HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 165-1992 RESOLUTION NO. 165-92
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. GP-92-45
AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 733
WHEREAS, Government Code §65302(c) and Title 7, Division 1,
Article 10.6 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 65580)
(hereafter "Article 10.6") require that California Cities adopt a
Housing Element to their General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco adopted such a
Housing Element on September 2, 1981, adopted revisions to said
Housing Element on July 25, 1984, and June 27, 1990, and is now
revising the document to incorporate modifications and additions
required by existing state law and recent revisions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco has reviewed the proposed Amendment to said Housing
Element (attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference
incorporated herein), has held a duly noticed public hearing
regarding said proposed Amendment and during said hearing did
consider all comments submitted to it before and during said
hearing related to said proposed Amendment; and
WHEREAS, it appears that said proposed Amendment will result
in a Housing Element which conforms to the requirements of Article
10.6 and its adoption would result in an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City of
South San Francisco.
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed that certain revisions
be made ~o said Housing Element and such revisions are set forth in
Exhibit "B" (attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein).
NOW', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of South San Francisco as follows:
1. The proposed Amendment to the Housing Element of the
General Plan of the City of South San Francisco (Exhibit "A"
hereto) is consistent with the remaining elements of said General
Plan; ard
2. Said proposed Amendment is in compliance with the
requirements of Article 10.6 and Section 65302(c) of the Government
Code and other applicable state laws; and
3. I Said proposed Amendment is consistent with the
comprehensive land use plan adopted by the San Mateo County Airport
Land Use Commission pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public
Utilities Code; and
4. Adoption of the proposed Amendment will result in an
integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of
policies for the City of South San Francisco; and
5. A proper Negative Declaration was prepared for the
proposed Amendment in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approve
Negative Declaration No. 733 and adopt the proposed General Plan,
Housing Element Amendment (Exhibit "A") hereto.
AYES:
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly
introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco at a regu] ar meeting held on the 9th day of
Cecember , 1992 by the following vote:
Councilmemh~.r.~ ,lank llrago, Joseph A. Fernekes, John R. Ponna,
Rnh~rt Ymm, and Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
NOES: Nnn~
ABSTAIN: Nnn~
ABSENT: Nnn~
· City Clerk
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 165-92
City of South San Francisco
GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING ELEMENT
1990-1995
September 1992
CITY COUNCIL
John Penna, Mayor
Jack Drago
Roberta Teglia, Vice-Mayor
Joseph Femekes
Robert Y~
PLANNING COMMISSION
Louis Matteucci, Chairman
Roben Mantegani
Beverly Boblitt
Margaret Warren, Vice-Chairman
Michael DeZoxdo
Joy-Ann Wendler
Alan Zellmer
STAFF
Steve Solomon, Chief Planner
Steve Carlson, Senior Planner
Susy Kalkin, Associate Planner
1992 Revisions and Update
Naphtali H. Knox & Associates, Inc., Menlo Park
II.
II1.
Contents
A. Intent and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1
B. Maj3r Findings and Goals .......................................................................................... 2
C. For'nat 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
A.
ON HOUSING NEEDS ......................... : ................................. 10
Population, Employment, and Housing Trends and Needs .............................. 10
1. Population Trends ............................................................................................... 10
2. Employment Projections: ................................................................................... 12
3. Existing and Projected Housing Needs .......................................................... 12
B. HoJsing 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. Farmworkers ......................................................................................................... 29
HOUSING
A.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND CONSTRAINTS ........... 31
Existing Housing Stock ............................................................................................ 31
1. Number and Types of Units ............................................................................... 31
2. Condition of the Housing Stock ........................................................................ 34
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. Gcvernment 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. SL mmary 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
i II
List of Figures
Page
1. Anaysis of the 1984 Housing Element ................................................................ 8
2. Historic Population Trends ................................................................................ 10
3. Pop,Jlation, Household and Employment Forecasts ......................................... 11
4. Population Characteristics ................................................................................. 12
5. ExiSting and Projected Housing Needs ............................................................. 14
6. Pro~ected 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. HoL sing 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. Lar~d Suitable for Residential Development ...................................................... 38
27. Sites Available for Residential Development ..................................................... 41
28. HoJsing 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. Pa~,ing Requirements ....................................................................................... 57
33. Comparison of Developer Fees ......................................................................... 61
34. Components of Housing Cost. ........................................................................... 63
35. Quantified Objectives by Income Level ............................................................. 93
iii
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
___ 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
I.INTRODUCTION
A. INTSNT 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 tkat 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. Th~ 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.
Ce
The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-in-
come households requires the cooperation of all levels of
government.
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-
in~ needs of all economic segments of the community.
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
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
~30
South San !Frandsco Housing Element September 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 rehabilitation is greatest in the older
parts of town.
Irish Town 36.8 percent
Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace 17.6 percent
Peck's Lots 16.9 Percent
Grand Avenue 16.4 percent
Town of Baden 15.3 percent
5) Adequate land is available to meet future housing needs,
including the provision of housing affordable to lower-income
househo].ds.
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:
housinl)g.
Assure each resident attractive, healthful, and safe
2
Chapter L Introduction
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
__15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2)
forts.
Provide new housing through both private and public ef-
3) Provide housing for persons with special needs.
4) Eliminate housing discrimination; and
5) Prohibit housing development in areas with major haz-
ards. I
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. FOF, MAT 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 ns 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. I 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
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
South San Francisco Housing Element
September 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
Worksheeu 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-l, including the qualifying requirements to receive
City anc CDBG funds for home rehabilitation based on household
size and income and other criteria.
O. 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 Co~mission 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 I. Introduction
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
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 Sar Francisco on June 3.
/
Upon coKpletion 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
I
The following programs and projects were accomplished between the
time that the previous Housing Element was adopted in July 1984
and 199C:
287 single family units, 28 duplex units, 72 townhome/condo-
minium units and 242 multi-family units were constructed.
An estimated 86 units were conserved or rehabilitated under
various programs funded by CDBG funds.
An additional 75 Section 8 units were occupied by low- and
moderate-income households.
5
South SaN Francisco Housing Element September 1992
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
..... 35
The City's shared housing program accommodated 131 new occu-
pants.
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.
$990,000 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
recurn, 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.
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
interes; 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-l, 2A-l, and 2B-6.)
F. AP=ROPRIATENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
In adop;ing 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:
ThD 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 L Introduction
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
__17
18
19
20
shared housing, mixed land uses, and factory-built and manu-
fac5ured housing.
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.
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.
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.
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
Program
Figure I
ANALYSIS OF 1984 HOUSING ELEMENT
City of South San Frandsco, California
Projected Units Actual Units
1985-90 1985-90
Continued Support for Construction of Market Rate
Quality Housing Units for Above Moderate and Moderate
Income Households
2. Shared Housing
3.
Second Housing Units
1005 - 1100 485
175 131
150 I
4. Density Bonus for Inclusion of Low- and Moderate-
Income Units
5. Small Units for One-Person Households in Central
Business District
6. Housing Revenue Bonds
7. Higher Density Provisions for Senior Housing
8. Magnolia Center Senior Project
9. Larger Unit Development in Multi-Family Projects
10. Continued Support for Housing Authority's Public
Housing Rental Program.
11. Section 8 Housing Support
12. Support Development of an apartment hotel for the
elderly
25 0
20 11
Not Quantified (NQ) NQ
NQ NQ
90 125
50-55 NQ
Continued operation Continued operation
of 80 units of 80 units
NQ 75
20-40 0
Comments
This Element calls for adjust-
ments to the second unit
ordinance.
No applications were sub-
mitted.
Program was contingent upon
interest by a pdvate developer.
No application was made.
Figure I continued
Program
Projected Units Actual Units
1985-90 1985-90
Comments
13. Mixed Uses in Commerdal and Office Zoning Districts
14. Manufactured Housing and Mobile Home Parks
15. Removal of Handicapped Barriers
16. Remodeling and Improvement ol Existing Units
17. San Mateo County-Administered Housing Rehabilitation
Program
18. Commercial, Multiple Family and Mixed-Use
Rehabilitation
19. Concentrated Neighborhood Strategy
20. Forest Homes Mobile Home Park Renovation
20-30 7
NQ NQ
NQ NQ
1000 4264
10-12
86 units total for these
8 three programs
75-125
30
21. Airport Noise Insulation 100 162
22. Support of Non-Discrimination in Housing NQ NQ
23. Condominium Conversion Umitation NQ NQ
24. Housing Referral Program NQ NQ
25. Maintenance of Current Housing Records NQ NQ
26. Promotion of Housing Policy NQ NQ
Project was contingent upon
cooperation of the owner. No
agreement with City was
reached.
II. BACKGROUND ON'HOUSING NEEDS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A. P~PULATION, 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 F~gure2). By
1970, the city had a population over 46,000. As shown in Flgure2,
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.
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 2
Historic Population Trends, 1920-1990
City of South San Francisco, California
Percent
Year Population Increase
15 1920 4,411 .....
1 6 1930 6,193 40%
1 7 1940 6,290 2%
18 1950 19,351 308%
1 9 1960 39,418 104%
2 0 1970 46,646 18%
2 1 1980 49,393 6%
22 1990 54,312 10%
23
Source: U.S. Census, various years.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
-- 33
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 S0I, to maintain
comparability with ABAG projections.
10
Chaptbr II. Background on Housing Needs
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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.) F~§u~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.
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Figure 3
Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts,
1990-2005
City of South San Francisco, California
1990 1995 2000 2005
Total Popul~ion
Household Population
Households
Employed Residents
Total Jobs
Population per Household
Jobs per Ho Jsehold
Jobs per En'ployed Resident
54,000 54,900 55,800 55,900
53,900 54,800 55,700 55,800
19,230 20,010 20,400 20,680
30,200 31,400 31,600 31,400
41,150 44,970 47,960 48,900
2.79 2.74 2.73 2.70
2.14 2.25 2.35 2.37
1.36 1.48 1.52 1.55
Source: ABAG, Projections 90, 1989.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
--35
36
ABAG's 2rojections 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 Figure4.) 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 September 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.
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
~ 32
~ 33
Figure 4
Population Characteristics, 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
City_ SOl City+SOl
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 pe~ Household ' 2.91 3.10 2.91 2.64
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
2. Rmp]oyment Project4ons:
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. (Figu~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. Rxist~ng 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 Hcusing Needs Determinations (January 1989). The housing
12
Chapter II. Background on Housing Needs
1
2
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
....... 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
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
FigureS.
The "Alternative Zoning Projected Need" shown in Figu~5 represents
the nummer 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 zon%ng"...~does not mean that,
in every single case, ~xisting 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 September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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).
9
10
11
Figure 5
Existing and Projected Housing Needs, 1988-1995
City of South San Francisco, California
12 Total
13 1988-1990 1990-1995 Alternative Projected
14 Existent3 Projected Proiected Zoning Need
15 Need Need Need Need 1988-1995
16
567 1,532 513 769 2,814
SourcE: ABAG, Housing Needs Determinations, January 1989.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
.31
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 Flgu~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. Figum7 shows the remain-
ing need by income category after taking into account units al-
ready ccnstructed.
14
Chapt'er II. Background on Housing Needs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 6
Projected Housing Need by Income Category
City of South San Francisco, California
To:al Very Above
Projected Low- Low- Moderate- Moderate-
Ne~l Income Income Income Income
2,814 535 450 619 1,210
(100%) (19%) (16%) (22%) (43%)
Source: ABAG, Housing Needs Determinations, January 1989.
1
1
1
1
~--1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 7
Remaining Housing Need by Income Category
City of South San Francisco, California
Income Level ABAG Built Remaining
Need, 1988-199~; 1988-91 Need, 1992-1995
Very Low 535 11 524
Low 450 0 450
Moderate 619 35 584
Above Moderate 1.210 392 818
Total 2,814 438 2,376
20
21
Income limbs as of February, 1992 tot a family of four were Very-low: $26,800; Low: $38,000; Moderate:
$59,800. T3e median income for San Mateo County was $49,900.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. HCUSING ANDHOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
1. Ho3~meho]d Composition 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 September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
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. :igu~8 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."
7
Figure 8
Number of Households by Household Type, 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
10 Percent of
11 Type of Househol~ Number Household~
12 Total Housetolds 18,568 100.0
1 3 Families 13,767 74.2
14 Married Couple 10,651 57.4
15 Single Male Head 817 4.4
1 6 Single ~'emate Head 2,299 12.4
17 Non-family 925 5.0
~1 8 Male 539 2.9
1 9 Female 386 2.1
2 0 Single-pe 'son 3,876 20.9
2 1 Male 1543 8.3
2 2 Female 2,333 12.6
23
Source: 19.c0 U.S. Census.
24 Mean household income in South San Francisco (in constant 1988
25 dollars) was $39,181 in 1980, and increased to $43,100 in 1990.
26 ABAG projects that the city's mean household income will continue
27 its upward trend, increasing to $45,200 in 1995, $46,900 in 2000,
28 and $49,600 in 2005. This represents a 15 percent increase be-
29 tween 1~90 and 2005. By comparison, mean household income for San
30 Mateo County as a whole is estimated at $51,700 in 1990, and is
31 projected to increase (also by 15 percent) to $59,500 by 2005.
32 Thus, although the average income for the county overall is higher
33 than that of South San Francisco, average income for both the city
34 and the county are expected to increase at about the same rate
__35 (ABAG Projections 90, December 1989, page 215).
16
ChaPter IL Background on Housing Needs
2
3
Figure 9
Population by Age Group, 1970 to 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
Age Groups 1970(%) 1980(%) 1990(%)
65+ 5.0 8.3 11.4
55-64 7.6 10.6 9.7
45-54 13.0 12.0 10.5
35-44 13.6 12.0 15.4
25-34 13.2 17.2 18.6
15-24 17.0 19.2 13.7
0-14 30.6 20.8 20.7
12
SoJrce: U.S. Census, 1980, 1990.
13
14
~ 15
Figure 10
Population by Age Group, 1970 and 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
16
17
55-~
35-44
25-34
15-24
0.-14
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Source: U.S. Census 1970 and 1990
~ 1990
· 1970
I
35%
17
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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. Ho%s~ng 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 197Cs, 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 Flgures11,12, and13.
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Figure 11
Number, Type of Units, and Household Size,
1980 and 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
1980
City + SOl
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%
HOL sehold Population* 49,393 53,975
Persons per Occupied Unit 2.74 2.91
* Household population excludes persons in group quarters.
SoL rce: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census
18
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Number of units
in structure
Single-family detached
Single-family attached
2-unit
3- or 4-unit
5 or more
Mobile homes
Other
Total
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
Chapter II. Background on Housing Needs
Figure 12
Housing Occupancy Status 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
Occupied Owner-
Units % Occ~Loie~l
Renter-
Occupied
10,743 57.9 8,767 76.8 1,976 27.6
2,264 12.2 1,594 14.0 670 9.4
551 3.0 93 0.8 458 6.4
1,002 5.4 169 1.5 833 11.6
3,347 18.0 264 2.3 3,083 43.1
336 1.8 297 2.6' 39 0.5
325 1.8 226 2.0 99 1.4
18,568 100.0 11,410 61.4
7,158 38.6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Units in
structur{}
Figure 13
Number of Persons in Units by Type of Structure
City of South San Francisco, California
All Units Owner-occupied
Total Per Total Per
Persons ~ Persons ~
Single-family detached 33,403 3.11 26,203 2.99
Single-family attached 7,448 3.29 5,018 3.15
2-unit 1,597 2.90 244 2.62
3- or 4-unit 2,853 2.85 379 2.24
5 or more 7,389 2.21 614 2.33
Mobile homes 485 1.44 413 1.39
Other 800 2.46 521 2.31
Total 53,823 2.91 33,258 2.93
100% 62%
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
Renter-occ~tpie~l
Total Per
Persons Un~
7,200 3.64
2,430 3.63
1,353 2.95
2,474 2.97
6,775 2.20
72 1.85
20,565 2.88
38%
19
South San ,=rancisco Housing Element September 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
4 price of a 900 square foot condominium in South San Francisco in
5 1989 was about $165,000; median condominium prices in other San
6 Mateo County cities range from $185,000 to $275,000. The median
7 cost of a single-family home in South San Francisco ranges from
8 $277,000 (three bedrooms, two baths) to about $408,000 (four bed-
9 rooms, three baths) ("Home Values," Real Estate Section, San Fran-
10 cisco Examiner, December 3, 1989).'
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
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 $675-
750. (Personal communication, Penna Realty, Matteucci & Co. Re-
alty, and Kenny Realty, all of South San Francisco, April 17,
1990).
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chapter II. Background on Housing Needs
Figure 14
Median Home Values, 1980, 1989, and 1990
San Francisco Bay Region
City of South San Francisco, California
Value ($)
980 1989 1990 % increase
Alameda 85,300 174,744 105%
Contra Costa 94,600 183,142 94%
Marin 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%
Sonorr a 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 Council, Housing and
Development Report, May 1989.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
--37
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. T.eve] of Pa~yment Conlpared with Ahi]~ty to P~y
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
September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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. Figum15 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).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.... 17
18
19
20
21
Figure 15
Overpayment: 1980 and 1990
City of South San Francisco, California
Household~ 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.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
-~ 34
The analysis suggests that overpayment is a more significant prob-
lem amor.g 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 kigh 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 199C, 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 II. Background on Housing Needs
1
3
was less than 8 percent for owners, it was over 20 percent for
renters.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
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 E1
Camino Real and Interstate 280 (tracts 6017, 6018, and 6024).
Figure18 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.
15
16
17
Figure 16
Overcrowding
City of South San Francisco, California
18 Census Occupied Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
1 9 Tract No. Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
20 6001 10 17.5 4 21.1 6 15.8
21 6016.03 4 10.0 2 6.3 2 25.0
22 6017 101 8.0 72 7.0 29 13.2
23 6018 123 6.4 72 4.6 51 14.3
24 6019 326 11.7 72 4.9 254 19.6
25 6020 181 9.2 117 7.7 64 14.3
2 6 6021 288 30.4 51 18.6 237 35.2
2 7 6022 554 22.3 64 11.6 490 25.3
2 8 6023 176 17.7 75 11.5 101 29.5
2 9 6024 108 4.4 57 3.8 51 5.5
3 0 6025 149 10.8 124 10.1 25 16.3
31 6026 350 15.6 186 12.4 164 22.1
32 6037 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
33
3 4 Total 2,370 12.8 896 7.9 1,474 20.6
35
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
6027
.6016.03 ",
x,
· "': 6037
Figure 17
Census Tracts
" .:, ~,~.,,]o NORTH
City of
South San Francisco
GRAPHIC SCALE
APRIL Iq~lZ
Chapter II. Background on Housing Needs
2
3
Figure 18
Size of Units Compared with Size of Households
City of South San Francisco, California
4 N Jmber of Number of Number of Number of
5 Rooms Units Persons Households
6 I 679 I 3876
7 2 1375 2 5317
8 3 2740 3 3450
9 4 3304 4 3079
10 5 4115 5 1531
1 1 6 3837 6 700
12 7 or more 3080 7 or more 615
13
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
14 C. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
15 1. Disabled
16 Census data on the number of disabled are not yet available for
17 1990. The State Department of Rehabilitation estimates that 10.5
18 percent of the population age 16-64 is disabled. While the de-
l9 partment does not provide an estimate for the 65-and-over popula-
20 tion, they believe it is higher than for the working age popula-
21 tion. The 1980 Census revealed 15 percent of the population over
22 65 had some disability. Applying the 10.5 percent figure to the
23 16-64 age group and applying 15 percent to the 65-and-over popula-
24 tion gives an estimate for South San Francisco of 4,753 disabled
25 persons. (No estimates are available for disabled children under
26 16.)
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
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
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
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. ~.] der] y
The 1990 Census reports that 6,214 persons (about 11.4 percent of
South San Francisco's population) were age 65 or over (See Figumg).
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. 3~arge 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 IL 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.
3 Figure 19
4 Number of Households with Five or More Persons
5 City of South San Francisco, California
6 Census Owner Renter
7 Tract All Unit~ Occupiel;I OccuEie~l
8 6001 10 3 7
9 6016 4 2 2
10 6017 203 144 59
11 6018 242 183 59
12 6019 291 136 155
13 6020 276 219 57
14 6021 220 70 150
1 5 6022 397 96 301
1 6 6023 193 103 90
17 6024 179 145 34
18 6025 373 327 46
.---19 6026 445 260 185
2 0 6027 0 0 0
2 1 6037 4 2 2
22
2 3 "oral 2,837 1,690 1,147
24
Source: 1.c90 U.S. Census.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
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. Single-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
September 1992
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
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. Homeles~
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 komeless 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
pri~.arily 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.
Chapt. er II. Background on Housing Needs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~ 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
~ 37
38
Families and individuals from South San Francisco in need of emer-
gency sPLelter 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 re~.aining 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) homelessness 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. ~{rmworker~
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
througk the proposed programs for housing low- and moderate-income
South San Francisco Housing Element
September 1992
1
2
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
III. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND
CONSTRAINTS
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
1. N~mber and Types of Unit~
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 Figu~20). Approximately 56 percent of all units were
constructed prio~ to 1960.
11
12
13
30%
20%
Figure 20
Housing Units by Date of Construction
City o! South San Francisco, California
15%
32%
16%
22%
14
15
16
10%
0%
Source:
6%
Before 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980-
1940 49 59 69 79 89
Estimated from 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census and South San Francisco Building Division
Records.
31
South San ,'--rancisco Housing Element
September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
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. Flgu~21 shows additions to
the housing stock since 1980.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
--17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26'
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Figure 21
Number of New Housing Units Added, by Year and Type
City of South San Francisco, California
Duplex/
Single- Townhome/ Second Multi-
Year Eaz]3~ Condo ~ E. aJ33J~ Total
1980 99 91 I 24a 215
1981 75 -- I 42b 118
1982 6 -- - 5a 11
1983 31 40 I 138c 210
1984 I 54 - 4 59
1985 2 2 2 - 6
1986 31 -- 2 10 43
1987 30 - 2 190d 222
1988 116 24 2 11 153
1989 107 24 4 11 146
1990 8 34 5 12 59
1991 10 80 _.~ 4 97
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 & Community Development Department, Building Division, City of South San
Francisco.
--37
38
The existing housing stock in South San Francisco is predominantly
(over 70 percent) single-family dwellings. Apartment buildings
Chapter. IlL Housing Potential and Constraints
1
2
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 F~gure22.)
5
Figure 22
Percentage of Units by Type of Structure
City of South San Francisco, California
2% 2%
3%
5%
15%
3%
7 0%
· Single Family
[] Duplex
[] 3 or 4 Units
[] 5 to 49 Units
~ 50 or more Units
[] Mobile Homes
I=lOther
8
9
Source:
1990 U.S. Census
10
11
12
13
14
15
~" 16
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 d~wn~own area. Figure23 shows the number
of SRO rooms in South San Francisco.
33
South San Francisco Housing Element
September 1992
I Figure 23
2
3
SRO Hotels In South San Francisco
City of South San Francisco, California
4 Nam~ Location No. of Rooms
5 Alphonso's 106 Grand Ave. 16
6 3 Amigos 206 Grand Ave. 8
7 Sundial 222 Grand Ave. 11
8 West Hotel 228 Grand Ave, 21
9 Topper 249 Grand Ave. 1
l 0 Welte's 254 Grand Ave. 14
1 1 --- 317 Grand Ave. 10
12 Silver Dollar 322 Grand Ave. 16
1 3 --- 350 Grand Ave. 3
14 Ladle Club 309 Airport Blvd. 16
3. 5 Grand Hotel 731 Airport Blvd. 16
1 6 Metropolitan Hotel 220 Linden Ave. 68
17 S&L Hotel 400 Miller Ave. 23
18 Industrial Hotel 505 Cypress Ave. 49
19
2 0 Total 272
21
Source: South San Francisco Police Department Survey
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2. Condition of the Housing 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 major repairs--dilapidated/substandard
housing.
Overall, South San Francisco's residential structures are in good
condition. Of the 1,862 structures surveyed, 87.3 percent were
found to be in good condition, 10.7 percent in fair condition, and
2 percent in poor condition. Applying these percentages to the
city as a whole, approximately 2,000 units need minor structural
34
Chapter III. Housing Potential and Constraints
1
2
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.) F~gure24 shows a
percentage breakdown of structural conditions by neighborhood.
5 Figure 24
6
7
Housing Conditions by Neighborhood
City of South San Francisco, California
8 Structures Condition
9 Neighborhocl;;l* Surveyed Good Fair Poor
10 Avalon/Bren-wood 198 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
11 Buri-Buri/Serra Highlands 193 93.0% 7.0% 0.0%
12 Grand Avenue Area 103 88.4% 11.6% 4.8%
1 3 Irish Town 277 73.3% 26.7% 10.1%
14 Mayfair Village/Francisco Terrace 119 82.4% 17.6% 0.0%
3. 5 Paradise Va ley 166 88.6% 10.8% 0.6%
16 Parkway 119 98.3% 1.7% 0.0%
3.7 Peck's Lots 77 83.1% 13.0% 3.9%
'1 8 Southwood 78 93.6% 6.4% 0.0%
3. 9 Sunshine Gardens 136 91.2% 8.8% 0.0%
20 Town of Bacen 85 84.7% 14.1% 1.2%
21 Westboroug'l 155 95.5% 4.5% 0.0%
2 2 Winston Manor 156 ~3.6% 6.4% 0.0%
2 3 TOTAL 1,862 87.3% 10.7% 2.0%
24
25
Source: Windshield Survey, May 1990
* Neighborhood locations are illustrated in Figure 25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
--36
37
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
Winston Manor
Sunxhine Garden~
Paradixe Valley
Parkway
Y
"",~ ., , " , ..::?
· . ' ... .\/A, B ' · '" ":'"'~' -' ........ :'
..... : . ' ' , un BunlSerra Highland~ "'< '~ · -
· ~,,. __.? .... ..: : ..-
. .... ' ~,'~ .~:...:'::--- .: ':,. Town of
';'"', ',' K F ~':.,Bad~.n ."' ",',,.,,,
..~.. ., .... \, ~ \ ,.', · . ,.-:~ ....
~ ............. ~.,~ ..... >x ',".. \, .2 /' '. ..... '-
"--" -':-: ....... ~ ->,~--:4. ", \' F ~ Southw ' ":', "':: ...... :'""
" .:. -',,.'.\ [ \a~ n ooa ,: <: .... - ....
· .. ,~,.~., \', / ..
Mayfatr Village/.....
. :: ".' ',. ~ ~;.,-,.:":.'~"' \. ." Francisco Terrace,::'
· , :_ ...,O.X// ¢:...-':' \ ',...:-. ....:.-.
'": We~tborough I:: ,.,'-., ',- :--,h, "' / "....:. /"
\, ,, ,,~..:,>-:..',. ~.,>xx .-
', '...,-~t' ....... .: ' ' ...x. ~'x,--'X ./'. //X
Irish
Figure 25 of
Residential Neighborhoods South Sari Francisco
GRAPHIC SCALE
APRIl.
Chapter III. Housing Potential and Constraints
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
B. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
1. Availability of Sites
Land is available to build up to 3,000 new dwelling units in South
San Francisco. Significant sites (i.e., those one acre in size or
largerl suitable for residential development have been identified
and are shown in Figure 26. Approximately 342 acres of land are
suitable for development and could accommodate 2,780 dwelling
units. The estimates of potential units in Figure 26 do not take
into account the possibility of density bonuses for low- and me-
dian-income or senior citizen housing. Potentially, all sites lo-
cated in R-3, C-l, and P-C zones could take advantage of density
bonuses. As there are a total of 27.5 vacant acres in these
zones, and density in these zones is typically 30 units per acre,
a 25 percent density bonus means an additional 206 units of
housing could be built, for a maximum of 2,986.
The City has considered the use of under-utilized industrial sites
for housing, but has determined that only one such site is suit-
able--~he Guy F. Atkinson property at the southwest corner of
Railroad and Magnolia Avenues (Site #24 on Flgu~26). The majority
of Soush San Francisco's industrial land is east of the 101 free-
way, and most of this property is not suitable for residential de-
velopment 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 accor-
dance 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-I, R-2, R-3, C-
1, and P-C Zoning districts.
Under the City's zoning provisions, emergency shelters are classi-
fied 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
Land Suitable for
Property Location and Description
Figure 26
Residential Development, Sites of une
City of South San Frandsco, Oalifomia
Potential
Number of
Approx. Zoning
Acre~g~t 0esignation
Acre or Larger
Vacant (V) or
Redevelopable
I South side of Hillside Blvd. between 30a 5.6 R-1-E V
Chestnut and Dolores
2 Sunset & Stonegate 33 4.2 R-1-E V
3 El Camino High School panhandle 17a 2.9 R-1-E V
near Hillside Blvd.
4 Southwest comer of Orange and 11 1.4 R-1-E mostly V
Commercial Aves.
5 Easterly side of Mission Rd., 12 1.5 R-1-E mostly V
between Evergreen Dr. and
Sequoia Ave.
6 Surplus Alta Loma Jr. High School 54 8.0 R-1-E V
property--near Del Monte and
Romney Aves.
7 North side of San Bruno city limits 80 10.3 R-1-E V
between Westborough Blvd. and
Oakmont Dr.
SUBTOTAL (R-1-E Zone) 237 33.9
8 East side of Oak Ave.at Grand Ave. 38 2.5 R-2-H mostly V
9 Southwest side of Appian Way to 81b 7.6 R-2-H V
Gellert Blvd.
Property Owner~
Standard Building Co.
Crosarial
Standard Building Co.
H. Ma~ega~
Cuneo and Carrera
South San Frandsco Unified
School District
American Land Exchange
Oak Farm Ltd.
G.P. St. Francis Hts.,
Westborough Development Co.
Property Location and Desc~tion
10 Unincorporated ama on El Camino
near Hickey Blvd.
11 Stonegate & Hillside
SUBTOTAL (R-2-H Zone)
12 Southwest comer of Grand and Oak
Avenues
13 Northwest comer of Chestnut Ave.
and Mission Rd.
14 Carter Park I and 2; east of Skyline
Blvd., west of Carter Dr.
15 Westerly side of Oak Ave. near
Mission Rd.
SUBTOTAL (R-3-L Zone)
16 West side of Chestnut Ave.
between Treeside Ct. and Sunset
17 Norlheast side of El Camino Real,
north of Kaiser Hospital.
18
19
Westerly side of Mission Rd., south
of Colma city limits.
Sierra Point - East side of U.S. 101,
south of Brisbane dry limits.
20 Comerof Noor and El Camino
SUBTOTAL (P-C-L Zone)
Potential
Number of
354
22
495
33
30
135a
30
228
120
330
45
300
55
730
Approx.
Acreage
31.2
1.5
42.8
1.1
1.0
16.3
1.0
19.4
12.2
11.0
1.5
10.0
1.9
24.4
Zoning
Designation
Prezoned
R-2-H
R-2-H
R-3-L
R-3-L
R-3-L
R-3-L
R-2-G
P-C-L
P-C-L
P-C-L
P-C-L
Vacant (V) or
Redevelopable
R
V
V
V
V
V
mostly V
mostly V
V
V
V
Property Owner~
R.I. McClellan
Augtines
County of San Mateo
California Water Co.
M. Callan
Santo Cristo Society
M. Gemignani, C.P. Nicolini, and
P. Rugged
L. McClellan, PG&E, Caland
Partnership, Schlosser
Properties, and Harmonious
Cuneo and Carrera
Sierra Point Assocs.
Syufi
Property Location and Description
21 Sign Hill
22 South slope of San Bruno Mountain.
23
Potential Vacant (V) or
Number of Approx. Zoning Redevelopable
Units Acreage 0esignation ~
Prol;)erty Owner~
DeVincenzi & Bill
Terrabay
T. Callan
G.F. Atkinson Co.
24
West side of Gellert Blvd. between
Westborough Blvd. and Daly City
limit line.
Southwest corner of Railroad and
Magnolia Aves.
45 45.0 O-S-A V
719c 144.1 Terrabay Specific V
Plan
126a 8.4 C-1 V
80 11.5 P-I mostly V
TOTALS: 2,780 341.7
NOTE: All pamels listed in this figure could be adequately served by existing public facilities and services; development of these parcels would
require on-site connections to existing infrastructure systems (i.e, roads, sewer lines and water supply facilities).
a Under construction as of 2/20/92.
b 46 units under construction as of 2/20/92.
c Density may vary due to geotechnical conditions.
Source: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, City of South San Francisco, Mamh 1990.
Figure 27 '" "" '~
Sites Available for
Residential Development
South
San
City of
Francisco
GRAPHIC SCALE
APRIL 1997.
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
--18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
.... 36
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 2,780 dwelling units
(up to 2,986 with density bonuses) could be constructed on the
available sites identified in this Element (see Figure26). This
total (2,986) exceeds ABAG's projected need by 610 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 27.5 acres in the city's highest density
zoning categories. This land would provide 823 units. If all
developnent on these parcels takes advantage of the City's density
bonus provisions, an additional 206 units can be built, for a
total of 1,029. 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 pro-
visions, 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 Fl~ures26and27. 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 iow- and very Iow-income households. (See Action
2B-4)
The sites and acreage discussed in Flgu~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. Ho~sing Development Projections, 1990-1995
Figure28 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.
FIGure28 shows that, given the location and nature of the potential
42
Chapter III. Housing Potential and Constraints
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
housing sites, a higher percentage of new units will be either
multi-family or townhome/condominium units than in the pass.
Although it appears likely that condominium or multi-family units
will constitute a larger proportion of future units, it is
expected that 83 percent will be affordable only to above
moderate-income households.
Land is available to build 2,986 housing units in five years
(Figures24 and 26), an average of about 597 units per year. 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
priva%e 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.
3. public Facilities and Services
Public facilities and services are available for future residen-
tial development on the sites listed in Figu~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
condisions, although water is not a constraint as of 1992. Should
drought continue, the City would take any necessary steps to
control future development.
43
South San --rancisco Housing Element September 1992
1
2
3
4
5 Site
6 No. Units
7 I 30
8 2 33
9 3 17
10 4 11
11 5 12
12 6 54
13 7 80
14 8 38
15 9 81
1 6 10 354
17 11 22
18 12 33
19 13 30
20 14 135
..... 21 15 30
22 16 120
23 17 330
2 4 18 45
25 19 300
2 6 20 55
27 21 45
2 8 22 719
2 9 23 126
3 0 24 80
31
3 2 TOTALS 2,780
3 3 Percent of
3 4 Totals 100%
35 Additional Units from Density
3 6 Bonuses 206
37 Source:
38
Figure 28
Housing Potential by Type and Affordabllity
City of South San Francisco, California
AFFORDABILITY
HOUSING TYPF: Very Above
SF Condo M-F Low Low Mod Mod
3O 30
33 33
17 17
11 11
12 12
80 80
38 15 23
81 81
354 354
22 22
33 13 20
30 12 18
135 135
30 12 18
120 120
330 132 198
45 18 27
300 18 12 15 255
55 55
45 45
125 594 719
126 88 38
80 8O
568 1,225 987 18 12 305 2,445
20% 44% 36% 1% <1% 11% 88%
-- -- 206 0 165 --
Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, City of South
San Francisco, 1992.
41
44
Chapter III. Housing Potential and Constraints
1 C.
2 1.
,AVAILABILITY OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
,Housing Programs
3 South San Francisco has only modest financial resources and staff
4 to support housing assistance programs. Recent reductions in
5 funding for federal and State assistance programs act to constrain
6 the provision of housing for families of modest incomes.
7 Nevercheless, the South San Francisco Housing Authority continues
8 to manage and rent 80 units of public housing for low-income
9 tenants. While the number of units of public housing is unlikely
10 to be increased under current federal policies, the City will
11 assisc the Housing Authority in maintaining the existing number of
12 units. In addition, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
13 has available the 20 percent housing set-aside funds to assist
14 housing programs. (See Action Programs under Policy 2D in Chapter
15 IV.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
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 Un~ts
In tke 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
whick 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 September 1992
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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. Fairw~2f Apartments, 77 Westborough Ro~]ev~rd. 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.
22 b. Skyline View Gardens, 3880 Callan Boulevard. This project
23 contains a total of 160 units, 78 of which are assisted under Sec-
24 tion 8 contract and available to families. The project was origi-
25 nally provided with a $2,823,700 HUD loan. The project owner may
26 prepay the loan (thereby canceling the low-income use restric-
27 tions] by March 15, 1994, or may stay in the Section 236 program
28 for an additional 20 years. The owner is entitled to terminate
29 the Section 8 contract on September 20, 1996.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
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 IIL Housing Potential and Constraints
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
--19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
....... 37
38
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
restricsions 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 uhat full advantage is taken of the LIHPRHA incentives to
preserve low-income housing.
c. Ro~ary Plaza. 433 Alida Way. 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 no~ 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 September 1992
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
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 tkese 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.1
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.1 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 U~e 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 III. Housing Potential and Constraints
1
2
3
4
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.
5
Figure 29
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
--17
18
19
Low-income Units at Risk of Conversion
Earliest Date of
Number Subsidy Subsidy Termination
Pm!ect Addres~ of Units Program Section B Other
Fairway Ap&rtments 77 Westborough 74 221 (D)(4) 1995 ..1
Skyline View Gardens 3880 Callan 78 236(J)(1) 1996 19942
Rotary Plaza 433 Alida Way 116 236(J)(L)/202 1992 20123
Source: Ca ifornia Coalition for Rural Housing, Inventory of Low-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.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
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 Sa/~ Francisco Housing Element September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
__ 36
The San Francisco Bay Area has experienced considerable seis-
mic activity in the past. Events registering in excess of
6.( on the Richter Scale occurred in 1836, 1838, 1868, 1906,
19].1, 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.
· Expansive 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.
Tkese areas may present foundation problems for existing
structures.
5O
Chapte. r I!1. Housing Potential and Constraints
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
be
· Lands]ides. 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.
Biotic Resource Conflicts:
· The South Slope of San Bruno Mountain. 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 Smn 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-
;ion 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 ~.ajor 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 September 1992
1
2
are those from Runways 28-Right and 28-Left proceeding northwest-
ward through the San Bruno Gap. Detailed discussions of aviation
noise are contained in the City's Noise Element.
4
5
6
7
8
9
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-l, for further discussion.)
10 Other major local sources of noise in the city are highways,
11 streets, and railroads. Two major freeways, U.S. 101 and Inter-
12 state Route 280, pass through South San Francisco. U.S. 101 runs
13 along 5he eastern portion of the city, dividing the predominantly
14 industrial Bayside Area from the remaining districts. Interstate
15 280 is located in the western part of the city and passes near
16 residential districts in the San Bruno Gap and southward. State
17 Route 82, (El Camino Real) runs northwest to southeast through the
18 center of South San Francisco. State Route 35, Skyline Boulevard,
19 forms ~he western boundary of the city. The location of all free-
20 way and highway corridors is shown on the Circulation Plan Diagram
21 contained in the Circulation Element.
22
23
24
25
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.
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
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).
Chapter. II1. Housing Potential and Constraints
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
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,
existir.g 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 E1 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 co.mmunity'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-
tersecuion of Gellert Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard.
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2. Zoning Controls
The zoning designation of each potential housing development site
is listed in Flgu~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 Fl§ure30). In addi-
tion, the Zoning Ordinance employs a system of "density designa-
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
2
3
4
2. Zoning Controls
The zoning designation of each potential housing development site
is listed in F~gu~ 25. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance can be
made by the City Council.
5 Zoning is one tool used to implement the policies and programs of
6 the General Plan. Zoning establishes location and density
7 constraints consistent with the General Plan and guides
8 residential uses away from incompatible uses and environmental
9 hazards and conflicts. The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
10 limits the number of dwelling units to a maximum of about 22,000
11 to 25,000. Given that the city currently has about 19,000 housing
12 units, the city is close to being "built-out." As explained in
13 section B of this chapter, current zoning will allow the
14 construction of about 3,000 new units on vacant and redevelopable
15 sites.
16
17
--18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
~35
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~). In addi-
tion, the Zoning Ordinance employs a system of "density designa-
Chapter III. Housing Potential and Constraints
1
2
3
4
5
6
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. F~gure31 illustrates the range of
possible densities allowed by this designation system. Figure32
shows the parking requirements for residential u~e~ az e~tabli~hed
by the Zoning Ordinance.
7
8
9
10
11
Figure 30
7oning District
Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations
City of South San Francisco, California
Minimum Yard Dimensions* (in feet)
Front Side Rear
12 'R-1 15 5 20
13 R-2 15 5 20
14 R-3 15 5 10-11.5
15 C-1 15 0-10 0
16 D-C 0 0 0
17
1 8 * All yard requirements subject to additional conditions and terms stated in Zoning Ordinance text.
19
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Table 20.71.030.
20
21
22
23
24
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.
25 b. Secondary Units:
26
27
28
29
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.
30 The Ordinance (Section 20.79.020) states that no more than one
31 residential second unit is permitted on any one parcel or lot
32 which has one existing single-family detached dwelling unit.
33 Second units are required to be within or attached to the existing
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
1
2
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.
9
10
11
Figure 31
Zoning Density Regulations
City of South San Francisco, California
D~s~gnator
Density
(Maximum Units
per Net Acre)
Maximum Site Area
per Dwelling Unit
(square feet)
12 A I 43,560
13 B 1.3 32,600
14 C 5 8,710
15 D 6 7,260
16 E 8 5,445
17 F 8.7 5,000
18 G 10 4,360
1 9 H 15 2,904
2 0 i 17.5 2,500
2 1 J 40 1,090
22 K 43 1,000
2 3 L 21.8-30 1,452-2,000
24
2 5 Note: All density requirements subject to additional conditions and terms stated in Zoning Ordinance
2 6 text.
27
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Table 20.69.020.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
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.
Chapter III. Housing Potential and Constraints
Figure 32
2
3
4
Resider.rial Use Type
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.
Family residential uses in Downtown Commercial
District, in buildings with 4 or fewer units (1-bed-
room units with 800 square feet or less and/or stu-
dio units with 500 square feet or less).
Parking Requirements
City of South San Francisco, California
Parking. Requirement
2 spaces (1 enclosed) per unit for dwellings with
fewer than five bedrooms and less than 2,500
square feet in size.
3 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit with five or more
bedrooms, or for any dwelling unit with a gross
floor area of 2,500 square feet or greater.
2 spaces per unit (with at least I space covered),
plus one guest space per every four units.
2.25 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit if project has
driveway aprons at least 18 feet long. Otherwise,
4.25 spaces (2 enclosed) per unit.
I space for each sleeping room.
0.50 space to 1.25 spaces per unit (to be deter-
mined by Planning Commission).
I covered space per unit plus 0.25 uncovered
space per unit for guest parking.
5 Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.74.040.
6 c. Manufactured Housing:
7 Manufactured housing can provide quality housing at a reasonable
8 price. The recent trend in State legislation has been to encour-
9 age komeowners to place and finance manufactured homes on single-
10 family lots. As a result, mobile homes as well as factory-built
11 housing may now be taxed as real estate and may be set on perma-
12 nent foundations, in common with conventional site-built housing.
13 Passage of SB 1004 in 1979 and SB 1422 in 1980 made all manufac-
14 turec homes sold after July 1, 1980, subject to property taxation
15 at the same rate as conventional dwellings. The legislation
16 qualified owners and renters of manufactured homes for State tax
57
South San Francisco Housing E/ement September 1992
3
4
5
6
7
8
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.
9 The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance allows manufac-
10 tured housing in all zoning districts where residential uses a~e
11 permi';ted or conditionally permitted. The regulations state that
12 "a design review approval...shall be required for all manufactured
13 homes on residential lots, provided that the scope of review shall
14 be limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding mate-
15 rial. Manufactured homes on residential lots shall be treated in
16 this title the same as single-family dwellings in all other re-
17 spects" (Zoning Ordinance Sections 20.14.040 through 20.34.040).
18 Between 1985 and 1990, the City received two applications for man-
19 ufactured housing units, both of which were approved.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
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. Ruildlng 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.
Soutk 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
Soutk San Francisco is not a constraint on housing development.
4. City Permit Processing and Fee~
Builcing permits must be secured before beginning any construc-
tion, reconstruction, conversion, alteration, or addition to a
Chapter I. II. Housing Potential and Constraints
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
-- 38
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. Figure33 compares fees for a 100-unit
subdivision (25-acre site) with three-bedroom and two-bath (1,500
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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. Infrastructure Improvements
A conplete 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 ~gu~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.
6O
City/County Plannina
Figure 33
COMPARISON OF lll=V;I ~PFR Fr=r:S
City of South San Francisco, California
Ruilding Sub-Total
~rowth I Itilities Total
South SF $ 52
Belmont 416
Foster City 33
Half Moon Bay 160
Pacifica 125
San Carlos 90
San Mateo 22
$1,416 $1,468 $ 4.181 $ 0 $ 5,649
1,535 1,951 8,250 2,810 1 3,011
1,364 1,397 5,555 3,263 1 0,21 5
1,437 1,597 10,276 10,199 22,072
650 775 6,451 3,975 1 1,201
1,473 1,563 4,963 1,600 8,1 26
1,390 1,41 2 7,562 1,260 1 0,234
San Mateo County Average $128
South SF as % of 41%
County average
$1,324 $1,452 $6,748 $3,301 $1 1,501
07% 1 01% 62% 0% 4 9 %
Bay Area Average $188 $1,539 $1,727 $7,306 $4,778
South SF as % of 28% 92% 85% 57% 0%
Bay area Average
Based on a hypothetical 100-unit single-family subdivision with 1,500 square foot homes and a land value of $200,000 per acre.
Source:Develol;)ment Fee Survey for the S;n Francisco R;~y Region, Building Industry Association of Northern California, 1991, and
Department of Economic and Community Development, City of South San Francisco, March 1992.
$13,811
41%
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
i E. MARKET CONSTRAINTS
2 1. ~.and Cost~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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.
11 Land costs in South San Francisco are fairly typical of those in
12 San Mateo County. The cost of a single-family in-fill lot is
13 roughly $100,000, or about one quarter of the typical cost of a
14 new, three- to five-bedroom home in the city (approximately
15 $400,000). (Telephone conversation with Andy Cresci, Vice ?resi-
16 dent, Standard Building Company, January 22, 1990). Land costs
17 are somewhat lower for subdivisions. Data from the San Mateo
18 County Assessor's office show that land for subdivision projects
19 has sold from a iow of $270,000 per acre to a high of $640,000 per
20 acre. These figures translate into a cost of $50,000 to $96,000
21 per lot, depending on size and location. (Figures were derived
22 from sales data for the Parkway Estates II, Foothill Estates,
23 Avalon Heights, and Alden Heights projects, between 1988 and
24 1990.)
25
26
Clearky, rising land costs have constrained the development of af-
fordable housing.
27 2. Construct ] on Cost~
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
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,
Chapter ill. 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.)
5 While construction costs averaged $70 per square foot, City permit
6 and processing fees for a single-family home (as presented in Sec-
7 tion D.4.) averaged about $4 per square foot. Thus, in comparison
8 to fees, construction costs make up a substantial portion of hous-
9 ing costs, and cannot be controlled by the City.
10
11
12
Figure 34
Components of Housing Cost
City of South San Francisco, California
109'o
2%
4%
10%
5%
42%
27%
ILand
[] Construction
[] Improvements
[] Fees
[] Financing
[] Overhead and Profit
[] Sales cost
13
14
15
Source: Adapted from Bay Area Council, Taxing the American Dream, 1988. Figures are adjusted for
higher la'~d cost and lower level of fees in South San Francisco.
South San Francisco Housing Element September 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3. Cost Rnd AvRi]abil~ty of F~nRnclng
The availability of money is a significant factor in both the cost
and 5he supply of housing. Both (1) capital used by developers
for Lnitial 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 5he 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
$70,900 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. Recent Market RKperience
25 From 1970 to 1980, housing was produced in South San Francisco at
26 an average rate of 375 units per year. Housing production slowed
27 substantially during the early 1980s and early 1990s as a result
28 of the adverse financial conditions described above and two
29 nationwide economic recessions.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
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 Flgu~21.) 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
Chapter I!1. Housing Potential and Constraints
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
construc;ed 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
lC-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 Ac;ion 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.)
IV. HOUSING PLAN.'AND PROGRAMS
1
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.
4
5
Policy lA. Avoid deterioration due to a lack of maintenance of existing dwelling
units and provide Iow-cost rehabilitation programs for their Improvement.
6
7
Action lA-1. Support the Housing Rehabilitation Program with
continued CDBG funding.
8
9
10
11
12
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.
13
14
15
16
17
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 40 Units by 1995.
18
19
Action lA-2. Aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and
safety codes.
20
21
22
23
Responsibility of: City Attorney, Building Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General fund
Quantified Objective: NQ
24
25
26
Policy lB. 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.
27
Action lB-1. Support Private Market Construction.
28
29
30
31
32
33
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Chapter IV. 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 T] after subtracting units to
be produced by all other construc-
tion programs.)
Action lB-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 lC. Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of
housing units In well planned neighborhoods.
Action IC-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 August 1992
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
(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: Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: Complete review and amendments by
1995.
Action lC-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:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Public Works Department and Planning
division.
On-going
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.
Ail 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
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Goal 2.
Chapter IV. 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
Continue to support the provision of housing by both the private and
public sector for all Income groups in the community.
Policy 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 August 1992
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
(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
Iow- and very iow-income households.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: (not applicable)
Quantified Objective: NQ
Porcy 28. Stimulate the construction of lower cost units by providing Incentives
and encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, and
manufactured housing.
Action 2B-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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Action 2B-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 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.
Action 2B-3. Grant a "Density Bonus" to developments that in-
clude low-income, very low-income or senior citizen
units.
71
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
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
Quantified Objective: 206 units by 1995.
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
--36
37
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. Cur-
rently, the maximum residential density with a density
bonus is 37.5 units per acre. The intent is to look at
compatible land uses including public evaluation of an
increase in residential densities above 37.5 units per
acre.
'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 2B-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: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: Currently authorized
Funding Source: ' General Fund
Quantified Objective: Complete by 1995.
Action 2B-6. Appoint a Housing Programs Administrator to oversee
Housing Element Programs and maintain the element.
A contributing weakness to meeting previous Housing Ele-
ment objectiues was the lack of housing expertise and
program management oversight. The City will secure
funding for a half-time staff position or consultant to
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
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
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.
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Commence 1992-93 budget year
20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund, CDBG funds, and
General Fund for remaining nonJ
qualifying functions
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2C. Suppo~ effo~s 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
Action 2C-2. Allocate Redevelopment funds to non-profit housing
agencies that assist in providing or developing low-in-
come housing.
74
Chapter IV. Housing P/an and Programs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
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:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
1992-1996
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.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Department of Economic and Community
Development
On-going
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 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 Ci;y'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
activi;ies 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-
ment activity. Replacement must occur within four years (either
within or outside the project area).
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
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
$1,000,300 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.
This would be similar to the upgrading of the Sundial fa-
cility by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition. Facilities of
77
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
--18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
this type in the Downtown/Central Project Area could be
improved or converted to apartments.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency
1992-1995
20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 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:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency
1992-1995
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:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency
1994-1995
20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-aside Fund
78
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
--16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
--32
33
Quantified Objective: Assist five units by 1995.
Actio~ 2D-5. Continue to enforce limits on conversion 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
Action 2D-6. Retain 268 units subsidized under Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 contracts
for lower-income seniors and families.
South Sar, Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~" 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
..... 38
39
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:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Department of Economic and Community
Development
On-going
LIH?RHA and 20 percent Redevelopment
Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Retain 268 affordable at-risk units.
8O
ChalYter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
__18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Policy 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:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division and
City Manager's Office
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Actioc 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-
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
1987, took advantage of this program.
The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, authorized by
Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1984, provides finan-
cial assistance to first-time home-buyers for the pur-
81
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
....... 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
__34
chase of single-family homes, townhouses, and condomini-
ums.
An MCC gives the home-buyer a federal income tax credit
each year the buyer keeps the same mortgage loan and
lives in the same house. The MCC tax credit typically
equals 20 percent of the mortgage interest paid each
year. That 20 percent is subtracted dollar-for-dollar
from federal income taxes.
Eligibility requirements:
· 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
MCC often means the difference between being able and not
being able to buy a home.
82
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
__ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
...... 36
37
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:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
San Mateo County Department of Hous-
ing and Community Development
On-going
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.
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
83
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
---18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
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.
Actioa 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
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 Iow-income senior citizens.
84
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
~ ,-35
36
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 3B-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
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
85
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
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.
Pollc; 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
affordable and higher density housing and mixed use
developments.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
On-going
NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
86
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Policy 3F. Insure provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large
families.
Action 3F-1. Require that 20 percent of all below-market-rate
housing are three- and four-bedroom units.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 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
Neighborhood Services Center, and to other
agencies to try to prevent homelessness.
Peninsula
qualified
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
On-going
CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment
Housing Set-Aside Fund
Quantified Objective: 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.
Responsibility of:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
On-going
CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment
Housing Set-Aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Provide transitional shelter for 550
person-nights per year.
87
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.... 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
..... 34
35
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: Department of Economic and Community
Development, CDBG Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 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 safety problems)
unless adequate mitigation measures are taken.
Action 5A-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 law if major environmental hazards are found. The
City shall not approve the projects unless the hazards
are adequately mitigated.
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: Ail residential projects.
88
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Policy 5B. Require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with
adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and otl~er
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.
Policy 5D. Assist owners of existing clwellings 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.).
89
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
~18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
This is a broad-based project to reduce aircraft-associ-
ated noise inside residences. This program is available
to all owner-occupied households, regardless of income
level. It is completely funded by federal and local
funds. The program is not yet available to homes occu-
pied by renters. After completion of the program for
owner-occupied dwellings, the City will initiate a pro-
gram 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 No. of Structures Ststl~s
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
Phase VI
Phase VII
12 homes & 2 schools
46 homes
60 homes
44 homes
110 homes
200 homes
100 homes
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funded, but
not begun.
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:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Department of Public Works, Engi-
neering Division
On-going
80 percent Federal Government; 20
percent San Francisco International
Airport
Quantified Objective: Insulate 300 units between 1990 and
1995
Policy 5E. Foster efforts to conserve energy In residential structures.
90
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.... 17
18
19
2O
21
ChaPter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Actior 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: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Building Division
Time Frame: Onlgoing
Funding Source: City Budget
Quantified Objective: State standards enforced in all new
construction.
Action 5E-2. Assist energy 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.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Figure35 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
or improvement of 870 units. The majority (445) of these units
would be available to iow- 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 iow- or Iow-
income households.
91
South San Francisco Housing Element August 1992
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
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
estimase 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 Iow- 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 FigLre 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 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.
92
' Chapter IV. Housing Plan and Programs
Figure 35
Summary of Quantified Objectives by Income Level
City of South San Francisco, California
Total Very Above
Construction Programs Units Low Low Moderate Moderate
1B-1. Private Market Construction 1,567 18 12 217 1,320
2B-1. Mixed Use 126 ' 88 38
2B-2. Second Units 2 2
2B-3. Density Bonus 206 165 41
2B-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 1 2 9 344 504 1,399
Rehabilitation
1A-1.
2D-2.
2E-4.
3A-2.
3D-1.
5D-1
Total
Programs
Single-Family Rehabilitation 50 25 25
Improvements to SROs 60 60
Apartment Rehabilitation 85 65 20
Low-income senior home repair 200 190 10
Disabled Access 125 120 5
Airport noise insulation 300 300
Rehabilitation 8 2 0 4 6 0 6 0 3 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
Assistance Programs
2C-3. Home Sharing
2E-2. Mortgage Credit Certificate
Total Assistance
0 0 0
200 135 40 25
15 15
215 135 40 40
93
Appendix A SUMMARY OF HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES, ACTIONS, AND
RESPONSIBILITIES (SHORT TITLES)
Summary of Action
Respons- Time Funding Quant I fled
Iblllty Frame Source Objective
GOAL 1: ATTRACTIVE, HEALTHFUL, SAFE HOUSING
Policy lA. Low-cost rehabilitation programs.
lA-1. Support the Housing
Rehabili t&t ion Program.
1A-2. Aggressively enforce housing,
building, and safety codes.
Policy lB. Provide assistance to stimulate private
housing . development.
IB-1. Support private market
construction.
lB-2. Annexation of Site 10
Policy lC. Encourage a variety of housing units In
well planned neighborhoods.
1C-1. Review the Zoning Ordinance.
1C-2.
Provide adequate public
facilities.
CDBG
Division
City
Attorney,
Building
Planning
Planning
Planning
Public
Works,
Planning
On-going
On-going
On-going
In
Progress
On-going
On-going
RDA Set-Aside
and CDBG
General fund
NA
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
50 Units by
1995.
NQ
1,567 units
by 1995.
Complete by
1995.
Review and
amendments
by 1995
NQ
Summary of Action
Respons- Time
Iblllty Frame
1C 3. Promotc quality dcsign in Tcchnical On-going
new development and rehab- Advisory
ilitation efforts. Group
GOAL 2: PROVISION OF HOUSING BY BOTH THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS
Policy 2A. Eliminate const~lnts to affoMable
housing.
2A-1. Promote affordable housing.
Planning On-going
Policy 2B. Stimulate con.ruction of lower co~
units.
2B-1. Encourage a mix of uses in
Commercial and Office Zoning
Districts.
2B-2. Encourage the development of
"Second Housing Units."
2B-3. Grant a "Density Bonus# to
developments that include
low-income, very iow-income
or senior citizen units.
2B-4. Study increasing residential
densities around future BART
station.
2B-5. Study increasing residential
densities in the downtown area.
Planning On-going
Planning On-going
Planninq 1992
Planning In
progress
Planning
Currently
authorized
Funding
Source
General Fund
NA
NA
NA
NA
General Fund
General Fund
Quantified
Objective
NQ
NQ
126 units
by 1995.
Two units
by 1995.
206 units
by 1995.
350 units
by 1995.
Complete by
1995
A-2
Summary of Action
Respons-
Ibility
Time
Frame
Funding
Source
Quantified
Objective
2B-6.
Appoint a Housing Progr~m.q
Administrator.
Policy 2C. Support efforts of non-governmental
sponsors to generate affordable
housing.
2C-1. Maintain a list of major
organizations participating
in housing-related activities.
2C-2. Allocate Redevelopment funds
to non-profit housing agencies.
2C-3. Support home sharing program.
Policy 2D. Involve the City directly In retaining and
Increasing the supply of affordable
housing.
2D-1. Operate and rent 80 units of
public housing.
2D-2. Financial assistance for
phvsical improvements to SROs.
2D-3.
Acquire land for rental
pro~ects.
Planning
Planning
CDBG
Division
ECD
Housing
Authority
RDA
RDA
1992-93
On-going
1992-1996
On-going
On-going
1992-1995
1992-1995
CDBG, RDA
Set-Aside,
General Fund
City Budget
20 percent
RDA Set-Aside
20 percent
RDA Set Aside
HUD funds and
rents
20 percent
RDA Set-aside
20 percent
RDA Set-aside
NQ
NQ
60 units by
1995.
200 units,
1990-1995
Preserve 80
units.
Upgrade 60
Rooms by
1995
Acquire
land for 60
units by
1995.
A-3
Summary of Action
Respons-
Ibility
Time
Frame
Funding
Source
Quantified
Objective
2D-4.
2D-5.
2D-6.
Subsidize puzchases o,' buy
down the developer's cost of
rental units.
Limit conversion of apartment
units to condominiums.
Retain 268 HUD subsidized
units "at-risk".
Policy 2E. Cooperate with other governmental
agencies and take an active Interest In
seeking solutions to area-wide housing
problems.
2E-1. Support legislation to make
housing more affordable for
owners and renters.
2E-2.
Participate in County's Housing
Revenue Bond and Mortgage
Credit Certificate programs.
2E-3.
2E-4.
Support San Mateo County's
Federal Section 8 Housing
Assistance Program.
Provide interest-free loans
for rehabilitating apartments.
RDA
Planning
ECD
Planning
and City
Manager' s
Office
County
Housing
ECD
CDBG
Division
1994-1995
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-qoinq
On-going
On-going
20 percent
RDA Set-aside
NA
20 percent
RDA Set-aside
NA
California
Debt Limit
Allocation
Committee
HUD
HUD
5 units by
1995
NQ
Retain 268
at-risk
units
NQ
Issuance of
15 MCCs an-
nually.
342 units
by 1992.
85 units
A-4
Summary of Action
Respons-
Ibility
Time
Frame
Funding
Source
Quantified
Objective
GOAL 3: HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Policy 3A. Encourage non-profit groups to provide
housing for the elderly.
3A-1. Offer a density bonus for
senior housing.
3A-2. Fund repairs of homes owned
and occupied by Iow-income
senior citizens.
Planning
CDBG
Division
Policy 3B. Encourage residential board and care
facilities for the elderly.
3B-1. Reduce parking requirements
for this use.
Planning
Policy 3C. Handicapped accessible units In all
housing projects.
3C-I. Review development plans and
require modifications.
But lding
Policy 3D. Modify existing units to serve the needs
of disabled citizens.
3D-1.
Provide funds to make housing
accessible to the disabled.
CDBG
Division
On-going
On-qoinq
On-going
On-going
On-going
NA
CDBG funds
NA
NA
CDBG funds
50 units by
1995.
200 units
by 1995.
NQ
All projects
to meet State
and federal
standards.
125 units
by 1995.
A-5
Summary of Action
Respons-
Ibility
Time
Frame
Funding
Source
Quantified
Objective
Policy 3E. Provide for the special housing needs of
female-headed households.
3E-1. Encourage childcare facilities
within or near affordable
housing developments.
Policy 3F. Insure provision of affordable housing
suitable for large families.
3F-1. Require that 20 percent of all
iow income housing units have
three or four bedrooms.
Policy 3G. Assist the homeless and those et risk of
becoming homeless.
3G-1. Emergency rent funds to avoid
eviction, or to rent an apart-
ment.
3G-2 Funds for transitional housing.
GOAL 4: ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING
Policy 4A. Eliminate housing discrimination by race,
sex, age, religion and national origin.
4A-1. Advice and services concerning
fair housing laws, rights and
remedies.
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
CDBG
Division
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
NA
NA
20 percent
RDA Set-Aside
Fund, CDBG
20 percent
RDA Set-Aside
Fund, CDBG
CDBG
NQ
15 units by
1995.
Allocate
$12,000 per
year.
550 person-
nights per
year.
10 cases
pursued an-
nually.
A-6
Summary of Action
Respons-
Ibility
Time
Frame
Funding
Source
Quantified
Objective
GOAL 5: PROTECT HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS FROM HAZARDS
Policy 5A. Prohibit new residential development In
areas containing major environmental
hazards.
5A-1.
Review residential projects for
ma~or environmental hazards.
Planning
On-going
Policy 5B. Require the design of new housing and
neighborhoods to comply with adopted
building security standards.
5B-1. Continue to administer Chapter
15.48 of the Municipal Code.
Police
Dept.
On-going
Policy 5C. Require new residential developments to
comply with the Aircraft NolselLand Use
Compatibility Standards.
5C-1. Review new residential develop-
ment for compliance with County
Land Use Plan.
Planning
and
Building
On-going
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Ail
residential
projects.
Ail new units
shall comply
with City
standards.
Ail new pro-
jects shall
comply with
Airport Land
Use Plan and
City Noise
Element.
A-7
Summary of Action
Respons-
Ibility
Time
Frame
Funding
Source
Quantified
Objective
Policy 5D. Assist owners of existing dwellings to
mitigate the Impact of alrpo~ noise.
SD-1 Assist homeowners in insulating
units adversely affected by
airport noise.
Policy 5E. Foster efforts to conserve energy In
residential structures.
5E-1.
Provide information on energy-
efficiency standards.
5E-2.
Assist energy conserving
modifications in existing
residential buildings.
Public
Works,
Engi-
neering
Buildinq
CDBG
Division
On-going
On-qoinq
On-going
80 percent
federal, 20
percent San
Francisco In-
ternational
Airport
City Budqet
CDBG funds
Insulate 300
units 1990-
1995
State stan-
dards met in
all new con-
struction.
Ten units
annually.
A-8
RESOLUTION NO. 165-92
Exhibit B
Revisions to Housing Element Update Text (September 1992 draft) directed by City
Council.
At their meeting of December 9, 1992 the City Council directed the following revisions
be made to the September 1992 draft of the Housing Element. Additions are indicated
by a grey st ading over the text and deletions are indicated by a line drawn through the
text.
1. Subsection D.l.c. of Chapter III (page 51-52 lines 31-36 and 1-3) is revised to read as
follows:
c. Noise Level Incompatibility:
The major mobile noise source affecting South San Francisco is aircraft
from San Francisco International Airport located immediately 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 impose the most intense noise levels on the
widest residential areas are those from Runways 28-Right and 28-Left
prt~ecding northwest-ward tllrougl~ the San Bruno (.;ap. 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
Departure roule. Delailed discussions of avialion noise are contained in
the City's Noise Element.
2. Action 2B-2 of Chapter IV (page 71) is revised to read as follows:
Action 2B-2. Support the development of "Second Housing Units."
In geaeral, 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
know ~ 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
const_mction 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 So~th San Francisco, a second unit is defined as a separate, complete
housekeeping unit with kitchen, sleeping, and full bathroom facilities and
whicl: is located on the same parcel or lot and attached to the primary
unit. (South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 20.06 (f).)
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
~uare feet in area, that the second unit must utilize the same exterior
doorways as the primary unit and that they shall I~ot 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:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
Department of Economic and Community
Development, Planning Division
On-going
NA
Two units by 1995.