit
3- or 4-unit
5 or more
Mobile homes
Other
Total
Number of Persons in Un1ts by Type of Structure
City of South San Francisco, California
All
Total Units
Per Owner-oc
Total cu in ed
Per
Persons ~iI Persons ~iI
33,403 3.11 26,203 2.99
7,448 3.29 5,018 3.15
1,597 2.90 244 2.62
2,853 2.85 379 2.24
7,389 2.21 614 2.33
485 1.44 413 1.39
800 ~ ` 1 2~1
53,823 2.91 33,258 2.93
100% 62%
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
Renter-oc cu{L
Total Per
Persons alt
7,200 3.64
2,430 3.63
1,353 2.95
2,474 2.97
6,775 2.20
72 1.85
279 2~$.2
20,565 2.88
38%
19
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
3. Housing Costs
When compared with other San Mateo County cities, South San Fran-
cisco has a relatively moderate-priced housing market. The median
price of a 900 square foot condominium in South San Francisco in
1989 was about $165,000; median condominium prices in other San
Mateo County cities range from $185,000 to $275,000. The median
cost of a single-family home in South San Francisco ranges from
$277,000 (three bedrooms, two baths) to about $408,000 (four bed-
rooms, three baths) ("Home Values," Real Estate Section, San Fran-
cisco Examiner, December 3, 1989).
The Bay Area Council's 1989 survey of housing costs indicated that
the median sales price for all homes in San Mateo County was
$288,133 in January 1989, higher than the Bay Area average of
$205,064 (Bay Area Council, Housing and Development Report, June
1989) .
Bi-yearly data gathered by the San Francisco Examiner on home val-
ues for six Bay Area Counties and their cities shows that the me-
dian price of a San Mateo County three-bedroom home ranges from
$277,000 (South San Francisco) to $1,050,000 (Atherton). Compared
to other San Mateo County cities, South San Francisco housing
costs are relatively modest.
Even though ownership housing is generally only affordable to
those households with above moderate incomes, South San Francisco
offers lower cost housing--and with some housing types such as
condominiums, the lowest cost housing of all San Mateo County ci-
ties.
Rental housing is more affordable. Advertised median rents for a
two-bedroom apartment in San Mateo County stood at $825 per month
in 1989, compared with the Bay Area median of $750 per month (Bay
Area Council, Housing and Development Report, December 1989). Ac-
cording to local real estate agents, the standard two-bedroom
apartment in South San Francisco rented for approximately $675-
750. (Personal communication, Penna Realty, Matteucci & Co. Re-
alty, and Kenny Realty, all of South San Francisco, April 17,
1990) .
20
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
Figure 14
Median Home Values, 1980,1989, and 1990
San Francisco Bay Region
City of South San Francisco, California
Value (~)
Countv ~q$Q 1989 1990 % increase
Alameda 85,300 174,744 105%
Contra Costa 94,600 183,142 94%
Marro 151,000 273,060 81
Napa 78,200 N/A N/A
San Francisco 104,600 286,843 174%
San Mateo 124,400 288,133 343,900 176%
Santa Clara 109,400 211,235 289,400 164%
Solano 67,500 122,115 81%
Sonoma 88,400 151,854 72%
South San Francisco 98,400 271,900 176%
Bay Area N/A 205,064 257,775
Note: 1989 Figures are based on the sale prices of existing and new homes.
Source: 1980 and 1990 data from U.S. Census. 1989 data from Bay Area Counal, Housing and
Development Report, May 1989.
The 1990 Census measured contract rents on all occupied units.
These figures tend to be somewhat lower than advertised rents on
vacant units, and are not differentiated according to size. The
median contract rent for April 1990 was $670, with one-fourth of
apartments renting for less than $540 and one-fourth renting for
more than $852. Approximately 39 percent of rental units in South
San Francisco were affordable to very-low-income households, 87
percent were affordable to low-income, and nearly all were afford-
able to moderate-income households.
4. ?,eve1_ of Payment Compared with Ability to Pay
ABAG, in its Housing Needs Determinations report, calculated the
number of lower income (less than 80 percent of area median)
households paying more than 25 percent of income for rent or home-
ownership costs, using 1980 Census data. They found that 36 per-
cent of lower income owners and 72 percent of lower income renters
21
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
were overpaying. 1990 Census data on incomes is not yet avail-
able, so the percentages that ABAG found in 1980 have been applied
to the 1990 number of households to estimate how many are cur-
rently overpaying. Figure 15 shows that 923 owner households and
2,565 renter households were overpaying in 1990. A total of 3,488
lower income households were estimated to be overpaying (57 per-
cent) .
Figure 15
Overpayment: 1980 and 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
households 1980 1990
Lower Income 5,763 6,127
Owners 2,412 2,565
Renters 3,351 3,563
Overpaying 3,270 3,488
Owners 871 923
Renters 2,399 2,565
Source: 1980 figures from ABAG, Housing Needs Determinations. 1990 figures calculated from ABAG
percentages: Lower Income = 33 percent of total households; 42 percent of lower-income households
are owners, 58 percent renters; 36 percent of lower-income owners overpay, 72 percent of lower-income
renters overpay.
The analysis suggests that overpayment is a more significant prob-
lem among lower-income renter households than among lower-income
owner households. However, the generally smaller figures for
lower-income owner households also reflect the fact that, because
of the high costs of home ownership, the majority of lower-income
households are renters rather than owners.
5. Overcrowding
The Census Bureau defines overcrowded conditions as dwelling units
housing more than one person per room. Overcrowding is a signifi-
cant and increasing problem in South San Francisco: between 1980
and 1990, the proportion of overcrowded units nearly doubled, from
6.7 percent to 12.8 percent. Overcrowding affects more rental
households than owner households. While the rate of overcrowding
22
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
was less than 8 percent for owners, it was over 20 percent for
renters.
Overcrowding is also distributed unevenly throughout the city.
The three census tracts immediately west of U.S. 101 (6021, 6022,
and 6023) have the highest rates, (30.4 percent, 22.3 percent, and
17.7 percent). Overcrowding is lowest in the area between El
Camino Real and Interstate 280 (tracts 6017, 6018, and 6024).
Figure l8 shows that the number of larger units exceeds the number of
larger households, while the number of small households exceeds
the number of small units. If every household could compete ef-
fectively in the housing market, there are enough units to accom-
modate all households without overcrowding. Overcrowding is pri-
marily a problem of distribution caused by households lacking suf-
ficient income to bid for units of suitable size.
Figure 16
Overcrowding
City of South San Francisco, California
Census
~~ Occupied Units
Number Percen Owner-Occupied
t Number Percent Renter-Occupied
Number Percent
6001 10 17.5 4 21.1 6 15.8
6016.03 4 10.0 2 6.3 2 25.0
6017 101 8.0 72 7.0 29 13.2
6018 123 6.4 72 4.6 51 14.3
6019 326 11.7 72 4.9 254 19.6
6020 181 9.2 117 7.7 64 14.3
6021 288 30.4 51 18.6 237 35.2
6022 554 22.3 64 11.6 490 25.3
6023 176 17.7 75 11.5 101 29.5
6024 108 4.4 57 3.8 51 5.5
6025 149 10.8 124 10.1 25 16.3
6026 350 15.6 186 12.4 164 22
1
6037 0 ._9~4 -4 ~.4 0 .
0.0
Total 2,370 12.8 896 7.9 1,474 20.6
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
23
r~^ T
VI '1
r^~
Y/
~ v
Ir~^~
V / '
y
C
n
tA' `'C
~ ~
t
i
9
^~
- ~ !/
0
, N
.
r y ,~
~~
,~.~~r
~:,~~ c
J
I
_ _
sy.
.~~Q 5i
' / O { •
~ CO~~
~V
f
c.
~ ~~~ • V ~,,',
w i a
~/ ~ ''I''
O „~
/ ~~~
C
~V .
j O
•1
~
4' /~~
V
~...._
Ph`s/ro~
~'ifn..I
,
.
_
o
O / '~
' /~ .
~
~^ •~~/~
~~~'
a
i' ~, ~:
F
O
O
~`
~ O
~~ ~~ ~
ys~
.( ~Q
~4
1
~._~, N ~
it
2 ~y 2
1
^~,
re' ~~ /
_/
/ \\
I `11
~~ ( {~ ~1~
V ,~~`'
~a~
1
~n A
. 8 w~„~
~~ .. ~.
~ -_~
~{ r
,~
,a.
,:
,;
~ Q i%;
C~~~ n
"/Ml~r' jn
~ ~, ~r IV ;
~~.
~~
~~~Tra
~~ tl _-
q JaJ. N,~ !'
a
l ?'
"'., F
r z;
v` ..
Z
U
.,
S^ur~ ~
~ ~~~~
~~.,`' Sin I
-~-~..
Hnyahorr Frc<~ra} ~1/~11'ij'hvrny lp1
i
i
A
..t
C'
Y
v
Cp
O
r
r'
lJ
r~Ml.~ I7'ily f
7
Z
o
0 c
A'
C
V
j
J
/r
O
'~ O
!;
/~ ,
. ~a
, ,
} ~ ~~~~•
J
f ~ `~,~ ..~ `tea
,...~
~ ;
1~ ~.
\
~~
t \
1\,
~._. ,
~---~~ I
i
~ ~
_~_J
i
~
T
`V
~~ VJ
.
~~
~
/
A~
V/
r~
^^..
~i/
D ~
<
v C
~
. m
~. V
~ .
_
0 ~ ~
O
~ ~
f'
~,,
/:a~y4
',
~~
~,+~' V
0
~; ,.a
~t;.
~`\
c
0
~+ F
J
01 .. ~` c
'i
~~
~r
y'
~ o
~ -~
i~
~~
.,
'~~.
l ~~``1\ /
~.
m
z ~' ~
\ `~ ff
' '_ ~~~ ON
'~ \~~. i
~~`~~~~N
T'
~~-~`-
~--
b ~/-
I
C~
~Y
C ~
F
z
O
_ ~
~s`~
'7`~
•Ye A,rOy J
__ t
N `'~\\
o
1
v `
\`~~~~ v
. ~~OUr
`=:~~~`~
b
Q
_~•w
~~ /~\,~
P l;
. ~''
W
/.~
~,_ ,
o ~ ~-----
~ ~ '~
c~
G~ ,',N \ i
~~~ ~ - \
~~~ ~.
~~ a
~ ~~,,a.
~~
O
o
0
~~~~ ~ ~
~4~~ -~
g- ~~ , ~ ~~
'e L,
~•^
~~~ uu M• irv
~`~'---~!or
Bavvhror F~arway /
N
N
~~~ ~~/
'~-~..,~n,k
~`~
Hik6wa. P)1
_""•.~
,~ ^
R~ ~ \1\\ ~
a \ `•
i
i
~~ ~~,
v
~? y~b~.
~\\'~ ~ .
\\\~.
~~ / \~\ 1
/'1 ~
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
Figure 18
Size of Units Compared with Slze of Households
City of South San Francesco, California
Number of Number of Number of Number of
Rooms Units Persons Households
1 679 1 3876
2 1375 2 5317
3 2740 3 3450
4 3304 4 3079
5 4115 5 1531
6 3837 6 700
7 or more 3080 7 or more 615
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
C. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
1. Disabled
Census data on the number of disabled are not yet available for
1990. The State Department of Rehabilitation estimates that 10.5
percent of the population age 16-64 is disabled. While the de-
partment does not provide an estimate for the 65-and-over popula-
tion, they believe it is higher than for the working age popula-
tion. The 1980 Census revealed 15 percent of the population over
65 had some disability. Applying the 10.5 percent figure to the
16-64 age group and applying 15 percent to the 65-and-over popula-
tion gives an estimate for South San Francisco of 4,753 disabled
persons. (No estimates are available for disabled children under
16.)
No information is available on the extent to which South San Fran-
cisco's disabled--whether temporarily or permanently disabled--are
living in appropriate and adequate housing. Such housing would
have adequate space and facilities usable by disabled people, and
would be available to them within their financial means. Required
features might include emergency buzzers, access ramps, elevators,
and specially designed kitchens and bathrooms. The city sponsors
25
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
a Housing Accessibility Modification program, which provides funds
to install such features in existing housing occupied by disabled
persons. With the use of CDBG funds, 44 homes were modified under
this program in 1989, 48 in 1990, and 30 in 1991.
2. Elderly
The 1990 Census reports that 6,214 persons (about 11.4 percent of
South San Francisco's population) were age 65 or over (See Flgure9) .
The number of households with elderly persons was only 4,669, as
nearly half of these households have more than one elderly person.
Significant numbers of senior citizens live in the downtown area
and in the western portion of the city.
Policy 24 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan allows se-
nior citizen housing projects to be constructed at higher densi-
ties, with off-street parking provided at a lower ratio than is
otherwise required for residential development. The current Zon-
ing Ordinance allows up to 50 units per acre for senior housing
projects in multi-family districts. This zoning is designed to
encourage the development of senior housing in higher density ar-
eas close to shopping and transportation. The City will amend the
Zoning Ordinance to offer density bonuses for projects that in-
clude units for the elderly and which are affordable to lower-in-
come senior citizens.
BRIDGE Corporation, with City help, completed the Magnolia Center
Senior Project in 1988. This project involved renovation of a
former school into a senior citizen center in conjunction with the
development of 125 new housing units on adjacent property owned by
the City. The Senior Center was renovated using $610,000 of CDBG
funds. Partial funding for the housing project was provided with
$900,000 of Redevelopment Agency housing set-aside funds.
3. Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or more persons.
The 1990 Census reported 2,837 households in this category, about
15.3 percent of all households in South San Francisco. The high-
est percentage of large households was located in Census Tract
6025 (27 percent), south of Westborough Boulevard and west of I-
26
Chapter ll. Background on Housing Needs
280. Tract 6021 was also above 20 percent. Tracts 6001, 6017,
6023, and 6026 also exceeded the city average of 15.3 percent.
Figure 19
Number of Households with Five or More Persons
City of South San Francisco, California
Census Owner Renter
Tract AlI Units Occupied Qsc
6001 10 3 7
6016 4 2 2
6017 203 144 59
6018 242 183 59
6019 291 136 155
6020 276 219 57
6021 220 70 150
6022 397 96 301
6023 193 103 90
6024 179 145 34
6025 373 327 46
6026 445 260 185
6027 0 0 0
6037 _~ -3 -~
Total 2,837 1,690 1,147
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Some large households may be subject to overcrowding, but areas
with high proportions of large families do not correspond com-
pletely with the areas with the most overcrowding. Census Tract
6025, with the highest percentage of large families, is below av-
erage in overcrowding. (see section B.5, Overcrowding).
4. S;na~e-parent Households
Single-parent families with children under 18 made up slightly
less than 9 percent of the households in South San Francisco. Of
these, 1,255 were headed by females and 367 were headed by males.
Families headed by single persons without children (but having
some other relative in the household) made up another 8 percent of
South San Francisco households. Of these, 1,044 were headed by
females and 450 by males.
• 27
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
Female-headed households were concentrated in the Sunshine Gardens
area (located west of downtown), and in the Westborough Estates
area (located on the west side of Interstate 280, near the south-
ern city limits).
Special needs of single-parent families include housing that is
affordable, safe, and accessible to public transportation, commer-
cial centers, child care, and other community facilities. This
need is particularly applicable to single mothers, since they, on
the average, have more children in their care than single fathers,
and also tend to have lower average incomes and lower rates of ve-
hicle and home ownership than their male counterparts.
5. Homeless
Comprehensive data on the number of homeless people in the City of
South San Francisco are not available. The 1990 U.S. Census
counted 134 homeless persons in the city and 1,538 in San Mateo
County, but these numbers are believed to be serious underesti-
mates. At the countywide level, it is estimated that the number
of homeless has increased from 6,000 people in 1986 to approxi-
mately 8,000 people as of January 1990. Applying the same ratio
of undercounting to the city would indicate approximately 700
homeless people in South San Francisco. According to the "Shelter
Network," which serves those who are homeless or about to become
homeless, about two-thirds of the homeless in the county are fami-
lies (personal communication, Chris Sutherland, Director, Shelter
Network, January 9, 1990), a substantially higher percentage than
the national average of one-third.
Emergency shelters in the county provide a total of approximately
300 beds during the winter months and 200 beds during the remain-
der of the year. Shelters are located in Daly City, Menlo Park,
and Redwood City. In addition, the San Mateo Armory is used as a
shelter for 120 to 150 people per night during the winter. Except
for approximately 270 SRO (single room occupancy) units located
primarily in the downtown area, there are no facilities in South
San Francisco that can provide emergency, temporary, or transi-
tional housing for homeless individuals or families. In addition,
there is no facility in South San Francisco such as a mission or
soup kitchen, which can provide a hot meal.
28
Chapter 11. Background on Housing Needs
Families and individuals from South San Francisco in need of emer-
gency shelter are referred to the Daly City shelter, which primar-
ily serves homeless from the northern portion of the county. In
1988, the Daly City shelter served 65 families with an average
size of 4 persons, of which 20 percent or about 13 families were
from South San Francisco. This figure increased to 45 families or
approximately 180 persons in 1989. In 1988 and 1989, about 50
percent of the families and persons served at the Daly City shel-
ter have been from South San Francisco (personal communication,
Chris Sutherland, Director, Shelter Network, January 9, 1990).
The North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center in South San
Francisco provides support and referral services to the homeless
in the northern portion of the county. Services include counsel-
ing, referrals to shelters, vouchers for motels/hotels, and on-
site emergency meals. A spokesperson for the Center estimates
that 50 to 60 percent of the Center's clientele is from South San
Francisco and the majority are families rather than individuals.
In the late 1980s, the number of homeless from South San Francisco
who came to the Center increased from one to three each week to
one to three each day. About half of them are single adults, and
the remaining half are families (personal communication, Susan
Platte, Supervisor, North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center,
January 11, 1990).
The three main problems addressed by the North Peninsula center
are: 1) homelessnes$ or impending homelessness; 2) immediate
hunger, particularly affecting women with children; and 3) threat
of utilities shut-off.
As redevelopment funds become available, the City intends to pro-
vide funding to qualified agencies, such as the North Peninsula
Neighborhood Services Center, whose operations involve housing
services such as emergency rent funds which could assist eligible
persons to avoid eviction, and possibly homelessness, or to rent
an apartment.
6. Farmworkers
Farmworkers accounted for only about one percent of the employed
persons living in South San Francisco in 1980. This group can be
accommodated through the existing housing delivery system and
through the proposed programs for housing low- and moderate-income
29
South San Francisco Housing Element
December i 992
households. ABAG concluded that the need for additional housing
for farmworkers is not demonstrable in the region (ABAG, Housing
Needs Determinations, San Francisco Bay Region, January 1989>. In
calculating the regional and local housing needs, ABAG concluded
that no net increase in seasonal or migrant farmworker housing was
required.
30
III. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND
CONSTRAINTS
A. EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
1 , NtimhAr and 'types of Units
The 1990 U. S . Census counted 19, 130 housing units in South San
Francisco and its Sphere of Influence. The median age of these
residential structures as of 1991 was slightly over 30 years.
There has historically been an irregular rate of housing construc-
tion, with the most rapid growth occurring in the 1950s when
nearly one-third of the housing supply in South San Francisco was
built (see Figure 20) Approximately 56 percent of all units were
constructed prior to 1960.
Figure 20
Housing Units by Date of Construction
City of South San Francesco, California
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Source: Estimated from 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census and South San Francisco Building Division
Records.
31
Before 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980-
1940 49 59 69 79 89
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
According to City Building Department records, 1,183 dwelling
units, 6 percent of the total, were constructed between 1980 and.
1989. Another 156 units were built in 1990 and 1991. Demolitions
continue at a moderate pace: 44 units were demolished from 1980 to
1989 and seven units in 1990 and 1991. Flgure2l shows additions to
the housing stock since 1980.
Figure 21
Number of New Housing Untts Added, by Year and Type
City of South San Francesco, California
Duplex/
Single- Townhome/ Second Mufti-
Year Family Condo ~l013 Family I4lsi)
1980 99 91 1 24a 215
1981 75 -- 1 42b 118
1982 6 -- - 5a 11
1983 31 40 1 138c 210
1984 1 54 - 4 59
1985 2 2 2 -- 6
1986 31 -- 2 10 43
1987 30 -- 2 1904 222
1988 116 24 2 11 153
1989 107 24 4 11 146
1990 8 34 5 12 59
1991 ~Q ~ ~ ~ -~
TOTAL 516 349 23 451 1,339
Notes:
a All units are condominiums.
b 37 units are condominiums.
c 132 units are condominiums.
d 16 units are condominiums.
Note: These figures are not adjusted for demolitions; a total of 51 units were demolished between 1980
and 1991.
Source: Economic 8~ Community Development Department, Building Division, City of South San
Francesco.
The existing housing stock in South San Francisco is predominantly
(over 70 percent) single-family dwellings. Apartment buildings
32
Chapter 111. Housing Potential and Constraints
with three to 49 units account for 20 percent of housing units,
while 3 percent of units are found in buildings with more than 50
units. The remainder of the housing stock is made up of duplexes,
mobile homes, and houseboats . (See Figure 22. )
Figure 22
Percentage of Units by Type of Structure
City of South San Franasco, California
2% 2%
3%
15°
5%
3%
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
^ Single Family
^ Duplex
®3 or 4 Units
^ 5 to 49 Units
50 or more Units
Q Mobile Homes
~° 8 Other
One type of housing found in South San Francisco that is uncommon
in the rest of San Mateo County is the Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
Hotel. SROs generally do not have either kitchens or bathrooms
within individual units. They serve as residences primarily for
low- and very low-income single people. This type of housing unit
is found primarily in the downtown area. Flgure23 shows the number
of SRO rooms in South San Francisco.
33
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
Figure 23
SRO Hotels In South San Francisco
City of South San Francesco, California
~~ Location No. of Rooms
Alphonso's 106 Grand Ave. 16
3 Amigos 206 Grand Ave. 8
Sundial 222 Grand Ave. 1 ~
West Hotel 228 Grand Ave. 21
Topper 249 Grand Ave. ~
Welte's 254 Grand Ave. 14
___ 317 Grand Ave. 10
Silver Dollar 322 Grand Ave. 16
___ 350 Grand Ave. 3
Ladle Club 309 Airport Blvd. 16
Grand Hotel 731 Airport Blvd. 16
Metropolitan Hotel 220 Linden Ave. ~
S&L Hotel 400 Miller Ave. 23
Industrial Hotel 505 Cypress Ave. ~
Total 272
Source: South San Francisco Police Department Survey
2. Cond~t~on of the Housinq Stock
A windshield survey of housing conditions was conducted in May
1990. The following rating system was used in the survey:
Good: structures needing no repairs or only cosmetic repairs,
e.g., paint;
Fair: structures requiring some minor structural repairs--visible
cracks, minor roof problems, etc.;
Poor: structures needing mayor repairs--dilapidated/substandard
housing.
Overall, South San Francisco's residential structures are in good
condition. Of the 1,862 structures surveyed, 87.3 percent were
found to be in good condition, 10.7 percent in fair condition, and
2 percent in poor condition. Applying these percentages to the
city as a whole, approximately 2,000 units need minor structural
34 ,
Chapter ill. Housing Potential and Constraints
repairs, and 380 units need either major repairs or replacement.
(The low rate of demolitions, averaging five per year, indicates
that relatively few units need to be replaced.) Figure 24 shows a
percentage breakdown of structural conditions by neighborhood.
Figure 24
Housing Conditions by Neighborhood
City of South San Francisco, California
Structures Condition
Neighborhood ~ ~~ F~l[ PQ4I
AvaloNBrentwood 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 1,`t~ ~~ ` o
TOTAL 1,862 87.3% 10.7% 2.0%
Source: Windshield Survey, May 1990
Neighborhood locations are illustrated in Figure 25.
Irish Town, located north of the downtown commercial area (see
Figure 25, Residential Neighborhoods) has by far the greatest
percentage of structures in need of rehabilitation. This is the
Downtown Target Area, where Community Development Block Grant
funds are concentrated for rental and single-family
rehabilitation. (See Appendix A and Chapter IV., Action lA-1.)
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.
Action program lA-1 targets these areas to arrest further decline
by promoting housing rehabilitation, nuisance abatement, and
capital improvements.
35
~_
^.
~++
11
Z~
~_ ~
N
~~
Q
/~•~
V/
a
e
s
m
n
y' `'C
6 ~
a ~
n ~
~
~ .
.~
..D
N
_= _--~,
,~ "
rt•+
a ~
~1..._,.
-~
~..
i ,..~~
-'~,o~°
`, .~v~
f ;~- ~.~1•••
i
i j/
f, t4.iysbo~c Nrcewa,-
i #~J i
.."
^ ~~,c ,.
~"•, ._ ,-
(A°*qu,
`^~«,,,~
0
'~.. ~ ,
~.\` ... J~' vii` I'.
~`. ~~
. ~.,~;
c, t~. \\ ~ ~r,
;,, ~ ~ i ; ''••~
~ ~ ~1'i~
1 ym 1 ~ \ ~
E ~ \,. ~.
\'r~4n j i o, ~ 1 ~ ~l~ ~~ j
:, `1 ~. ~ i
~~. , ,
~,~ ;~,
~ 1 ~--, ~ ~
/!
_....._
:.'\,'
--- -
~ ~___.
__..._.
--------
Chapter III. Housing Potential Constraints
B. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Availabilit~of Sites
Land is available to build up to x;909 ~6:~t? new dwelling units in South San Francisco.
Significant sites (i.e., those one acre in size or larger) suitable for residential
development have been identified and are shown in Figure 26. Approximately 3~ 33Q_
acres of ]and are suitable for development and could accommodate x-750 2& dwelling
units. The estimates of potential units in Figure 26 do not take into account the
possibility of density bonuses for low- and median-income or senior citizen housing.
Potentially, all sites located in R-3, C-1, and P-C zones could take advantage of density
bonuses. As there are a total of ~ Q$ vacant acres in these zones, and density in
these zones is typically 30 units per acre'a 25 percent density bonus means an additional
29b 134 units of housing could be built, for a maximum of ~$H 2,60Q:.
The City has considered the use of under-utilized industrial sites for housing, but has
determined that only one such site is suitable--the Guy F. Atkinson property at the
southwest corner of Railroad and Magnolia Avenues (Site #24 on Figure 26). The
majority of South San Francisco's industrial land is east of the 101 freeway,
bf is not suitable for residential development because it is near the
International Airport and other active industrial uses.
Estimates are not available for the vacant acreage specifically suited for development of
manufactured housing, mobile home parks, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.
However, in accordance with State law, the City's Zoning Ordinance permits
manufactured homes to be used as dwelling units in any single-family area. Mobile
home parks are permitted in R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, and P-C Zoning districts.
Under the Gity's zoning provisions, emergency shelters are classified as lodging services
and are conditionally permitted in any commercial zone. Transitional housing is
classified as a group residential use and is conditionally permitted in the R-3 Multi-
family zone, in all commercial zones, and in the P-I Planned Industrial zone. These
zones comprise substantial portions of the city.
37
~: U Cg
~.
C
C
C r
a..
~
4.i
3 •.~ .~
• V
^
V '~ '~ C U
p p aq •~
G ~ r
' •` ~+
~
ce i-
r r c
^„ O
o c ~
cn U v~ ~ U
a~
o ~
o°'o S c, > >
~ ~ ~ ~ > > > H
~.7 O O
` >a ~ ~
o
L
V
Q
~ ~
R C
C •
V] .
v:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C
r.+ V
~ fi y
~ 'v
N p
L
O ~ at ~
~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~O N O~ ~ v~
A~ Q4
. s
e~
:
~
~ o
~
a~
.
w
~
o
~
U ~ a~ ~
I M M ~~-+ ~ .-~
C ~ ~ ~ ~
az 8 ~
~
.
~
00
M
C b 3
.a ~ ~
c ~ 8 '~
~
-.
U ~
. ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~ O q
y ~
w x x
~ N N
`~>
M ~'
t!!Yi:
h
~
~ fV t~
~
~:::
nl;:;
p Ali: M •~--~
00 ry, pp
'fl
C c
h -o
c
>,
..
~ ° o ~ ~b =~ ~~ 3
~ ~
~ ~°
p
~ N
`" ~ U
o 'o ^
~ U
O o
eCa
~ p
~b
~
C o b
O
~
~ `
~ o ~
Ca ° ` ''
~~Q c
N c ` `'
`'gQ 'a
c
e
a~
•
.
~..
~
p .r ,r
p .+ .+ Q
x = ~ ~x [ ~ ~ ~ ~3 E ~
AG ~3 ~ o
G ~ a~~i O x~ o¢
~
~ a~i ~
c > ai O aci ti
a~
0
,.a o aci ti
a~
0 .ti b
'h p
U r`
'd U v,
~ ~ ~
• •4. ;
~ ~ >
~ 3
~ ~ b Q
Er 3
'b ~ ~ ~ V
„g •~, c ~ c Q~
3 y ^>' aci •`~ •y ~ cce O " •~ ece 3 °^'
.~ 3 N U ~ s ~ ~ 3 a .c ~
~., . 'ti F
OQ .~ ~
~ • 'a .c
°~ ~~ ci W a ~~QQ
c~iV L7 .n v~ 2•~p ran 2•~p ~i ~
0
~:
L
~
c ~
_
O
U
y
L
" ~ c
'v
•
~" ~
C a
c`. ~ Q
G a''
.c
M
a
" o
.. ~~ ~
~ ~
U "C}
>a
C
b0 ~
C a
y
~
x
t~ mi
/
Q a
o ~
V ~ ~
~
~ ~ C ~
~ ~
~
~
r
3
~ ~
0
w
O c~
~ p
y .~
L
U
~, ~
p w0 c
c C O
L
V U cn ~ cn
> > > >
M, M M K,
~-, ~.r
°'
U
' C7~
h
~
a o
a
o
~~ ~
[~ °~~ U
~
~ b
.
a~i .° a ~
U b y `° ~
c
~Z ..~UcY ~ U v~
a
M
~,
0
C7 ~
cv U
~ a
x ~
O r N ,~.~ a4 ,_., O M O ~ N O
w
~ O
•~ ~~ eF N ~ M O ~ O N N ~
.~., '~ ~ M N ~ M M ~ M N ~--i M
a° O
z
~
.~
'C
p '~
c
..
~ 4'
D L
G
~ y
~
' rr--,, ~
' o y
L ~ ~
'
V W >1
o~ d
o L
~ ~
~
~~ :~
~ ~
o > ~
¢r ~ O
~x
~
°
'~ N C
c V
o~
' w
N °
x
N ~'
a
°U
L
W
~
x ' ~' x ~ 'fl N1 C a y
y .
w CO
Q
G c3 eC
~
'O q
~ N
~
p4 -•
N
C L [
~ rJ
C
N C ~
~ 3 w
O M
~
OG y
j
,~ ' J
V 'v~ O '.t,
O w
~ r " ~ ~ G
P'.. '""' :~ "ll ,.,,, ~ 'b O
°a ~
~ ~
F 3~
.e 3 r
s L °'
~ c `v o
_, . ~
F 'N ~
.., ~ a~ c
.c
~~ ~ ~ ~;o z¢ ~~: 3~ ~ 3~ z~
J
L
C,
O~
O
~--~
~
.-..
N
r+
M
.--~
~
.-.
h
~--+
~
r+
U U
a a
~,:
>v€
v~ p~ ..s,'
0.:;
v~ v~
~ ~ ~:
0
C.
b ~
~ e0 ..
Q ~", ~ C
•y ~ Gil N
., b
~~ ~ ~
~ U
... • V ~„ ~
o ~ o a
b ~Q z .a
.N V W Q
>, w O
F
::.~ °~
ayi ~ `'
3 ° c~
~--i e-1
a~
:: ~
~ p ~
~ c
U
O ~
.~ ~ ~
Q~ ~ ~•'
~
~
~ CO
y C4
U
o
o. A H E-r
it
p
'~' a
~~ > > > >
cva ~
~.
O >> ~
~ Q ~
;~
a .
a, ,~
.C C ~
~ ~ U U ~
N ~ y ~ F°~„ v
La c.
N
x ~
O "" ~;
~, ~
Q ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~
U
~
O
C •~ [~
O
•
V ~
~ y :
' N `~ O
~ U
(~..
~ Gr w •O
~
b h
.b
C
~ 'C
b C
O
c > p '~
c ~ t ~
q
(% ~ o ~
~ p•[ o ~
~~
w
O .G
~_ y .r
~ C
~ C
O .~
O 0 0 v 0
x ~
c c
~
U ti
s~
~ ,~
~ o i
~ a
a 3 ~ ''b
~~ 3
~Q ~
.
.~+ N N N
0
v
~ o c
~ ,~ t
i
3 c~ :
s
~ 'fl 7
y~ y J
• V
IV W •
n / ~
L+ Ir
r,
~Q ..a
~Q
o
+ -~
U
V
•
c CC
Q~
~
~
C o
O
~ (
~
y h
>
h N
'v
GL
.~.
i ~
a
.b •^ c
o c
`
v
U ~ ~ G
~ ~ ~ ~
-o ~ o ~
V ~>
y ~ ~ o W :~
3 v >, .~ ~.
'~ e ~ U ~
~' ~ a~ c
v ~n
U
~ O
•H
a •~
~
` •b Q
i
on a
a 3 °_' eo
~ :J
~ H ~
~ C_
~
:
M
~ ti
ca
~ C
c
`~
~
~
,D O y G" fV N
_
~
1.. ~
\/ ..
p a+
~
~
~
w H C 0.
>,
~J
O
~ w O O
~ h
?O<:
~ GJ h ~
C ..C i.~.l
:~;:
N::
"S
O
O ~
~ a.
•D r ~
Coo N
~ O b ~
E N N
~ ~.
O ~ O •b
v ~
N _VR
.
V ~ ~ p V
~•y
• p ~ O T U
~
O N 0 b0 ~
>
'-~ O
C O Q ~
.«
«,
O ee >
~ c
~
~ r ~- ~~
;~ W ~ `~
3 O~
°
. a ~.
T o E .
_ ~
v v `~' C cC O ~
cyC ~ O~~~ ti O ~.. C w
~ Q cU a c
ao •~~
~> ¢~ yw~
a
F
W.~
~vQD
~
? ~ a
~ ~~
c
a
E" o a a
~" o a am.,
o 'o
0 ,
O
Z ~
r. .~ v "~7 o
C/1 o,.~
Cn 0. c..c
cn 0. cC
.~-i N
~ ~
`}
The land inventory clearly indicates that sufficient land is available to enable the city to meet
~~
its remaining fair share housing needs (2,376 units by 1995). About X88 ~6 dwelling
units (up to ~~ 2,60Q with density bonuses) could be constructed on the available sites
identified in this Element (see Figure 26). This total ('~ 2,600 exceeds ABAG's projected
need by ~A units.
The city currently has limited land zoned for higher densities to meet the need for housing
affordable to low- and very-low-income households. There are X7:5 acres in the city's
highest density zoning categories. This land would provide 9~3 5; units. If all development
on these parcels takes advantage of the City's density bonus provisions, an additional ~
units can be built, for a total of 1,029 668 units. By comparison, the 1995 "remaining need"~~is
for units-- very low income and low income.
Since not all developers will take advantage of density bonus provisions, the City recognizes
the need for additional land zoned at sufficiently high densities to accommodate low- and
very low-income housing. The City is currently investigating possible higher densities for sites
near the proposed BART station. This would include sites 10 and 17 on Figures 26 and 27.
One additional site near the BART station that is currently occupied by a warehouse may be
rezoned for residential use. Rezoning of these sites will provide 450-900 additional housing
units potentially affordable to low- and very low-income households. (See Action 2B-4)
'The sites and acreage discussed in Figure 26 represent only those sites larger than one acre
that are available without substantial redevelopment or major rezoning. Small infill sites (less
than one acre in size) could provide additional housing.
2. Housing Development Projections 1990-1995
Figure 28 provides a breakdown of potential housing opportunities by type of unit and
affordability, assuming construction takes place in the private (unsubsidized) housing market.
According to Census data, about 70 percent of South San Francisco housing units are single-
family, while the remaining 30 percent are multi-family. Figure 28 shows that, given the
location and nature of the potential housing sites, a higher percentage of new units will be
either multi-family or townhome/condominium units than in the past. Although it appears
likely that condominium or multi-family units will constitute a larger proportion of future
units, it is expected that ~ $6' percent will be affordable only to above moderate-income
households.
Land is available to build ''~ X500 housing units in five years (Figures 24 and 26), an
average of about ~ `~(I units peryear. 'This is substantially higher than the average number
of housing units constructed annually during the 1970s and 1980s (375 and 105 units per year,
respectively). The City realistically expects the private housing market to produce only 150 to
280 units per year during the five-year planning period (1990-95), which would yield 750 to
1,400 new units. Reasons for the low production rate (the economy, the state of the housing
industry, and mortgage lending rates) are discussed under Non-governmental. Constraints
later in this chapter.
42
3. Public Facilities and Services
Public facilities and services are available for future residential development on the sites listed
in Figure 26. These facilities and services include water, sewer, drainage facilities, schools,
parks, and fire and police protection. In the Terrabay area, increased service demands have
been met through construction of a new fire station and improvements to adjacent schools.
Water supply may become a constraining factor under continued drought conditions, although
water is not a constraint as of 1992. Should drought continue, the City would take any
necessary steps to control future development.
43
Fibi~re 28
Housing Potential by Type and Affordability
City of South San Francisco, California
HOUSING TYPE AFFORDABILITY
Site Very Above
No. Units SF Condo M-F Low Low Mod Mod
1 30 30 30
2 33 33 33
3 17 17 17
4 11 11 11
5 12 12 12
6 54 54 54
7 80 80 80
8 38 38 15 23
9 81 81 81
10 354 354 354
11 22 22 22
12 33 33 13 20
13 30 30 12 18
14 135 135 135
15 30 30 12 18
16 120 120 120
17 330 330 132 198
18 45 45 18 27
~9 398 388 ~ 43 ~S 353
20 55 55 55
21 45 45 45
22 719 125 594 719
23 126 12G 88 38
24 80 80 80
Totals
~,~G4
5~~;
1,225
Pi~7
Q
~ ___
29Q
2,131
3,58 568 9~ ~8 ~ 385 3,445
Percent
of ~3°~0 ~Q~lo 28 t)% 0% ~Z°!o $G~Jo
Totals 100% ~~e 44~e 3(~e -Ole <1% ~~b 88
Additional Units from Density Bonuses
388 x9~.
2~b -- -- ~3A6 0 1G5 -- 4
Source: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, City of South San Francisco,
1994.
44
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
C. AVAILABILITY OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
1. HoLSina Programs
South San Francisco has only modest financial resources and staff
to support housing assistance programs. Recent reductions in
funding for federal and State assistance programs act to constrain
the provision of housing for families of modest incomes.
Nevertheless, the South San Francisco Housing Authority continues
to manage and rent 80 units of public housing for low-income
tenants. While the number of units of public housing is unlikely
to be increased under current federal policies, the City will
assist the Housing Authority in maintaining the existing number of
units. In addition, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
has available the 20 percent housing set-aside funds to assist
housing programs. (See Action Programs under Policy 2D in Chapter
IV. )
The City continues to support San Mateo County's Section 8 Rental
Voucher program, which is funded through HUD. This program allows
families to rent market-rate housing while only spending 30 per-
cent of their income for housing. The rental voucher makes up the
difference between 30 percent of income and the market rent. Un-
der this program, there are 276 housing units under lease. The
City plans to put an additional 66 units under Section 8 lease
over the next five years.
2. At-risk Units
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Federal government provided both low
interest loans and rent subsidies to private developers of multi-
family rental housing. In return, developers were required to
build and operate their rental projects under 40-year agreements
which established a schedule of below-market rents for lower in-
come households. However, developers were also given the option
to terminate their agreements after 20 years. As these apartment
building owners exercise their 20-year options, units generally
are converted to market rent.
The potential impact of conversion on the state's affordable hous-
ing stock is significant. From 1990-2005, 117,000 rental units in
California could convert to market rate.
45
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
The Housing Element is required to identify the number of units at
risk of conversion to market rate by 1995 and by 2000, and to in-
clude programs to mitigate or preclude the loss of any "at risk"
units between 1990-1995.
Consultations with the South San Francisco Housing Authority and
the San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Department
indicate that there are no locally funded units at-risk.
Three federally subsidized housing projects in South San Francisco
have been identified to be at-risk of conversion to market rate.
(California Coalition for Rural Housing Project, Inventory of Fed-
erally Subsidized Low-Income Rental Units at Risk of Conversion,
March 1990.) These projects are:
a, Fair~~ay Apartments, 77 Westborough Boulevard. This project
contains 74 housekeeping units for the elderly, all assisted under
Section 8 contract. The project was originally provided with a
40-year HUD loan of $2,775,100 at 8 percent interest for new con-
struction. The owner of the project is entitled to terminate the
Section 8 contract on October 14, 1995. If the owner does not opt
out of the contract, he or she may renew it for five additional
years. If the owner wishes to terminate the contract, he must
notify HUD and the City by October, 1994.
b. S~y~~ne View Gardens, 3880 Callan Boulevard. This project
contains a total of 160 units, 78 of which are assisted under Sec-
tion 8 contract and available to families. The project was origi-
nally provided with a $2,823,700 HUD loan. The project owner may
prepay the loan (thereby canceling the low-income use restric-
tions) by March 15, 1994, or may stay in the Section 236 program
for an additional 20 years. The owner is entitled to terminate
the Section 8 contract on September 20, 1996.
Skyline View Gardens is subject to the provisions of The Low In-
come Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990
(LIHPRHA) If the owner intends to cancel the low-income occu-
pancy restrictions, he must file a plan of action with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Tenants and
non-profit housing corporations are provided with a six-month pri-
ority period for purchase of the at-risk units. The federal gov-
46
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
ernment will provide loans for up to 95 percent of the purchase
price.
If the owners of Skyline View Gardens want to terminate the low-
income occupancy restrictions at the March 1994 eligibility date,
they must notify HUD and the City at least one year in advance.
(In a telephone conversation on March 18, 1992, Mr. Bob Hirsch of
Goldrich & Kest, the owners of Skyline View Gardens, indicated
that the company intends to "continue the low income occupancy
restrictions for the long term." Goldrich & Kest renewed their
Section 8 contract for this project in September 1991 for an
additional five years.) The City will monitor this project to
ensure that full advantage is taken of the LIHPRHA incentives to
preserve low-income housing.
c. Rota ~ Plaza, 433 Alida Why. This project has a total of 181
housekeeping units for the elderly, 116 of which are subject to
three Section 8 contracts (of 30, 36, and 50 units each) . The
project's original loan was $3,251,400 from HUD. The 50-unit Sec-
tion 8 contract expires on July 31, 1992; the 36-unit contract ex-
pires on September 24, 1992, with the option of one five-year re-
newal; and the 30-unit contract expires on August 17, 1993, with
the option of renewal in five-year intervals for a total of 10 ad-
ditional years.
Rotary Plaza is owned by a non-profit housing corporation and, ac-
cording to HCD, the City can assume that these Section 8 contracts
will be renewed if federal funds are available for the program.
(Phone conversation with Linda Wheaton, March 9, 1992.) In the
past, Section 8 funding has been provided to renew all expiring
contracts. Funding is currently authorized through 1996, so re-
newal of these contracts in 1992 and 1993 will not be restricted
by the availability of funds. There is some possibility that when
these contracts come up for renewal again in 1997 and 1998, funds
will not be adequate to renew all contracts. The City will moni-
tor the situation to ensure that these units will be preserved for
low-income housing.
In summary, none of the units at risk in South San Francisco are
likely to be converted in the five-year planning period of this
Housing Element, although all 268 units will be at-risk sometime
in the next 10 years. Of these, 116 elderly units are in the non-
47
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
profit Rotary Plaza development, and the City assumes that these
units will be preserved for low income housing by the owners.
Seventy-eight family units in Skyline View Gardens are eligible
for conversion in 1994, but provisions of federal law will enable
the City, in conjunction with non-profit organizations, to pre-
serve these units. As indicated on the preceding page, the owners
of this project intend to continue low-income occupancy.
Seventy-four elderly units at Fairway Apartments have Section 8
contracts expiring in 1995. This project is not covered under
LIHPRA, so if the owner decides to terminate the contract, the
City will need alternative funding to preserve these units. Pos-
sible sources of funds include Community Development Block Grants
and the Redevelopment 20 percent housing set-aside fund. The 1992
cost to replace the Fairway Apartment units is about $121,000 per
unit. The total cost to replace the 190 apartments at-risk would
be $23,000,000. Based on 1992 rents in South San Francisco, the
cost of preserving these units would be slightly over $5,000,000
or about $68,000 per unit.l
The 1992 replacement cost for family housing would be about
$160,000 per unit. Total replacement cost for 78 units at Skyline
View Gardens would be $12,500,000. The cost of preserving (rather
than replacing) these units would be about $7,000,000 or $90,000
per unit.l The calculation of preservation cost assumes that the
units would continue as rental housing. Conversion to condo-
miniums is unlikely, given the city's strict condominium con-
version ordinance.
D. GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS
1, General Plan Land L1se Controls
The City updated the General Plan Land Use, Circulation, and
Transportation Element in 1984. According to the General Plan,
1Replacement costs are based on construction and land cost data in Chapter
III, Sections D and E. Preservation costs are calculated based on average
rents for similar units and a Gross Rent Multiplier of 10, as outlined in
California Housing Partnership Corporation, "Preservation of Affordable
Housing Units in the City of Fremont," November 19, 1991.
- 48
Chapter Ill. Housing Potential and Constraints
the primary environmental constraints to residential land use in
the city are geotechnical constraints (including flooding), biotic
resource conflicts, noise level incompatibility, and land use con-
flicts.
Figure 29
Low-Income Units at Rlsk of Conversion
Earliest Date of
Number Subsidy Subsidy Terrrination
Project Address of Units E[49I~.N Section g Other
Fairway Apartments 77 Westborough 74 221(D)(4) 1995 --1
6 19942
Skyline View Gardens 3880 Callan 78 236(J)(1) 199
92 20123
Rotary Plaza 433 Alida Way 116 236(J)(L)/202 19
Source: California Coalition for Rural Housing, Inventory ofLow-Income Rental Units Subject to Termina-
tion of Federal Mortgage and/or Rent Subsidies, March 1990.
1 Market-rate loan program with no pre-payment eligibility.
2 Section 236.
3 Sections 236 and 202.
The Land Use Element precludes intensive uses, such as housing, in
locations subject to natural hazards such as seismically-induced
ground-shaking and/or surface rupture, liquefaction, tsunami inun-
dation, and flooding. Similar constraints are placed on biological
refuges for rare and endangered species. Governmental regulatory
constraints are also properly imposed in an effort to separate
land uses that are incompatible due to noise impacts.
a. Geotechnical Constraints:
^ Seismic Hazards. Three fault traces are mapped through the
City of South San Francisco. The San Andreas Fault, which
passes through the Westborough area, is considered active.
This fault was the source of earthquakes accompanied by sur-
face faulting in 1838 and 1906. The San Bruno Fault, which
runs generally east of and parallel to E1 Camino Real, and
the Hillside Fault, which generally follows the base of San
Bruno Mountain, are considered inactive.
49
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
The San Francisco Bay Area has experienced considerable seis-
mic activity in the past. Events registering in excess of
6.0 on the Richter Scale occurred in 1836, 1838, 1868, 1906,
1911, and 1989. The City of South San Francisco is located
in an area of potential "violent" to "strong" ground shaking
from a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Continued
periodic seismic activity, including the potential for ground
shaking with a Richter Scale magnitude of 5.0 or greater, ap-
pears likely. Seismic-related hazards which might be ex-
pected to accompany a strong earthquake include surface rup-
ture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and tsunami inundations.
Surface rupture may be expected along the San Andreas Fault
zone in the Westborough area. Several buildings within the
rift zone have already been adversely affected by movements
along the fault trace.
Areas underlain with Bay mud and associated sand lenses may
experience liquefaction due to sheer wave amplification
within the poorly consolidated sediments. Much of this area
is planned for and developed with industrial uses. Local
liquefaction may also occur along Colma Creek.
Subsidence may also result from strong ground shaking due to
possible consolidation of existing fills which would result
in damage to foundations and possible failure of structures
with weak pinning to foundations. Tsunami inundation can oc-
cur on the flatter areas of Bay mud. The areas most severely
affected would be those with elevations of five feet or less,
including the oil storage tanks and Oyster Point Marina.
^ Flooding. Flooding, in the event of a 100-year storm, would
inundate the area adjacent to Colma Creek and spread out
through the industrial area from Point San Bruno to the city
limits to the south.
^ F~nansive Soils. Expansive soils can be anticipated locally
within the Merced Formation and on the lower slopes of San
Bruno Mountain, where colluvial deposits are known to exist.
These areas may present foundation problems for existing
structures.
50
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
^ Landslides. Some areas of unstable slopes can be anticipated
on the steeper lands in South San Francisco. Remedial stabi-
lization work or avoiding development on unstable areas may
be required to alleviate future landslide problems.
b. Biotic Resource Conflicts:
^ Th South Slppe of San Bruno M~l:ntain. San Bruno Mountain,
the south slope of which is located in South San Francisco,
has been found to be a biological refuge for a number of rare
and endangered species. The south slope was investigated as
part of a biological study conducted in 1980 by Thomas Reid
and Associates for San Mateo County. As a result of this in-
vestigation, 153 acres of the 322-acre Terrabay project area
will be set aside for a permanent butterfly habitat.
^ South San Francisco's Shoreline. The majority of South San
Francisco's bayfront property today supports urban develop-
ment. In a two-volume publication on San Francisco Bay's
Wildlife Habitat prepared for the U.S. Fish and wildlife
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, South
San Francisco's shoreline is classified as "Modified Wetland"
with the major undeveloped portion identified as "New Filled
or Reclaimed Land."
South San Francisco's shoreline was classified in the
Wildlife Study as "potentially restorable wildlife habitat,"
but is not considered as valuable and desirable for restora-
tion as land in the "historic marsh" classification category.
Some remnant wetland sites within the city limits probably
support a variety of biota. They are classified in the pre-
viously cited San Francisco Bay Wildlife Habitat report as:
1) mud flats, 2) salt marsh, and 3) diked salt marsh.
c. Noise Level Incompatibility:
The major mobile noise source affecting South San Francisco is
aircraft from San Francisco International Airport, located immedi-
ately south of the city. Air traffic above the city follows three
identified departure paths and contributes the highest aircraft-
related noise levels to the local environment. Takeoffs which im-
pose the most intense noise levels on the widest residential areas
51 ,
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
are those from Runways 28-Right and 28-Left proceeding northwest-
ward through the San Bruno Gap. Future residential development
east of U.S. Highway 101 would be subject to aircraft noise and/or
overflight from aircraft departing on Runways 28 of the Shoreline
Depareture route. Detailed discussions of aviation noise are
contained in the City's Noise Element.
The City has a program to provide financial assistance to homeown-
ers to insulate their homes and bring them up to State indoor
noise standards. As of February 1992, about 272 homes and two
schools have been insulated under the direction of the City Public
Works Department, Engineering Division. (See Chapter IV, Action
5D-1, for further discussion.)
Other major local sources of noise in the city are highways,
streets, and railroads. Two major freeways, U.S. 101 and Inter-
state Route 280, pass through South San Francisco. U.S. 101 runs
along the eastern portion of the city, dividing the predominantly
industrial Bayside Area from the remaining districts. Interstate
280 is located in the western. part of the city and passes near
residential districts in the San Bruno Gap and southward. State
Route 82, (E1 Camino Real) runs northwest to southeast through the
center of South San Francisco. State Route 35, Skyline Boulevard,
forms the western boundary of the city. The location of all free-
way and highway corridors is shown on the Circulation Plan Diagram
contained in the Circulation Element.
Other heavily traveled city streets are also identified in the
Circulation Element. Current and projected traffic counts are
quantified and illustrated in Exhibits 1 and 2 of the Circulation
Element.
The full length of the eastern part of the City of South San Fran-
cisco is traversed by the main line of the Southern Pacific Trans-
portation Company. This rail line runs approximately parallel to
the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101), and supports both heavy long-dis-
tance freight transport and commuter passenger service for the
Peninsula Area. In December, 1991, this line was purchased by the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Future commuter rail ser-
vice will be managed by the San Mateo County Transit District
(SAMTRANS) .
52
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
d. Land Use Conflicts:
The City's General Plan has sought to avoid conflicts that arise
from the juxtaposition of incompatible land uses. As a result,
existing land use patterns in South San Francisco are a constraint
to residential development in some portions of the city.
Land use patterns in South San Francisco evolved from the original
town layout along Grand Avenue west of the Southern Pacific Rail-
road tracks. This central area contains a mixture of older and
newer buildings with substantial commercial development along
Grand and Linden Avenues. The downtown contains some mixed resi-
dential and office uses in addition to the predominantly retail
commercial uses. The downtown is surrounded by an older residen-
tial community with a mix of single-family houses and higher den-
sity apartments and condominiums.
In the Chestnut/Westborough/E1 Camino Real area, highway commer-
cial uses extend along El Camino Real. Primarily single-family
developments exist both east and west of E1 Camino Real with some
multi-family development located as buffers between the commercial
and single-family areas.
The Lindenville area, south of the urban center and west of
Bayshore Freeway, contains a mixture of light industrial uses,
wholesale establishments, transportation centers, warehousing,
light fabrication, and service facilities.
The community's newer industrial uses have generally located in
the Cabot-Utah area. This district is located east of U.S. 101
and is composed of the older Utah Industrial Park and the newer
Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park. The area has evolved as
a place for warehousing, distribution facilities, wholesale out-
lets, and research and development facilities. The older portions
contain heavier uses.
The newer residential communities of South San Francisco are lo-
cated in the Westborough-West Park area. Here, sub-neighborhoods
have been developed in single-family, townhouse, and multi-family
developments. A community commercial center is located at the in-
tersection of Gellert Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard.
53
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
2 . ~on~ pg C_.ontrols
The zoning designation of each potential housing development site
is listed in Figure 26. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance can be
made by the City Council.
Zoning is one tool used to implement the policies and programs of
the General Plan. Zoning establishes location and density
constraints consistent with the General Plan and guides
residential uses away from incompatible uses and environmental
hazards and conflicts. The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
limits the number of dwelling units to a maximum of about 22,000
to 25,000. Given that the city currently has about 19,000 housing
units, the city is close to being "built-out." As explained in
section B of this chapter, current zoning will allow the
construction of about 3,000 new units on vacant and redevelopable
sites.
Zoning can also create opportunities for housing, particularly af-
fordable housing, to be developed with the use of mechanisms such
as "density bonuses." Thus zoning is not inherently a constraint
to housing development.
South San Francisco has four residential zoning districts: R-E
(Rural Estates), R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Medium Den-
sity Residential), and R-3 (Multi-Family Residential). In addi-
tion, residential uses are allowed in the city's commercial, in-
dustrial, and open space zoning districts, subject to conditional
use permit approval. The City is expected to study the lands East
of U.S. 101 regarding their suitability for noise sensitive land
uses.
The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance may need to be amended to
be consistent with the updated Housing Element. Specific Zoning
Ordinance provisions that affect residential uses are discussed
below.
a. On-Site Zoning Requirements and Specifications:
The Zoning Ordinance establishes setback requirements for struc-
tures in each residential zoning district (see Figure 30) . In addi-
tion, the Zoning Ordinance employs a system of "density designa-
54
Chapter ill. Housing Potential and Constraints
tors," whereby the maximum residential density allowed in each
zoning district is indicated by an additional one-letter designa-
tion on the City's zoning map. Figure 31 illustrates the range of
possible densities allowed by this designation system. Figure 32
shows the parking requirements for residential uses as established
by the Zoning Ordinance.
Figure 30
Front, Rear, and Slde Yard Regulations
City of South San Francesco, California
7onina Distric ~~inimum Yard Dimensio
t Front bldg ns' (in feet)
~
R-1 15 5 20
R-2 15 5 20
R-3 15 5 10-11.5
C-1 15 0-10 0
D-C 0 0 0
' All yard requirements subject to additional conditions and terms stated in Zoning Ordinance text.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Table 20.71.030.
South San Francisco's zoning regulations for setbacks and parking
are comparable to those in other cities, and parking requirements
for senior housing and downtown residential uses are lower.
Zoning regulations are not a constraint to housing development in
South San Francisco.
b. Secondary Units:
The Zoning Ordinance permits secondary living units in the R-1
(Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), R-3
(Multi-Family Residential), and D-C (Downtown Commercial) zoning
districts, subject to use permit approval.
The Ordinance (Section 20.79.020) states that no more than one
residential second unit is permitted on any one parcel or lot
which has one existing single-family detached dwelling unit.
Second units are required to be within or attached to the existing
55
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
single family unit and can be no larger than 640 square feet.
Secondary units also are required to have one off-street parking
space and comply with minimum housing code requirements. Since
adoption of the Second Unit Ordinance in 1983, one application for
a second unit has been approved.
Figure 31
Zoning Density Regulations
City of South San Francisco, California
Density Maximum Site Area
(Maximum Units per Dwelling Unit
pg~jgnator ner Net Acrel ~~quare feeU _
A 1 43,560
B 1,3 32,600
C 5 8,710
D 6 7,260
E g 5,445
F 8.7 5,000
G 10 4,360
H 15 2,904
I 17,5 2,500
~ 40 1,090
K 43 1,000
~ 21.8-30 1,452-2,000
Note: All density requirements subject to additional conditions and terms stated in Zoning Ordinance
text.
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Table 20.69.020.
Action program 2B-2 commits the city to ease an owner-occupancy
restriction by allowing either the primary or the secondary unit
to be owner-occupied. This would allow, for example, a widow who
owns a home to build a second unit, move into it and rent the main
unit to a family. Action 2B-2 also will remove a city prohibition
on second units in dwellings built after 1983. That prohibition
is now precluded by State law.
56
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
Flgure 32
Parking Requirements
City of South San Francisco, California
One-, two- and three-unit dwellings.
Multiple-family projects with four or more units.
Single-family and townhouse units in planned de-
velopments.
Group residential uses, residential hotels.
Senior citizen residential.
2 spaces (1 enclosed) per unit for dwellings with
tewer than five bedrooms and less than 2,500
square feet in size.
3 spaces (2 encbsed) per unit with five or more
bedrooms, or for any dwelling unit with a gross
floor area of 2,500 square teet or greater.
2 spaces per unit (with at least 1 space covered),
plus one guest space per every four units.
2.25 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit if project has
driveway aprons at least 18 feet long. Otherwise,
4.25 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit.
1 space for each sleeping room.
0.50 space to 1.25 spaces per unit (to be deter-
mined by Planning Commission).
Family residential uses in Downtown Commeraal 1 covered space per unit plus 0.25 uncovered
District, in buildings with 4 or fewer units (1-bed- space per unit for guest parking.
room units with 800 square feet or less and/or stu-
dio units with 500 square teet or less).
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.040.
c. Manufactured Housing:
Manufactured housing can provide quality housing at a reasonable
price. The recent trend in State legislation has been to encour-
age homeowners to place and finance manufactured homes on single-
family lots. As a result, mobile homes as well as factory-built
housing may now be taxed as real estate and may be set on perma-
nent foundations, in common with conventional site-built housing.
Passage of SB 1004 in 1979 and SB 1422 in 1980 made all manufac-
tured homes sold after July 1, 1980, subject to property taxation
at the same rate as conventional dwellings. The legislation
qualified owners and renters of manufactured homes for State tax
57
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
benefits traditionally available only to residents of conven-
tional, site-built homes.
California SB 1960 (1981) prohibited local jurisdictions from ex-
cluding manufactured homes from all lots zoned for single-family
dwellings; in other words, restricting the location of these homes
to mobile home parks is forbidden. However, SB 1960 does allow
the local jurisdiction to designate certain single-family lots for
manufactured homes based on compatibility for this type of use.
The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance allows manufac-
tured housing in all zoning districts where residential uses are
permitted or conditionally permitted. The regulations state that
"a design review approval...shall be required for all manufactured
homes on residential lots, provided that the scope of review shall
be limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding mate-
rial. Manufactured homes on residential lots shall be treated in
this title the same as single-family dwellings in all other re-
spects" (Zoning Ordinance Sections 20.14.040 through 20.34.040).
Between 1985 and 1990, the City received two applications for man-
ufactured housing units, both of which were approved.
The City's zoning is thus not a constraint to manufactured hous-
ing, although the demand for such units in South San Francisco
seems to be very limited.
3, B ~,~1 ding Codes
The 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code is enforced in South
San Francisco. The City Building Division ensures that new resi-
dences, additions, auxiliary buildings, and other structures meet
current construction and safety standards. Building permits are
required for any construction work.
South San Francisco's building code requirements are no different
from those in most other cities. While it is recognized that
building codes affect the cost of housing development by estab-
lishing structural and occupancy standards, the code as applied in
South San Francisco is not a constraint on housing development.
4. city Permit Processing and Fees
Building permits must be secured before beginning any construc-
tion, reconstruction, conversion, alteration, or addition to a
58
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
structure. Approval of permit applications is based on conformity
with the Zoning Ordinance, although the Planning Commission has
the power to grant variances from the terms of the Ordinance
within specific limits. Building permits generally are processed
within a few weeks; variance requests and Conditional Use Permits
require approximately two months to comply with the public
notification time required under CEQA.
The time required to process residential project applications de-
pends on the size and scope of the project. Any delays in pro-
cessing can ultimately result in added housing costs. While the
City of South San Francisco has a reputation for speedily
processing development applications, some delays can occur that
are outside the control of the city. Delays in processing can
occur if environmental review, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires an EIR to be prepared.
At times, approval from State or other agencies may also be
required for certain types of projects. Overall, project
processing is not a constraint on the development of housing in
South San Francisco.
Project application fees, permit fees, and developer fees add to
housing construction costs. Several fees apply to housing devel-
opments. These include 1) fees charged by the planning department
for processing use permits, zoning amendments and variances, ten-
tative subdivision maps, design and environmental review, and ap-
peals; 2) fees levied by the building and public works departments
for plan checks and inspections; 3) fees charged for city-provided
utility connections such as sewer and water; and 4) fees for in-
frastructure improvements, schools, roads and public transit,
parks and recreation, police and fire services, and affordable
housing funds. Whereas the first three fee categories have been
enforced by local governments for many years, the fourth category,
often called growth fees, is a fairly recent phenomenon intended
to offset the costs of new development.
Planning, building/public works, and utility fees are somewhat
uniform throughout the Bay Area, while growth fees vary greatly.
South San Francisco's growth fees include a park and recreation
fee and a school impact fee. Figure 33 compares fees for a 100-unit
subdivision (25-acre site) with three-bedroom and two-bath (1,500
59
South San Francisco Housing Element December i 992
square feet) single-family homes in South San Francisco and sev-
eral San Mateo County cities.
Figure 33 shows that fees in South San Francisco for a 100-unit
subdivision would be about $5,649 per unit. Fees for the same de-
velopment in other San Mateo County cities would range from a to-
tal of $8,126 in San Carlos to $22,072 in Half Moon Bay). The
permit fees in South San Francisco are less than half the average
for San Mateo County ($11,501) and only 41 percent of the Bay Area
average ($13,811).
South San Francisco's park fee ($2,030) is lower than the average
park and recreation fees in San Mateo County ($3,800) and the Bay
Area ($2, 291) .
Thus developer fees in South San Francisco do not constitute a
constraint to housing development in the city, relative to other
Bay Area cities.
6. Tnf rastructure Improvements
A complete description of the transportation circulation system in
South San Francisco is included in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan. All public utilities, including sewage treatment
facilities, water supply, storm drainage, and solid waste disposal
are described in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Ade-
quate infrastructure improvements exist throughout the community
to serve new and in-fill housing. Development of the vacant or
redevelopable parcels listed in Figure 26 would only require on-site
connections to existing roads, sewer mains, and water lines.
Therefore, infrastructure requirements do not pose a constraint to
the development of new housing in South San Francisco.
60
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
•
N
W
W (~
~ E
W cv
OU
J
M ~
i ~~
_m ~ ``~^^
O vJ
Z ~
N
Q O
~U
V
Os
~ ~-
r IA
~- N
f~ ~-
O 1C
N ~
M ~-
O aE
M r-
~' aE
M
O N O N T N O r
M C! O N ~- CO O T~ ~"~ ~
i9 f~ T N f T T
~ ~"'
y
cC
r
m O
O
U ~
~ e0
0 0
r C`')
CO O
O Ln
n 0
O 0
(O r O
O o O O
f~ ~
~
O
d9 00 N r 01 <D N M O I~ O O ~-
~
N M O
r M ~ •- ~''~
~ ~
~ ~
o V
N E
Ft? ~
O C
~ O
Z
_
~
> O
0~0 lOA ~ ~ ~A CMO CNO ~ °
~ O °
~` -p
C O
~ N 1n N ~ ~ In t~ ? In ~ c"O N
~ 00 In O t0 ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ UO ~
C N ~
NN N
Q
i
G
o
N
L ~ c4
00
r
f~
f~
M
M
N
N ~E
t
f~
N~ ~'
8
'~ c ~
'~
1p
• a M
M M
M M
M ti
h !~
M T
~ o r.
'a O
~~ C
~
T r r r r r T r
~ r
~ ~
3 ~
m
~
iN ~
O ~
O
~ t
r..
T Q
t ^
''
VJ
O
(C
r ~
M ~
c0 n
M O
~ M
~ 0
O ~t ~
N M~
o C ~`
~ In M ~ c0 ~ C7 (") C ~? N ~ (~
T T T T r ~' T T r
~ 4
~,
• m
E
c~ m
o
~ ~ M ~C N Q01 N N ° CMD ° ~ •C
~ ~ r r ~~ ~N •(%1
C E
~ }
{
O
O v
~ T
U
V
•
Q =
.
. p
C
C
~ ~ O ~
~ .
~ V
f
O ~ W
N
~ ~ C1
Q ~ ld
C O
C
U p
g y
~
~
~
~
m ~ t0 O
~
G
= O
~
~ ep
t
~
U
~ c
a !n
~ Y
~
~ t ~
.
>
~ ~
~
c~v
gypp, y;.
~ e
~ c
~~y pp
~ p c~~
c
m m p
fn m li 2 (~ fn !n fn m to . cn ~
6~
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
E. MARKET CONSTRAINTS
1. T~and Costs
The price of developed land is a significant component of housing
cost--one-quarter or more of the total cost of a house. Land
costs in the Bay Area have been increasing since World War II as a
result of inflation, increased immigration, and decreasing land
supply. This cost increase has an adverse effect on the ability
of households, particularly low- and moderate-income households,
to pay for housing. For example, each $250 increase in the land
cost of a unit adds about $10 per month to the cost of housing.
Land costs in South San Francisco are fairly typical of those in
San Mateo County. The cost of a single-family in-fill lot is
roughly $100,000, or about one quarter of the typical cost of a
new, three- to five-bedroom home in the city (approximately
$400,000). (Telephone conversation with Andy Cresci, Vice Presi-
dent, Standard Building Company, January 22, 1990). Land costs
are somewhat lower for subdivisions. Data from the San Mateo
County Assessor's office show that land for subdivision projects
has sold from a low of $270,000 per acre to a high of $640,000 per
acre. These figures translate into a cost of $50,000 to $96,000
per lot, depending on size and location. (Figures were derived
from sales data for the Parkway Estates II, Foothill Estates,
Avalon Heights, and Alden Heights projects, between 1988 and
1990.)
Clearly, rising land costs have constrained the development of af-
fordable housing.
2 , rnnat rur_t i on Costs
Construction cost increases, like land cost increases, have raised
the cost of housing and have affected the ability of consumers to
pay for housing. Construction cost increases are due to the cost
of materials, labor, and higher government-imposed standards
(e.g., energy conservation requirements). Construction costs in
1990 for a single-family home in South San Francisco were approxi-
mately $70 per square foot. (Telephone conversation with Andy
Cresci, Vice President, Standard Building Company, January 22,
62
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
1990.) Housing construction costs in the Bay Area, on average,
make up about 45 percent of the total cost of a single-family
starter home. (Bay Area Council, Taxing the American Dream, May
1988.)
While construction costs averaged $70 per square foot, City permit
and processing fees for a single-family home (as presented in Sec-
tion D.4.) averaged about. $4 per square foot. Thus, in comparison
to fees, construction costs make up a substantial portion of hous-
ing costs, and cannot be controlled by the City.
Figure 34
Components of Housing Cost
City of South San Francesco, California
5%
10%
^ Land
2%
4%
42%
^ Construction
® Improvements
^ Fees
Financing
Overhead and Profit
8 Sales cost
Source: Adapted from Bay Area Council, Taxing fhe American Dream, 1988. Figures are adjusted for
higher land cost and lower level of fees in South San Francisco.
63
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
3. r~~t and Availab~~~ty of Financing
The availability of money is a significant factor in both the cost
and the supply of housing. Both (1) capital used by developers
for initial site preparation and construction, and (2) capital for
financing the purchase of units by homeowners and investors have
suffered high and fluctuating interest rates in recent years. Dur-
ing the 1980s, interest rates for conventional mortgages and con-
struction loans ranged from 8 to 21 percent. For many, high mort-
gage interest rates made home ownership infeasible because incomes
were not adequate to meet required mortgage payments. (Each 1
percent rise in interest rate would cause the monthly payment on a
$70,000 mortgage to increase by $54.)
For builders, high interest rates translate to higher development
costs, which in turn are passed on to the home buyer in the form
of higher prices for new units. At times, builder financing is
difficult to obtain even though the cost of take-out financing may
be reasonable. Until the late 1980s, credit enhancement for
multi-family developments was available. In the early 1990s, it
has been almost impossible to secure financing for multi-family
projects. Thus the cost and availability of financing has had a
direct impact on South San Francisco's housing supply, steering
new development away from producing affordable multi-family units
and toward more expensive single-family homes.
4. RPnPnt Market Experience
From 1970 to 1980, housing was produced in South San Francisco at
an average rate of 375 units per year. Housing production slowed
substantially during the early 1980s and early 1990s as a result
of the adverse financial conditions described above and two
nationwide economic recessions.
From 1980 to 1989, 1,183 new housing units were constructed and 44
units were demolished for a net total of 1,139 housing units added
to the housing stock in South San Francisco. Of this total, 498
were single-family units, 233 were duplexes/townhomes/condomini-
ums, one was a second unit, and 451 were multi-family units (214
of which were condominiums) . (See Flgure2l.) On average, about 105
housing units were added per year from 1980 to 1989, significantly
less than the 375 per year in the 1970s. The number of new units
64
Chapter lll. Housing Potential and Constraints
constructed per year varied greatly during the 1980s due in part
to the national economic recession of 1982-83 and a state-wide re-
cession during 1985-87. During those two periods, housing con-
struction in South San Francisco almost came to a standstill, with
only 11 units built in 1982 and six units built in 1985. For
those years when construction was somewhat strong, the average
number of units was about 175 per year. Still, this figure is
much less than the average number of units constructed per year
during the 1970s. Market conditions will continue to be the pri-
mary constraint on housing production for the five-year time frame
of this Housing Element.
F. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
The City of South San Francisco recognizes the need for greater
energy efficiency in both existing dwelling units and in new con-
struction. Adequate windows, insulation, weather stripping, and
caulking all can reduce energy consumption in buildings.
Opportunities for energy conservation are greatest in new con-
struction. The City provides information to developers on energy
efficiency and encourages the use of active and passive solar
power. The city will continue to enforce state standards for en-
ergy efficiency in all new residential construction. (See Actions
1C-1 and 5E-1.)
Pacific Gas & Electric has a number of programs--aimed especially
at households with low-income and elderly people--to improve the
energy efficiency of existing housing units. These programs in-
clude energy assessments, sale of energy efficient refrigerators,
insulation covers for water heaters, and insulation in general.
(See Action 5E-2.)
Insulation used to combat airport noise from entering homes has
the added benefit of making these homes more energy .efficient.
Thus, South San Francisco has a unique opportunity to increase en-
ergy efficiency through its airport noise insulation program.
This program has insulated over 270 homes and is planned to in-
clude 300 more. (See Action 5D-1.)
65
IV. HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAMS
Goal 1. Encourage a supply of housing units sufficient to assure each resident an
attractive, healthful, safe environment within a wide range of designs,
types, sizes, and prices.
Policy 1A. Avoid deterioration due to a lack of maintenance of existing dwelling
units and provide low-cost rehabilitation programs for their Improvement.
Action lA-1. Support the Housing Rehabilitation Program with
continued CDBG funding.
This program provides low-interest loans for rehabilita-
tion of owner-occupied single-family homes. Approxi-
mately $189,400 in CDBG funds were available for such
loans in 1990. Priority is given to homes in the
Downtown Target Area.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
On-going
CDBG
40 Units by 1995.
Action IA-2. Aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and
safety codes.
Responsibility of: City Attorney, Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General fund
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1 B. Provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City
government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimu-
late private housing development consistent with local needs.
Action 18-1. Support Private Market Construction.
This program is designed to remove hurdles to construct-
ing new market-rate housing units for above moderate- and
moderate-income households so that units can be built at
a rate that will meet the current and projected housing
needs. This program includes working with property own-
ers, project sponsors, and developers to design housing
66
Chapter I V. Housing Plan and Programs
projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of
this Housing Element; providing timely assistance and ad-
vice on permits, fees, and environmental review require-
ments to avoid costly delays in project approval; and in-
terfacing 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
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: (NA)
Quantified Objective: 1,567 units by 1995. (This is the
number that would need to be pro-
duced by the private market to meet
the remaining ABAG housing need
[Figure 7] after subtracting units to
be produced by all other construc-
tion programs.)
Action iB-2. Work with the owner to develop a plan for annexa-
tion of the R.I McClellan property (Site No. 10 on
Figures 26 and 27) .
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: Currently in Progress
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: Complete by 1993.
Policy 1C. Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of
housing units in well planned neighborhoods.
Action 1C-1. Review the Zoning Ordinance for--
(a) adequate tools and flexibility. The City's Zoning
Ordinance will be reviewed to assure that it has the
tools and flexibility needed to encourage a variety of
unit sizes and mix of housing types including single fam-
ily condominiums, cluster projects, PUDs, townhomes, co-
operatives, mobile homes, senior projects, and manufac-
tured housing;
67
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
(b) equitable distribution of single- and multiple-family
units; and
(c) inclusion of design standards to promote improved
residential and neighborhood design, energy conservation,
and reduced costs.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
On-going
General Fund
Complete review and amendments by
1995.
Action 1C-2. Provide adequate public facilities, including
streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the
residential areas of the city.
Residential development will be encouraged, as designated
on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services
and facilities are adequate to support added population
or where the needed improvements are already committed.
All dwelling units will have adequate public or private
access to public rights-of-way.
Responsibility of: Public Works Department and Planning
division.
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: NQ
Action 1C-3. Ensure that new development and rehabilitation ef-
forts promote quality design and harmonize with existing
neighborhood surroundings. Support excellence in design
through the continued use of the design review board
and/or staff. All future major housing projects will be
evaluated according to the following factors:
(a) Effects the proposed densities will have on the sur-
rounding neighborhoods, streets, and the community as a
whole;
68
Chapter /V. Housing Plan and Programs
(b) Need for additional infrastructure improvements, in-
cluding but not limited to sewers, water, storm drainage,
and parks;
(c) Need for additional public services to accommodate the
project, including but not limited to police, fire, pub-
lic works, libraries, recreation, planning, engineering,
administration, finance, building, and other applicable
services; and
(d) Cost/revenue impacts, especially of major projects.
Responsibility of: Technical Advisory Group
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: NQ
Goal 2. Continue to support the provision of housing by both the private and
public sector for all Income groups In the community.
Poltcy 2A. Eliminate constraints to affordable housing.
Action 2A-1. Promote affordable housing.
At the time first contact is made with City staff, devel-
opers will be alerted by the Department of Economic and
Community Development to the City's desire to provide a
wide range of housing types and costs, including units
affordable to lower-income households. Particular atten-
tion will be paid to sites meeting the locational crite-
ria for non-market-rate housing set forth in this Housing
Element. During the initial discussions with staff, dur-
ing the environmental review process, and during the re-
view of project proposals by the Planning Commission and
City Council, attention will be given to methods of re-
ducing housing costs including:
(a) Reducing the floor area of some units where it is
deemed appropriate to increased numbers of single-person
households, smaller families, and greater numbers of
elderly;
69
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
(b) Eliminating amenities such as family rooms and dens in
some units.
(c) Opportunities for using modular construction or manu-
factured units.
(d) Opportunities to offer density bonuses or other incen-
tives (see Policy 2B below) allowed under the Zoning Or-
dinance for providing elderly units or units available to
low- and very low-income households.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: (not applicable)
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2B. Stimulate the construction of lower cost units by providing incentives
and encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, and
manufactured housing.
Action 28-1. Encourage a mix of uses in Commercial and Office
Zoning Districts.
This program promotes housing uses on upper floors of
commercial and office buildings. The Zoning Ordinance
permits residential uses on the same site when secondary
to established commercial and office uses. Maximum densi-
ties of 30 units per acre will be allowed in these areas,
and density will be calculated based on the total number
of units divided by the total net site area, without re-
gard to how much of the site is (or is to be) occupied by
non-residential uses. However, adequate off-street park-
ing must be provided. Opportunities for time share of
parking facilities will be explored and encouraged.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 126 units by 1995.
70
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Action 28-2. Support the development of "Second Housing Units."
In general, a second unit is an additional self-contained
living unit, either attached to or detached from the
primary residential unit on a single lot. It has
cooking, eating, sleeping, and full sanitation
facilities. It is also known as a granny flat, in-law
unit, or an accessory dwelling. State law permits second
units and establishes minimum standards for their
development. A local government can either adhere to the
State standards or adopt its own second unit ordinance.
San Mateo County allows for construction of both attached
and detached units up to 700 square feet or 35 percent of
the size of the main dwelling (to a maximum of 1500
square feet).
In South San Francisco, a second unit is defined as a
separate, complete housekeeping unit with kitchen, sleep-
ing, and full bathroom facilities and which is located on
the same parcel or lot and attached to the primary unit.
(South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 20.06 (f).)
The Second Residential Unit Regulations provide that such
units be no larger than six hundred square feet in area,
that the lot size be no less than 5, 000 square feet in
area, that the second unit must utilize the same exterior
doorways as the primary unit and that they shall not be
metered separately. The City has amended its Zoning
Ordinance to allow second units upon the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit provided the unit meets specific
standards (see Chapter III, Section B.2.b of this Housing
Element). The City will liberalize its second unit
ordinance by allowing either unit to be owner-occupied,
and by removing the prohibition on second units in
dwellings constructed after 1983--a prohibition now
precluded by State law.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: Two units by 1995.
71
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
Action 2B-3. Grant a "Density Bonus" to developments that in-
clude low-income, very low-income or senior citizen
units.
The California Government Code (Section 65915) requires
cities to grant certain density bonuses (or provide other
incentives of equivalent value) to housing developers who
provide low-income, very low-income or senior citizen
housing units within their projects. The specific density
bonuses required are:
(a) A 25 percent density increase when at least 20 percent
of the total units in the development are for low-income
households.
(b) A 25 percent density increase when at least 10 percent
of the total units in the housing development are for
very low-income households.
(c) A 25 percent density increase when at least 50 percent
of the total units in the housing development are for se-
nior citizens.
The density increase must be at least 25 percent over the
otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the
applicable Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element of the
General Plan. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to
include the State-mandated density bonus provisions and
alternative or additional incentives such as the follow-
ing:
• Expedited development review.
• Fee waivers.
• Other regulatory concessions resulting in identifiable
cost reductions equivalent in financial value to the den-
sity bonus, based upon the land cost per dwelling unit.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: 1992
Funding Source: NA
72
Chapter 1V. Housing Plan and Programs
Quantified Objective: 206 units by 1995.
Action 2B-4. Complete a study of increasing residential densi-
ties around future BART station and required implementa-
tion.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District is proposing an ex-
tension of its commuter rail line from Daly City to the
San Francisco Airport. This proposal includes a station
in South San Francisco. A land use study has been autho-
rized to rezone properties around this station. Site No.
10 on Figure 26 is currently zoned for 354 units on 31.2
acres, a density of 11.3 units per acre. Densities
proposed for the rezoning of this site would be 23 units
per acre, yielding an additional 358 units. The proposed
change in zoning on this site will accommodate the City's
need for additional sites available for low-income
housing.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: Currently in Progress
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: 350 units by 1995.
Action 28-5. Study the land use, compatibility of increasing
residential densities along major streets in the downtown
redevelopment area, incorporating public participation in
the process.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Currently authorized
General Fund
Complete by 1995.
Action 28-6. Appoint a Housing Programs Administrator to oversee
Housing Element Programs and maintain the element.
A contributing weakness to meeting previous Housing Ele-
ment objectives was the lack of housing expertise and
program management oversight. The City will secure
funding for a half-time staff position or consultant to
73
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
provide such expertise. Areas of responsibility will
include annual housing reports, Housing Element
amendments and updates, contract administration, seeking
additional funding, and monitoring legislation. The
Housing Administrator will be responsible for monitoring
the status of subsidized units at risk of conversion to
market rate (see Chapter III, Section C2) and taking
appropriate action under State and federal law to
preserve these units.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: Commence 1992-93 budget year
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund, CDBG funds, and
General Fund for remaining non-
qualifying functions
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2C. Support efforts of non-governmental sponsors to generate affordable
housing.
Action 2C-1. Maintain a list of major agencies and organizations
participating in housing-related activities, including
address, telephone, and brief description of their func-
tion.
The Department of Economic and Community Development will
prepare the list and provide it to City departments
(particularly City Clerk, Police, and Building Division)
for distribution to the public on request. Agencies
listed will include the South San Francisco Housing Au-
thority, San Mateo County Housing Authority, North San
Mateo County Association of Realtors, Chamber of Com-
merce, housing counseling organizations, and housing as-
sistance services described in Action 2C-2.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: City Budget
Quantified Objective: NQ
74 ,
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Action 2C-2. Allocate Redevelopment funds to non-profit housing
agencies that assist in providing or developing Zow-in-
come housing.
The City has worked with BRIDGE Housing Corporation and
the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition to develop affordable
housing, by providing funds for land purchase and
rehabilitation. The City is currently contracting with
BRIDGE Housing to develop a site and possibly build
affordable housing using redevelopment set-aside funding.
(See also Action 2D-3.) It is expected that these and
other non-profit agencies will be interested in further
ventures with the City.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
Time Frame: 1992-1996
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Assist non-profit agencies in devel-
oping 60 units by 1995.
Action 2C-3. Support non profits in the placement of individuals
and small households needing housing with people who have
excess space in their homes and who are willing to share
that space.
This program, sponsored by a non-profit organization,
"Human Investment Project, Inc.: Shared Homes," arranges
to place seniors, students, and other individuals and
small households needing housing with persons who have
housing and wish to accept boarders. The organization
maintains lists of people who have available space and of
those who need to rent or otherwise obtain housing in
north San Mateo County. The City supports this program
by allocating Redevelopment Agency housing set-aside
funds, which are used to provide office space, telephone,
advertising, and information about the program. Thirty-
seven South San Francisco residents were assisted with
housing through this program during 1989, 48 in 1990, and
43 in 1991.
75
Soufh San Francisco Housing Element December i 992
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Department of Economic and Community
Development
On-going
20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund
200 units, 1990-1995.
Policy 2D. Involve the City directly in retaining and Increasing the supply of
affordable housing.
Action 2D-1. Continue to operate and rent 80 units of public
housing.
No additional such units are planned in the future, but
the City will continue to support the South San Francisco
Housing Authority's Public Housing Rental Program by co-
operating with the Authority in such areas as unit reha-
bilitation.
Responsibility of: South San Francisco Housing Author-
ity
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents
Quantified Objective: Preserve 80 units.
The next three action programs describe Redevelopment Agency ac-
tivities. To better understand these programs, the following
background on redevelopment law and redevelopment in South San
Francisco is provided.
The City's Redevelopment Agency operates three redevelopment ar-
eas: Gateway, Shearwater, and Downtown/Central. State law re-
quires the Redevelopment Agency to spend 20 percent of its tax in-
crement from these projects to increase and improve the
community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing. Eligible
activities include acquiring land or sites, certain off-site
improvements, construction of buildings, rehabilitation, providing
subsidies, and the payment of principal and interest on bonds,
loans, and advances.
The redevelopment law requires agencies to replace any low- and
moderate-income housing destroyed or removed as part of redevelop-
76
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
ment activity. Replacement must occur within four years (either
within or outside the project area).
Some restrictions as to affordability govern housing constructed
within project areas. Thirty percent of new units developed or
rehabilitated by the agency itself must be affordable to low- and
moderate-income households; half of these (15 percent) must be af-
fordable to very low-income households. Of units developed or re-
habilitated by another public agency or by a private entity, 15
percent must be affordable to low- and moderate-income households,
and 40 percent of these (6 percent) must be affordable to very
low-income households. (These affordability requirements apply in
the aggregate to new units and not to each project individually.)
In addition to the above requirements of California redevelopment
law, the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project requires spending
at least 28 percent of the housing fund for low-income and 33 per-
cent for very low-income; replacing any housing units within the
Project Area destroyed or removed by private action (in addition
to Agency action) and in the same ratios of low- and very low-in-
come affordability as the units destroyed; and assisting in the
relocation of low- and moderate-income persons displaced. These
units in Downtown/Central are required to remain affordable at the
designated income levels for the life of the project (until 2024)
or later if bonds are paid off later.
The Redevelopment Agency's low- and moderate-income housing fund
has been generating approximately $280,000 a year, primarily from
the Gateway project. In 1990 and 1991, $200,000 a year went to
pay off the purchase of the Magnolia Plaza Apartments property.
In 1992, a net of approximately $500,000 a year can be expected.
By 1995-96, the housing fund could be accumulating nearly
$1,000,000 a year.
The following action programs take into account state and local
restrictions on the use of the low- and moderate-income housing
fund and the limitations imposed by high housing costs in the
area.
Action 2D-2. Provide financial assistance for physical improve-
ments to existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupan-
cies.
77
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
This would be similar to the upgrading of the Sundial fa-
cility by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition. Facilities of
this type in the Downtown/Central Project Area could be
improved or converted to apartments.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency
1992-1995
20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund
Upgrade 60 Single Rooms by 1995.
Action 2D-3. Acquire Land for rental projects.
The Redevelopment Agency will acquire sites that are ei-
ther vacant or were developed with nonconforming uses and
will make the sites available to non-profit developers.
The Magnolia Plaza site was acquired this way from the
South San Francisco Unified School District and leased to
BRIDGE, the non-profit developer. Eventually ownership
of the land will return to the City. (See also Action
2C-2. )
Responsibility of: South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency
Time Frame: 1992-1995
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Acquire land sufficient for 60 units
by 1995.
Action 2D-4. Subsidize purchases or buy down the developer's
cost of rental units in new for-profit developments.
This applies to new developments either inside or outside
project areas. The Agency could assist in the purchase of
units by eligible buyers, or assist in creating afford-
able rental units through buydown assistance to the orig-
inal developer or subsidies to eligible renters.
Responsibility of: South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency
Time Frame: 1994-1995
78
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Assist five units by 1995.
Action 2D-5. Continue to enforce limits on con version of apart-
ment units to condominiums.
Conversion of apartments to condominium ownership ad-
versely affects the number of affordable rental units
available within the community. Chapter 19.80 of the Mu-
nicipal Code notes several social problems created by
conversion. As specified in Chapter 19.80, condominium
conversions are allowed only if they meet the following
general criteria:
(a) A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least 5 percent
exists.
(b) The conversion has an overall positive effect on the
City's available housing stock.
(c) Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and
managing the resulting condominium projects.
(d) The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and
other applicable codes in force at the time of
conversion.
(e) The conversion is consistent with all applicable poli-
cies of the General Plan.
Since the Ordinance was adopted, no conversions have oc-
curred. This has helped retain a rental housing stock in
the community that provides a substantial source of hous-
ing for low- and moderate-income families.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
79
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
Action 2D-6. Retain 268 units subsidized under Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 contracts
for lower-income seniors and families.
State law (Government Code Section 65583) requires each
housing element to include a program for preserving as-
sisted housing that is at risk of conversion to market
rate. There are currently 268 units under Section 8 con-
tract in South San Francisco that are potentially at
risk. (See Chapter III, Section C.2.)
These units are available to elderly households (190
units) and families (78 units). As of March 1992, no no-
tices of intent to cancel low-income use restrictions
have been filed. The Housing Programs Administrator will
monitor these projects, and, if a notice of intent to
convert is filed, will work with local non-profits to
initiate action under applicable State and federal law to
preserve these units. In this area, BRIDGE Housing and
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition have been identified as
having the experience to assist in preservation of these
units. Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition has successfully
preserved the Tyrella Gardens project in Mountain View.
The major source of funding for preservation of Skyline
View Gardens would come from HUD 241(f) loans provided
under the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident
Homeownership Act. Additional local funds for Skyline
View Gardens and funds to preserve units at Fairway
Apartments that may lose Section 8 assistance would come
from the 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund.
This fund currently has a balance of $1,271,000, and is
generating about $600,000 a year. The Redevelopment
Agency has committed about $180,000 yearly to existing
programs. By 1995, when the first of these at-risk units
will be able to convert, the fund should have ap-
proximately $2,500,000 available for preservation. This
amount would be reduced by committments of set-aside
funds to other new programs.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development
80
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: LIHPRHA and 20 percent Redevelopment
Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Retain 268 affordable at-risk units.
Poilcy 2E. Continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an
active Interest In seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems.
The City supports the concept that all communities should
make a good faith effort to meet the housing needs of
low- and moderate-income households in their area, in a
manner that is not disproportionate for any community and
which recognizes the degree of effort made in prior
years.
Action 2E-1. Support State and federal legislation to make hous-
ing more affordable for owners and renters, and to permit
rehabilitation of existing deteriorated housing without
an increase in tax assessments.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
L
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division and
City Manager's Off ice
On-going
NA
NQ
Action 2E-2. Participate with San Mateo County in its Housing
Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs.
The bond program provides below-market-rate loans to
sponsors of low- and moderate-income housing at various
locations in the county. The City has adopted a resolu-
tion of participation with San Mateo County and promotes
the program by alerting potential developers of its exis-
tence and referring them to the County for further infor-
mation.
Project sponsors may submit proposals to the County De-
L partment of Housing and Community Development for review
and approval. Commitments are issued on a competitive ba-
sis. The Magnolia Senior Center project, completed in
L 1987, took advantage of this program.
81
^
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
The Mortgage Credit Certifica
Congress in the Tax Reform Ac
cial assistance to first-time
chase of single-family homes,
ums.
An MCC gives the home-buyer
each year the buyer keeps
lives in the same house.
equals 20 percent of the
year. That 20 percent is
from federal income taxes.
Eligibility requirements:
to Program, authorized by
t of 1984, provides finan-
home-buyers for the pur-
townhouses, and condomini-
a federal income tax credit
the same mortgage loan and
The MCC tax credit typically
mortgage interest paid each
subtracted dollar-for-dollar
• First-time Home-buyers: Those persons who have not
owned a "principle residence" within the past three
years.
• Owner-occupants: Buyer must live in the house pur-
chased.
• Income: In 1992, total household income (includes the
income of anyone who is listed on the title) cannot ex-
ceed $49,900 for a one or two person household, or
$57,385 for a three-or-more person household.
• House Prices are limited to $236,070 for new houses or
$207,090 for existing houses.
Neither the City nor County makes home loans. The home-
buyer goes through the normal process of choosing a Real-
tor, finding a house, condo, townhouse or mobile home,
and arranging financing with one of the 56 participating
lenders. The lender determines that the buyer and the
house are eligible, fills out the MCC application forms,
and sends them to the County. The County reviews the
forms sent in by the lender to verify eligibility. The
County can then issue an MCC.
The Mortgage Credit Certificate program helps the buyers
(1) to qualify for a larger mortgage, and (2) to reduce
their monthly outlay for housing. For recipients, the
82
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
MCC often means the difference between being able and not
being able to buy a home.
The MCC program has been extended by Congress from year
to year and expires on June 30, 1992. The City will
participate in the MCC program as long as it is continued
by Congress and administered by the County.
Responsibility of: San Mateo County Department of Hous-
ing and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: California Debt Limit Allocation
Committee
Quantified Objective: Issuance of 15 MCCs annually to
qualified local applicants. Annual
amount will fluctuate with level of
competition for limited statewide
MCC authority.
Action 2E-3. Continue to support San Mateo County's Federal Sec-
tion 8 Housing Assistance Program.
Through this HUD program, low-income households, using
certificates issued by the Housing Authority, rent
market-rate housing while only paying rent that does not
exceed 30 percent of their gross income. (HUD pays the
difference between market-rate rents and what a family
pays with 30 percent of its gross income.)
Approximately 276 units were under Section 8 lease in the
city in 1990. Under the City's Housing Assistance Plan,
66 additional Section 8 rental units are expected to be
leased (see Chapter III, Section B).
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD
Quantified Objective: 342 units by 1995.
Action 2E-4. Provide interest-free loans for rehabilitating
apartments.
83
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
This program provides interest-free deferred loans for up
to 50 percent of the cost of rehabilitating rental units.
No payment is due until the property is sold or trans-
ferred. Loans are limited to one-half of rehabilitation
costs up to $5,000 per unit for studio apartments and up
to $8,500 per unit for three-bedroom units or larger. A
total of 12 units were rehabilitated under this program
in 1989. An additional 17 rental units per year are ex-
pected to be rehabilitated under this program in the fu-
ture. The program also provides rental subsidies to low-
and moderate-income tenants to offset rent increases
which result from rehabilitation. Funds are provided by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) through the State Department of Housing and Commu-
nity Development.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: HUD Rental Rehabilitation
Quantified Objective: 85 units.
Goal 3. Provide housing for groups with special needs.
Policy 3A. Encourage non-profit groups to provide housing for the elderly citizens
of South San Francisco.
Action 3A-1. Offer a density bonus for senior housing.
Development of senior housing in South San Francisco is
supported by General Plan Land Use Element policies and
the Zoning Ordinance which provide for higher densities
in senior housing projects. Densities up to 50 units per
acre are allowed for senior housing projects in multi-
family districts. Development of senior housing in
higher density areas close to shopping and transportation
is encouraged.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
84
Chapfer IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Quantified Objective: Encourage the development of 50 se-
nior housing units by 1995.
Action 3A-2. Provide funding for minor repairs of homes owned
and occupied by low-income senior citizens.
Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting,
carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. Some repair
costs may be recovered by the City, depending on the
income of the client. The City allocates $5,000 in CDBG
funds annually for this program. Approximately 40 senior
households per year are expected to receive assistance
under this program; a total of 39 homes received assis-
tance from this program in 1989.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 200 units over five years.
Policy 3B. Encourage the establishment of residential board and care facilities for
the elderly in the community.
Action 38-1. Continue to allow reduced parking requirements for
this use.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 3C. Require the inclusion of handicapped accessible units in all housing
projects.
In all new apartment projects with five or more units,
State law requires that 5 percent of the units con-
structed be fully accessible to the physically disabled.
Minimum widths are specified for sidewalks, doorways, and
ramps. Minimum turning areas are required for
wheelchairs, and obstacles and hazards to wheelchair and
walker use must be eliminated. Stairways and ramps must
85
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
have handrails for those who have difficulty walking.
Kitchens and bathrooms must allow for the use of
wheelchairs or be easily modified for wheelchair use.
In addition to the 5 percent that must be fully accessi-
ble, all units on primary entrance floors, or on floors
accessible by elevators or ramps, must have construction
features to provide for adaptability to the needs of the
mobility impaired, such as reinforcements for future ad-
ditions of grab bars in bathrooms. These units must also
meet minimum standards for entry and circulation dimen-
sions.
Action 3C-1. Review development plans and require modifications
for accessibility.
Responsibility of: Building Department
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: Enforcement of applicable State and
federal standards.
Policy 3D. Continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve
the needs of disabled citizens.
Action 3D-1. Provide CDBG funds to the Center for the Indepen-
dence of the Disabled to make housing units accessible to
the disabled.
Modifications were made to 44 homes in 1989, 48 in 1990,
and 30 in 1991.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 125 units over five years.
Policy 3E. Foster amenities needed by female-headed households.
Action 3E-1. The City will strongly encourage the inclusion of
childcare and after-school-care facilities within or near
86
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
affordable and higher density housing and mixed use
developments.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 3F. Insure provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large
tamilles.
Action 3F-1. Require that 20 percent of all below-market-rate
housing are three- and four-bedroom units.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
On-going
NA
15 three- and four-bedroom units by
1995.
Policy 3G. Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless.
Action 3G-1. Provide emergency rent funds to assist eligible
persons to avoid eviction, or to rent an apartment.
The City will allocate funds to the North Peninsula
Neighborhood Services Center, and to other qualified
agencies to try to prevent homelessness.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
On-going
CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment
Housing Set-Aside Fund
Allocate $12,000 per year.
Action 3G-2. Provide funds for transitional housing.
The City provides funds to the Shelter Network for its
transitional housing facility in Daly City. The City
will continue funding this or an alternative program dur-
ing the five-year planning period.
87
South San Francisco Housing Element December 1992
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment
Housing Set-Aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Provide transitional shelter for 550
person-nights per year.
Goal 4. Assist citizens In locating and retaining affordable housing without
discrimination.
Policy 4A. Strive to eliminate housing discrimination by race, sex, age, religion,
and national origin.
Action 4A-1. Provide legal counseling and other advice and ser-
vices 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 "Operation Sen-
tinel," a fair housing group under contract with the
City. The City allocates about $6,000 in CDBG funds to
this program per year. Eight individuals were assisted
by this program in the 1990-1991 fiscal year.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
On-going
CDBG
10 discrimination cases pursued each
year of the planning period.
Goal 5. Protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards.
Policy 5A. Prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and satety problems)
unless adequate mitigation measures are taken.
Action SA-1. Residential Projects will be reviewed for major en-
vironmental hazards during the environmental review pro-
cess. An environmental impact report is required by
State 1a w if major environmental hazards are found. The
88
Chapfer IV. Housing Plan and Programs
City shall not approve the projects unless the hazards
are adequately mitigated.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All residential projects.
Policy 5B. Require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with
adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other
property-related crimes.
Action 5B-1. Continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum
Building Security Standards, of the Municipal Code.
Responsibility of: Police Department
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All new residential units shall com-
ply with City standards.
Policy 5C. Require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco Interna-
tional Airport Plan Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport
Land Use Plan.
Action 5C-1. Review all new residential development shall be
reviewed for compliance with the County Airport Land Use
Plan.
Any incompatible residential use will either be
eliminated or mitigation measures will be taken to reduce
interior noise levels within the acceptable range in
accordance with the Noise Element.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning and Building
Divisions
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All new residential projects.
89
South San Francisco Housing Element
December 1992
Policy 5D. Assist owners of existing dwellings to mitigate the Impact of airport
noise.
Action 5D-1. Continue to assist homeowners in insulating units
adversely affected by airport noise, pursuant to the Avi-
ation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Section 49
USC 2101 et seq.) .
This is a broad-based project to reduce aircraft-associ-
ated noise inside residences. This program is available
regardless of income level. It is completely funded by
federal and local funds. The program is not yet
available to homes occupied by renters. After completion
of the program for owner-occupied dwellings, the City
will initiate a program to assist renters. The noise
insulation program will have a beneficial side effect of
providing energy conservation in a large portion of the
city.
As of March 1990, this program had six phases, as fol-
lows:
Phase I 12 homes & 2 schools Completed
Phase II 46 homes Completed
Phase III 60 homes Completed
Phase IV 94 homes Completed
Phase V 110 homes Completed
Phase VI 200 homes Funded, but
not begun.
Phase VII 100 homes Funding
Requested.
The City's funding request for Phase VII is $1 million to
insulate 100 homes. The request is being reviewed by the
Federal Aviation Administration. The City's Engineering
Division will continue to apply for additional funding in
future years.
Responsibility of: Department of Public Works, Engi-
neering Division
Time Frame: On-going
90
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Funding Source: 80 percent Federal Government; 20
percent San Francisco International
Airport
Quantified Objective: Insulate 300 units between 1990 and
1995
Policy 5E. Foster efforts io conserve energy in residential structures.
Action 5E-1. Continue to provide information on energy-efficient
standards for residential buildings (e.g., brochures and
other information).
The City promotes the use of passive and active solar
systems in new and existing residential buildings. It
will continue to ensure that State residential energy
conservation building standards are met.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Building Division
On-going
City Budget
State standards enforced in all new
construction.
Action 5E-2. Assist energy and water conserving modifications in
existing residential buildings.
The CDBG division will work with Neighborhood Services
and PG&E to provide winterization and minor repairs.
Responsibility of: CDBG Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: Ten units annually.
SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Figure 35 summarizes the Quantified Objectives by program and income
level. The programs in this chapter commit the City of South San
Francisco to a construction objective of 2,376 new units, the num-
ber needed to meet the City's fair share of regional needs as de-
termined by ABAG. In addition, the City plans the rehabilitation
91
South San Francisco Housing Element December i 992
or improvement of 870 units. The majority (445) of these units
would be available to low- and very-low-income households, and 125
would be for handicapped households.
Other housing assistance programs will provide help for 795
households annually, nearly all of which will be very low- or low-
income households.
The City estimates that housing construction programs in this
chapter could produce as many as 2,988 units during the five-year
planning period from January 1, 1990, to January 1, 1995 This
estimate was derived by projecting the number of units that could
be built on the available sites listed in Figure 26. It is assumed
that the developers of these sites would take advantage of density
bonuses and maximize the possible number of low- and very low-
income units . Thus, the figure of 2, 988 includes the additional
units that could be built, by their appropriate income group,
under either the Low- and Very Low-income or Senior Density Bonus
Programs. (Figure 28 indicates the additional units which might be
derived from density bonuses.)
While the figures represent the amount of housing for which land
is available in South San Francisco, not all of the numbers are
expected to be reached within the 1990-1995 planning period. A
realistic production rate of 150 to 280 units per year would pro-
duce 750 to 1,400 units compared to the total of 2,988 units shown
in Figure 28.
On the other hand, if the housing market is stimulated by economic
forces, a total of 2,988 new housing units is possible, which is
612 above the remaining ABAG-projected need of 2,376 units.
The city recognizes that there is a gap between (1) the number of
units that ABAG says is South San Francisco's "fair share new
construction need" (for which adequate land ~.,~. available in South
San Francisco) and (2) the number of new units that are likely to
be built, given past trends and the realities of the housing
market. Nevertheless, the City will strive to meet its housing
objectives to the fullest extent possible within the constraints
imposed by the regional and national economies.
92
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Figure 35
Summary of ~uantlfled Objectives by Income Level
City of South San Francisco, California
Total Very Above
Construction Programs Units L4~i L~50C Moderate Moderate
1 B-1. Private Market Construction 1,567 18 12 217 1,320
2B-1. Mixed Use 126 88 38
26-2. Second Units 2 2
26-3. Density Bonus 206 165 41
26-4 Rezoning near BART station 350 51 100 199
2C-2. Funds to non-profits 60 30 30
2D-3. Land for rental projects 60 30 30
2D-4. Buy-down cost of rental units 5 5
Total Construction 2,376 129 344 504 1,399
Rehabllltatlon Programs
1A-1. Single-Family Rehabilitation 50 25 25
2D-2. Improvements to SROs 60 60
2E-4. Apartment Rehabilitation 85 65 20
3A-2. Low-income senior home repair 200 190 10
3D-1. Disabled Access 125 120 5
5D-1 Airport noise insulation 300 300
Total Rehabllltatlon 8 2 0 4 6 0 6 0 3 0 0 0
Conservation Programs
2D-1. Public Housing 80 80
2D-6. Retain units "at-risk" 268 268
2E-3. Section 8 342 342
Total Conservation 6 9 0 6 9 0 0 0 0
Assistance Programs
2C-3. Home Sharing 200 135 40 25
2E-2. Mortgage Credit Certificate 15 15
Total Assistance 215 1 3 5 4 0 4 0 0
93
0
Z
a
vi
Z
O
U
Q
N
W
. ~..
U V1
J W
OJ
a~
~"
W ~
W =
W N
(7 N
Z W
N F-
~ J
0
= m
W N
OD
~„ a
Q N
Q W
~ ~
N
Q
K
v
c
d
a
a
Q
d ~
«.
c a~i
ea
3 O
d
~m
c ~
v ~
C o
3 N
LL
and
H ~
N
c >,
o
a~i ~
d-
c
O
Q
O
N
Z
z
W
Q
N
J
J
Q
W
ui
U
a
Q
r
J
Q
c~
A A ~ ~
~
v) A N cd ~
-~ a ~ rn a~i 3 ~ ~ OI
~ z ~ ~, ~ a~ ~ ~ z
o rn ?~ O rn O ~ >,
~ ,~ ~ A ~ ,~ a b A
a~
~ ~ ~
~
,~ ~-+ w w w
g
+~ a
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a~ A ro z ro ro ro
t1~ U ~ N ~ N
b s~ G C. 1~
f~ ~ U C.7 U C7
rT a~ ~ ~ rs ~
~ G ~ ~ ~ ~
-r-I •~ -~I N -~ -~I
tT b~ CT H ~ ~ CP
I i I O I I
a O o
o O O
~ b~
A -~ N b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a
U 9 ~, O '~ nT b b A ~+ cd
-~I ~ ~ '~ ~--I .--I ~ a
a o
3 rl
a
ra ~ ,~04 a a a
m c
;:
ti, >
a ~ ~
y ~ y
E ro ~ ~ m ro
° C
o ro .
~ v E ~ ~ o v ~
a a
i o
H
0
0 ~-
i
~ o, ~ ~ ~, ~ z o a
o °
~ o w c ro °' o °
s
,
- o ~ .o o'
s m ~ H ro
a ~ ~ m E ro ~ ~
m ~ +
i
~ x -~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ R O ~ C N b'
,
~ ro H -~ ° v i
.c ro a
i m ~ ~o d v v
~
~ ti ~ ~ ~ v ~ c ~ ro
- ss ~
y a.l ^I Ul
~ R ~
' pl
= d-t
o ~
~ ~-1 ` ~
a ~ 'LS H
v o .~ i
a v ~ ~ ~ a~ -~ ti
3 aro ~ ~ > > a ro v
~ c°~ = -~ o -v
~ n a ~ ~ a s ~ ~ w 3 a~ ~ ro
' ~ ~ ~L W
Q m U
r r r
i N N ~ N
T ~ ~ T
v ~ ~ v ~ ~ v U U
Q ti H Q H r-1 C rl H
a a a
am
d,
•-
c a0i
ro~
~O
O
~m
c ~
~~
~ o
~N
m ~
~ ~
H ~
N
C ~,
O r
N ~
d '~
C
O
Q
0
E
N
A
~ ~ N ~
~ ~ ~ ~ +~
~ ~ ~ - ~
z z
~o O ~ o e~ ~
N A U
~-+ A H A <''1 A ~
'O ~ ~
~
w w
w
z
~ ~ ~
z z ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ a~ a~
~ c~ ~
~
.
"~ V ~ -ri ~ N ~ G -•i
O W O O O ~ C. la ~ ~1
~ (/~ ~ ~ ~ dl
~ H CT
O I„ ~ O
A
I U 1 I I
o f`+ N
+~
o m o 0 a ~~
a
~ ~ c ~ rT ~ ~ rr :s
O Q
B O ~ A A ~ A A
U ~ ro ~ ~ ~
b U 1- ~ .
i . .
~
~ ,~ ~ a a a a a a
a
w `°
~
~
o ~ !~ ~ ~
m o a~ ro ro ro
I = - ° o + +
I
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ w ~
~ ~ m ~ -y 3 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y N U ~ O
b
~
~- O
~
p
~
cO)
a~
~
vi
a
V
- i
~
~
a
~ ~
~
- ..-
O a U
-•-i ,
O
^i ~+.-
-~ R
O R
-ti 3
O R
a U1
U +~
~ ro 3
ro O
~ ~ ~ r ro W W N ~ W ^I ~ ~N ~ b
b ro ro Z ~ ^+ o o p a~i ~ ~, ro a, ~ b, b O~a~
~., ~, ~ N
~ c ro
b ~ k
-~
'v b b~
p ~
-~ .c
~ -~
a~ N
-~ G
-,., ~
a R .C
~-, ~,
~.,
-H sr
a~ o
w O ~ ti ~
~ ~ ~ a~ -ti ro ~ +.~ ro o a,
.-I ~ v.~ = rn
c o
W ~
c
ro ro .C
~ ro
a a
a~ m
+.~ -~
U ro
a~ ~+
ro ro a
a~ -~
ro
~ o °' ~
O o
V W o
V ~
y
N o
~ A ~
N a~
~
>y ~
U
~ ~
U~
, ry ~ cry N ro > 0 0 q N q N
0~ •~-1 ~ ~ r • - •
•
ro ~ ~ Z ~ m ro °: ro U U ro b ro o, U •H H ti ~ ~
ti
C ~ N ~ ~ O +~ ^i '•-I N ~, '•'I •,i ~ 'r1
O
~ b ro
~ N y
~ O
~ 7 y
~ O
~ a-- O U D U I y b ~ ~ b~
a
0 3 -~ >
O ~
z o
~
N 3 U
~
o ro
-~ U
~ a~
~ ro
s~ ~
a~ 3
o
~ a
~ ~
a~ ro
~ ~
~- a~
~,
a a~
~ ti
-~ a w w w ~ A w = C9 b ^i o cn b ~ ~nb
d m
N
j
N
M Q. to
1
M J ~.
V j ~+
V
N
N I
N
ti ~ ~ N ~ N N
C7 a a
N
Q
vm
a~ >
r
C d
to
~O
O
~ m
C V
'C ~
= O
O N
dm
E ~
1... ~
LL
C >~
O
fA !~
d '~
c
0
Q
0
E
N
>, 0 0
,q ao o ~o
~ ~ ~
~ A °A
a a .
~ ~°; ~ b ~ w
~
~ I
U ~
b
to
-.i
m .
~ rn ~ O ~ ~ rn
rn o N - b~ ~ ' G
1 a ~i ~ ~
~ ° N~ a ~ ~ ~ ~
a~
b W U +~ U ~ ~ U ~ U +~
~ N N 1-1 N ~ 3a N I-1 N
C7 U ~ N U) N (~ w cn N t/] N u~
A~ ~ A ~ N A A
U o A o o o
N a N a x sa N a N a
~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N O j O O I I
~ ~ ~ N N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01
d1 01
01
tr' b~ ~ b+ ~
.
q ~
-~ ~ ~
~
~
~
A
A q
q
' W ~ .~ P
4 A4
~
~ ~ -r+ x a
a a ra ,~
a
~ c
~
O y H ~ vs m W O
~ •N TS U ro c O
`~ d
E °' -~ H a a~i 0~ _
~
c t°
~ ' y
c .a Q ~., ~ o
~ ~
0 0 ro a'~ a a c~ a
0 - o, ~
~ `° ~ v a ~
a ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~, c o a
i
o, O m w
o ~ is
s~a~ a,
o ~
a -~
~ ~
~ ~ ro ~ ~+
y c ..
m
a
~~
~
'~
y
v3 ~
~ ~
~ o
o ~
°
o y ,
~ a
i o, - w
v ~ ~, a ~ ~
0 0 ~'
~ ~ ~ ~
1
N ti
~N a~
F ~
=
b -~,
y ~
N a
~ ~
~
~ ~
R1 .~ O R1 O
'rl b~ fY, O O (j
«. ~ a 'H RI
.
G H h o c ro a
-~ ro a ~ min c ~ v v v ~ t~''i
-ri R O H S ~ O U O O >~ q R1 'H ~ -H '~I N
o
~ '~I Q o m a
-H ro.c
b~ o
^I ~ a,
a o~
> O ~
O
chi
A
~
~
b~
O
~ ~
~A a
H o
L RI I.1 R ^i O ~ C C L R,
O J 'H
w .C
a U
R ~1
a
~ ~ o-~ ~ ~+ ~ a
U ~
~ ~ i cv c+~ ~ ~ N M
O N N N O N N N
N ° °
a a
c+~
Q
~m
m ~
r
..~
c d
~~
~O
d
~m
G V
a~
c o
~N
LL
dd
E ~
~~
c >,
O
C. -
H ~
d '~
c
0
a
0
R
E
N
w I
~, ao O ~
,Q ~ ro m
N G1 J-~ ~
to X U to -ri N ~
z z
~~ ~ a ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ _
rn N .i ~ H~ ~ M A ~
~ ~ a b a .
a~ a~
b b `
~
~ o
.
~
-
~ t~
-~, a~
a~
o a ~ ~ ~ ~
z ~ ~ z w U -~ x x
~ ~ N v1 ~ A ~
a
~
~ cd N ~--I O
N
a U A ~ U
° a
~
~, ~ a a ~ a ~
~ I I I I
~ I
o I
0 0 0 0 0
~
~+
~, ~
.
tr ~
0
~ ~ la U ~~ U o
PQ N
A ~ U ~ U ZT ~ v1 A
~ W ~ w W ~
'~ •~ ~ 1
d 4
-1 U x -
A
a a b ~ o
°~ 0'
c .
a, ~ -~ ro
o ~ a i ~
i
a c m z a~ H v ro
.p ro s~ 4~ E c m ~ 0, ~ ~,
~ o ~.,
_
0 o ro o A
ro 'o > > ~ a
-' ~ ~ a o O ro ro
~ o ~ A c' 1° R o ~ a ~ U x a
i
W
a
i ~ - ro a~ ~ b~
ro
ro a~
a
~ q
-H a
ro ~ c
ca
° -~
a., o
w ~
a~ o
v +~
v ro o 0o
a~ ro
~ t
+.~ ~
-ti
,
°
' ~ ~
, ° o A ye o Y U, ^I ro +r a ro-ti roo o a~ ro
a v ~ ro o ti =
3 .a ~ o, ~
v v
+ ~~.-
o > ~ U
ro a~
ro ~
~ ~
-ti
Z3 -H ~ U m I c a~ o +. y
N `° ° "~ ~ ro a ~ v ~n ~ a ~ ro
N v a o o ro m ~ ~ ,
~ ~ o +' ~° d s
' H ~ m m ti a ro o a r ~ ro ~ v v
- ro ~ _ ~ Q C O -~ ~ -ti R 'ti O ~ y 'ti f-1
~ R i
a -.y ro o d Y
m ~
o a ro ro ~, a~v
~ a,a~ •~ ~
a o a~i ti ~ a~i G ~ °f ~ o a O 3 ~ a
i ~ a v ~ ~ O
v~ v s~ N a a a `O • ~ •c o a, aU ~w ~ ~ w
ui
N
~r h to N ~ er
I I 1 ~ ~
v
N
N
N
N
N N N p
a
Q
'a m
d ~
=~
c m
~~
p0
and
c ~
.o
c ~
~ °
LL N
d ~
E ~
~~
N
C ~.
O S
vai ,a
d -
c
0
Q
0
E
N
m ~
U
,p +~ td
N n ~
~
~ N b ~
a _
O Ol O 'J`i rl O f. ~ N ~
~n ~ NA ~ ~ b ~ ~ A
~
b ~
'ti
~ ~
~" z 2 w
z
~ ~
04 ~
A A
U U
A ~
G G G
-rl -rl -•~ -•~ -ri
b' ~ ~' a
0 0
0 0 0
a o
~ o a
-,-I C7 -rl -•i ~ ~ -N to
~ A -'-~ ~ ~ U -~ Q
~ U
~ ~
0
w r
-I
a -
A
a ~
as -~
A
w
z °
m
L ~
V Q ~pp - 'O R
-
C1
ro H
~
tan o ~ ~ ~ c ~ 5 ~ a i
a
= ~H O U ~ fi ;+ Q • ~ A
ail ~ c ~ o aroi
3 ~°
to ~ ~. a
o ~ ~
0 0 a ~. ~, m ~ ° o ~
z
a c = ~ -~ ~ 'n N N r ~ ai ~ d '~ -~ ~ ~ 'o ~u
~ C r N ~ -,.{ -.y i~ ~ a. ~ a ° .~ O ~ N
~ c 'n a -~ m ° a a s v ~ ~ ~ w A
m om % ~ ~ 0
c7 ~ ~ ro ~ ~ U ~ ~ m a~ .C ~ c 3 ~ ~ 0
' ~
-
~ c w ~ ~v [ ~~ v s~ ~ c ~~ ~ ~
o w t o °~' w~ ~ ww a w° = r a~ ° w ro
=
Q m U ~
~;,~
ch M ~„~ ~„~
Q v ~ '~ v p0 v U v A
~ G M M C M p M C M
o a a a a
m m
__>
_«
c m
~a ~
3 O
0
mm
c ~
~a ~
c o
aN
m m
~ ~
F- ~
LL
c ~,
fl.
N ~
m
C
O
Q
O
E
N
~., ~ I
A N ~ Sa ~
~ a~ a ~ a ~ cd
z .~ b o a~i cn ai a~i ~
Zvi o°. 3a ~''~ ~ v ~~
dl rl N fd O CT cd ~1 (d
~°; ~~~, na>, °aa
v a~
v v
-~ -~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~
U +~ U U +~ ~U ~
z z s~ a~ ~ a~ ~
a~ ~ a~ ~
~,~ b a~ ~
° a w ° a w
q q ~ ~ G
-,i •rl -~ -ri -r1
~ ~ ~
~ ~ G ~ ~
p p O O ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-~I -rI -rl -rl C7 -.~
~ ~ A ~
b ~ ~
ro ro
~ r-1 •--1 ~--1 -rl
w w ~, ~,, Q
~ ~ ~ ~ bi
.gyp N C ry N y 'U ~.1 1: y ` _C ~. 'D
m -ri M ro ~ ` -''~ f"~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R1
~ ~ a ro .. o ro a O ~~
i a~ z o 'C ~ ~ ro o = o o troi ~
at
c -~ ~ m a,, +roi a~ o ~ ~ ? a c ~ .c
~'~ roro A a-tiro jQ ~ro ro co ~-b'
t 'd W '~ vi 'o ~ v a O '"p v~ +~ ~ ~ E ~v ~
3 v ro ~ ~ _~ a' -~ a~i ~ w ~ ti _z ~v ~ •ti 3
~ t ~ ~ p ~ m N ~ 'Q m m ~ ~ ~ ~ c c ~ "~
•~ ro ~, c ao o~ m m a ro oc o
m .c a~ a~ o ~ +~ .C a E E a~ ~ ~ v v, ao ro o,
wm o~~ y1° ro o 00 ~ o cn
o d b, o ~ .~ o s~ m v, o~ o w d ai ro o a~i
r c ~ o w F- e"ra a~ ~ ~ -H
U 't7
o E v ~ -a r'n ~ ~ 3 ~ y d a~i ~ a ~ ~ E x ~ H ~
W
W li V' Q .
ch ch ~„~ ti N ~ a
H
(~ ~ V ~ V ~ ~ Q V ~.
d M d M ~ M M O ~ ~r
° C7 a
a
Q
L
L
~ ~'
«.
'` c avi
~~
~O
d
~m
~ ~ V
v~
c o
~N
a~ ~'
E ~
~~
n
.r
J
J
J
J
J
H
c ~,
oz
~~
d-
c
0
a
0
E
~ i b b
. ~ ~ ~,v~ aro-tea ~
~ ~ 3 U -~i ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ ~ O +.~
N U O U ro N ?, ~ r-I 2~
.ti ~ ~ ~ v ~ cn ,--i o a a~
~ N Q. ~ ~ 3 N ~ 'n U FC ~ U W
'~ '~
~ ~ ~
~ W
W ~
~ ro ~
3%1 y U
~ ai ~
a~ ~ ~
~ ~, b.
a ~
-~ -~ o
0
~ ~, ~
0 0 0 0
a
~ ~, ~ ~
~ ~
O ro o aai '~° ro
~ p'-,,, °~ A a ov
M O
m
O ..
~ m 'a ti a
~ m ~ °~ c ~ a ~ E ~ ~ U
m o C U~ ~ t U U C m ~ .C
Z ~ c ~ .c ; ~• ~ ~ Q ~ Z ~ 3
a m a ;° ~ ° ~~ -~ c m~ 'a v ro
~ ~ ~
z °A ~ uci ~ m ~ ro m = N ~ ~ ro
i c c ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ v-+ c ; a ~ o ~
V ~° ~ N~ z -ti ~ ~ a a v
~ a ~t ~ ~ oc c~ ~~ oc vt~ a ~N
a m U
Q ~ ~
u~
T 1
C~7 a° ~ a ~ o
a
n
a
0
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
'~ Q1
d
,- V
C d
l0
7O
O
~m
C V
~ ~
c o
~y
d~
E ~
~~
v,
C ~,
N ~
d-
C
0
v
Q
O
E
7
N
o G i
0 _r., o
0 ~
rn td ~ U ~ to
a ~ ~
~
~ ~ i ~ 3 -
•
U
~ to N N ~ ~ cti
~
tq -ri 01 (d r--1 Sa ~ ~
~ ~
H
H ~ ~ ~ b b t
0
O
ff., I
H
r{
~
~
~
.~
~ ~
N ~ ~ ~
~ N W
3-~ td ~ - +~
a ? ~
~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ A
O N N S-i ~ -.~ U
~o ~ a w ~ a
~ ~
~
-~ -~ -~
°
~ u
~
0
0 0
~, ~ a
U ~ O
~ ~ ~
-1
r ac -~ ~ b
A ~+ b~ ~ ' ~ U -~
-
a 3 w ~ ~ A
G ~
~
= ~ .~
-
~ ~ ~ (~j p 5 ~ ~
c L
ti
W ~
v
-~
a
io ~ ~ i ~
~ O
H p ~ R! C d b R T1
~ ~ U
~ H
d ~'j ~, V ~ R1 -
_
~
y
~
' ••
~
O
~ ~
A
~ O " .
. ~ q
~ ~ o r ~' ~ ~ ~ ro
m m a
i ~,
= o ~ a o -~ ~ a
ro ~
3
r
.C
'L1
w ~ i -
p m ~ +.~ m ~ 'O -,y ~ -.i ~
y ~ Ul ~ O m ~ 'rl U ~ W 'Z7
i ~ a ° ° ~ S O N
a E v
i ~
, m ,
a ~ ~ ~+
~ a ro + a~
~ ~
N
~ i ~ i
O ~ O ~ ~
a a
Q
Appendix B
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING ELEMENT GLOSSARY
Abbreviations
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
AFDC: Aid to Families with Dependent Children
BMR: Below-market-rate dwelling unit
CDBG: Community Development Bbck Grant
EIR: Environmental Impad Report
HCD: Housing and Community Development
Department of the State of California.
HUD: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development
PUD: Planned Unit Development
SRO: Single Room Occupancy
UBC: Uniform Building Code
Adequate Housing:
Housing that is structurally sound, water-tight and
weather-tight, with adequate cooking and plumbing
facilities, heat, light and ventilation; and contains at
least one room per person, excluding kitchen and
bathrooms.
Affordability Requirements
Provisions established by a public agency to require
that a specific percentage of housing units in a
projed or development remain affordable to very
bw- and low-income households for a specified pe-
riod.
Affordable Housing
Housing capable of being purchased or rented by a
household with very low, bw, or moderate income,
based on a household's ability to make monthly
payments necessary to obtain housing. "Affordable
to bw- and moderate income households" means
that at least 20 percent of the units in a develop-
ment will be sold or rented to bwer income house-
holds, and the remaining units to either bw- or mod-
erate-income households. Housing units for lower
income households must sell or rent for a monthly
cost not greater than 30 percent of 60 percent of
area median income as periodically established by
HCD. Housing units for moderate income must sell
or rent for a monthly cost not greater than 30 per-
cent of area median income.
Amenity:
Any service or facility that extends beyond the
definition of adequate housing.
Apartment
(1) One or more rooms of a building used as a
place to live, in a building containing at least one
other unit used for the same purpose. (2) A
separate suite, not owner occupied, which includes
kitchen facilities and is designed for and rented as
the home, residence, or sleeping place of one or
more persons living as a single housekeeping unit.
Architectural Control; Architectural Review
Regulations and procedures requiring the exterior
design of strudures to be suitable, harmonious, and
in keeping with the general appearance, historic
charader, and/or style of surrounding areas. A
process used to exercise control over the design of
buildings and their settings.
Assisted Housing
Generally mufti-family rental housing, but some-
times single-family ownership units, whose con-
strudion, financing, sales prices, or rents have been
subsidized by federal, state, or local housing pro-
grams including, but not limited to Federal Sedion 8
(new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and
loan management set-asides), Federal Sedions
213, 236, and 202, Federal Section 221(d)(3)
(below-market interest rate program), Federal Sec-
tion 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG,
FmHA Section 515, multi-family mortgage revenue
bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieufee
programs, and units devebped pursuant to local in-
clusionary housing and density bonus programs.
By January 1, 1992, all California Housing Elements
are required to address the preservatbn or replace-
ment of assisted housing that is eligible to change
to market rate housing by 2002.
Below-market-rate (BMR) Housing Unlt
Any housing unit spec'rfically priced to be sold or
rented to low- or moderate-income households for
an amount less than the fair-market value of the
unit. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development sets standards for determining which
households qualify as "low income" or'moderate in-
come
Bond
An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum
of money, with the principal amount due on a spe-
c'rfic date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds
can be used for var'bus public purposes.
Bulldout; Build-out
Deveopment of land to its full potential or theoreti-
cal capacity as permitted under current or proposed
planning or zoning designations.
Census
The official decennial enumeration of the population
conducted by the federal government.
City
City, with a capital "C,"generally refers to the gov-
ernment or administration of a city. City, with a
bwer case "c" may mean any city, or may refer to
B-1
Published with permission of the California Planning Roundtable
the geographical area of a city (e.g., the city's
housing supply.)
Commercial
Facilities for the buying and selling of commodities
and services.
Community Care Facility
Elderly housing licensed by the State Health and
Welfare Agency, Department of Social Services,
typically for residents who are frail and need super-
vision. Services normally include three meals daily,
housekeeping, security and emergency response, a
full activities program, supervision in the dispensing
of medicine, personal services such as assistance
in grooming and bathing, but no nursing care.
Sometimes referred to as residential care or per-
sonal care. (See "Congregate Care.'
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
A grant program administered by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
and the State Department of Housing and Com-
munity Development (HCD). This grant allots
money to cities and counties for housing and
community development, through a competitive
program. Jurisdictions set their own program prior-
ities within specified criteria, as part of the com-
petitive application process.
Condominium
A structure of two or more unts, the interior spaces
of which are individually owned; the balance of the
property (both land and building) is owned in com-
mon by the owners of the individual units. (See
"Townhouse ')
Congregate Care
Apartment housing, usually for seniors, in a group
setting that includes independent living and sleep-
ing accommodations in conjunction with shared
dining and recreational facilities. (See "Community
Care Facility.?
Consistent
Free from variation or contradiction. Programs in
the General Plan are to be consistent, not contra-
dictory or preferential. State law requires consis-
tency between a general plan and implementation
measures such as the zoning ordinance.
Council of Governments:
(1) An organization composed of elected officials of
bcal governments,created to undertake planning in
a particular region (e.g. the Association of Bay Area
Governments); (2) An organization recognized as
an areawide planning organization by the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Devebpment.
Density
The number of permanent residential dwelling units
per acre of land. All densities specified in the
Housing Element are expressed in units per net de-
velopable acre.
Density Bonus
The allocation of development rights that allow a
parcel to accommodate additional square footage or
additional residential units beyond the maximum for
which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for
the provision or preservation of an amenity at the
same sRe or at another location. Under California's
housing laws, a housing development that provides
20 percent of its units for bwer income households,
or 10 percent of its units for very low-income
households, is entitled to a density bonus.
Density, Control of
A limitation on the occupancy of land. Density can
be controlled through zoning in the following ways:
use restrictions, minimum lot-size requirements,
floor area ratios, land use-intensity ratios, setback
and yard requirements, minimum house-size re-
quirements, ratios comparing number and types of
housing units to land area, limits on units per acre,
and other means. Allowable density often serves
as the major distinction between residential districts.
Developer
An individual who or business which prepares raw
land for the construction of buildings or causes to
be built physical building space for use primarily by
others, and in which the preparation of the land or
the creation of the building space is in ltseH a busi-
ness and is not incidental to another business or ac-
tivity.
Development
The physical extension and/or construction of urban
land uses. Devebpment activities include: subdivi-
sion of land; construction or alteration of structures,
roads, utilities, and other facilities; installation of
septic systems; grading; deposit of refuse, debris,
or fill materials; and clearing of natural vegetative
cover (with the exception of agricultural activities).
Routine repair and maintenance activities are
exempted.
Development Fee
(See "Impact Fee.'
Disabled
A person determined to have a mobility impairment
or mental disorder expected to be of long or indefi-
nite duration. Many such impairments or disorders
are of such a nature that a person's ability to live
B-2
Published with permission of the California Planning Roundtable
independently can be improved by appropriate
housing conditions.
Duplex
A detached building under single ownership which
is designed for occupation as the residence of two
families living independently of each other.
Dwelling Unlt
A room or group of rooms (including sleeping, eat-
ing, cooking, and sanitation facilities, but not more
than one kftchen), which constitutes an independent
housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for
occupancy by one family on a bng-term basis.
Elderly Housing
Typically one- and two-bedroom apartments de-
signed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of
age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.
Emergency Shelter
The immediate and short-term provision of shelter
and supplemental services for the homeless. Shel-
ters come in many sizes, but an optimum size is
considered to be 20 to 40 beds. Supplemental ser-
vices may include food, counseling, and access to
other social programs. (See "Homeless" and
"Transitional Housing')
Environment
CEQA defines environment as "the physical condi-
tions which exist within the area which will be af-
fected by a proposed project, including land, air,
water, mineral, flora, fauna, noise, and objects of
historic or aesthetic significance."
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
A report required of general plans by the California
Environmental duality Act and which assesses all
the environmental characteristics of an area and
determines what effects or impacts will result 'rf the
area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action.
Family
(1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage,
or adoption (U.S. Bureau of the Census]; (2) An in-
dividual or a group of persons living together who
constitute a bona fide single-family housekeeping
unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity,
sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a
hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind
[Cal'rforniaj.
Finding(s)
The result(s) of an investigation and the basis upon
which decisions are made. Findings are used by
government agents and bodies to justify action
taken by the entity.
General Plan
A compendium of the City's policies regarding its
bng-term development, in the form of a Land Use
and Circulation map and accompanying text. The
General Plan is a legal document required of each
local agency by the State of Cal'rfornia Government
Code Section 65301 and adopted by the City
Council. In California, the General Plan has 7
mandatory elements: Circulation, Conservation,
Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open Space, Safety and
Seismic Safety. The General Plan may also be
called a "City Plan," "Comprehensive Plan," or
"Master Plan.'
Goal
A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or
end toward which the City will direct effort.
Ground Fallura
Ground movement or rupture caused by strong
shaking during an earthquake. Includes landslide,
lateral spreading, liquefaction, and subsidence.
Ground Shaklny
Ground Movement resuking from the transmission
of seismic waves during an earthquake.
Exaction
A contribution or payment required as an authorized
precondition for receiving a development permit;
usually refers to mandatory dedication (or fee in lieu
of dedication) requirements found in many subdivi-
sion regulations.
Fair Market Rent
The rent, including utility albwances, determined by
the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development for purposes of administering
the Section 8 Existing Housing Program.
Handicapped
(see "Disabled.
Homeless
Persons and families who lads a fixed, regular, and
adequate nighriime residence. Includes those stay-
ing in temporary or emergency shelters or who are
accommodated with friends or others with the
understanding that shelter is being provided as a
last resort. California Housing Element law,
§65583(c)(1), requires all cities and counties to ad-
dress the housing needs of the homeless. (See
"Emergency Shelter" and "Transitional Housing.
B-3
Published with permisston of the Callfornla Ptanning Roundtable
Household
All those persons-related or unrelated--who oc-
cupy asingle housing unit. (See "Family.')
Householder
The head of a household.
Households, Number of
The count of all year-round housing units occupied
by one or more persons. The concept of household
is important because the formation of new house-
holds generates the demand for housing. Each
new household formed creates the need for one ad-
ditional housing unit or requires that one existing
housing unit be shared by two households. Thus,
household formation can continue to take place
even without an increase in population, thereby in-
creasing the demand for housing.
Housing and Community Development Department
of the State of Callfornla (HCD)
The State agency principally charged with assess-
ing whether, and planning to insure that, communi-
ties meet the housing needs of bw- and moderate-
income households.
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department
of (HUD)
A cabinet-level department of the federal govern-
ment which administers housing and communfty de-
velopment programs.
Housing Element
One of seven State-mandated elements of a local
general plan, it assesses the existing and projected
housing needs of all economic segments of the
communfty, identifies potential sites adequate to
provide the amount and kind of housing needed,
and contains adopted goals, policies, and imple-
mentation programs for the preservation, improve-
ment, and development of housing. Under State
law, Housing Elements must be updated every five
years.
Housing Unft
(1) A house, an apartment, a group of homes, or a
single room, occupied as separate living quarters.
separate living quarters are those in which the the
occupants live and eat separately from any other
person in the building and which have direct access
from the outside of the building through a common
hall. (U.S. Bureau of the Census]; (2) The place of
permanent or customary abode of a person or fam-
ily. A housing unit may be asingle-family dwelling,
a mufti-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular
home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other
residential unit considered real property under State
law. A housing unit has, at least, cooking facilities,
a bathroom, and a place to sleep. h also is a
dwelling that cannot be moved without substantial
damage or unreasonable cost. (Ses "Dwelling Unit,"
"Family; and "Househok.')
Hotel
A structure in which there are five (5) or more guest
rooms or suites where lodging with or without meals
is provided for compensation and where no provi-
sion is made for cooking in any individual guest
room or suite.
Impact
The effect of any direct man-made actions or indi-
rect repercussions of man-made actions on existing
physical, social, or economic conditions.
Impact Fe•
A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the
developer of a project by a city, county, or other
public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmit-
igated impacts the project will produce. Cal'rfornia
Government Code Section 66000, et seq, specifies
that development fees shall not exceed the esti-
mated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a de-
velopment fes, the public agency must verify its
method of cak;ulaYwn and document proper restr'a-
tions on use of the fund.
Implementation
Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that
carry out policies.
Improvement
The addftion of one or more structures or utilities on
a vacant parcel of land.
Inflll Development
Development of vacant land (usually individual bts
or left-over properties) within areas which are al-
ready largely developed.
Infrastructure
Public services and facilities, such as sewage-dis-
posal systems, water-supply systems, other utility
systems, and roads.
Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratb
The availability of affordable housing for employees.
The jobs/housing ratio divides the number of jobs in
an area by the number of employed residents. A
ratio of 1.0 indicates a balance. A ratio greater than
1.0 indicates a net in-commute; less than 1.0
indicates a net out-commute.
B-4
Published with permission of the California Planning Roundtable
Land Use Mixed-usa
The occupation or utilization of land or water area Properties on which various uses, such as office,
for any human activity or any purpose defined in the commercial, institutional, and residential, are com-
General Plan. biped in a single building or on a single site in an in-
land Use Classlilcatlon tegrated development project wfth sign'rficant func-
tional interrelationships and a coherent physical
A system for classifying and designating the appro- design.
priate use of properties. Mobile Homo
Land Use Element
A required element of the General Plan which uses
text and maps to designate the future use or reuse
of land within a given jurisdiction's planning area.
The land use element serves as a guide to the
structuring of zoning and subdivision controls, urban
renewal and capital improvements programs, and to
official decisions regarding the distribution and
intensity of development and the location of public
facilities and open space.
Land Use Regulation
A term encompassing the regulation of land in gen-
eral and often used to mean those regulations in-
corporated in the General Plan, as distinct from
zoning regulations (which are more specific).
Large Family:
A family of five or more persons.
Liquefaction
The transformation of loose, wet soil from a solid to
a liquid state, often as a result of ground-shaking
during an earthquake.
Lot
(See "Site.
Low-Income Household
A household with an annual income of no more than
80 percent of the County median household income
by household size, as determined by a survey of in-
comesconducted by the City or by County, or in the
absence of such a survey, based on the latest
available findings for the County as provided by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD). (See "Very Low-income Household.'
Manufactured Housing
A structure, transportable in one or more sections,
built on a permanent chassis and designed for use
as asingle-family dwelling unit and which (1) has a
minimum of 400 square feet of living space; (2) has
a minimum width in excess of 102 inches; (3) is
connected to all available permanent utilities; and
(4) is tied down (a) to a permanent foundation on a
bt either owned or leased by the homeowner or (b)
is set on piers, with wheels removed and skirted, in
a mobile home park under a lease with a minimum
period of one year. (See "Manufactured Housing.'
Moderate-Income Household
A household with an annual income of between 80
and 120 percent of the County median household
income by household size, as determined by a sur-
vey of incomes conducted by the County, or in the
absence of such a survey, based on the latest
available findings for the County as provided by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devebp-
ment (HUD).
Motel
A structure in which there are five (5) or more guest
rooms or suites where lodging with or without meals
is provided for compensation. Quite oaten, provision
is made for cooking in individual guest rooms or
suites. (See "Hotel.?
Multiple Family Building
A detached building designed and used exclusivey
as a dwelling by three or more families occupying
separate suites.
Need
A condition requiring supply or relief. The City may
act upon tindings of need within or on behalf of the
community.
Houses which are constructed entirely in the fac-
tory, and which since 1976 have been regulated by
the federal Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Standards under the administration of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD). (See "Mobile Home.'
MRlgate
To ameliorate, alleviate, or avoid to the extent rea-
sonablyfeasible.
Needing Rehabilitation:
A housing unit which in its present state materially
endangers the health, safety, or well-being of its
occupants.
Neighborhood
A planning area commonly ident'rfied as such in a
community's planning documents, and by individu-
als residing and working within the neighborhood.
Documentation may include a map prepared for
B-5
Published with permission of the California Planning Roundtable
planning purposes, on which the names and bound- Preserve
arias of the neighborhood are shown. To keep safe from destruction or decay; to maintain
Objective or keep intact.
A specific statement of desired future condition to-
ward which the City will expend effort in the context
of striving to achieve a broader goal. An objective
should be achievable and, where possible, should
be measurable and time-specific. The State Gov-
ernment Code (§65302) requires that general plans
spell out the "objectives,' principles, standards, and
proposals of the general plan. "The addition of 100
units of affordable housing by 1995" is an example
of an objective.
Ordinance
A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a gov-
ernmental authority, usually a city or county.
Overcrowded
Housing units occupied by more than one person
per room, excluding kitchen and bathrooms.
Parcel
A bt, or contiguous group of lots, in single owner-
ship or under single control, usually considered a
unit for purposes of development.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
A description of a proposed development, consist-
ing at a minimum of a map and adopted ordinance
setting forth the regulations governing, and the b-
cation and arrangement of all proposed uses and
improvements to be inducted in the development.
Planning Area
The Planning Area is the land area addressed by
the General Plan. Typically, the Planning Area
boundary coincides with the Sphere of Influence
which encompasses land both within the City Limits
and potentially annexable land.
Planning Commission
A seven-member body created by the City in com-
pliance with California law (Government Code
§65100) which requires the assignment of the plan-
ningfunctions of the city to a planning department,
planning commission, hearing officers, and/or the
legislative body itself, as deemed appropriate by the
legislative body.
Policy
A specific statement of principle or of guiding ac-
tions which implies clear commitment but is not
mandatory. A general direction that a governmental
agency sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and
objectives before undertaking an action program.
(See "Program.')
Program
An action, activity, or strategy carried out in re-
sponse to adopted policy to achieve a specific ob-
jective. Policies and programs establish the "who,'
"how,' and "when" for carrying out the "what" and
"where' of goals and objectives.
Rehabilitation
The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of
substandard housing.
Regional
Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale, and
affecting a broad homogeneous area, greater than
that of any one city or county.
Regulation
A rule or order prescribed for managing
government.
Resldentlal
Land designated in the City's General Plan and
zoning ordinance for buildings consisting only of
dwelling units. May be vacant or unimproved. (See
"Dwelling Unit.'
Resldentlal, Multiple Family
Usually three or more dwelling unts on a single site,
which may be in the same or separate buildings.
Resldentlal, Single-Family
A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Rezoning
An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning
ordinance to effect a change in the nature, density,
or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district
and/or on a designated parcel or land area
Second UnR
ASelf-contained living unit, either attached to or de-
tached from, and in addition to, the primary residen-
tial unit on a single bt. Sometimes called "Granny
Flat."
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program which is the
main source of federal housing assistance for bw-
income households. The program operates by pro-
viding `housing assistance payments" to owners,
developers, and public housing agencies to make
up the d'rfference between the "Fair Market Rent" of
a unit (set by HUD) and the household's
contribution toward the rent, which is cak:ulated at
30 percent of the household's adjusted gross
B-6
Published with permission of the Caltfornfa Planning Roundtable
monthly income. "Section 8" includes programs for termined by the Local Agency Formation Commis-
new construction, existing housing, and substantial sion (tAFCo) of the County.
or moderate housing rehabilitation. Standards
Senior Housing
(See "Elderly Housing.'
Seniors
Persons age 62 and older.
Setback
The distance between the property line and any
structure.
Shared Ltving
The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of
more than one family in order to reduce housing ex-
penses and provide social contact, mutual support,
and assistance. Shared living facilities serving six
or fewer persons are permitted in all residential dis-
tricts by §1566.3 of the California Health and Safety
Code.
Single-family Dwelling, Attached
A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy
by only one household that is structurally connected
with at least one other such dwelling unit. (See
"Townhouse.'
Single-family Dwelling, Detached
A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy
by only one household that is structurally indepen-
dent trom any other such dwelling unit or structure
intended for residential or other use. (Sse
"Family.'
Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a
sink and closet, but which requires the occupant to
share a communal bathroom, shower, and kitchen.
Sits
A parcel of land used or intended for one use or a
group of uses and having frontage on a public or an
approved private street. A lot.
Specific Plan
Under Article 8 of the Government Code (§65450 et
seq), a legal tool for detailed design and implemen-
tation of a defined portion of the area covered by a
General Plan. A specirfic plan may include all de-
tailed regulations, conditions, programs, and/or pro-
posed legislation which may be necessary or con-
venient for the systematic implementation of any
General Plan element(s).
Sphere of Influence
The probable ultimate physical boundaries and ser-
vice area of a local agency (city or district) as de-
(1) A rule or measure establishing a level of quality
or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied.
The State Government Code (§65302) requires that
general plans spell out the objectives, principles,
"standards," and proposals of the general plan. Ex-
amples of standards might include the number of
acres of park land per 1,000 population that the
community will attempt to acquire and improve, or
the "traffic Level of Service' (LOS) that the plan
hopes to attain. (2) Requirements in a zoning ordi-
nance that govern building and devebpment as dis-
tinguished from use restrictions-for example, site-
design regulations such as lot area, height limit,
frontage, landscaping, and ibor area ratio.
Structure
Anything constructed or erected which requires lo-
cation on the ground (excluding swimming pools,
fences, and walls used as fences).
Subdivision
The division of a tract of land into defined bts, ei-
ther improved or unimproved, which can be sepa-
rately conveyed by sale or lease, and which can be
altered or devebped. "Subdivision" indudes a con-
dominium project as defined in Section 1350 of the
Calirfornia Civil Code.
Subsidence
The sudden sinking or gradual downward settling
and compaction of soil and other surface material
with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence may
be caused by a variety of human and natural activ-
ity, including earthquakes.
Subsidize
To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the
granting of terms or favors that reduce the need for
monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may
take the torms of mortgage interest deductions or
tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes,
sale or lease at less than market value d land to be
used for the construction of housing, payments to
supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.
Substandard Housing
Residential dwellings which, because of their physi-
cal condition, do not provide safe and sanitary
housing.
Target Areas
Specifically designated sections of the community
where loans and grants are made to bring about a
specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of
B-7
Published with permission of the California Planning Roundtable
housing affordable by very low- and low-income
households.
Tax Credit
A dollar amount that may be subtracted from the
amount of taxes owed.
Townhouse; Townhome
Aone-family dwelling in a row of at least three such
units in which each unit has its own front and rear
access to the outside, no unit is located over an-
other unit, and each unit is separated from any
other unit by one or more common and fire-resistant
walls. Townhouses usually have separate utilities;
however, in some condominium situations, common
areas are serviced by utilities purchased by a
homeowners association on behaH of all townhouse
members of the association. (See "Condominium.")
Transitional Housing
Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended
period, often as long as 18 months, and generally
integrated with other social services and counseling
programs to assist in the transition to self-suffi-
ciency through the acquisition of a stable income
and permanent housing. (See "Homeless" and
"Emergency Shelter.')
Uniform Building Code (UBC)
A national, standard building code which seis forth
minimum standards for construction.
Use
The purpose for which a lot or structure is or may
be leased, occupied, maintained, arranged,
designed, intended, constructed, erected, moved,
altered, and/or enlarged in accordance with the
City's zoning ordinance and General Plan land use
designations.
Use Permit
The discretionary and condltional review of an activ-
ity or function or operation on a site or in a building
or facility.
Vacant
Lands or buildings which are not actively used for
any purpose.
Variance
Very Low-Income Household
Very low-income households are those earning less
than 50% of the County median income by house-
hold size, as determined by a survey of incomes
conducted by the City or by the County, or in the
absence of such a survey, based on the latest avail-
able findings for the County as provided by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). (See "Low-income Household.
Zoning
The division of a city by legislative regulations into
areas, or zones, which specffy allowable uses for
real property and size restrictions for buildings
within these areas; a program that implements poli-
cies of the General Plan.
Zoning District
A designated section of the City for which pre-
scribed land use requirements and building and de-
velopment standards are uniform.
Zoning Map
Government Code §65851 permits a legislative
body to divide a county, a city, or portions thereof,
into zones of the number, shape, and area it deems
best suited to carry out the purposes of the zoning
ordinance. These zones are delineated on a map
or maps, called the Zoning Map. O
A departure from any provision of the zoning re-
quirements for a specif'~c parcel, except use, wlthout
changing the zoning ordinance or the underlying
zoning of the parcel. A variance usually is granted
only upon demonstration of hardship based on the
peculiarity of the property in relation to other prop-
erties in the same zone district.
B-8
APPENDIX C
HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET
(CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
HOUSING FLEMFMRFVIEW WORKSNFEf
Locality Sow+l, Ste, Fv-a.v~c~S•'CO Draft Adopted HCD Receipt Date
Contact Person. ~~~ ~+~"~~~ Phon # /S/3zl-~g~N Coastal Zone
Section numbers refer to the Government Code Article 10.6. Please provide the information referred to and the
element ppaage number(s) where titre information is located. Addit3.atia1 inforaetion regar~dirlg each statutory rnquirer~e
can be f~sd in the HCD Halsirig Element Questions and Ans~.ers Paper on the page numbers folla+irtg eech.requir~~es
1. Nousina Needs (65583(a)) (Qr4-6) .
A. Number o! existing households and housing units (Q~7)
1. Households
2. Housing units
B. Lower income households overpaying (Q-~l-b)
for housing
1. Total number
2. °~ lower income
C. Ust pages where special housing needs groups are
analyzed and provide the estimated number of
households: (Q-4-L3)
Owner Renter Total Page #1
tl ,tiro -~= Jp,.s~ ~ ~e
19,t~ 18
2~s~s a,~tas a ~
57%
1. Handcapped `~~~~ Z6
2. Elderiy `f, ~9 26
3. Large households t,69o 1,t47 2837 a7
4. .Farmworkers N A 30
5. Families with female head I~Z~ 28~
6. Homeless 134-700 _ ~8
7. Other
D. Number of overcrowded households (()4-7) 8~~ t~~~`"f 2370 ZZ
E Number of housing units needng rehabilitation (Qna) 2~38~0 35
F. Number of housing units needing replacement (Qa-7) ~ ~S 35
G. Five-year projected new construction needs, inciudng the locality's share of the regional IZ- Iy
housin needs as determined by COG or HCD; specify the time frame of the protections
tg8t'- t~95 and enter the construction need figures in the table below. (QA-L)
Flve•Year
Income Category New ConsLvction Needs
Very low .(0-50% of median income) 'S3S
Other Lower (50%-80%) ~f 50
Moderate (80-120%) G~9 •
Above Moderate (over 120%) - ~ Zl O
Total Units 2, 8
H. It the regional housing needs provided by the Council of Governments or HCD has been
revised. has the COG or HCD accepted the revision? (65584 (c))
Ust page(s) where the revision is justified. (Q+--~) /V~
1. Unless the employment and population trends are included in the regional housing needs
figures provided by the COG or HCD. list the page(s) where these factors are analyzed. included
____~
11. Land Inventory (Sections 65583.65583(a)) (Q~4-.8)
mmarize in the table bebw the infomlation on sites suitable for residernial development within P ~'~
the five year planning period of the element. list page(s) where this topic is discussed, including
the discussion of ava~ability of services and taclities for the sites identified in the land inventory.
Zoning/permitted
housing !ype
Number of acres Density range
(units/acre) Availability o(.services
a tacilmes ~uvetling unit
(e.g. infrastructure) Capacity
303.3 / ~S ~e1' 1193
Single tamiy ~ ~ y i6 ~;y ~ ~.~y ~ F;5 . ~
p.y5
3~j.~ /5-30 ~eS 114 3
Multiple-family
d
l Fy .2~ X9,26 y~
~ ' P.US
an
renta
3u I.7 / -30 ~s ~,~So
Mobitehomes, mfd. (Q~r„~t~ ; ~ all ~
P'`~
housing, mobitehome „-~jrd4u,.~~ 1 u~) ~
~' y
~• `~
P~ t 59 ~~
t=w.aryu.c~ ztcl+c~s
P~_ w.; -t ~ ; ...~u
3 (5
~~S
(153 --~.
_mergency shelteror
transitional housing c""^""""~ ~-~~e:,
;~ ,,,.
3 zewtS.
P
~
~'
s wish residential 11• S 7 ~~S $ O
lebpmentpotential
(within time frame of
Fey . 26
FrS. ZG
(' •`~`I ~ . ZG
5
element)
11's Z ~ eS $~
Currently
non-residential
~-y.2~
FMS. z~
p . y~{ R Z6
9
a
other
3y (,~ ~ _ 3v ~cs ~a8~
TOTAL ~ '`~`~ ~'yS
_ ~ ~.
2
111. Constraints on Housing (65583(a)(4) and (5))
List pages where the housing constraints listed below are discussed:
a Governmental Constraints (Q4-10)
Page #
1. Land use controls (e.g. zonings growth controls. open space requirements) ~{9-58
2. Codes and enforcement (e.g. any local amendments to UBC. degree or type of S9
enforcement)
3. ONoff-site improvements (e.g. a~bing r~rirarents, street Widths, ~t3i~aton:~nv 6)- /-GZ
4. Fees and exactions (p.~t fees & ]and dedication or other t~eq~r~pt~sss~osed cn 6~
5. Processing and permit procedures (e.g. processing times, approval proJCedures) ~
6. Other governmental constraints
B. Nongovernmental Constraints (4'1-12)
1. Availability of financing
2. Price of land 63
3. Cost of construction 6 3
4. Other nongovernmental constraints ~ 6S
IV. Quantified Objectives (Section 65583(b))
List quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units over the five year
Cure frame of the element to be: (Qa-16)
A Constructed 13'16 qZ
6. Rehabilitated a7U ~1Z
.C. ConservEd "]95 9z
.Other Topics
List pages where the following topics are discussed: •
A. Efforts to achieve public participation of all economic segements of the community 3
in the development of the element (Section 65583(c)) (Q,A-33)
B. Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation in residential development 6~
(Section 65583(a)(7)) (Q4-15) .
C. Description of means by which consistency will be achieved with other general 3
plan elements (Section 65583(c)) (Q~-34)
D. Evaluation and revision of the previous element according to the criteria of Section
65588(a) and (b): (Q4-1)
1. `Effectiveness of the element' (Section 65588(a)(2)): A i ~ tfie actual ~ 8
result of the earlier element's gaals, objectives. pali.c3,~,. and '-"-
The results should be quantified where possible (e.g., rehabilitative ults), but
may be qualitative where necessary (e.g.. mitigation of governmental constraints).
2. `Progress in implementation` (Section 65588 (a)(3)): An analysis of the ~~
significant differences between what was projected or planned in the earlier
element and what was achieved.
.3. `Appropriateneso of •goats, objectives, and policies` (Section 65588 (a)(1))• A
description of how the goats, objectives. policies, and programs of the updated
element incorporate what has been teamed from the results of th
i
e pr
or element.
E For Coastal Zone IocaCties. list the pages where the required information regarding
~- constr
ti
d N~
uc
on.
emolitions and conversions within the costal =one is provided {Section
65588(c) and (d)). (Q4-35)
3
VI. Housing Programs (65583(c)). Summarize programs in the element. (Q4-18)
Program Purpose Program action(s) Agency
responsible Time frame Page it
Proti~ide adequate situ i ~ ~3- I i ~r"K"a ".t ~`~' JotwS G ']
(65SS3 (cXI) I I
t . Insure total dwelling .
capacity equal to new
construction need 1
I
(Q~4-22) ~
2. Provide sites suitable fora •- I C-I I Pia-v~-;~vnj UK'9o~~9 ~ g
variety of types of housing ~.
for all income levels, including
rental housing and
manufactured housing
(~ ~)
A.csict in tht dcvclopmtnt of ~,~ Z ~ C o t.~v."~ Ov.-~ o f -~ ff l
adegruur housing to meet the
nredc of low and moderate ,~.^3 ;
~ ' Dcp~• aF
~„~,c ~ r 8 3
iltC0r71c JinusChOlds C~w~m~+`ty
(6SS83(cX2)) ~ p.velop~*
t. Utilize federal and state
fina and subsidies (
2 Provideregulatory ~`A-I Pt0.hh'"9 Gh'6°i~j 70-73
concessions and incentives I
~'3 r I
o
(Q4-26) -3 I
~
Address and, when gppropriatt
~'3-Z eo ~orl ~ 0~-9ot"~t 1 i -7Z
and legally possible, remove
$OVtrlime-ltaleOllrtrCtinL!
'1 a~L, ~ Cuw~w~
pNt(Ulan.
Zr, (~roveit
~3-7~
t . Land use controls
2. Bulding codes
3. Site improvements
4. Fees and exactions
5. Processing and permit
p
u
res
(
~~
) I
~p..6 r-~a~ .c~M.,~,. ~~-~a~~ 8 I
Conserve and improve tJte
condition of flit uisting
3~-Z ~cvetepn-e~
CD06 p~.,ts
bv.-•cJ of by
{iS
c~ordoble housing stock 3 p- ~ ~• Ok-got 86
(6SS83 (c1(4JJ I ~ -~ ~~ ~~ Uin-5olhy (fl7
(Q~-3o) -
Program to promou equal ~ A " ~ ~ ~ ~
~wCt~ oh C~v<• ~o i h9 $ g
/rousln O
8 ppory
) (S)1
(~
Q~-32)
Other housing Programs
Appendix D
ABAG PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY
1 This projection system, designed to predict growth and distribu-
2 tion of population, households, employment, income, and labor
3 force characteristics, is structured around three components: a)
4 the regional economic and demographic forecasting system; b) the
5 county employment, population, and income forecasting system; ~~
6 c) the distribution of jobs and households as a function of
7 available land, and assumptions about density and travel demand
8 within counties in the region.
9 A. REGIONAL ECONOMIC-DEMOGRAPHIC SYSTEM (REDS)
10 The projection of regional employment, income, output, population,
11 labor force, and occupational demand is performed by the "Regional
12 Economic-Demographic System" (REDS). REDS is an analytical and
13 econometric model which uses a non-survey input/output model to
14 drive the interaction in the system. A general overview of the
15 model can be found in "The Design and Implementation of a Regional
16 Economic-Demographic Simulation Model," by R. Brady and C.M. Yang
17 in the "Annals of Regional Science," November 1983.
18 The basic equations and input-output model are updated every two
19 years--most recently in 1988. The user of REDS may change up to 16
20 variables to affect the model's projection behavior. The system is
21 designed to be user-friendly. REDS divides the economy into 38
22 industry sectors, and predicts output, job demand, and capital
23 requirements for each sector. The demand for jobs drives the labor
24 force model which interacts with the migration model. The
25 population model is a Cohort-Survival Model.
26 REDS has approximately 33 equations in the system. Some are sta-
27 tistical equations developed from time series data and hence are
28 constantly updated; others are analytical equations based upon ob-
29 served behavior in the economy.
30 B. COUNTY EMPLOYMENT FORECASTING SYSTEM (GEES)
31 The projections of
32 counties of the Bay
33 Forecasting System"
34 makes efficient use
35 the subregional leve
employment and income for each of the nine
Area were obtained from the "County Employment
(GEES). CEFS is an econometric model that
of the limited employment data available at
~1 and which produces county forecasts consis-
D-t
1 tent with the regional employment forecasts of REDS. A complete
2 and thorough discussion of the model can be found in "Industrial
3 and Spatial Interdependency in Modeling: An Empirical Forecasting
4 Model for the Counties in the San Francisco Bay Region" by P.
5 Prastacos and R. Brady in the "Annals of Regional Science," July
6 1985.
7 CEFS recognizes 32 sectors, each sector representing a two-digit
8 SIC code sector or a major industrial group. There is one equation
9 for each sector and county. The equations were specified so that
10 they account for the industrial and spatial interdependency of
11 activities. Thus, employment in a sector is tied to employment
12 levels in sectors with which there exist strong economic relation-
13 ships. Spatial intersections were considered by linking county em-
14 ployment in the basic sectors to the level of employment in the
15 whole region, while for local service sectors the linkage took
16 place at the individual county.
17 The equations of CEFS were estimated using the ordinary least
18 squares techniques with data from the County Business Patterns re-
19 ports for years 1964-1986. The results of the regressions were
20 very good and indicate that the relationships depicted in the
21 equations are of empirical value and that they do reflect the
22 economy of the counties. Both the R-squares for the equations and
23 the t-values for the individual coefficients were high. Addition-
24 ally, a dynamic simulation of the estimated model over the period
25 1964-1986 showed that the employment levels forecast by CEFS are
26 very close to actual historical data.
27 C. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS
28 ABAG uses trend analysis to forecast long-term growth for each
29 county's population and households. The latest times series uses
30 data from 1975-1989. Linear exponential and geometric regression
31 time series equations are used to predict future growth. The
32 results of these trend equations are summed and averaged.
33 The trend data is constrained by local development policies which
34 limit housing production, and hence household growth. In several
35 counties, household and population growth in the forecast exceeds
36 the aggregate of local policies.
D-2
1 D. SUB-COUNTY ALLOCATION SYSTEM
2 The allocation of population, housing, and employment at the sub-
3 county (zonal) level was carried out using the "Projective Opti-
4 mization Land Use Information System" (POLLS). POLLS, a land use
5 and transportation model, has replaced the PLUM and BEMOD models
6 which were used prior to 1980 at ABAG for land use and zonal popu-
7 lation and employment projections. A discussion on the structure
~~
8 of POLLS can be found in the ABAG report POLIS: The Land Use In-
9 formation and Transportation System for the San Francisco Bay
10 Area," by P. Prastacos.
11 The allocation process in POLLS is based on several criteria, some
12 reflecting the behavior of individuals and some describing physi-
13 cal and planning constraints. Residential choice is determined by
14 the travel to work and shopping behavior, the availability and at-
15 tractiveness of housing, and the existence of nearby employment.
16 Retail activity is located in proximity to population centers to
17 maximize sales revenue. The locational patterns of the other in-
18 dustries are influenced by the accessibility to labor supply, the
19 proximity to other similar industries, and local development poli-
20 Gies.
,~
21 POLLS is formatted as a mathematical programming, optimization
22 type problem. That is, the allocation of population and employment
23 is optimized with respect to an objective function or goal while
24 at the .same time satisfying the planning constraints. Although
25 this approach leads to complex mathematical notation and solution
26 procedures, it results in housing, employment and trip-flow pat-
27 terns which are estimated in a single iteration and which are con-
28 sistent with each other and the land use constraints.
29 The form of objective functions in POLLS is derived from the ran-
30 dom utility theory and describes the behavior of individuals
31 (employees) to select among a set of alternatives the one maximiz-
32 ing their utility. The constraints of the model describe the hous-
33 ing and land supplies, the development policies of the different
34 cities and the employment/housing to be allocated among all the
35 zones within a county.
36 The complete model was calibrated with data from 1975 and 1980.
37 The Bay Region was subdivided into 114 zones and the county em-
D-3
1 ployment projections from CEFS were aggregated into four sectors:
2 (1) Manufacturing and Mining, (2) Transportation/F.I.R.E./
3 Government, (3) Retail, and (4) Services. A dynamic simulation of
4 the calibrated model over the period 1975-1980 showed that POLIS
5 can produce accurate forecasts. The forecast values for housing
6 and employment for 1980 were very similar to the actual 1980
7 figures.
8 E . REVIEW OF FORECASTS
9 All county and subregional forecasts are reviewed by local govern-
10 ments. This review process has several objectives. First, fore-
11 casting for 122 cities and unincorporated areas and nine counties
12 is a complicated process. Although the models ABAG uses are state-
13 of-the-art, models are imperfect replications of reality. Second,
14 review by local governments helps ABAG to identify problems at the
15 small area forecast level.
16 South San Francisco reviewed the output as provided by State law
17 and did not challenge the figures for the city.
D-4
Appendix E
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Answers to Some Homeowner Questions
ELZG BILZTY
WHO IS ELIGIBLE?
~ Lov and moderate income homeowners (the following table
lists maximum eligible income levels):
Household Size Oross Annual Income
1 $23,800
2 $27,200
3 $30,600
4 $34,000
5 $36,150
6 $38,250
7 $40, 400
8 $42,500
* Property must be owner-occupied, single-family residence.
e Home must be in substandard condition.
f Priority consideration will be given to residents of the
Downtown Target Area, a map of which is attached.
~ Applications from other homeowners, residing anywhere in
the City, will be processed on a first-come, first served
basis.
E-1
Iran Amount
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$ 69.10
$103.65
$138.20
$172.75
$207.30
$ 55.50
$ 83.25
$111.00
$138.75
$166.50
How much am I saving by getting a lov-interest loan under the
programs being offered through the city?
The current interest rate being charged by banks on regular
home improvement loans is around 12.5. If you had to pay
12.5 for a loan, the approximate monthly payments would be as
follows:
Loan Amount
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
15 Year Term
$123.25
$184.87
$246.50
$308.12
$369.95
20 Year Term
$113.70
$170.55
$227.40
$284.25
$341.10
If you compare these figures to those listed for 3~ loans, you
will see how much can be saved under the program offered
through the City.
What i! my income is not sufficient to qualify for a bank loan or
a HIID loan?
For those whose incomes are too low to afford monthly loan
payments, deferred loans may be arranged. These loans carry no
interest rate and are repayable upon sale or transfer of property.
Who does the home inspections?
The homeowner must complete and return the Eligibility
~-ppiieation and the Request for Home Inspection form. once the
homeowner has been determined to be eligible, a City
Rehabilitation Specialist will inspect the entire property,
free of charge, and explain any code deficiencies found (as
well as note possible general improvements as desired by the
homeowner).
E-3
xor~ rxpROVr~rs
dr
:,:.~ ;~~
':f KIiAT ICZNDS OP I?iP'ROVF.?4'.NTS ARE ELIGIBLE?
s
e
Correction of code deficiencies.
General property improvements ( up to 40~ of total
rehabilitation cost)
Examples of eligible improvements are:
Reroofing
Electrical
Termite Red
Plumbing
Heating
NOT ALLOWED: Luxury
Structural Repairs
Work Insulation
pairs weatherization
Painting
Remodeling
items (pools, hot tubs, etc.)
TIME ARE TWO TYPES OF LOANS:
A) A loan with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) under Section 312 Rehabilitation Loan
Program.
B) A loan with Security Pacific National Bank, which has a
special agreement with the City.
Because of limited funds in the program with Security Pacific
Bank, an attempt will be made to qualify all borrowers under
the HUD Section 312 Program first before using the Security
Pacific Program.
What is the maximum loan amount? HaYimum loan term?
$33,500 is the maximum loan amount for both types of loan.
The maximum loan term is 20 years on HUD loans and 15 years on
bank loans.
Interest rate?
The fixed interest rate on both bank and HUD loans is 3i.
Hov much are monthly payments?
Payment schedules are to be arranged between the homeowner and
HUD or the bank depending on the type of loan, but here is an
example of average payments for various loan amounts at 3~
interest:
E-2
As I required to repair everything the Rehabilitation Specialist
finds?
at that point you may elect not to participate in the
rehabilitation program. I! you decide to go ahead and apply
for a loan, your rehabilitation work write-up must include all
coda deticiencies,~ and may include any eligible general
property improvements. If you choose not to participate in the
rehabilitation program, you will nevertheless be required to
correct all code deficiencies considered to~be threatening to
life or property.
Who gets bids and chooses the contractor?
The homeowner is responsible for obtaining a minimum of three
bids, although the City can provide assistance to the homeowner
in obtaining bids. The homeowner chooses the contractor (which
need not be the low bidder, if City determines that the cost is
reasonable). City staff will make available, at the
homeowner's request, a list of licensed contractors in the area
who have expressed an interest in participating in the-program.
All contractors must be approved by the City, and must follow
rehabilitation standards as established by the City.
How is the contractor paid?
Checks will be issued to the contractor according to a
progress payment schedule approved by the City, only upon
authorization by both the homeowner and. the City. All
payments will be contingent upon the City's periodic and final
inspections of the project.
What i! the contractor's performance is not satisfactory?
Any disputes with the contractor over work performed are the
homeowner's responsibility to resolve. The homeowner may
contact the Contractors State License Board for assistance in
settling such disputes. The contract between the homeowner and
the contractor will contain provisions for termination in the
event the contractor fails to perform.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CALL THE HOUSING REHABILITATION
SPECIALIST AT 877-8560.
E-4