HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-24 e-packet
A
GENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2009
7:00 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
Public Comment:For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City
Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item noton the Agenda
(except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation
and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive
action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address
(optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Mayor
MARK N. ADDIEGOPEDRO GONZALEZ
Vice MayorCouncilman
RICHARD A. GARBARINOKEVIN MULLIN
CouncilmanCouncilman
RICHARD BATTAGLIAKRISTA MARTINELLI-LARSON
City TreasurerCity Clerk
BARRY M. NAGELSTEVEN T. MATTAS
City ManagerCity Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to anopen
session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it
relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The
address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Announcements.
Committee Reports.
Consideration of City Council Summer Schedule.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.Motion to approve the minutes of May 20,2009.
2.Motion to confirm the expense claims of June 24, 2009.
3.Resolution calling a General Election, Setting Candidate Statement requirements
pursuant to Elections Code Section 13307, Requesting that the Board of Supervisors of
San Mateo County consolidate aGeneral Municipal Election with the Regular Election to
be held on November 3, 2009, Requestingthat the County Registrar perform certain
Election services in connection with such Election,and authorizing the City Manager to
reimburse the County for Election services.
PUBLIC HEARING
4.Resolution establishing Increased Sewer Service Rates for Fiscal Year (FY)2009-10
through 2013-14, Amending the Master Fee Schedule to include the rates, Adopting the
“Report of Annual Sewer Rentals and Charges” for Fiscal Year 2009-10, and establishing
maximum not to exceed rates for Fiscal Years 2010-11 through 2013-14.
5.Resolution establishing Stormwater Management Program Rate Structure for Fiscal Year
2009-2010; and Resolution adopting the Public Works Director’s report of Fiscal Year
2009-2010 Stormwater Management Service Fees.
6.Resolution recommending that the San Mateo County Flood Control District impose
basic and additional charges for funding the expanded scope of work for the 2009/10
Annual National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) County Wide
Stormwater Management Plan General Program and Fee.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGJUNE 24, 2009
AGENDAPAGE 2
7.Resolution making findings and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND08-
0002) for the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update (P08-00271).
Resolution making findings and adopting the South San Francisco General Plan Housing
Element Update (P08-00271).
ADMINISTRATIVEBUSINESS
8.Resolution approving Conference Center Authority Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget for the
South San Francisco Conference Center.
9.Resolution approving Fiscal Year 2009-10 Interimfunding for the South San Francisco
Conference Center.
10.Resolution approving the 2009-10 Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco.
11.Resolution approving the proposed Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2009-
2010 and determining that the program is consistent with the General Plan.
12.Resolution providing Interim Spending Authority for the First 60 days of the 2009-10
Fiscal Year.
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
13.Waive reading and introduce the Ordinance eliminatingthe time limit on the
establishment of loans, advances, and indebtednessin the original Downtown/Central
Redevelopment Project Area.
14.Waive readingand introduce the Ordinance eliminatingthe time limit on the
establishment of loans, advances, and indebtedness in the original El Camino Corridor
Redevelopment Project Area.
COMMUNITY FORUM
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGJUNE 24, 2009
AGENDAPAGE 3
City of South San Francisco
General Plan
Housing Element
May 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................i
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................i
Housing Accomplishments 1999 to 2006........................................................................................ii
Housing Needs and Market Conditions..........................................................................................iv
Regional Housing Needs Allocation..............................................................................................vii
Housing Constraints & Resources..................................................................................................ix
Housing Plan....................................................................................................................................x
Introduction.....................................................................................................................1
Role and Content of Housing Element............................................................................................1
Relationship with General Plan.......................................................................................................2
Related Planning Efforts..................................................................................................................2
Other City Efforts............................................................................................................................3
Public Participation..........................................................................................................................3
Organization of Housing Element...................................................................................................3
Review of Housing Element Past Performance............................................................4
New Residential Construction.........................................................................................................4
Maintenance of Existing Affordable Housing Stock.......................................................................6
Special Needs Populations...............................................................................................................7
Equal Opportunity...........................................................................................................................7
Neighborhood Safety and Energy Conservation..............................................................................8
Housing Element Changes...............................................................................................................8
Housing Needs Assessment..........................................................................................9
Regional Context.............................................................................................................................9
Population and Household Trends.................................................................................................10
Employment Trends.......................................................................................................................13
Housing Characteristics.................................................................................................................17
Market Conditions.........................................................................................................................25
Housing Affordability....................................................................................................................29
Projected Housing Needs...............................................................................................................35
Special Housing Needs..................................................................................................................37
Housing Constraints.....................................................................................................48
Government Constraints................................................................................................................48
Housing for Persons with Disabilities...........................................................................................59
Non-Governmental Constraints.....................................................................................................62
Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints..................................................................................64
Opportunities for Energy Conservation.........................................................................................65
Housing Resources.......................................................................................................66
Available Sites for Housing...........................................................................................................66
Financial Resources.......................................................................................................................81
Opportunities for Energy Conservation.........................................................................................82
Summary........................................................................................................................................83
Housing Plan.................................................................................................................84
Promote New Housing Development............................................................................................85
Remove Constraints to Housing Development..............................................................................89
Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods..............................................................................91
Maintain and Improve Quality of Life...........................................................................................94
Support Development of Special Housing Needs..........................................................................96
Assure Equal Access to Housing.................................................................................................101
Energy Conservation...................................................................................................................103
Quantified Objectives..................................................................................................................105
Means to Achieve Consistency with Remainder of General Plan...............................................105
Related Plans & Policy Documents.............................................................................................106
Appendix A: Housing Accomplishments, 1999 to 2006..........................................107
Appendix B: Comparison of Housing Permit Issuance by Jurisdiction...............114
Appendix C: Home Price Affordability Calculations by Income Level..................116
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms................................................................118
Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006...................................5
Table 2: Housing Permit Issuance by Income Level, July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006........................5
Table 3: Housing Production by Income Level, 1999 to 2006..........................................................6
Table 4: Population and Household Trends, 1990 to 2008...............................................................11
Table 5: Age Distribution, 2008.......................................................................................................12
Table 6: Household Income Distribution, 2008................................................................................13
Table 7: Jobs by Sector, 2003 to 2007.............................................................................................14
Table 8: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2008..................................................................15
Table 9: Employment Trends, 2003 to 2007 (a)..............................................................................16
Table 10: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2005 to 2035............................................17
Table 11: Housing Structures, Year Built, 2000 (a).........................................................................18
Table 12: Housing Conditions, South San Francisco, 2000.............................................................18
Table 13: Housing Units by Type, 2000 to 2008 (a)........................................................................20
Table 14: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 1999 to 2008 (a).....................21
Table 15: Overcrowded Households, 2000 (a).................................................................................22
Table 16: Inventory of Income-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2009..................................23
Table 17: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis, Fairview Apartments.......................................24
Table 18: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco................26
Table 19: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco, May 2009................................................27
Table 20: Units Sold and Median Price, South San Francisco, 1990 – 2008...................................29
Table 21: Household Income Limits, San Mateo County, 2008.......................................................30
Table 22: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2008.............................30
Table 23: Affordability of Market Rate Housing in South San Francisco, 2008..............................33
Table 24: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014..........................36
Table 25: Housing Units Completed / Rehabilitated, January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009.................37
Table 26: Household Size by Tenure, 2000......................................................................................38
Table 27: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2000................................38
Table 28: Family Characteristics, 2000............................................................................................39
Table 29: Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households, South San Francisco, 2000....40
Table 30: Households by Age and Tenure, 2000..............................................................................40
Table 31: Household Income of Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000 (a).....................41
Table 32: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2000 (a)....................................42
Table 33: Persons with Disability by Age, 2000..............................................................................44
Table 34: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2000......................................................44
Table 35: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2008...............................................45
Table 36: Homeless Population, San Mateo County, January 30, 2007 (a).....................................47
Table 37: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2008....................................49
Table 38: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2008.......................51
Table 39: Planning/Building and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2008...................................55
Table 40: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development Capacity....................................67
Table 41: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area..........................................................68
Table 42: Housing Opportunity Sites in South El Camino Real Area.............................................73
Table 43: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area...............................................................77
Table 44: Summary of Quantified Objectives...............................................................................105
Figures
Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2008.................................................31
Figure 2: Housing Cost Burden for Renters, South San Francisco, 2000.........................................34
Figure 3: Housing Cost Burden for Owners, South San Francisco, 2000........................................35
Figure 4: Housing Cost Burden, Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000..........................43
Figure 5: Comparison of Planning/Building and Impact Fees, San Mateo Jurisdictions, 2008......56
Figure 6: Residential Building Permit Activity, 1996 to 2006........................................................58
Figure 7: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs............................................................64
Figure 8: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area.........................................................70
Figure 9: Housing Opportunity Sites in South El Camino Real Area..............................................74
Figure 10: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area.............................................................78
Executive Summary
Introduction
Over the course of its 101-year history as an incorporated City, South San Francisco has
experienced a significant evolution from its traditional role as a hub for heavy industry and
warehousing to its current status as a major center for biotechnology, high-technology and other
uses at the cutting edge of economic innovation. South San Francisco is also a City of strong
residential neighborhoods, a traditional downtown center and thriving commercial corridors.
Looking to the future, the City seeks to enhance its community character while also promoting new
infill development, mixed-use development, and careful land use planning to capitalize on the
City’s significant transportation and transit infrastructure. Within this context, this Housing
Element update provides South San Francisco with an opportunity to reexamine its residential land
use policies and ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet its long-term needs.
The Housing Element is one of the seven required elements that make up South San Francisco’s
General Plan and is the City’s single most important housing planning and policy document. Last
revised in 2002, this current update covers the 2007 to 2014 planning period as required by State
Law and pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the State Housing and Community
Development Agency (HCD). The Housing Element contains an analysis of the community’s
housing needs, resources, constraints, and opportunities. It also contains goals, policies, and
programs for housing and an action plan which details the actions to be taken by the City to
respond to the community’s evolving housing needs. The Housing Element has been drafted to
ensure consistency with related planning efforts such as the El Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan
and the Zoning Ordinance update.
As part of this plan, the Housing Element must identify sites for housing development that are
adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing need, as determined by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the current planning period. Out of a total of
1,635 units determined by ABAG to be the City’s share of the regional housing needs allocation
(RHNA) for 2007 to 2014, 830 have already been approved by the City and are either completed
or under construction. The balance of the City’s RHNA can be accommodated by identifying
properly zoned sites which are appropriate for residential development during the remainder of the
planning period.
Update Process and Public Participation
This Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members of the South
San Francisco Community, as well as housing advocates, developers, employer representatives and
other interested parties. In addition to individual interviews with key stakeholders, the City
convened a public workshop to solicit input from the public on the City’s housings needs, and to
provide the public with an opportunity to shape the City’s housing goals, policies, and objectives.
This workshop was publicized in the local print media, on the “21elements.com” website, as well
Executive Summary i
as on the Housing Element website created specifically for this effort
(www.ssfhousingelement.com). City staff mailed over 260 notices of the workshop to, housing
developers, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural organizations, and a variety of other
groups, agencies, and individuals. In conducting outreach for the workshop, care was taken to
recruit potential participants who would reflect the City’s full ethnic and economic diversity.
Following this extensive update process, the Housing Element will be presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for review and adoption before being forwarded to HCD in June
2009. After a mandatory 60 day review period, HCD will provide the City with comments and
recommendations on the Housing Element which will be considered and incorporated as necessary
by the City to ensure that HCD certifies the Housing Element as being consistent with State Law.
Housing Accomplishments 1999 to 2006
Compared with many jurisdictions across San Mateo County and the Bay Area region as whole,
South San Francisco stands out as a leader in promoting housing development for all segments of
the community. From 1999 to 2006, the City permitted 98% of the housing need identified in its
RHNA, including a greater percentage of units for very-low, low- and moderate-income
households than in the County as a whole
Executive Summary ii
What is Affordable Housing?
Throughout this document, reference will be made to affordable housing and housing affordability.
These terms can sometimes seem confusing, but for the purposes of this document, the definitions
are very clear. In the most basic and simple sense, housing is considered affordable if a family or
single-person household pays no more than 30 to 35% of its gross income towards total housing
costs.
Obviously, the exact rent or home mortgage affordable to different households varies substantially
by household size and income. To deal with this, the convention in California is to classify
households as extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income, moderate-income, or above
moderate-income based on percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by
HCD and adjusted by household size. The median household income in San Mateo County for a
family of four in 2008 was roughly $95,000. The graphic below provides some concrete examples
of how housing affordability plays out for a few different types of households assuming that they
pay no more than 30 to 35% of income towards housing costs.
Executive Summary iii
Housing Needs and Market Conditions
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic
conditions in South San Francisco, assess the demand for housing for households at all income-
levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The
Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist South San Francisco in developing housing goals
and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs. Key findings from the
Needs Assessment are summarized below.
Population and Household Trends
.South San Francisco is the fourth largest City in San Mateo
County and one of the communities that has experienced the steadiest growth in recent years.
Between 2000 and 2008, the population of South San Francisco grew from 60,552 to 63,744,
outpacing growth in San Mateo County as a whole but slightly lagging population increase in the
Bay Area region. Looking to the future, ABAG predicts that South San Francisco will reach a
population of nearly 70,000 by 2020.
The South San Francisco community is made up of a diverse range of households from single
individuals to extended family units. On average, South San Francisco households tend to be
larger and have slightly lower incomes than in the County or the region as whole. Reflecting the
stability of many of the City’s residential neighborhoods, South San Francisco also has a higher
percentage of family and owner households.
Economic Trends.
South San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area’s biotechnology and life-
science industry, including the headquarter location for Genentech, one of the world’s largest
biotech firms. Genentech and other biotech and pharmaceutical companies account for an
important share of local jobs and offer well-paying careers for persons with advanced scientific,
business, and technical training. Proximate to the San Francisco International Airport, South San
Francisco is also home to an important cluster of “blue collar” jobs, including important logistics
and shipping operations and an important manufacturing cluster that includes various food
processors.
South San Francisco is a “jobs rich” city with substantial in-commuting from other jurisdictions.
According to the State Employment Development Department (EDD), there are approximately
30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 50,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.7 jobs per every
working resident. By comparison, San Mateo County as whole has 370,000 employed residents
and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per every working resident of the County.
Housing Stock Characteristics
. More than half of the City’s housing stock was built before 1960
and a majority of housing units in South San Francisco are single-family detached homes (58
percent in 2008). Overall, South San Francisco’s housing stock is well-maintained, but there are
pockets of older homes and multi-family complexes which require rehabilitation to deal with aging
and maintenance needs.
Building permit data collected for this Housing Element update shows that the composition of the
Executive Summary iv
City’s housing stock is changing over time in tandem with the City’s emphasis on infill and transit-
oriented development. Since 1999, multi-family (apartment and condominium) development has
outpaced single-family housing development nearly two to one.
Housing Market Trendsand Affordability.
As in most communities across the Bay Area and
throughout California, the housing market in South San Francisco has been undergoing a period of
significant fluctuation. The median sale price for a single-family home in South San Francisco was
$575,000 in 2008 compared to an average high of $745,000 in 2006 when the for-sale housing
market was at its peak. Furthermore, according to DataQuick, an on-line provider of homes sales
data, current sales trends indicate that the median home sale price in South San Francisco for all
types of units including condominiums fell from $670,000 in 2007 to $530,000 in 2008. This
compares to a decline in the average sale price in San Mateo County as whole from $800,000 to
$670,000 during the same period. As conditions in the credit markets have worsened, the volume
of sales of both single-family homes and condominiums has declined in South San Francisco, San
Mateo County and across the broader Bay Area region.
As the for-sale market weakened over the past year, the rental market tightened. Although average
occupancy rates in large apartment complexes are down from their peak, rental rates for all types of
apartments are up sharply. At the City’s large professionally-managed complexes rents were up
37.8 percent between first quarter 2007 and first quarter 2009. Looking more broadly at the rental
market as a whole, asking rents were $1,410 per month for one-bedroom units, $1,803 for two-
bedroom units, $2,630 for three-bedroom units, and $3,087 for four-bedroom units.
Even with the recent economic downturn, housing in South San Francisco is out of reach for many
households earning less than 120 percent of the Area Median Income. As described above, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes that a household is “cost-
burdened” (i.e., overpaying for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on
housing-related costs. A “severe housing cost burden” occurs when a household pays more than 50
percent of its income on housing costs. The prevalence of overpayment varies significantly by
income, tenure, household type, and household size. HUD data analyzed for this Housing Element
show that renter households in South San Francisco are much more likely to be overpaying than
owners. According to these data, 46 percent of extremely low-income, 42 percent of very low-
income, and 44 percent of low-income homeowners are cost-burdened. At the same time, 77
percent of extremely low-income, 81 percent of very low-income, and 40 percent of low-income
renter households are cost burdened.
Special Needs Populations.
Populations with special housing needs in South San Francisco
include large families, single-parent families, the disabled, seniors, and persons or families in need
of emergency or transitional housing. Of these groups, large families make up a particularly large
percentage of the South San Francisco population, and face unique challenges in securing adequate
and affordable housing.
Large Families - South San Francisco has a greater proportion of large households (defined
Executive Summary v
as five or more persons) than San Mateo County. 17.9 percent of South San Francisco’s
households had five or more persons in 2000, versus 12.9 percent in San Mateo County.
Large households are more common among renters than owners in South San Francisco;
17.2 percent of homeowner households had five or more persons compared to 19.0 percent
of renter households.
Single-Parent Households - Single female-headed households with children tend to have a
higher need for affordable housing than family households in general. In addition, such
households are more likely to need childcare since the mother is often the sole source of
income and the sole caregiver for children within the household. In 2008, there were 1,120
single female householders with children in South San Francisco. As a proportion of all
families, such households represented six percent of all households in South San Francisco
and seven percent of family households in the City. San Mateo County contained a similar
proportion of these households, totaling 12,017 households in 2008, which represented six
percent of all households present in the county. In addition, both South San Francisco and
San Mateo County contained a significantly smaller proportion of male householders with
children; this household type made up two percent of both the City and the County.
Seniors- Elderly households (those with one member who is 65 years of age or older) tend
to pay a larger portion of their income for housing costs. Elderly renters in South San
Francisco are particularly affected by this trend. In 2000, among elderly renters in South
San Francisco, 60 percent overpaid and 30 percent severely overpaid for housing. In
comparison, among homeowners, only 20 percent overpaid and nine percent severely
overpaid for housing. Extremely low-income elderly renters had the highest rates of
overpayment, with 46 percent directing more than 50 percent of income towards housing.
At the same time, 41 percent of very low-income elderly renters and 21 percent of low-
income elderly renters overpaid for housing.
Persons with Disabilities - Persons with physical and mental disabilities face significant
barriers to finding decent and affordable housing in the marketplace due to physical or
structural obstacles. Within the population of civilian, non-institutionalized residents over
the age of five, 18 percent of all persons had a disability in South San Francisco compared
to 16 percent in San Mateo County.
Individuals or Families in Need of Emergency Shelter or Transitional Housing –
According to the 2007 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, there were 2,064
homeless people reported in San Mateo County on the night of January 30, 2007. This
point-in-time study counted 1,094 homeless people living either on the street or in vehicles,
a population referred to as “unsheltered”. An additional 970 homeless people were staying
in shelters, transitional housing, jails, hospitals, or treatment facilities or were using a
voucher to stay in a motel, a population referred to as “sheltered”. Within this dataset, 188
homeless individuals were counted in South San Francisco, including 97 unsheltered
persons and 91 sheltered persons. To serve South San Francisco residents who are
Executive Summary vi
homeless or at-risk of homelessness, the City provides funding to a variety of San Mateo
County service agencies, including most importantly Samaritan House, which operates a
90-bed year round shelter for the homeless in South San Francisco. The City also supports
the not-for-profit Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which provides
emergency shelter for battered women and their children.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government
(in this case, ABAG) and local governments must collectively determine each locality's share of
regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing Element update cycle that
requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their Housing Elements by June 30, 2009, ABAG
allocated housing unit production needs for each county within the Bay Area and, with the
exception of San Mateo County, also allocated housing unit production need to the City level.
These allocations set housing production goals for the planning period that runs from January 1,
2007 through June 30, 2014.
In the case of San Mateo County, the County, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county,
formed a subregion, for the purposes of conducting the RHNA, as allowed by state law. The San
Mateo subregion designated the City /County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity
responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. Their process
paralleled, but was separate from, the Bay Area’s RHNA process. San Mateo County created its
own methodology, issued draft allocations, and handled the revision and appeal processes. They
also issued final allocations to members of the subregion. Although the subregion worked
independently of the regional RHNA process, the final allocation methodology was ultimately
similar to ABAG’s methodology.
Shown below, the RHNA process determined a need for 1,635 housing units in South San
Francisco between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2014. This need is divided among income
categories with 23 percent of the need identified for very-low income households, 16 percent for
low income households, 19 percent for moderate income households and the remaining 42 percent
for above-moderate income households.
Income CategoryProjected NeedPercent of Total
Very Low (0-50% of AMI)37323%
Low (51-80% AMI)26816%
Moderate (81-120% of AMI)31519%
42%
Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI)679
Total Units1,635100%
Sources: ABAG, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Executive Summary vii
Between January 2007 and June 2009, there was a substantial amount of housing built or
rehabilitated in South San Francisco. Pursuant to State law, the City is allowed to count this
production toward its progress in meeting the determined need for the 2007 to 2014 planning
period. As shown in Table 25, there were 815 units built in the City between January 1, 2007 and
June 30, 2009. These include 50 very low income units, 64 low income units, 74 moderate income
units and 627 above moderate income units. In addition there were 15 housing units that were
substantially rehabilitated and converted from market rate to affordable housing, including 6 very
low income units and 9 low income units. Consequently, the City has a remaining balance of 805
units which it must plan for during the remainder of the planning period, including 317 very low
income units, 195 low income units, 241 moderate income units, and 52 above-moderate income
units.
Affordability
New Constructionery LowLowModerateAboveTotal
V
Archstone South (Solaire)02943288360
Grand Oaks4300043
90 Oak Ave.0111113
South City Lights02626228280
440 Commercial Ave.40004
Park Station3848499
Stonegate Estates0001616
Total New Construction
506474627815
Rehabilitation (a)
90015
317 - 321 Commercial Ave.6
Total Rehabilitation Units690015
Calculation of Remaining Need
2007-2014 RHNA3732683156791,635
Total Credits (New & Rehab) (b)567374627830
Balance of RHN31719524152805
A
Note:
(a) These units were acquired by the RDA, rehabilitated, and converted to income-restricted affordable housing units.
(b) Sum of units constructed or rehabilitated between June 2007 and June 2009.
Sources: BAE, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 2009.
Executive Summary viii
Housing Constraints & Resources
A key component of the Housing Element is a description and analysis of governmental and non-
governmental constraints to the preservation and provision of housing. Along with this, the
Housing Element contains a description and analysis of housing resources, including most
importantly an inventory of sites for housing production. These constraints and resources are
described below.
Government Constraints.
South San Francisco has worked systematically to address constraints
to housing production as reflected in the City’s land use and development policies, infrastructure
planning and funding of affordable housing projects. In general, South San Francisco’s
development fees are consistent with or lower than in neighboring jurisdictions, and planning and
permitting processing times also tend to be consistent with regional norms.
Non-Governmental Constraints
. High development costs constitute a significant constraint to
the production of housing in South San Francisco, as in communities throughout the San Francisco
Bay Area region. In particular, land and construction costs have risen steeply in recent years, and
continue to pose an obstacle for developers of all types of housing. Developers of both market-rate
and affordable housing have also experienced increased obstacles to obtaining debt and equity
financing as a result of the recent financial crisis. When investors or lenders are willing to provide
financing for new development projects, it is on much less favorable terms than in the recent past.
Resources.
Consistent with the City’s long-term commitment to supporting high-quality
residential development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing
production. Major financial resources for housing in South San Francisco include a variety of
Federal, State and local programs such as the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program, the
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), City Redevelopment Set-Aside Funds,
Federal and State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), Section 8 Housing Assistance and
the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County. Beyond these important
resources, South San Francisco provides technical support to housing developers and, perhaps most
importantly, works through its land use and zoning powers to ensure an adequate supply of sites for
new residential development.
Executive Summary ix
Housing Plan
South San Francisco has been successful at promoting housing development consistent with the
goals and objectives outlined in the prior Housing Element. At the same time, South San Francisco
community members recognize that the changing patterns of land use and development in the City
demand a new and comprehensive approach to promoting medium- and high-density housing
development on infill sites. In addition, as the City’s built-out, single- and multi-family residential
areas mature, new policies and programs must be established to assist with housing maintenance
and preservation to ensure the continued high-quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods.
Taking into account the needs, constraints and resources identified in this Housing Element, South
San Francisco has developed a Housing Plan in consideration of its own local priorities, as well as
its obligations under State Housing Element law. The Housing Plan is structured as a series of
goals and related implementing policies. Accompanying each implementing policy, there are one
or more programs that the City will implement over the 2007 to 2014 planning period. The goals
listed below form the core of the City’s vision for the preservation and development of residential
areas.
1)Promote the provision of housing by the private, public and non-profit sectors for
all income groups in the community.
2)Take necessary steps to remove government and public infrastructure constraints
to housing development through administrative support, intergovernmental
cooperation, public-private partnerships and permit streamlining.
3)Strive to maintain and preserve existing housing resources, including both
affordable and market-rate units.
4)Maintain and improve the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of existing
neighborhoods as a high priority for the City.
5)Support the development of an adequate supply of safe, decent and affordable
housing for groups with special housing needs.
6)Ensure that all households have equal access to the City’s housing resources.
7)Promote energy efficiency in residential development within the City, including
reduction of energy use through better design and construction in individual homes,
and also through energy efficient urban design.
Finally, in conformance with these goals, the Housing Element sets forth a series of implementing
policies and programs which are summarized in the following action plan.
Executive Summary x
Introduction
Housing is of critical importance to the City of South San Francisco. The long-term vitality of the
South San Francisco community and local economy depend on a full range of housing types to
meet the needs of all segments of the City’s population. As South San Francisco looks towards the
future, the increasing range and diversity of housing options will be an integral aspect of the City’s
growth and development. Consistent with South San Francisco’s long-term commitment to
providing suitable, decent and affordable housing for its residents, this plan sets forth a vision for
guiding future residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing existing residential
areas.
Role and Content of Housing Element
The purpose of this Housing Element is to adopt a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the
housing needs of the City of South San Francisco. The State mandates seven elements be included
in all General Plans, one of which is the Housing Element. The Housing Element is South San
Francisco’s primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation
of housing for all economic segments of the population within the City’s boundaries. Accordingly,
this Housing Element identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing needs of the City
and states goals, policies, quantified objectives and implementation programs for the preservation,
improvement, and development of housing, including a discussion of available financial resources.
The Housing Element must also identify sites for housing development that are adequate to
accommodate the City’s allocation of the regional housing need. South San Francisco intends to
implement a set of programs and projects to meet the goals, policies, and objectives included
herein. The City will also coordinate its housing efforts with those occurring within the other areas
of San Mateo County and the broader Bay Area region.
Authority
All California localities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections 65580-
65590) to adopt Housing Elements as part of their general plans, and submit draft and adopted
elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review with
compliance with State law. HCD is required to review Housing Elements and report its written
findings within 60 days for a draft-Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585(b)) and
within 90 days for an adopted element (Government Code Section 65585(h)). In addition,
Government Code Section 65585(c) requires HCD to consider written comments from any group,
individual or public agency regarding the Housing Element under review.
Status
This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco General
Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in
2002, and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on October 13, 1999.
This updated Housing Element focuses on housing needs from January 1, 2007 through June 30,
Introduction 1
2014 in accordance with the Housing Element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area
jurisdictions established by State law.
Relationship with General Plan
State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements “comprise an integrated,
internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” This implies that all elements have
equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element
must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and closely
coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element must also be
consistent with area Specific Plans including those currently being developed in South San
Francisco. As part of the implementation process for this Housing Element, the City of South San
Francisco will initiate and complete amendments to the City’s General Plan as necessary to achieve
internal consistency.
Related Planning Efforts
El Camino Real / Chestnut Specific Plan
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to create an implementable development vision for the area
around the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. The gross planning area is
approximately 65-acres. It is within one mile of the South San Francisco BART station and located
one and a half miles west of Downtown. The anticipated completion date for the Specific Plan is
Fall/Winter, 2009.
South El Camino Real General Plan Update
The current land use designation for much of southern portion of El Camino Real is “Community
Commercial”. Community Commercial designation does not allow for residential or mixed-use
development. The proposed/drafted General Plan Amendment (GPA) allows for mixed-use
development throughout the southern portion of the corridor. The height limits have been
increased to allow for 80 feet as of right, and up to 120 feet with additional review and approval.
This is up from the existing 50 foot height limit that currently exists for most of the properties on
South El Camino Real. Finally, the permitted Residential Density has been set at 60 units per acre,
with increases possible through the CUP process. The anticipated completion date for the South El
Camino Real General Plan Update is Summer, 2009.
Zoning Ordinance Update
The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update is underway to ensure that current standards
and guidelines support the implementation of the General Plan, including the Housing Element.
The update is structured into four “modules”. Staff, the City’s consultant and the City’s Planning
Commission are currently working through modules 2 and 3. The anticipated completion date for
the update is Fall/Winter, 2009.
Introduction 2
Other City Efforts
Downtown Strategy
The City’s Downtown Strategy is a Visioning and Planning exercise being used by Elected
Officials and Staff to intensify development and redevelop under-used parcels in South San
Francisco. Council reviewed the downtown strategy on February 6, 2009 and expressed their
support; however, there was no formal adoption. At the recommendation of Council, the
Downtown Strategy was subsequently reviewed by local community groups, such as the
Downtown Subcommittee and Chamber of Commerce.
Green Building Ordinance
The City’s Building Division is currently drafting a Green Building Ordinance which is
considering the “Build-it Green” point system for residential construction. The Build-it Green
point system requires energy savings above Title 24 regulations found in the California Building
Code. The anticipated adoption date for the Green Building Ordinance is Summer, 2009.
Public Participation
This Draft Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members of the
South San Francisco Community, as well as housing advocates, developers, employer
representatives and other interested parties. In addition to individual interviews with key
stakeholders, the City convened a public workshop to solicit input from the public on the City’s
housings needs, and to provide the public with an opportunity to shape the City’s housing goals,
policies and objectives. This workshop was publicized in the local print media, on the
“21elements.com” website, as well as on the Housing Element website created specifically for this
effort (www.ssfhousingelement.com). City staff mailed over 260 notices of the workshop to
housing developers, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural organizations, and a variety of
other groups, agencies and individuals. In conducting outreach for the workshop, care was taken to
recruit potential participants who would reflect the City’s full ethnic and economic diversity.
Organization of Housing Element
Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components:
A review of the prior Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production over
the previous ABAG fair share period.
An analysis of the City’s current and future housing needs.
An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production.
An inventory and analysis of housing resources.
A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, programs and quantified objectives to address
the City’s housing needs.
Introduction 3
Review of Housing Element Past
Performance
A key component of each Housing Element update is a review of performance under the previous
Housing Element, including a quantitative and qualitative description of outcomes, a comparison of
outcomes against stated goals, and an evaluation of the continued appropriateness of existing goals,
objectives, policies and programs.
Accordingly, the following section reviews progress under the previous Housing Element, which
covered the period from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006, and is organized around the six overriding
goals of the element, as follows:
New Residential Construction
Maintenance of Existing Affordable Housing Stock
Special Needs
Equal Opportunity
Neighborhood Safety
Energy Conservation
Summarized below are key findings of this review of past performance. A more detailed review of
each of the 65 policies adopted under the previous Housing Element is included in Appendix A.
New Residential Construction
The first goal of the previous Housing Element was to promote the provision of housing by both
the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community, a goal which the City
actively pursued during the previous Housing Element cycle through substantial contributions of
City funds and staff time. Most notably, the City’s Redevelopment Agency, provided $2.7 million
in funding to Bridge Housing to develop the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing development, which
provides a home to 40 low-income senior households, and provided $940,000 in funding to Mid-
Peninsula Housing to develop the Greenridge Housing development, which provides a home to an
additional 33 low-income households.
Other key actions by the City, included the expansion of its transit village zoning district which
allows for medium- to high-density residential development; streamlining the approvals process for
accessory dwelling units; continuing to operate a “one stop” permit center combining planning,
building, and engineering functions under one roof; implementing density bonus and inclusionary
housing ordinances; and upgrading technology to allow online access to permit data.
The following section evaluates the City’s progress in accommodating its “fair share” of the region
wide need for additional housing, also referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), including an examination of new residential permit and construction activity.
Review of Past Performance 4
As shown in Table 1, ABAG determined a need for 1,331 additional housing units in South San
Francisco during the prior Housing Element cycle from July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2006, including a
need for 768 units for very low, low, and moderate income households.
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006
RHNAPercent
Income Category'99 to '06of Total
Very Low Income27720.8%
Low Income1319.8%
Moderate Income36027.0%
Above Moderate56342.3%
Total1,331100.0%
Source: ABAG, 1999; BAE, 2009.
Measured in terms of total housing permit issuance, the City was successful in creating a
supportive regulatory environment to allow housing development. As shown in Table 2, overall
the City issued 1,310 permits during the previous Housing Element cycle, representing 98 percent
of its RHNA. The City did very well in permitting housing in the above moderate income
category, exceeding its RHNA by 80 percent. Because of the high cost of land and development
costs, the City was only able to issue approximately 296 permits for very low, low, and moderate
income housing units compared against a RHNA of approximately 768 units (38 percent of its
RHNA in these income levels). As shown in Appendix B, despite the difficulty in meeting its full
RHNA for affordable units, the City of South San Francisco was among the top third of
jurisdictions in San Mateo County providing affordable housing, permitting a greater share of its
RHNA for all incomes compared to the County as a whole.
Table 2: Housing Permit Issuance by Income Level, July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006
RHNAHousing Permitted (a)
Income Category'99 to '06No. of Units% of RHNA
Very Low Income27712144%
Low Income1317154%
Moderate Income36010429%
Above Moderate5631,014180%
Total1,3311,31098%
Notes:
(a) Data are as reported to ABAG and published in their report, , June 2007.
A Place to Call Home
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2009; ABAG, 2007;BAE, 2009.
While housing permit issuance was approximately equal to the RHNA, actual production fell short
of forecast demand because of the lag between the issuance of permits and actual construction.
Review of Past Performance 5
Between 1996 and 2006, 899 units were constructed in the City, representing approximately two-
thirds of the RHNA. The lag between permit issuance and housing production had a
disproportionate affect on the production of affordable housing units across all income categories
such that only 157 very low, low, and moderate income housing units were constructed, or
approximately 20 percent of the determined need in these categories. For above moderate income
units, production was stronger, with 742 units built or 132 percent of the RHNA for this category.
Accounting for much of the discrepancy between permit issuance and housing production during
the prior Housing Element cycle was the timing of the construction of three large multifamily
projects totaling 685 units, including 185 low and moderate income units. These projects were
permitted during the latter years of the previous Housing Element cycle, but not completed until
2007 and 2008. With the opening of these projects, the City has seen through the completion of all
large-scale residential developments permitted during the previous Housing Element cycle.
Table 3: Housing Production by Income Level, 1999 to 2006
RHNAHousing Produced (a)
Income Category'99 to '06No. of Units% of RHNA
Very Low Income2777427%
Low Income1313426%
Moderate Income3604914%
Above Moderate563742132%
Total1,33189968%
Notes:
(a) Total housing production is based on data reported to the Department of Finance.
-1/1/1999 housing counts from E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates (revised per 2000 census).
-1/1/2006 housing counts from E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2008
-Mid-year data were not available, hence housing production data are for the January to January period.
Overall as measured by permit issuance and construction activity the City made substantial
progress toward producing its “fair share” of housing during the previous Housing Element cycle,
meeting its RHNA in terms of the number of permits issued and realizing the construction of all
large scale projects permitted during the previous Housing Element cycle by the end of 2008.
Maintenance of Existing Affordable Housing Stock
The second goal of the prior Housing Element was maintenance of the existing affordable housing
stock. Related to this goal, the City operates a rehabilitation loan program, which assists
approximately four low-income home-owners annually with larger home repair needs by providing
low-interest or deferred loans. For smaller home-repairs, the City partners with the North
Peninsula Neighborhood Service Center and Rebuilding Together Peninsula, which provided free
home repairs for approximately 321 low-income households in South San Francisco during the
previous Housing Element cycle. In addition, La Raza Centro Legal provided counseling and
advocacy to 87 low-income residents in reporting and resolving code violations in their dwelling
Review of Past Performance 6
units. All three programs allow low-income owners to remain in safe, affordable living situations.
In addition to its rehabilitation and repair programs the City has been active in the acquisition and
conversion of existing housing units into deed-restricted affordable housing. The City partnered
with Mid-Peninsula housing to acquire, rehabilitate, and add affordable housing deed restrictions to
36 rental residential units in the Willow Gardens neighborhood, contributing approximately $5.2
1
million in public monies to this effort. Additionally, the City acquired, rehabilitated, and added
affordability restrictions to seven units along Miller Avenue, utilizing $1.3 million in
Redevelopment Agency funds.
Special Needs Populations
The third goal of the previous Housing Element was to provide housing for people with special
needs. Through its policies and programs the City has worked to address the needs of special
needs populations in the City, particularly large families with children, seniors, persons with
disabilities, and people who are homeless or in need of transitional housing. The City
accomplishes its goal of serving special needs populations in several ways.
As described before, the City has partnered with non-profit housing developers to build additional
units for special needs populations, including the 40 senior housing units at the Chestnut Creek
development.
To serve South San Francisco residents who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, the City
provides funding to a variety of San Mateo County service agencies, including most importantly
Samaritan House, which operates a 90-bed year round shelter for the homeless in South San
Francisco. The City also supports the not-for-profit Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse
(CORA), which provides emergency shelter for battered women and two agencies which provide
housing referral and counseling services: the Shelter Network and the Human Investment Project.
Equal Opportunity
The fourth goal of the previous Housing Element is to promote equal opportunity to secure safe,
sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of age, race, gender,
religion, marital status, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary factors.
To support equal housing opportunities in South San Francisco, the City contracts with Project
Sentinel to address fair housing complaints and resolve landlord/tenant disputes in the City. In
addition, City staff provide referrals regarding fair housing to appropriate agencies and advocacy
groups. During the previous Housing Element cycle, Project Sentinel provided case management
services for more than 70 City residents.
1
Monies used included $3.65 million in Redevelopment Agency funds, $1.05 million in HOME funds, and
$500,000 in other HUD funding.
Review of Past Performance 7
Neighborhood Safety and Energy Conservation
The final goals under the previous Housing Element related to neighborhood safety and energy
conservation. The City has adopted policies to prohibit residential development in areas with
major environmental hazards and to abate existing hazards, to better weatherize the homes of low-
income residents, and to mitigate airport noise for residents. These policies continue to be
implemented through the CEQA process as well as the housing rehabilitation loan program, minor
home repair program, and airport noise insulation program. As described before, the rehabilitation
and repair programs have benefited numerous low-income households. In addition, more than
15,000 households have benefited to date through the airport noise insulation program at a cost of
$120 million.
Housing Element Changes
As presented above, the City of South San Francisco has been successful at promoting housing
development consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the prior Housing Element. The
changing patterns of land use and development in the City, however, demand a new and
comprehensive approach to promoting medium- and high-density housing development on infill
sites. In South San Francisco these sites will be located mainly in mixed-use zones near transit,
providing the City with the opportunity to promote high-quality transit and pedestrian-oriented
neighborhoods which include a full range of housing types and affordability levels.
For the 2007 to 2014 Housing Element planning period, the Housing Plan has been reorganized to
complement the City’s planning efforts in medium-density, high-density and mixed-use zones,
particularly along El Camino Real. In addition, the guiding policy framework has been simplified
by consolidating and eliminating redundancies wherever possible, ultimately resulting in a more
efficient and straightforward plan to encourage high-quality residential development, as well as to
ensure a full range of affordable housing.
To establish benchmarks to assess the progress toward achieving the City’s housing goals, this
updated Housing Element also presents a five-year action plan along with quantified objectives for
the construction, rehabilitation and preservation of housing. The proposed Goals, Policies and
Programs contained in this Housing Element Update have been modified from the prior Housing
Element in light of the findings discussed above, and also based on the Housing Needs Assessment,
Constraints Analysis, and Housing Resources inventory contained within the document.
Review of Past Performance 8
Housing Needs Assessment
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic
conditions in South San Francisco, assess the demand for housing for households at all income-
levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The
Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist South San Francisco in developing housing goals
and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs.
To facilitate an understanding of how the characteristics of South San Francisco are similar to, or
different from the larger area in which it is situated, this Housing Needs Assessment presents data
for South San Francisco alongside comparable data for all of San Mateo County and, where
appropriate, for the San Francisco Bay Area and the state of California.
This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous sources, including the United States
Census; the Association of Bay Area Governments; the State of California, Department of Finance;
and Claritas, Inc., a private demographic data vendor.
Regional Context
Located in northern San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula, the City of South San
Francisco is known as the birth place of the biotechnology industry. The City measures 9.6 square
miles and was incorporated in 1908. Its population has tripled since the Second World War, but
population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has become increasingly
developed. The City is served by Highway 101, Interstate 280, Interstate 380, and Caltrain, as well
as a BART station, which opened in June 2003. In addition, the City is adjacent to the San
Francisco International Airport and is anticipating the construction of a Ferry Terminal during the
current Housing Element planning period. South San Francisco is adjacent to the cities of
Brisbane, Colma, Daily City, Pacifica, and San Bruno, as well as portions of unincorporated San
Mateo County. The City is home to a collection of compact neighborhoods including an active and
walkable downtown. East of Highway 101 is an office and industrial area, where many of the
City’s biotechnology businesses are located as well as the Oyster Point Marina, situated on the San
Francisco Bay.
Housing Needs Assessment 9
Population and Household Trends
Population
With a population of nearly 64,000 residents, South San Francisco is the fourth largest City in San
Mateo County. As shown in Table 4, between 1990 and 2000, the City’s population grew at a rate
that was similar to the region, averaging an increase of 1.09 percent per year. Since 2000, growth
in the City has slowed substantially, reflecting its increasingly developed character. Between 2000
and 2008, average annual population growth in the City was just 0.64 percent, still faster than the
population growth rate for San Mateo County (0.56 percent), but substantially slower than the
region-wide population growth rate of 0.92 percent per year. Consistent with these data, the City
has continued to account for a somewhat outsized share of population growth within the County.
Between 2000 and 2008, South San Francisco accounted for 9.9 percent of countywide population
growth, although it accounts for only 8.6 percent of total countywide population.
Households
According to the California Department of Finance, there were 20,487 households in South San
Francisco in 2008, a total increase of approximately 810 households since 2000 or approximately
1
100 households per year. Consistent with population growth trends, since 2000 the City has added
new households at a slightly faster rate than the County – 0.51 percent per year compared to 0.44
percent per year – but at a much slower rate than the region as a whole, which registered a 0.87
percent average annual increase in households since 2000.
Average Household Size and Type
Average household size is a function of the number of people living in households divided by the
number of occupied housing units in the area. In South San Francisco, the average household size
in 2008 was 3.0 persons per household, indicating significantly larger households compared to
countywide and regional averages of 2.7 to 2.6, respectively.
Consistent with a larger average household size, the City of South San Francisco has a high
proportion of family households. As of 2000, 74 percent of South San Francisco households
contained related individuals, compared to 67 countywide and 65 percent region wide.
Household Tenure
Households in South San Francisco have a relative high homeownership rate compared to the
County and region. Approximately 63 percent of households living in the City owned their own
homes in 2000, compared to 61 percent countywide and 58 percent region-wide.
1
A household is defined as a person or group of persons living in a housing unit, as opposed to persons living
in group quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent homes, or prisons.
Housing Needs Assessment 10
Table 4: Population and Household Trends, 1990 to 2008
vg. nnuavg. nnua
AAlAAl
% Change% Change
South San Francisco199020002008 (a)1990-20002000-2008
Population 54,31260,552 63,744 1.09%0.64%
Households 18,51919,677 20,487 0.61%0.51%
Average Household Size 2.9 3.1 3.1
Household Type
Families74%74%
Non-Families26%26%
Tenure
Owner61%63%
Renter39%37%
San Mateo Count
y
Population 649,623 707,161 739,469 0.85%0.56%
Households 241,914 254,103 263,252 0.49%0.44%
Average Household Size 2.6 2.7 2.8
Household Type
Families67%67%
Non-Families33%33%
Tenure
Owner60%61%
Renter40%39%
Bay Area (b)
Population 6,023,577 6,783,760 7,301,080 1.20%0.92%
Households2,246,242 2,466,019 2,643,390 0.94%0.87%
Average Household Size2.6 2.7 2.7
Household Type
Families65%65%
Non-Families35%35%
Tenure
Owner56%58%
Renter44%42%
Note:
(a) Estimate from California Department of Finance.
(b) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Sources: 1990 & 2000 US Census H-1, H-3; California Department of Finance, 2008; BAE 2008.
Housing Needs Assessment 11
Age Distribution
Table 5 presents the age distribution and median age of South San Francisco, San Mateo County,
and the Bay Area. As shown, all three geographies have a similar median age, ranging from a low
of 38.1 years for the region to a high of 39.9 years for the County. South San Francisco has a
median age of 38.7 years. Similarities are also considerable in the age distribution of these
jurisdictions. Persons under the age of 18 years account for 23 to 24 percent of the population for
each geography, with persons age 18 to 24 years accounting for eight to nine percent of each.
Adults age 25 to 44 years and those age 45 to 64 years, account for a similar share of the
population in each geography ranging from 27 to 29 percent. Seniors, age 65 years and older,
account for between 12 to 14 percent of the population in each geography.
Table 5: Age Distribution, 2008
South San FranciscoSan Mateo CountyBay Area (a)
Age CohortNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
Under 1815,09324.0%168,13823.4%1,644,47123.2%
18 to 245,3948.6%56,9797.9%610,0138.6%
17,30527.5%194,51427.1%2,070,66229.2%
25 to 44
45 to 6416,68526.5%203,13628.3%1,914,30527.0%
8,47013.5%95,53713.3%852,58012.0%
65 +
Total62,947100.0%718,304100.0%7,092,031100.0%
Median Age38.739.938.1
Note:
(a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
(b) Population totals do not match Table 1, due to use of different data sources.
Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008.
Household Income
As shown in Table 6, South San Francisco households tend to be less affluent than households
living elsewhere in the County and Bay Area. As of 2008, the median household income in South
San Francisco was $72,820, slightly below the regional median of $74,256, and substantially below
the countywide median of $82,373. Similarly, per capita incomes for South San Francisco residents
were lower. In 2008, the per capita income in South San Francisco was $27,689, compared to
$40,224 at the county-level and $36,322 throughout the Bay Area. On a per capita basis, South
San Francisco residents earned approximately 31.2 percent less than the average County resident
and 23.8 percent less than the average Bay Area resident.
Despite lower median and per capita incomes, South San Francisco had a relatively high proportion
of households earning in the middle income range. The majority (57 percent) of South San
Francisco households were estimated to earn between $50,000 and $150,000 in 2008, compared to
51 percent in the County and 50 percent within the Bay Area. By comparison, South San Francisco
households were less likely to earn over $150,000 compared with San Mateo County and the
Housing Needs Assessment 12
greater Bay Area; only 10.6 percent of City households earned more than $150,000, compared to
20.2 percent of County households and 16.8 percent of Bay Area households.
Table 6: Household Income Distribution, 2008
South San FranciscoSan Mateo County Bay Area (a)
Household IncomeNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
Less than $15,0001,270 6.3%15,184 6.0%208,322 8.1%
$15,000 to $24,9991,249 6.2%14,104 5.5%163,949 6.4%
$25,000 to $34,9991,410 7.0%15,541 6.1%177,443 6.9%
$35,000 to $49,9992,568 12.8%28,036 11.0%291,229 11.4%
$50,000 to $74,9993,867 19.3%43,466 17.1%450,515 17.6%
$75,000 to $99,9993,498 17.4%37,377 14.7%362,903 14.2%
$100,000 to $149,9994,080 20.3%49,644 19.5%474,017 18.5%
$150,000 to $249,9991,800 9.0%32,545 12.8%292,620 11.4%
$250,000 to $499,999230 1.1%11,427 4.5%89,355 3.5%
$500,000 and over105 0.5%7,384 2.9%46,437 1.8%
Total20,077 100.0%254,708 100.0%2,556,790 100.0%
Median Household Income$72,820$82,373$74,256
Average Per Capita Income$27,689$40,224$36,322
Note:
(a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
(b) Population totals do not match Table 1, due to use of different data sources.
Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008.
Employment Trends
South San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area’s biotechnology and life science industry,
including the headquarters location for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotech firms.
Genentech and other biotech and pharmaceutical companies account for an important share of local
jobs and offer well-paying careers for persons with advanced scientific, business, and technical
training. Proximate to the San Francisco International Airport, the City is also home to an
important cluster of “blue collar” jobs, including important logistics and shipping operations and an
important manufacturing cluster that includes various food processors.
Jobs by Sector
Table 7 presents a distribution of employment in South San Francisco by broad industrial
classifications. As shown, Manufacturing, including pharmaceutical and food manufacturing,
accounts for the largest share of jobs (24 percent) followed by Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services (11 percent), Transportation and Warehousing (10 percent), Administrative and
Waste Services (8 percent), Wholesale Trade (7 percent) and Retail Trade (7 percent). Rounding
out the top 10 categories are Health Care and Social Assistance, Construction, Accommodation and
Food Services, and Government employment, which includes public school educators as well as
other federal, state, and local government employees.
Housing Needs Assessment 13
Table 7: Jobs by Sector, 2003 to 2007
South San FranciscoSan Mateo County
% Change% Change
Q3 2003 Q3 2007Q3 2003Q3 2007
bcbc
()()()()
Industry SectoJobs% TotalJobs% Total2003-2007Jobs% TotalJobs% Total2003-2007
r
Manufacturing
8,15420%12,05324%48%28,641 9%30,844 9%8%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
4,44011%5,37111%21%30,785 10%38,931 11%26%
Transportation and Warehousing
4,34911%4,89310%13%25,550 8%26,010 8%2%
Administrative and Waste Services
2,6647%3,7758%42%17,213 5%19,774 6%15%
Wholesale Trade
3,5109%3,7337%6%12,058 4%12,213 4%1%
Retail Trade
3,5259%3,6277%3%35,896 11%35,876 11%0%
Health Care and Social Assistance
3,1878%3,2947%3%25,797 8%26,848 8%4%
Construction
2,0755%3,0486%47%18,174 6%19,279 6%6%
Accommodation and Food Services
1,7664%2,8416%61%25,281 8%29,596 9%17%
Government (e)
1,7544%2,1124%20%26,176 8%28,823 8%10%
Other Services, except Public Administration
1,5824%1,7063%8%13,535 4%14,089 4%4%
Management of Companies and Enterprises (d)
9362%1,0372%11%6,360 2%5,401 2%-15%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
6462%9162%42%6,876 2%6,503 2%-5%
Information
7612%8862%16%22,536 7%17,731 5%-21%
Finance and Insurance
7882%5991%-24%14,094 4%15,088 4%7%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
1460%2330%59%4,739 1%6,009 2%27%
Educational Services (d)
1350%1680%24%4,341 1%4,845 1%12%
Natural Resources, Mining, Unclassified
470%330%-29%2,596 1%2,088 1%-20%
Utilities (e)
00%00%0% 6400%7870%23%
Total40,46450,32424%321,288340,7356%
100%100%100%100%
Notes:
(a) Based on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). Includes all employment covered by unemployment insurance.
Does not include the self-employed workers and may exclude certain government workers.
(b) Represents employment for third quarter, 2003.
(c) Represents employment for third quarter, 2007.
(d) City-specific employment data in the sectors of both the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing sector, and the Mining Sector.
The employment data for these two sectors has been combined to protect employer's confidentiality.
(e) There is no employment in the Utilities sector at the city-level (employment only at the county level).
(e) Government employment includes workers in various local, state and Federal sectors, not just public administration. For example, public school staff are in
the Government category.
Sources: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), California Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Major Employers
Table 8 lists major employers in the City of South San Francisco. These include biotech and
medical device companies such as Genentech, Elan Pharmaceuticals, and Sieger Engineering;
airport-related businesses, such as United Airlines, and a range of other companies including a
retailer, food manufacturers, a janitorial service company, and a publishing company.
Housing Needs Assessment 14
Table 8: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2008
Number
Name of EmployerType of Businessof Employees
United AirlinesAirline9,000
GenentechBiotechnology9,000
Kaiser Medical CenterMedical Center1,100
AerogroundFreight Handling800
AmgenBiotechnology675
ExelixisBiotechnology550
CostcoRetail800
Entenmann's- OrowheatFood Manufacturing500
Cooper CompaniesMedical Device400
Cell GenesysBiotechnology375
Elan PharmaceuticalsBiotechnology350
Actuate CorpBiotechnology300
Sieger EngineeringMedical Device300
SugenBiotechnology300
San Mateo County Transit DistrictTransportation300
See's CandiesFood Manufacturing300
Trinity Building ServicesJanitorial275
Future UsPublishing250
TheravanceBiotechnology250
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2008; CA Employment Development
Department, 2008; Dunn & Bradstreet, 2008; BAE, 2009.
Employed Residents
Table 9 presents recent trends in employment for the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo
County. South San Francisco is a “jobs rich” City with substantial in-commuting from other
jurisdictions. As shown, there are approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared
to 50,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.7 jobs per every working resident of the City. By comparison, San
Mateo County has a much closer balance between the number of employed residents and total jobs
with approximately 370,000 employed residents and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per every
working resident of the County. Since 2003, job growth in South San Francisco has been
particularly fast, increasing at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent, adding substantially to a need
to provide additional housing opportunities to support a fast-growing economy.
Housing Needs Assessment 15
Table 9: Employment Trends, 2003 to 2007 (a)
South San FranciscoSan Mateo County
Avg. Annual Avg. Annual
Rate of ChangeRate of Change
Q3 2003Q3 20072003-2007Q3 2003Q3 20072003-2007
Employed Residents (a)
28,50030,2331.5%345,333366,0671.5%
Total Jobs (b)40,46450,3245.6%321,288340,7351.5%
Total Jobs/Employed Residents1.41.70.90.9
Unemployment Rate7.5%4.9%6.0%4.0%
Notes:
(a) Per EDD Labor Force Estimates.
(b) Per the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Population and Employment Projections
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects South San Francisco’s population to
increase from 61,700 to 76,200 between 2005 and 2035, a 23.5 percent increase over 30 years.
Household growth is expected to be slightly greater, rising from 20,130 households to 25,050, a
gain of 24.4 percent. These projections reflect the growing need for residential development in
South San Francisco. Although the City’s growth outpaces the County, this growth is expected to
fall slightly short of Bay Area-wide projections. Whereas San Mateo County’s population is
expected to grow at 19.4 percent over this 30 year period, the Bay Area will increase by more than
30 percent, and is expected to contain just over nine million residents in 2035, as demonstrated in
Table 10.
As illustrated in Table 10, South San Francisco will continue to contain more jobs than households
over this 30 year period, deepening its reputation as a “jobs-rich” community. Whereas in 2005
South San Francisco maintained a 2:1 Jobs-Housing Ratio, this imbalance will increase to 2.44
jobs per household in 2035. Compared with San Mateo County and Bay Area figures, South San
Francisco’s Jobs-Housing imbalance is disproportional; 2035 estimates for both the County and the
Region hover around 1.6 Jobs per Household.
Housing Needs Assessment 16
Table 10: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2005 to 2035
Total Change% Change
South San Francisco20052010201520202025203020352005-20352005 - 2035
61,70063,40066,60069,20071,50073,90076,20014,50023.5%
Population
20,13020,72021,66022,53023,38024,24025,0504,92024.4%
Households
42,24044,65046,49050,13053,54056,72061,16018,92044.8%
Jobs
Jobs - Housing Ratio 2.152.10 2.15 2.23 2.29 2.34 2.44
San Mateo County
721,900741,000772,300800,700823,400842,600861,600139,70019.4%
Population
260,070267,230277,090287,470296,870304,660312,03051,96020.0%
Households
337,350363,060391,910423,100454,170487,420522,000184,65054.7%
Jobs
Jobs - Housing Ratio 1.361.30 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.60 1.67
Bay Area (a)
6,936,4507,246,9507,730,0008,069,7008,592,1508,712,8009,031,5002,095,05030.2%
Population
2,583,0802,696,5802,819,0302,941,7603,059,1303,161,7703,292,530709,45027.5%
Households
3,449,6403,693,9203,979,2004,280,7004,595,1704,921,6805,247,7801,798,14052.1%
Jobs
Jobs - Housing Ratio
1.371.34 1.41 1.46 1.50 1.56 1.59
Note:
(a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Sources: ABAG, E-5 2008; Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008.
Housing Characteristics
Housing Stock Conditions
The age of South San Francisco’s housing stock is similar to that of San Mateo County. As shown
in Table 11, the largest proportion of homes (30.0 percent) was built between 1950 and 1959 in
South San Francisco. According to the 2000 Census, half (50 percent) of the City’s housing stock
was built before 1960, indicating a relatively old housing inventory. Unless carefully maintained,
older housing stock can create health, safety, and welfare problems for occupants. Even with
normal maintenance, dwellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate, requiring significant
rehabilitation.
Despite the presence of older homes in South San Francisco, virtually all housing units contain
complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. As shown in Table 12, less than one percent of homes
lack these facilities.
Housing Needs Assessment 17
Table 11: Housing Structures, Year Built, 2000 (a)
South San FranciscoSan Mateo County
Year BuiltNumberPercentageNumberPercentage
1939 or earlier1,2756%24,4729%
1940 to 19492,81514%32,70813%
1950 to 19596,00830%64,20525%
1960 to 19693,46717%51,67620%
1970 to 19793,49617%45,96818%
1980 to 19891,7349%24,4229%
1990 to 19944162%7,8653%
1995 to 19986063%6,6093%
1999 to March 20003442%2,6511%
Total20,161100%260,576100%
Note:
(a) Data is from the 2000 Census. It does not include units built after March 2000.
Source: US Census, SF3-H34, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Table 12: Housing Conditions, South San Francisco, 2000
Plumbing FacilitiesNumberPercentage
Owners
Complete plumbing facilities12,29899.8%
0.2%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities24
Total Owners12,322100.0%
Renters
Complete plumbing facilities7,29499.0%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities751.0%
Total Renters7,369100.0%
Kitchen Facilities
Owners
Complete kitchen facilities12,27399.6%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities490.4%
Total Owners12,322100.0%
Renters
Complete kitchen facilities7,29299.0%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities771.0%
Total Renters7,369100.0%
Source: US Census, SF3, H48 and H51; BAE, 2008.
Distribution of Units by Structure Type
As shown in Table 13, a majority of housing units in South San Francisco are single-family
detached homes; 58 percent of homes were single-family detached dwelling units in 2008. Both
South San Francisco and San Mateo County maintained a constant share of single-family detached
Housing Needs Assessment 18
units since 2000, when the City and County’s shares made up 59 and 58 percent of the overall
housing stock, respectively.
Large multifamily housing units (defined as units in structures containing five or more dwellings)
represent the second largest housing category in South San Francisco and have experienced the
most rapid growth between 2000 and 2008. The number of large multifamily housing units grew
by 11 percent while single family detached dwellings grew by only two percent between 2000 and
2008. But at 20 percent in 2008, South San Francisco still has a smaller proportion of large
multifamily housing units compared to San Mateo County, where over a quarter (26 percent) of all
housing was in large multifamily structures.
Single-family attached homes comprised the third largest housing category in South San Francisco
at 12 percent in 2008, a higher figure than the nine percent of all homes in San Mateo County. The
remaining housing categories, small multifamily homes (defined as units in structures containing 2
to 4 dwellings) and mobile homes represented relatively small proportions of South San
Francisco’s housing stock in 2008 and have experienced little or no growth since 2000.
Housing Needs Assessment 19
Table 13: Housing Units by Type, 2000 to 2008 (a)
% Change
20002008
South San Francisco Number of Units% Total Number of Units% Total2000-2008
Single Family Detached11,81559%12,02058%2%
Single Family Attached2,48512%2,55112%3%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units1,6688%1,6868%1%
Multifamily 5+Units3,76119%4,16020%11%
Mobile Home 4092%4092%0%
Total20,138100%20,826100%3%
check
% Change
San Mateo CountyNumber of Units% TotalNumber of Units% Total2000-2008
Single Family Detached150,28658%153,58357%2%
Single Family Attached22,7029%22,9379%1%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units18,2527%18,5757%2%
Multifamily 5+Units65,85425%69,60726%6%
Mobile Home 3,4841%3,5991%3%
Total260,578100%268,301100%3%
% Change
Bay Area (b)Number of Units% TotalNumber of Units% Total2000-2008
Single Family Detached1,376,86154%1,466,50154%7%
Single Family Attached224,8249%233,6129%4%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units266,32010%272,84310%2%
Multifamily 5+Units623,38824%699,12726%12%
Mobile Home 61,0112%61,3282%1%
Total2,552,404100%2,733,411100%7%
Notes:
(a) Housing estimates for January 1, 2001 through January 1, 2007 and provisional population and housing estimates for
January 1, 2008 for California, San Mateo County and the city of South San Francisco.
(b) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Source: CA Department of Finance, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Building Permit Trends
Building permit trends in South San Francisco support the evident growth in multifamily units
experienced between 2000 and 2008. Since 1999, large multifamily units have made up the
majority of new development. Since 1999, South San Francisco issued 748 building permits for
these larger complexes, while only 354 permits were issued for new single family development,
leading to a relatively small increase in the City’s single-family housing stock (see Table 14).
Housing Needs Assessment 20
Table 14: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 1999 to 2008 (a)
(b)
2008
Building Type199920002001200220032004200520062007Total
Single Family240155657112618630121
484
2 Units0000320002
7
3 & 4 Units0000000000
0
5 or More Units80000136096192990
748
Total320155657113038010222211131,239
Note:
(a) US Bureau of the Census provides construction statistics by permit-issuing place and by county on new
privately-owned residential housing units authorized by building permits. Data updated monthly.
(b) Includes January 2008 - June 2008 only.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Building Permit Estimate 2008; BAE, 2008.
Overcrowding
Overcrowding refers to a household with an average of 1.01 or more persons per room, with those
rooms being bedrooms and dining rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchens. Units with more
than 1.5 persons per room are considered to be severely overcrowded. As shown in Table 15,
South San Francisco households were more likely to be overcrowded than San Mateo households
in 2000. Of all households in South San Francisco, 16 percent of households were overcrowded or
severely overcrowded versus 12 percent in San Mateo County. Overcrowding was much more
common in South San Francisco’s renter-occupied households, with 29 percent overcrowded, while
only eight percent of owner-occupied households in South San Francisco were overcrowded.
Housing Needs Assessment 21
Table 15: Overcrowded Households, 2000 (a)
South San Francisco
OwnersRentersTotal
Persons per RoomHH'sPercentHH'sPercentHH'sPercent
1.51 or more (Severely Overcrowded)1241%124617%13707%
1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded)8187%89812%17169%
1.00 or less10,97192%5,22571%16,19684%
Total11,913100%7,369100%19,282100%
% Overcrowded by Tenure8%29%16%
San Mateo County
OwnersRentersTotal
Persons per RoomHH'sPercentHH'sPercentHH'sPercent
1.51 or more (Severely Overcrowded)5,1363.3%13,77014.1%18,9067.4%
1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded)5,3353.4%6,8917.0%12,2264.8%
1.00 or less145,79393.3%77,17878.9%222,97187.7%
Total156,264100.0%97,839100.0%254,103100.0%
% Overcrowded by Tenure7%21%12%
Note:
(a) The U.S. Census defines overcrowded an unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more
per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons
per room are considered severely overcrowded.
Source: U.S. Census, SF3-H20, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Inventory of Existing Affordable Units
As presented in Table 16, the City of South San Francisco is home to 815 income-restricted
affordable housing units, including 471 family units and 344 senior units.
Units at Risk of Conversion During Next Ten Years
The California Housing Partnership Corporation identifies only one affordable housing
development in South San Francisco as at risk for conversion to market rate housing during the
next 10 years. The Fairway Apartments development is owned by a private, for-profit entity; was
financed using Section 221(d)(4) funds with project-based Section 8; and affordability restrictions
will expire in December 2010.
Options for retaining this affordable housing resource in the community include preserving the
units by working with nonprofit and other public agencies, or replacing them. An analysis of these
two options follows.
Housing Needs Assessment 22
Table 16: Inventory of Income-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2009
Number of
Affordable
Name of DevelopmentLocationUnits
Family
260 Hillside Blvd.260 Hillside Blvd.1
310, 312 Miller Ave.310, 312 Miller Ave.7
317 - 321 Commercial Ave.317 - 321 Commercial Ave.15
339 - 341 Commercial Ave.339 - 341 Commercial Ave.4
440 Commercial Ave.440 Commercial Ave.4
714 Linden Ave.714 Linden Ave.3
90 Oak Ave.90 Oak Ave.2
Archstone South (Solaire)101 McLellan Dr.72
Bronstein'sGrand Ave.6
206 Grand Ave.206 Grand Ave.6
Fairway Apartments 77 Westborough Blvd.74
Grand Hotel731 Airport Blvd.16
Grand Oaks99 Oak Ave.43
Greenridge Housing 1565 El Camino Real34
Metropolitan Hotel220 Linden Ave.62
Oak FarmsOak and Grand Aves.5
Park Station1488 El Camino Real15
Schrier350 Grand Ave.3
South City LightsGellert & Westborough Blvds.52
Sundial Apartments215 4th Ln.11
Willow GardensWillow Gardens36
Senior Housing
Chestnut Creek Senior Apartments 65 Chestnut Ave.40
Magnolia Plaza 630 Baden Ave.125
Rotary Plaza433 Alida Way.179
815
Total Affordable Housing Units
Note:
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Preserve Affordability
In Project-Based Section 8 properties, such as the Fairview Apartments, the owner of the building
2
receives rent from each unit equal to the HUD established Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the area.
Where the FMR is less than actual market rents, the owner realizes less income from the property
than he or she would without affordability restrictions. Hence, in order to incentivize a property
owner to continue to contract out his or her buildings as a Project-Based Section 8 property once
mortgage restrictions expire, an ongoing subsidy is required to make up for the gap between FMR
and actual market rent. As shown in Table 17, there is a gap of approximately $390 per unit per
2
FMRs are defined by HUD as the 40th percentile rent drawn from the distribution of rents of all units
occupied by recent movers.
Housing Needs Assessment 23
month between FMR and actual market rent in South San Francisco. Hence, for a 74-unit
development, the average monthly gap is $29,000. If the property owner were willing to enter into
a rental subsidy agreement with the City or some other entity that would subsidize the rents on
behalf of the lower-income renters, this would require an ongoing annual payment of
approximately $348,000. In previous years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
has worked with the owner of the Fairview Apartments to extend the affordability period. Another
option would be for the City to work with a nonprofit housing provider to negotiate the purchase of
the building.
Replace Affordable Units
As an alternative to providing ongoing monthly rent subsidies, the City or another entity could
attempt to purchase or develop replacement housing units that could be rented to the displaced
lower-income households at similar rents. In order to make this possible, it would be necessary to
provide a subsidy for the purchase or construction of the replacement units that would be the
equivalent of $348,000 per year in current dollars. The initial investment in existing or new
housing units that would be necessary to allow a $348,000 reduction in annual rent can be
estimated by calculating the net present value of mortgage payments equal to $29,000 per month
on the theory that if the owner (e.g., a non-profit housing organization) can reduce its required
mortgage payments by $29,000 per month, then it could reduce the rents that it needs to charge its
tenants by a similar amount. Hence, as shown in Table 17, based on a 30-year mortgage term at
7.5 percent interest, it would take an initial investment of approximately $4.1 million to reduce the
monthly debt service by $29,000 per month.
This analysis likely understates the true cost of preserving or replacing the units, as it would be
quite difficult to assemble an appropriate combination of subsidies to acquire the property or
develop a similar project with the same mix of unit sizes and affordability levels.
Table 17: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis, Fairview Apartments
Monthly
# UnitsFMR (a)Market Rent (b)Per Unit Gap (c)Total Gap (d)
74$1,658$2,050$392$29,008
$348,096
Annual Preservation Cost (e)
Total Replacement Cost (f)$4,148,655
Notes:
(a) 2009 Fair Market Rent for 2-bedroom apartment in San Mateo County as established by HUD
(b) Prevailing market rent for 2-bedroom apartment in South San Francisco per RealFacts
(c) Difference between FMR and market rent per unit
(d) Total difference between FMR and market rent if all units were rented at market rents
(e) Annual rent subsidy needed preserve current affordability levels in current 2009 dollars,
equals total monthly gap multiplied by 12.
(f) Net present value of the annual rent subsidy based on a 30-year mortgage at an interest
rate of 7.5 percent.
Housing Needs Assessment 24
Financial Resources Available to the City to Assist in Preservation
Clearly, the costs are substantial to preserve or replace housing units that currently rent below
market rates, yet the City has access to a range of different funds that could potentially assist in a
preservation effort including the following:
CDBG Entitlement Funds
Redevelopment Agency Low-Mod Housing Funds
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
State Grant Programs
Federal Grant Programs
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
HUD Section 8 “Mark to Market” Program
Where units such as the Fairview Apartments are at risk of conversion, it is the City’s policy to
work to preserve them, if possible. Key potential partners in this effort include HUD as well as a
range of affordable housing developers and property managers who have expressed an interest in
working with local communities on preservation of affordable housing projects, including such
well-known affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., EAH, Inc., BRIDGE Housing
Corporation, the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and Eden Housing. Numerous other
organizations working to preserve affordable housing units are listed in a database maintained by
the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
Market Conditions
This section of the needs assessment provides information on market conditions for housing in
South San Francisco and San Mateo County. This information is important, because it reveals the
extent to which the private housing market is providing for the needs of various economic
segments of the local population. The information on housing market condition is combined with
local demographic and employment information to identify those segments of the population that
face difficulties in securing housing in South San Francisco at costs that do not place them under
excessive housing cost burden.
Rental Market Overview
A review of rental market trends in South San Francisco was conducted for this Housing Element
by reviewing data from Real Facts, a commercial database service that tracks rental apartment
3
occupancy statistics and rents within South San Francisco and other California cities.Data from
Real Facts focuses on large, professionally-managed apartment complexes with 50 units or more.
With approximately 7,500 renter-occupied housing units in the City, Real Fact data describes
approximately 11 percent of the total rental market. As shown in Table 18, Real Facts reports rents
for studio units averaging $1,068 per month, one-bedroom, one-bath units averaging $1,875 per
Housing Needs Assessment 25
month, two-bedroom, two-bath units averaging $2,562 per month, and three bedroom townhouses
averaging $2,295.
Table 18: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco
Current Market Data, 1Q 2009
PercentAvg.Avg.Avg.
Unit TypeNumberof MixSq. Ft.RentRent/Sq. Ft.
Studio55.06.5%400.0$1,068$2.67
1 BR/1 BA327.038.5%792.0$1,875$2.37
1 BR Townhouse10.01.2%1112.0$2,445$2.20
2 BR/1 BA90.010.6%814.0$1,778$2.18
2BR/1.5 BA12.01.4%920.0$1,600$1.74
2 BR/2 BA188.022.1%1134.0$2,562$2.26
2 BR Townhouse144.016.9%883.0$1,730$1.96
3 BR Townhouse24.02.8%1100.0$2,295$2.09
Totals850.0100.0%874.0$1,955$2.24
Average Rent History
2007-20082007-2009
Unit Type1Q 20071Q 2008% Change1Q 2009% Change
Studio$919$1,07517.0%$1,06816.2%
1BR/1BA$1,349$1,79032.7%$1,87539.0%
2BR/1BA$1,546$1,79115.8%$1,77815.0%
2BR/2BA$1,990$2,42722.0%$2,56228.7%
2BR Townhouse$1,441$1,59610.8%$1,73020.1%
3 BR Townhouse$1,961$2,29517.0%$2,29517.0%
Average Annual Rent: $1,419$1,86731.6%$1,95537.8%
Occupancy Rate
Average
YearAnnual
200596.3%
200697.4%
200787.1%
200886.8%
1Q 200992.7%
Note:
(a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more.
Sources: RealFacts, Inc., 2009; BAE, 2009.
Consistent with trends elsewhere in the Peninsula and in San Francisco, Real Facts reports rental
rates rose sharply during 2007 followed by a more modest increase in 2008. Overall rents were up
37.8 percent between the first quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009. One-bedroom, one-
bathroom units registered a particularly steep increase during this period, with monthly rents
jumping from $1,349 to $1,875, a 39.0 percent increase. Interestingly, Real Facts reported a
relatively high vacancy rate of approximately 13 percent among large apartment complexes in the
City during 2007 and 2008, a marked increase over previous years, indicating prices may have
Housing Needs Assessment 26
gone up somewhat faster than the market would bear. With rent increases beginning to moderate,
for the first quarter 2009 vacancy rate stood at approximately seven percent.
As Real Facts focuses on large apartment complexes, BAE also reviewed online listings for all
rental units posted to Craigslist during May of 2009. These data show average asking rates that are
substantially lower than for just the subset of large, professionally-managed complexes. Among all
units listed for rent in the City during this period, average asking rents were $1,410 per month for
one-bedroom units, $1,803 for two-bedroom units, $2,630 for three-bedroom units, and $3,087 for
four-bedroom units.
Table 19: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco, May 2009
PercentAvg.
Unit TypeNumberof MixAsk. Rent
1 Bedroom1519%$1,410
2 Bedroom3442%$1,803
3 Bedroom1620%$2,630
4 Bedroom1620%$3,087
81100%
Sources: Craigslist Apartment Listings, May 2009; BAE, 2009.
Housing Needs Assessment 27
Ownership Market Overview
A review of for-sale housing market conditions in South San Francisco was also conducted for this
Housing Element by reviewing data from Data Quick, a commercial database service that tracks
sales statistics in South San Francisco and other California cities.As shown in Table 20, the
median sale price of a single-family home was $575,000 as of 2008. This was off substantially
from a peak of $745,000 in 2006, but nonetheless represents a more than doubling of price since
1990. For condominiums, the median sale price stood at $408,000 in 2008, down from a high of
$555,000 in 2006, but still more than double the price in 1990.
Examining the for-sale residential market as a whole, including condominiums and single-family
homes, Data Quick reported a median home sale price of $530,000 in South San Francisco during
4
2008, well below the countywide median of $680,000.
Consistent with the recent drop in prices has been a notable decline in sales. During 2007, only
329 homes sold in South San Francisco, the lowest level in approximately 20 years. Similar, with
only 78 sold during 2007, condominium sales volumes were also near a 20 year low.
As will be described in the following section, while sale prices have dropped from their 2006 peak,
they nonetheless have escalated much faster than wages across the past 20 years, meaning that
finding affordable housing remains a pressing challenge for many South San Francisco households.
4
California Home Sale Activity by City Recorded in the Year 2008
Source:, DataQuick.
Housing Needs Assessment 28
Table 20: Units Sold and Median Price, South San Francisco, 1990 – 2008
CondosSingle Family Homes
Year# Units SoldMedian Price# Units SoldMedian Price
1990154185,500465262,500
$$
181,000438250,000
1991111
$$
175,000422237,500
1992104
$$
165,750409230,000
199363
$$
199489158,500444232,500
$$
199596169,000402233,000
$$
1996101155,000458230,000
$$
1997171171,000660260,000
$$
1998145185,500838302,750
$$
1999189225,000815354,750
$$
2000136285,000734445,000
$$
2001132339,000542450,000
$$
2002179349,000730485,000
$$
2003182370,000805535,000
$$
2004197415,000815630,000
$$
2005194535,000618723,500
$$
2006163555,000513745,000
$$
200778495,000329713,500
$$
58$408,000168$575,000
YTD 2008 (a)
4.4%5.4%
Annual Avg. Rate of Change 1990 - 2000
11.7%9.0%
Annual Avg. Rate of Change 2000 - 2006
-14.3%-12.1%
Annual Avg. Rate of Change 2006 - 2008
Note:
(a) 2008 Year to Date data from January 1, 2008 through July 15, 2008.
Source: DataQuick Information Systems, Custom Market Report 2008; BAE, 2008.
Housing Affordability
According to the federal government, housing is considered “affordable” if it costs no more than 30
percent of the household’s gross income. Often, affordable housing is discussed in the context of
affordability to households with different income levels. Households are categorized as very low
income, low income, moderate income, or above moderate income based on percentages of the
Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD). Income limits vary by household size. Table 21provides the
maximum income limits for households ranging from one to four people in size in San Mateo
County in 2008. Very-low- and low income households are eligible for federal, state, and local
affordable housing programs. Moderate income households are eligible for some state and local
housing programs. These income categories are also used by the Association of Bay Area
Governments in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
Housing Needs Assessment 29
Table 21: Household Income Limits, San Mateo County, 2008
State Income Limit
Number of Persons in Household
Income CategorDefinition1234
y
Extremely Low Income0% to 30%$23,750$27,150$30,550$33,950
Very Low Income31% to 50%$39,600$45,250$50,900$56,550
Low Income51% to 80%$63,350$72,400$81,450$90,500
Median81% to 100%$66,500$76,000$85,500$95,000
Moderate101% to 120%$79,800$91,200$102,600$114,000
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2008;BAE, 2008.
Incomes by Occupation
As a way to illustrate the types of jobs available in South San Francisco and the typical wage paid
by each, Table 22 presents average wages for the top 20 occupations for the Census Metropolitan
Division comprised of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties. As shown, the top 20
occupations include a range of well-paid jobs in the fields of management, engineering, health, and
business as well as lower-paid jobs as security guards, clerks, cashiers, and janitors.
Table 22: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2008
Average
Top 20 Occupations (a)Annual Wage
General and Operations Managers$130,045
Computer Software Engineers, Applications$103,829
Registered Nurses$92,477
Business Operations Specialists$82,406
Accountants and Auditors$76,058
Carpenters$60,555
First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Office/Admin Support Workers$58,438
Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants$52,072
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks$43,243
Customer Service Representatives$40,597
Office Clerks, General$32,831
Security Guards$29,921
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand$29,771
Retail Salespersons$29,049
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers$27,661
Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners$27,400
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners$26,919
Cashiers$25,738
Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food$22,267
Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop$20,391
(a) Listed above are the top 20 occupations by number of persons employed.
Sources: California EDD and BLS Occupation Employment Statistics Survey, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Based on these wage data, Figure 1 shows representative households, with hypothetical jobs and
family compositions.
Housing Needs Assessment 30
Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2008
Moderate-Income Family Profile:
Dad works as a carpenter, mom works
as a bookkeeping clerk; they have two children.
Estimated annual income:$104,000
Low-Income Family Profile:
Dad works as an security guard, mom works
as a customer service representative; they have one child.
Estimated annual income: $71,000
Very-Low-Income Family Profile:
Mom works as a retail sales person and is the only source
of financial support in her family; she has one child.
Estimated annual income: $29,000
Extremely-Low-Income Family Profile:
A grandparent living alone on Social Security.
Estimated annual income:$13,000
The Face of Inclusionary Housin
Note: Above figure is based on a figure presented in , a reported prepared by the
g
Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California.
Wages are the average wage per occupation in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties as of August 2008.
Social Security income is based on the national average retiree benefit as of August 2008.
Sources: NPH, 2007; California EDD and BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2008; Social Secuirty
Administration, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Ability to Purchase/Rent Homes
Table 23 shows affordability scenarios for four-person households with very low-, low-, and
moderate-incomes. The analysis compares the maximum affordable sales price for each of these
households to the market rate prices in South San Francisco between January 1, 2008 and August
1, 2008. The maximum affordable sales price was calculated using household income limits
published by HCD, conventional financing terms, and assuming that households spend 30 percent
of gross income on mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance. Appendix C shows the detailed
calculations used to derive the maximum affordable sales price. Home sale data was obtained from
DataQuick Information Systems.
As shown in Table 20, the median sales price for three bedroom and larger single-family homes in
South San Francisco was $582,000 during the sample period. By comparison, the highest cost
residence that a moderate-income family could afford is $394,000. Less than two percent of
Housing Needs Assessment 31
single-family homes sold between January 1, 2008 and August 1, 2008 fell within this price range.
This analysis indicates that for all but above moderate-income households, current market prices
present a serious obstacle to single-family homeownership.
Although, they sold at a slightly lower median sale price during the same period, condominiums
were also out of reach for low- and moderate- income households. Three bedroom and larger
condominiums sold for a median price of $456,000 during the first seven months of 2008 with
none selling below $394,000, a price that would be affordable to low- and moderate-income
households.
Table 23 also presents a comparison between the maximum affordable monthly rents for a four-
person household with market rate rents for three-bedroom rental units. Maximum affordable
monthly rents assumed that households pay 30 percent of their gross income on rent and utilities.
According to RealFacts, the average monthly rent for a three-bedroom unit in South San Francisco
in the second quarter of 2008 was $2,295. This analysis suggests that very low- and low-income
renters must pay in excess of 30 percent of their incomes to compete in the current market without
some form of rental subsidy. The gap is especially large for very low-income households who
have to pay over 50 percent of their income to afford the average market rent. Only moderate-
income households can afford the average monthly rent in South San Francisco.
Housing Needs Assessment 32
Overpayment
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes that a household is “cost-
burdened” (i.e., overpaying for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on
housing-related costs. A “severe housing cost burden” occurs when a household pays more than 50
percent of its income on housing costs. The prevalence of overpayment varies significantly by
income, tenure, household type, and household size. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) data provides detailed information in this regard for different types of
households.
In general, overpayment disproportionately affects lower-income households. Figures 2 and 3
show the relationship between low-income households and the varying degrees of cost burden.
The data show that renter households are much more likely to be overpaying than owners. The
2000 Census provides the most recent data on overpayment by tenure for South San Francisco.
According to these data, 46 percent of extremely low-income, 42 percent of very low-income, and
44 percent of low-income homeowners were cost-burdened. At the same time, 77 percent of
extremely low-income, 81 percent of very low-income, and 40 percent of low-income renter
households were cost burdened.
Figure 2: Housing Cost Burden for Renters, South San Francisco, 2000
Renter Cost Burden, South San Francisco, 2000
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely LowVery LowLowMedianTotal Renter
Households
Household Income Level
No Cost BurdenCost Burden 30% to 50%Cost Burden >50%
Housing Needs Assessment 34
Figure 3: Housing Cost Burden for Owners, South San Francisco, 2000
Owner Cost Burden, South San Francisco, 2000
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely LowVery LowLowMedianTotal Owner
Households
Household Income Level
No Cost BurdenCost Burden 30% to 50%Cost Burden >50%
Projected Housing Needs
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government
(in this case, ABAG) and local governments must collectively determine each locality's share of
regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing Element update cycle that
requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their Housing Elements by June 30, 2009, ABAG
allocated housing unit production needs for each county within the Bay Area and, with the
exception of San Mateo County, also allocated housing unit production need to the city level.
These allocations set housing production goals for the planning period that runs from January 1,
2007 through June 30, 2014.
Housing Needs Assessment 35
In the case of San Mateo County, the County, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county,
formed a subregion, for the purposes of conducting the RHNA, as allowed by state law. The San
Mateo subregion designated the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity
responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. Their process
paralleled, but was separate from, the Bay Area’s RHNA process. San Mateo County created its
own methodology, issued draft allocations, and handled the revision and appeal processes. They
also issued final allocations to members of the subregion. Although the subregion worked
independently of the regional RHNA process, the final allocation methodology was ultimately
similar to ABAG’s methodology.
Shown below, the RHNA process determined a need for 1,635 housing units in South San
Francisco between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2014. This need is divided among income
categories with 23 percent of the need identified for very-low income households, 16 percent for
low income households, 19 percent for moderate income households and the remaining 42 percent
for above-moderate income households.
Table 24: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014
Income CategoryProjected NeedPercent of Total
Very Low (0-50% of AMI)37323%
Low (51-80% AMI)26816%
Moderate (81-120% of AMI)31519%
Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI)67942%
Total Units1,635100%
Sources: ABAG, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Between January 2007 and June 2009, there was a substantial amount of housing built or
rehabilitated in South San Francisco. Pursuant to State law, the City is allowed to count this
production toward its progress in meeting the determined need for the 2007 to 2014 planning
period. As shown in Table 25, there were 815 units built in the City between January 1, 2007 and
June 30, 2009. These include 50 very low income units, 64 low income units, 74 moderate income
units and 627 above moderate income units. In addition there were 15 housing units that were
substantially rehabilitated and converted from market rate to affordable housing, including 6 very
low income units and 9 low income units. Consequently, the City has a remaining balance of 805
units which it must plan for during the remainder of the planning period, including 317 very low
income units, 195 low income units, 241 moderate income units, and 52 above-moderate income
units.
Housing Needs Assessment 36
Table 25: Housing Units Completed / Rehabilitated, January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009
Affordability
New ConstructionVery LowLowModerateAboveTotal
Archstone South (Solaire)02943288360
Grand Oaks4300043
90 Oak Ave.0111113
South City Lights02626228280
440 Commercial Ave.40004
Park Station3848499
Stonegate Estates0001616
Total New Construction
506474627815
Rehabilitation (a)
317 - 321 Commercial Ave.690015
Total Rehabilitation Units690015
Calculation of Remaining Need
2007-2014 RHNA3732683156791,635
Total Credits (New & Rehab) (b)567374627830
31719524152805
Balance of RHNA
Note:
(a) These units were acquired by the RDA, rehabilitated, and converted to income-restricted affordable housing units.
(b) Sum of units constructed or rehabilitated between June 2007 and June 2009.
Sources: BAE, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 2009.
Special Housing Needs
This section of the needs assessment profiles populations with special housing needs, including
large families, single parent families, extremely low income households, persons with disabilities,
elderly households, farm workers, and homeless persons and families.
Large Households
In 2000, South San Francisco contained a substantially greater proportion of large households
(defined as five or more persons) than San Mateo County as a whole. As shown in Table 26, 17.9
percent of South San Francisco’s households contained five or more persons in 2000, versus San
Mateo County’s 12.9 percent. Large households were only slightly more common among renters
than owners in South San Francisco; 19.0 percent of renter households had five or more persons
compared to 17.2 percent of homeowner households.
Housing Needs Assessment 37
Table 26: Household Size by Tenure, 2000
OwnerRenterTotal
NumberPercentPercentNumberPercent
South San FranciscoNumber
82.1%
1-4 persons10,20482.8%5,96981.0%16,173
17.9%
5+ Persons2,11817.2%1,40019.0%3,518
100.0%
100.0%100.0%
Total12,3227,36919,691
San Mateo County
87.1%
1-4 persons135,98187.0%85,39687.3%221,377
12.9%
5+ Persons20,28313.0%12,44312.7%32,726
100.0%
100.0%100.0%
Total156,26497,839254,103
Source: US Census, 2000, SF-3, H17; BAE, 2008.
While the prevalence of large households was relatively similar between renters and owners, as
shown in Table 27, renters were much less likely to live in housing units with four or more
bedrooms. Only four percent of South San Francisco renter households lived in units with four or
more bedrooms, despite the fact that 19 percent of renter households had five or more members.
By comparison, 22 percent of owner households lived in units with four or more bedrooms, while
17 percent of owner households had five or more members. Overall, these data point the need for
additional rental housing opportunities for large households in South San Francisco.
Table 27: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2000
Owner HouseholdsRenter HouseholdsTotal Households
South San FranciscoNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
Studio2682%92012%1,1886%
1 bedroom7716%2,50934%3,28017%
2 bedrooms2,58321%2,42133%5,00425%
3 bedrooms6,04249%1,19516%7,23737%
4 bedrooms2,20018%2884%2,48813%
5 or more bedrooms4584%360%4943%
Total12,322100%7,369100%19,691100%
Owner HouseholdsRenter Households
Total Households
San Mateo CountNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent
y
Studio2,1871%14,41315%16,6007%
1 bedroom9,8246%36,47537%46,29918%
2 bedrooms33,54621%30,70731%64,25325%
3 bedrooms69,94045%12,66113%82,60133%
4 bedrooms31,83520%2,9183%34,75314%
5 or more bedrooms8,9326%6651%9,5974%
Total156,264100%97,839100%254,103100%
Source: US Census, SF3-H42, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Housing Needs Assessment 38
Female-Headed Households
Single female-headed households with children tend to have a higher need for affordable housing
than family households in general. In addition, such households are more likely to need childcare
since the mother is often the sole source of income and the sole caregiver for children within the
household.
Table 28 shows that in 2008, there were 1,120 single female householders with children in South
San Francisco. As a proportion of all families, such households represented six percent of all
households in South San Francisco and seven percent of family households in the City.
San Mateo County contained a similar proportion of these households, totaling 12,017 households
in 2008, which represented six percent of all households present in the county. In addition, both
South San Francisco and San Mateo County contained a significantly smaller proportion of male
householders with children; this household type made up two percent of both the city and the
county. At the city level, there were 158 single female headed households with children living in
poverty in South San Francisco in 2008.
Table 28: Family Characteristics, 2000
South San FranciscoSan Mateo CountyBay Area (a)
PercentPercentPercent
Household TypeNumberof TotalNumberof TotalNumberof Total
1-person household:3,91319%62,26726%660,90624%
Male householder1,6428%26,62612%299,03510%
Female householder2,27111%35,64114%361,87114%
2 or more person household:16,16481%192,44174%1,895,88476%
Family households:
14,95875%171,61665%1,656,88567%
Married-couple family:11,20956%134,93849%1,264,78253%
With own children under 18 years5,56728%62,79724%610,28925%
Other family:3,74919%36,67815%392,10314%
Male householder, no wife present:7044%6,4633%64,5773%
With own children under 18 years3962%4,4932%50,6312%
Female householder, no husband present1,5298%13,7055%131,5045%
With own children under 18 years1,1206%12,0176%145,3915%
Non- Family households:1,2066%20,8259%238,9998%
Female Householder5283%11,5965%136,9675%
Male householder6783%9,2294%102,0324%
Total Households20,077100%254,708100%2,556,790100%
Total Households Under Poverty Level527100%6,515100%99,904100%
Female-Headed Households Under Poverty Level15830%2,04431%38,57739%
Note:
(a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Housing Needs Assessment 39
Extremely Low Income Households
Extremely low income households are defined as households earning less than 30 percent of area
median income (AMI). These households may require specific housing solutions such as deeper
income targeting for subsidies, housing with supportive services, single-room occupancy units, or
rent subsidies or vouchers.
In 2000, 2,055 South San Francisco households earned less than 30 percent of AMI. Extremely
low income (ELI) households represented 18 percent of all renter households and six percent of all
owner households in the city. A majority of extremely low income households were severely
overpaying for housing; 59 percent of renters and 31 percent of homeowners paid more than 50
percent of their gross income on housing.
Table 29: Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households, South San Francisco,
2000
RentersOwnersTotal
1,2957602,055
Total Number of ELI Households
Percent with Any Housing Problems 82%48%69%
Percent with Cost Burden (30% of income) 77%46%66%
Percent with Severe Cost Burden (50% of income)59%31%49%
Total Number of Households 7,33812,33519,673
18%6%10%
Percent ELI Households
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) Special Tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008.
Seniors
Generally, senior households tend to have higher rates of homeownership than other households,
1
but also tend to earn less and in many instances face a significant housing cost burden. Shown in
Table 30, 77 percent of senior-headed households in South San Francisco owned their own home,
compared to 58 percent of younger households.
Table 30: Households by Age and Tenure, 2000
South San FranciscoSan Mateo County
Householder 15- 64 yearsNumberPercentNumberPercent
114,38257.0%
Owner8,81958.3%
86,13843.0%
Renter6,29841.7%
200,520100.0%
Total15,117100.0%
Householder 65 years and overNumberPercentNumberPercent
41,88278.2%
Owner3,50376.6%
11,70121.8%
Renter1,07123.4%
53,583100.0%
Total4,574100.0%
1
Refers to a household whose householder identified him/herself to the US Census Bureau as being 65 or older.
Total Households19,691254,103
Percent Householders 65 plus years23.2%21.1%
Source: US Census 2000, SF3-H14; BAE, 2008.
Housing Needs Assessment 40
2
Among elderly households, most earn well below the county Median Family Income (MFI).
Shown in Table 31, only 11 percent of elderly renter households and 33 percent of elderly owner
households earn 80 percent of MFI or more.
Table 31: Household Income of Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000 (a)
Elderly Renter Households (b)NumberPercent
30% MFI or Less47845%
30% to 50% MFI20920%
50% to 80% MFI26425%
80% MFI of Greater12011%
Total 1,071100%
Elderly Owner HouseholdsNumberPercent
30% MFI or Less43814%
30% to 50% MFI83426%
50% to 80% MFI90828%
80% MFI or Greater1,05833%
Total 3,238100%
Total Elderly HouseholdsNumberPercent
30% MFI or Less91621%
30% to 50% MFI1,04324%
50% to 80% MFI1,17227%
80% MFI or Greater1,17827%
Total4,309100%
Notes:
(a) Data are based on the HUD-published CHAS 2000 data series.
(b) Median Family Income for San Mateo County.
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008
For elderly residents, homeownership provides some level of security against increasing housing
costs. Shown in Table 32, approximately 20 percent of elderly homeowners paid 30 percent or
more of their income toward housing costs. This compares to 29 percent of homeowners in South
San Francisco overall. While elderly homeowners are less likely than younger homeowners to face
a cost burden, elderly renters are much more likely to overpay for housing. Overall, 60 percent of
elderly households paid 30 percent or more of their income toward housing, compared to 40
percent of renters citywide.
2
As distinguished from a senior-headed households (age 65 or older), an “elderly household” as defined by
HUD is a household with one or more member who is 62 years of age or older.
Housing Needs Assessment 41
Table 32: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2000 (a)
All Elderly
Extr. LowVery LowLow Median +Households
Elderly Renter Households4782092641201,071
% with any housing problems72.8%78.9%48.9%20.8%62.3%
% Cost Burden >30%72.0%78.9%41.3%20.8%60.0%
% Cost Burden >50%45.8%19.1%0.0%0.0%24.2%
Elderly Owner Households4388349081,0583,238
% with any housing problems31.5%28.7%18.5%10.2%20.2%
% Cost Burden >30%31.5%28.2%18.1%9.5%19.7%
% Cost Burden >50%13.5%16.8%9.3%0.9%9.0%
Total Elderly Households9161,0431,1721,1784,309
% with any housing problems53.1%38.8%25.3%11.3%30.6%
% Cost Burden >30%52.6%38.4%23.3%10.7%29.7%
% Cost Burden >50%30.4%17.3%7.2%0.8%12.8%
Notes:
(a) Figures reported above are based on the HUD-published CHAS 2000 data series.
Definitions:
- Any housing problems: cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or
plumbing facilities.
- Cost Burden: Cost burden is the fraction of a household's total gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing
costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance,
and utilities.
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations
from Census 2000; BAE, 2008
Housing Needs Assessment 42
Figure 4: Housing Cost Burden, Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000
Owner Cost Burden in Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely LowVery LowLowMedianTotal Elderly
Households
Household Income Level
No Cost BurdenCost Burden 30%-50%Cost Burden >50%
Persons with Disability
Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding
employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. Based on the 2000
Census, approximately 18 percent of South San Francisco residents were affected by one or more
3
disability, compared to 16 percent of people countywide.
As shown in Table 34, among the adult population with a disability, there was a much higher
likelihood of not having a job than among the general population. This high rate of joblessness
4
remains a contributing factor affecting the ability to find affordable housing.
3
Per the Census definition, a person is counted as disabled if one of the following applies: 1) they were five
years old and over and reported a long-lasting sensory, physical, mental or self-care disability; 2) they were 16
years old and over and reported difficulty going outside the home because of a physical, mental, or emotional
condition lasting six months or more; or 3) they were 16 to 64 years old and reported difficulty working at a job
or business because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more.
4
It should be noted that the percentage of people who are not employed is no the same as the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate, refers to the percentage of people actively seeking employment who are not
Housing Needs Assessment 43
Table 33: Persons with Disability by Age, 2000
South San FranciscoSan Mateo County
Population Total Percent with Population Total Percent with
with DisabilityPopulationDisabilitywith DisabilityPopulationDisability
Age 5 to 153649,1954.0%3,769100,1293.8%
Age 16 to 203623,9819.1%5,22939,59613.2%
Age 21 to 646,04335,68916.9%68,045431,76815.8%
Age 65 to 741,5504,52734.2%12,05944,84926.9%
Age 75 and Over1,7253,16954.4%18,33839,88346.0%
Total Over Age 510,04456,56117.8%107,440656,22516.4%
Source: U.S.Census, SF3-P42, 2000; BAE 2008.
Table 34: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2000
South San FranciscoSan Mateo County
% Total% Total
Working Age Population with Disability (a)NumberPopulationNumberPopulation
Employed3,88464%43,86864%
36%24,17736%
Not Employed (b)2,159
Total6,043100%68,045100%
% Total% Total
Working Age Population with No DisabilityNumberPopulationNumberPopulation
Employed23,09178%286,97379%
Not Employed (b)6,55522%76,75021%
Total29,646100%363,723100%
Percent of Working Age Population with Disability17%16%
Note:
(a) Working age population here refers to persons age 20 to 64.
(b) Not employed persons include persons not currently part of the active labor force (e.g., full-time students, stay-at-home
parents, other people not currently seeking employment). The unemployment rate is calculated based on the active labor force
and would be a lower number than presented above.
Source: U.S. Census, SF3-P42, 2000; BAE2008.
Table 35 provides an inventory of the licensed community care facilities in South San Francisco
that serve some of the City’s special needs groups. Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly
(RCFE), also known as “assisted living” or “board and care” facilities, provide assistance with
some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more independent than in most
nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities, also known as nursing homes, offer a higher level of care,
with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day. Adult residential facilities offer 24 hour non-medical
care for adults, ages 18 to 59 years old, who are unable to provide for their daily needs due to
physical or mental disabilities. Group homes, such as small residential facilities that serve children
or adults with chronic disabilities, provide 24 hour care by trained professionals.
currently employed. Where people are not actively seeking employment (e.g., full-time students or persons
unable to work due to a disability), they are not considered to be part of the labor force and are not counted in
the unemployment rate.
Housing Needs Assessment 44
Table 35: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2008
Residential Care Facilities for the ElderlLocationCapacit
yy
Aegis Assisted Living Of San Francisco 2280 Gellert Blvd. 100
Alhambra Home 498 Alhambra Road6
Alta Mesa Care Home 306 Alta Mesa Drive6
Araville Residential Care Home 744 Palm Avenue6
Araville Residential Care Home II106 Sycamore Ave.6
Bautista Board And Care I 708 Circle Court6
Bel Amor III608 Theresa Drive6
Bel Amor III169 San Felipe Avenue6
Bel Amor IV 648 Joaquin Drive6
Chad Corner Assisted Living 2901 Shannon Dr.6
Chester's Home 2315 Tipperary Ave.6
Damenik's Home851Baden Avenue15
Delia's Retirement Home 52 Arlington Drive6
Double Happiness Care Home 859 Camarita Circle6
Elizabeth's Care Home 2530 Olympic Drive6
Elizabeth's Care Home VII2530 Wentworth Drive6
Ellen's Board And Care 1242 Mission Road5
Family Affair Care Home 264 Southcliff Avenue6
Fook Hong Care Home 117 Arroyo Drive6
Friendly Neighbors Residential Care 2675 Shannon Drive6
Garrison Care Home 7 Hermosa Lane6
Gentry Home 2725 Shannon Drive6
Harrison Care Home 706 Palm Avenue6
Heirloom Gardens2305 Tipperary Avenue6
House of Love Care Home (Pending)675 Shannon Drive6
J B A Residential Care Home 2585 Ardee Lane6
Lilies Care Home 2535 Shannon Drive6
Lilies Care Home 2505 Tipperary Ave6
Manalo's Board & Care III853 Newman Drive6
Manalo's Board & Care IV 840 Camaritas Circle6
Manalo's Board And Care 807 Byron Drive6
Manalo's Board And Care V 840 Alta Loma Drive6
Mccaffrey's Care Home 2381 Olympic Drive6
Nobis Care Home 505 Palm Avenue6
Noralyn's Care Home 2780 Tipperary Ave6
Oikos Care Home 2311 Tipperary Avenue6
Olympic Residential Care Home 2470 Olympic Drive6
Savali's Residential Care Home 419 Hazelwood Drive6
St. Catherine Home 2530 Ardee Lane6
Sta Ines Care Home 779 Parkway Street6
Sunvill Board And Care Home 409 Holly Avenue6
Sunvill Board And Care II771 Camaritas Avenue6
Victoria 1252 Crestwood Drive5
Westborough Royale 89 Westborough Blvd99
Winston Manor Home 20 Elkwood Drive6
Adult Residential Facilities
Albright Home2501 Albright Way6
Care Plus Residential Care Facility34 Capay Circle6
Chester's Home2315 Tipperary Ave.6
Gentry Home2725 Sahnnon Drive6
Healthy Lifestyles- Sherwood Way108 Sherwood Way6
Lexy's Adult Residential Facility108 Greenwood Drive4
Rainbow Bright Adult Residential Facility29 Duval Drive6
Group Homes
Mac's Children and Family Services, Inc.403 West Orange Ave6
Tipperary Home2465 Tipperary Ave.6
Sources: California Department of Social Services, 2008; California Heathcare Foundation, 2008; BAE, 2009.
Housing Needs Assessment 45
Families and Individuals in Need of Emergency Shelters or Transitional Housings
According to the 2007 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, there were 2,064
homeless people reported in San Mateo County on the night of January 30, 2007. This point-in-
time study counted 1,094 homeless people living either on the street or in vehicles, a population
referred to as “unsheltered”. An additional 970 homeless people were staying in shelters,
transitional housing, jails, hospitals, or treatment facilities or were using a voucher to stay in a
motel, a population referred to as “sheltered”. Using an annualization formula, the survey
estimated 6,646 homeless people in San Mateo County on an annual basis.
Within this dataset, 188 homeless individuals were counted in South San Francisco, including 97
unsheltered persons and 91 sheltered persons. With a total population of approximately 60,400
residents as of 2007, South San Francisco contained approximately 8.5 percent of the San Mateo
County population. By comparison, it was home to 8.9 percent of the County’s unsheltered
persons and 9.4 percent of the sheltered population.
Government Code Section 65583(a) requires that each City must include sufficient capacity to
accommodate the need for emergency shelters. According to an inventory of shelter capacity in the
5
County, there are 168 emergency beds. Accordingly, the Safe Harbor Shelter in South San
Francisco, which provided 90 beds, accounts for 53 percent of emergency shelter capacity
countywide, far exceeding the City’s share of countywide general and homeless populations.
Hence the City goes well beyond its obligation to provide for a share of the countywide emergency
shelter facilities. Nonetheless, as part of the ongoing Zoning Ordinance update the City will be
identifying a zoning district where an additional emergency shelter would be permitted by right.
In addition, the City provides financial support for the not-for-profit organization, Community
Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which provides emergency shelter for battered women
and two agencies which provide housing referral and counseling services: the Shelter Network and
the Human Investment Project.
5
Shelter and Safety Net Service Report.
County of San Mateo Human Services Agency. January 2009.
Housing Needs Assessment 46
Table 36: Homeless Population, San Mateo County, January 30, 2007 (a)
San Mateo CountySouth San Francisco
Homeless PopulationNumberPercentageNumberPercentage
Sheltered (b)97047.0%9148.4%
Unsheltered1,09453.0%9751.6%
2,064100.0%188100.0%
Total Homeless Population
Homeless HouseholdsNumberPercentage
Without Dependent Children1,64992.9%
With Dependent Children1267.1%
1,775100.0%
Total Homeless Households
Demographics
ge
A
Ages 18-213.0%
Ages 21-6092.0%
Ages 60+5.0%
Gender
Male66.0%
Female34.0%
Presence of Children
With Children41.0%
Children Present < 18 years68.0%
Children in Foster Care29.0%
Disability
Depression57.0%
Mental Illness35.0%
Physical Disability35.0%
Drug Abuse33.0%
Alcohol Abuse31.0%
Chronic Health Problems28.0%
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder26.0%
Developmental Disability12.0%
HIV/AIDS2.0%
Notes:
(a) This point-in-time survey was conducted on the night of January 30, 2007.
(b) Because the sheltered homeless population is defined by the shelter location, rather than physical
presence of homeless persons within geographic boundary, this dataset is skewed.
Sources: 2007 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, HOPE, May 2007; BAE 2008.
Housing Needs Assessment 47
Housing Constraints
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must
analyze “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures.” Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take
action to mitigate or remove them.
In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the
production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. These include infrastructure availability,
environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion regarding
affordable housing development.
Government Constraints
Government regulations affect housing costs, setting standards and allowable densities for
development, and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. With respect to
the housing market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to
consumers in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include
local land use policies (as defined in a community’s general plan), zoning regulations and their
accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, urban limit lines, and development
impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may be regulatory
constraints.
General Plan
The South San Francisco General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1999 and has been
amended since to incorporate the 2001 Transit Village Specific Plan and the 2002 Housing
Element Update. Currently, the General Plan is being amended in the South El Camino Real area
to allow residential land-use through mixed-use development.
As required by State Law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses
and densities at various locations in the City. Listed below are the primary residential land use
designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential development.
Under existing designations the City permits the construction of a range of housing types, including
opportunities for higher density housing up to 50 dwelling units per acre. With the adoption of the
South El Camino Real General Plan update, additional designations are expected to be added
allowing housing development up to 60 dwelling units per acre.
Housing Constraints 48
Table 37: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2008
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Residential Low Density 8 du/acre
Residential Medium Density 18 du/acre
Residential High Density 30 du/acre
Downtown Residential Low Density 15 du/acre
Downtown Residential Medium Density 25 du/acre
Downtown Residential High Density 40 du/acre
Downtown Commercial No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors
Transit Village Residential Medium Density 30 du/acre
Transit Village Residential High Density 50 du/acre
Transit Village Commercial 30 du/acre
Transit Village Retail 50 du/acre
South El Camino Real (Proposed) 60 du/acre (performance standards to allow greater density
being contemplated)
Sources: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999; BAE, 2009;
The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing
opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below.
In order to balance community interests and assure continued support for medium- and high-
density housing in South San Francisco, the City established Policy 2-G-1, which calls for the
preservation of “the scale and character of established neighborhoods” and the protection of
“residents from changes in non-residential areas”. Consistent with this policy, the General Plan
Land Use map designates medium-and high-density residential areas along major transit corridors
and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts within existing neighborhoods. The City’s political
leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent multifamily housing development with
minimal opposition from neighborhood or other interest groups.
Policy 2-G-6 calls for the maximization of “opportunities for residential development, including
through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts
with industrial operations”. Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of “mixed-use residential,
retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they
would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in
corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality”. The City has worked
to realize these policies in recent years with several key developments along El Camino Real in the
Transit Village area.
The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the siting or design of housing. Those
policies that do exist include Policy 2-I-2, which establishes height limits within the downtown and
along major commercial corridors. These height limits range from 50 to 80 feet and are hence
consistent with residential development of 30 dwelling units per acre and higher and are not
Housing Constraints 49
considered an impediment to housing development. Policy 2-I-19 limits the allowable density of
housing development on steep slopes by up to 50 percent compared to existing land use
designations to prevent excessive grading. While this policy does work to limit the amount of
housing development, it applies to a relatively small area of the City (only parcels with a slope
greater than 20 percent) and provides some certainty as the minimum amount of housing
development that will be allowed on steep sites, consistent with the General Plan. Finally, Policy
2-1-18, specifically allows for senior housing development in the City to be at a density of up to 50
dwelling units per acre regardless of underlying land use designations and allows for reduced
parking standards to be applied to this type of development.
Based on a review of the General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including developers,
the General Plan is not an obstacle to housing development and is supportive of the development of
a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density
residential development.
Zoning Ordinance
The City is currently updating the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that current standards and guidelines
support the implementation of the General Plan, including the Housing Element. The plan is
currently in the public review process with an anticipated completion date for the update in
Fall/Winter 2009.
As it currently stands, a number of stakeholders identified the Zoning Ordinance as an obstacle to
housing development, pointing to an inconsistency between allowable densities under the General
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and high parking requirements imposed under the Zoning
Ordinance. Completion of the Zoning Ordinance update is a key priority for the City and is
identified as a goal of the Housing Element. When the update is complete the Zoning Ordinance
will be consistent with the General Plan, providing developers with a desired level of certainty
regarding allowed types of housing development. Moreover, the City is exploring parking
standards and anticipates reduced parking requirements for certain types of housing units, including
studio and one-bedroom apartments.
Shown below is a list of existing districts which allow housing development, along with existing
development standards.
Housing Constraints 50
Table 38: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2008
Height and BulkSetbacksLot Size
Maximum
Maximum Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Density
Building Lot Coverage Residential Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Lot Area (sq Lot Width (Units per
Height (ft)(%)FAR(ft)(ft)(ft)ft)(ft)Acre)
District
C-13550150-1005,0005021.8-30
P-C5050200-1005,0005021.8-30
D-C501003.000-505,0005021.8-30
R-135500.5155-10205,000508
R-235501.0155-10205,0005018
R-35065155-1010-11.55,0005030
R-E300.520102032,6001201.3
TV-C25-551000-150610,00030
TV-R551000-15065,00050
TV-RM25-35750-155-1065,00030
TV-RH45-55750-155-1065,00050
1 per 20
acres
O-S302520100-15500
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2008; BAE, 2009.
The City’s main residential districts are the R-1, Single Family District, the R-2 Medium Density
Residential District, and the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District. Residential development is
also allowed the Transit Village (TV) districts and D-C, Downtown Commercial District as well as
portions of the C-1, Retail Commercial District, and P-C, Planned Commercial District. The Rural
Estates (R-E) and Open Space (O-S) districts cover a very small portion of the City, and are
intended for the preservation of open-space and/or the rural character of certain unincorporated
areas, allowing only very low-density residential development.
As shown above, allowable densities in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts range from eight to 30
dwelling units per acre, while the commercial (C-1, P-C, and D-C) and TV districts allow densities
between 21.8 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Based on a review of applicable development
standards, including building heights, lot coverage standards, maximum FARs and setbacks, it is
feasible for developers to achieve maximum allowable residential densities within each district,
while complying with other applicable development standards.
Listed below are various types of residential uses permitted in the City and a description of which
districts in which they are allowed.
Housing Constraints 51
Single Family Residential.
The Zoning Ordinance allows single family residential development
by right in R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-E districts and subject to a conditional use permit in commercial
districts.
Multi-Family Residential.
The Zoning Ordinance allows multi-family residential development by
right in R-3 and TV district and subject to a conditional use permit in commercial districts.
Residential Second Units.
The Zoning Ordinance allows accessory or second dwelling units by
right in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts. Applicable development standards are the same as for other
types of development in each district.
Special Residential Care Facility.
The Zoning Ordinance defines a Special Residential Care
Facility as a “State authorized, certified, or licensed family carehome, foster home, or group home
serving six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and
neglected children, when such home provides careon a twenty-four-hour a day basis.” Consistent
with State Law, these small residential care facilities are permitted by right in all single family
zones as well as the R-2 and R-3 zones.
Group Care.
The Zoning Ordinance defines Group Care facilities as those that provide services
“in residential facilities licensed by the Director of the state Department of Social Services to serve
seven or more persons.” These facilities are permitted with a conditional use permit in all multi-
family residential districts, including the R-2, R-3 and TV districts and are not subject to any
minimum distance requirements in relationship to other special needs housing nor subject to any
other special land use requirements.
Emergency Shelter.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) requires the identification of a zone
or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or
other discretionary permit. The City is already home to the 90-bed Safe Harbor homeless shelter
which provides more than 50 percent of countywide emergency shelter capacity. In addition to
this, the City is making provisions through its Zoning Ordinance Update to identify a zoning
district where an additional emergency shelter would be permitted by right.
Single-Room Occupancy.
The Zoning Ordinance allows single-room occupancy uses with a
conditional use permit in the in C-1, P-1, and D-C districts as well as TV-C, TV-R, and TV-RH
districts.
Transitional and Supportive Housing.
Section 50675.2 of the State Health and Safety Code
defines Transitional Housing as rental housing for stays of at least six months but where the units
are re-circulated to another program recipient after a set period. Transitional Housing may be
designated for homeless individuals or families and can take the form of group housing or multi-
family units and may include supportive services. Section 50675.14 defines Supportive Housing as
housing that is linked to onsite or offsite services, and is occupied by a target population such as
Housing Constraints 52
low-income persons with mental disabilities, persons with AIDS, persons with substance abuse
problems, or persons with disabilities originating before the age of 18. Services provided typically
include assistance designed to help the target population retain housing, improve health, and may
include mental health treatment or life skill training programs. Pursuant to SB 2, the City must
explicitly permit transitional and supportive housing as described above and treat these uses
identically to other residential uses in the same zone. For example, a multi-family transitional
housing use in a multi-family zone should be treated the same as any other multi-family use
proposed in the zone.
Currently the Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly define the terms transitional and supportive
housing, although in many instances such uses would be permitted as Group Residential, Group
Care, or Special Residential Care Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance Update will explicitly address
transitional and supportive housing to assure it is allowed subject only to those restrictions that
apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Manufactured Housing.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that all new houses, including
manufactured homes on residential lots, be subject to design review. Manufactured housing in
South San Francisco is treated the same as other types of residential development in all aspects of
the entitlement process.
Farmworker Housing.
The Zoning Ordinance does not contain any specific provisions related to
farmworker housing, although the Zoning Ordinance allows for Group Residential uses occupied
by persons not defined as a family on a weekly or longer basis. Due to the high cost of land, lack
of significant agricultural activity in the area, and lack of a significant farmworker population in
the area, there is little need seen to more specifically address farmworker housing in the Zoning
Ordinance and no expectation of any future proposals for this type of housing in the City is
foreseen.
Parking
Developers and other key stakeholders identified the City’s multi-family parking standard as an
obstacle to housing development. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires 2.25 off-site parking
spaces per multi-family residential projects with four or more units, regardless of unit size or
number of bedrooms. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for the use of tandem parking assigned to
a single dwelling unit to satisfy parking requirements, which is viewed as an important way to
lessen the burden of parking requirements. Also, the Zoning Ordinance allows for a reduced
parking requirement for Senior Residential facilities (between 0.5 and 1.25 spaces per unit) and for
residential projects within the Transit Village zoning district (1.0 to 2.0 spaces per unit). As part of
the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City is exploring lowered parking requirements.
Fees and Exactions
The City charges residential developers fees for planning and building services performed by the
City. These fees are listed in Table 39. Within the City, developers of new residential projects also
pay various impact fees to finance improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to
Housing Constraints 53
serve new housing.
In order to determine fees charged by the City of South San Francisco and other jurisdiction in San
Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all jurisdictions in the
County, asking that each provide fee information for the two developments described below:
A single-family unit with three-bedrooms, 2,400 square feet in size, on a 10,000 square
foot lot, with a 400 square foot garage at density of four units per acre and construction
cost of $500,000 and an estimated sale price $800,000.
A 10 unit condominium development consisting of 1,200 square foot, two-bedroom units
on a half-acre site, with a construction cost of $400,000 per unit and a sale price of
$500,000 per unit.
Fees for the City for each of these hypothetical developments are listed below in Table 39. As
shown, planning and building fees would be approximately $9,000 per unit for a single family unit
as described above and approximately $51,000 for a 10-unit condominium development. Impact
fees would be approximately $5,300 for a single family unit and $24,000 for a 10-unit
condominium development.
Based on results of this survey, South San Francisco’s fees were found to be quite low compared to
other jurisdictions in San Mateo County and are found not pose a significant constraint to housing
development in the City.
Shown in Figure 5 are charts showing a comparison of planning and building fees and impact fees
for those jurisdictions participating in the survey. As shown, South San Francisco charges among
the lowest fees of any jurisdiction in the County.
Housing Constraints 54
Table 39: Planning/Building and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2008
Planning and Building FeesSFR Unit (a)10-Unit MFR (b)
Design Review$400$1,000
Building Permit$2,876$13,100
Plan Check$1,870$8,520
Title 24 Energy Fee$288$1,310
Seismic Tax$50$400
Engineering Plan Check$0$660
Engineering Site Inspection$144$790
Planning plan Check$173$0
Plumbing$251$700
Electrical$317$1,060
Mechanical (Including fire systems)$84$220
General Plan Surcharge$750$6,000
Data Base Management Fee$10$10
Sewer Connection Fee (Not Impact Fee)$1,683$16,830
Other$144$660
Planning and Building Total$9,040$51,260
Impact Fees
Fire$3,234$5,130
School$1,979$18,510
Other$100$100
Impact Total$5,313$23,740
Total Fees$14,353$75,000
Notes:
(a) Based on a single-family unit with three-bedrooms, 2,400 square feet in size, on a
10,000 square foot lot, with a 400 square foot garage at density of four units per acre
and construction cost of $500,000 and an estimated sale price $800,000.
(b) Based on a 10 unit condominium development consisting of 1,200 square foot,
two-bedroom units on a half-acre site, with a construction cost of $400,000 per unit
and a sale price of $500,000 per unit.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Housing Constraints 55
Figure 5: Comparison of Planning/Building and Impact Fees, San Mateo Jurisdictions, 2008
Total Fees - Single Family Housing
$60
$40
$20
$0
Total Fees - 10 Unit Multifamily Housing Development
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2008.
Inclusionary Housing
In December 2001, the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Requirement (Chapter 20.125) as
part of its Zoning Ordinance. Developers wanting to build four or more housing units are required
to set aside and build 20 percent of the units affordable to and available to low and moderate
income households, including 12 percent for households earning between 81 to 120 percent of Area
Median Income and 8 percent for households earning between 50 and 80 percent of Area Median
Income.
Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate homes,
Housing Constraints 56
studies have shown evidence to the contrary. One school of thought is that the cost of an
inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a
lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through
higher market rate sale prices. Another significant body of research and analysis suggests that in
fact the cost of inclusionary housing and any other development fee “will always be split between
1
all players in the development process.” Some academics have pointed out that, over the long
term, it is probable that landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other
homeowners or the developer (Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985).
The most definitive empirical study on inclusionary housing was completed in 2008 by the Furman
Center of New York University working for the Center for Housing Policy of the National Housing
Conference. Entitled “The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets: Lessons
from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas,” this study measured the
impact of inclusionary housing ordinances on median homes sale prices and residential
development activity in these three regions. While findings for the DC and Boston regions were
mixed, the Study found definitive evidence that inclusionary ordinances do not lead to higher home
prices or a decrease in building activity in the Bay Area. This is attributed in large part to the more
flexible nature of the ordinances in the Bay Area region and to the number of options that
developers have to meet inclusionary requirements.
In addition to this study, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities
throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that inclusionary
housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study found that
housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary housing ordinances in
2
cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.
Included below is a chart of residential building permit activity five years before and after adoption
of the inclusionary housing ordinance in South San Francisco. As shown, housing production was
at its lowest level during 2001. However, following the adoption of the Ordinance in December
2001, housing production increased in each of the next three years. While this affect is largely
attributable to the start of the housing boom, it is consistent with the findings of the studies referred
to above, that housing production is not negatively impacted by passage of inclusionary housing
ordinances.
1
W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1999.
2
David Rosen. “Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets.” NHC Affordable
Housing Policy Review 1(3). 2004
Housing Constraints 57
Figure 6: Residential Building Permit Activity, 1996 to 2006
Note: Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was adopted in December 2001 and took affect in 2002.
Source: California Inclusionary Housing Policy Database, CCRH, 2007.
In keeping with the Furman Center study findings cited above, the City of South San Francisco
recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain production. As such,
the City’s ordinance allows flexibility to allow developers to satisfy their inclusionary housing
requirement through payment of an in-lieu fee, land donation, partnering with nonprofit housing
developers or off-site construction. The City also offers a series of developer incentives, per State
Density Bonus Law, that help offset the added cost of the inclusionary units. Finally, the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to seek modification of the requirements
due to undue hardship. These policies are in line with recommendations in On Common Ground:
Joint Principles on Inclusionary Housing Policies, published by the Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern California (NPH) and the Home Builders Association of Northern
California (HBA) in 2005. The report points to the need for flexible inclusionary housing
requirements, such as those established by South San Francisco, to allow for financially feasible
residential development.
Processing and Permit Procedures
The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of
development applications adding to financing costs, in particular.
Subdivision Approval.
The City’s subdivision process follows the statutory requirements of the
State Subdivision Map Act, which ensures that local jurisdictions adhere to a reasonable time
Housing Constraints 58
schedule when acting on subdivision applications.
Design Review.
Title 20.85 of the Zoning Ordinance requires Design Review for most types of
new development in the City including new single- and multi-family residential development.
Design Review may address any of the following topics: exterior design, materials, textures,
colors, means of illumination, landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access,
security, safety, and other usual on-site development elements.
Design review is typically completed within four weeks for simple projects and can take up to
twelve weeks if plans require revision. The submittal requirements are clearly delineated in an
application check list with some latitude given to the Planning Division to waive certain
requirements for small projects or to add additional requirements such as a shadow study where
taller development will be located adjacent to single-story residential uses.
Building Permit.
Plan check and actual building permit issuance takes approximately three weeks
after submittal of plans with planning approval. An additional two weeks may be required if the
plans require revision. Once a building permit is issued, construction may commence immediately.
South San Francisco’s processing and permit procedures are reasonable and comparable to those in
other San Mateo County communities. The permit process only increases in complexity and
duration when the circumstances of individual projects warrant extra consideration on the part of
local staff and officials. This is especially true of the environmental review component of the
process. However, the City has little flexibility to change this, since the California Environmental
Quality Act specifies procedures that local jurisdictions must observe in reviewing the impacts of
development projects.
Codes and Enforcement and On/Off Site Improvement Standards
New construction in South San Francisco must comply with the California Building Code (2007).
Thus, there are no extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect the ability to
construct housing in the City.
The City requires that developers complete certain minimum site improvements in conjunction
with new housing development. Required on-site improvements include grading and installation of
water, sewer, storm drainage, gas, electricity, and cable utilities. Required off-site improvements
include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, full street sections, and street lighting.
Based on conversations with local developers, these site improvement standards are typical of
many communities, and do not adversely affect housing production in the City.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Consistent with State Law, the following section analyzes governmental constraints to housing for
persons with disabilities and describes ongoing and needed future actions to remove constraints or
Housing Constraints 59
provide reasonable accommodations for such housing.
Standards and Processes
Analyzed below are City standards and processes within several categories identified by HCD as
potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities.
Reasonable Accommodations.
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make
reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are
necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable
accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal
access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or
reductions to parking requirements.
Many jurisdictions do not have a specific process specifically designed for people with disabilities
to make a reasonable accommodations request. Rather, cities provide disabled residents relief from
the strict terms of their Zoning Ordinances through existing variance or conditional use permit
processes. South San Francisco is one of these jurisdictions. Currently the City addresses
reasonable accommodations on an ad hoc basis through variance and conditional use procedures.
The City does not, however, have a formalized policy regarding reasonable accommodation
procedures for persons with disabilities.
In a May 15, 2001 letter, the California Attorney General recommended that cities adopt formal
procedures for handling reasonable accommodations requests. While addressing reasonable
accommodations requests through variances and conditional use permits does not violate fair
housing laws, it does increase the risk of wrongfully denying a disabled applicant’s request for
relief and incurring liability for monetary damages and penalties. Furthermore, reliance on
variances and use permits may encourage, in some circumstances, community opposition to
projects involving much needed housing for persons with disabilities. For these reasons, the
Attorney General encouraged jurisdictions to amend their Zoning Ordinances to include a written
procedure for handling reasonable accommodations requests.
The City of South San Francisco will explore a written administrative procedure for addressing
reasonable accommodation requests as part of the Zoning Ordinance update.
Zoning and Land Use
Below is a discussion of existing zoning and land use policies in the City affecting the development
of housing for persons with disabilities.
Provision for Group Homes.
Consistent with State Law, the City allows for Special Residential
Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning districts without a special
Housing Constraints 60
3
use permit and not subject to any special restrictions. These facilities are also conditionally
permitted in the Open Space (O-S), Downtown Commercial (D-C), Retail Commercial (C-1), and
Planned Commercial (P-C) Districts. The City also allows for Group Care Facilities serving seven
or more persons, subject to a conditional use permit in all multi-family residential districts,
including the R-2, R-3 and TV districts. These are not subject to any minimum distance
requirements in relationship to other special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use
requirements.
Broad Definition of Family.
Consistent with State Law, the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for
a broad definition of family as “one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single
housekeeping unit” (Section 20.06.100). Families are distinguished from groups occupying a
hotel, club, or fraternity or sorority house. This definition of family does not limit the number of
people living together in a household and does not require them to be related.
Alternative Residential Parking Requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance establishes off-street
parking standards for different residential uses. The ordinance allows reduced parking
requirements for senior housing, residential care facilities for the elderly, and for group residential
units.
Encroachment.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance facilitates the development of housing accessible to
persons with disabilities by allowing wheelchair access structures to encroach into required front,
side, and rear yards. Section 20.71.050 establishes that encroachment into required setback areas is
allowed with the approval of a minor use permit.
Building Code and Permitting
Uniform Building Code.
In 2004, the City of South San Francisco adopted the 1997 Universal
Administrative Code and the 2001 California Building Code published by the International
Conference of Building Officials. In addition, the City adopted and implements the 1997 Uniform
Housing Code, which provides requirements for the conservation and rehabilitation of housing.
The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the Universal Administrative Code,
California Building Code, or Uniform Housing Code that might diminish the ability to
4
accommodate persons with disabilities.
Site and Building Accessibility.
The City complies with all State and Federal standards and laws
pertaining to the accessibility of sites and buildings for disabled persons.
Permitting.
The City does not require special permitting that could impede the development of
group homes for six people or fewer. As discussed above, Special Residential Care Facilities are
3
A Special Residential Care Facility is a State authorized, certified, or licensed family care home, foster home,
or group home providing twenty-four hour care for six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped
persons or dependent and neglected children (South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.06.230.
4
As a practical matter the City is following the 2007 California Building Code in evaluating projects and
expects to formally adopt this code during 2009.
Housing Constraints 61
permitted uses in all residential zoning districts. Furthermore, there are no siting requirements or
minimum distances between facilities that apply to Special Residential Care Facilities of Group
Care Facilities.
Efforts to Remove Constraints
As described above, current regulation standards and procedures in the City reflect several efforts
to accommodate housing for persons with disabilities including the following:
Provision for small group homes in all residential zones by right;
Use of a broad definition of family;
Provisions to allow encroachment into required setbacks for wheelchair access structures;
Provision of alternative parking requirements for special needs housing; and
Implementation of the Uniform Building Code.
Nonetheless, as addressed in the Housing Objectives, Policies, and Programs section of this
Housing Element, it is recommended that the City adopt a formal reasonable accommodation
policy.
Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors which may
constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions such as
land and construction costs as well as public opinion toward new development.
Decline in Housing Market and Availability of Financing
Local residential developers reported that the decline in the housing market and current economic
downturn represent a constraint to new housing production. As of 2008, home values in South San
Francisco were approximately 25 percent lower than in 2006. Moreover, sales volumes have
continued to decrease in each of the last five years. As a result of local, state, and national housing
and economic trends, local developers predict that far fewer housing units will be produced over
the next several years.
A major short-term constraint to housing development is the lack of available financing due to
“tight” credit markets. Local developers report that there is very little private financing available
for both construction and permanent loans. Credit is available in rare cases because of the capacity
of a development group or the unusual success of a project. However, developers suggest lenders
are currently offering loans up to 50 percent of the building value, compared to 70 to 90 percent
historically. This tight credit market continues to lead to a significantly lowered pace of housing
development throughout the Bay Area and nationally.
Land Costs
Land costs in South San Francisco are generally high due to the high demand and limited supply of
available land resulting from the developed nature of the City and surrounding communities. Local
Housing Constraints 62
developers indicated that land prices are slowly adjusting during this economic downturn.
However, developers generally reported that the market is not efficient and land owners’
expectations of what their land is worth declines slowly. Unless land owners are compelled to sell
their property, many will wait for the market to recover.
Construction Costs
According to 2009 R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, hard construction costs for a two-story, wood-
frame, single-family home range from $105 to $140 per square foot. Construction costs, however,
vary significantly depending on building materials and quality of finishes. Parking structures for
multi-family developments represent another major variable in the development cost. In general,
below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other professional fees,
land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10
to 15 percent of the construction and land costs. Owner-occupied multifamily units have higher
soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for construction defect liability
insurance. Permanent debt financing, site preparation, off-site infrastructure, impact fees, and
developer profit add to the total development cost of a project.
In recent months, key construction costs have fallen nationally in conjunction with the residential
real estate market. Figure 7 illustrates construction cost trends for key materials based on the
Producer Price Index, a series of indices published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of
Labor Statistics that measures the sales price for specific commodities and products. Lumber
prices have declined by 19 percent between 2004 and 2008. As shown in Figure 7, steel prices
have fallen sharply since August 2008. Local developers have confirmed that construction costs,
including labor, have fallen by approximately 10 percent in tandem with the weak housing market.
However, it is important to note that although land cost and construction costs have waned,
developers report that they have not fallen enough to offset the decrease in sales prices.
Housing Constraints 63
Figure 7: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Month
Materials and components for constructionLumberSteel Mill Products
Base year: 1982 = 100
Sources: U.S. Dept.of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009; BAE, 2009
Public Opinion
In some communities, public opinion is a significant constraint to the production of higher density
and affordable housing. To date, housing developers, City staff, and elected officials do not report
significant public opposition to recent multi-family housing developments. Key to this success,
elected officials stress the need to continue to work with neighbors to address concerns and the
importance of the City’s policies to protect single-family neighborhoods from significant change,
while finding opportunities for multi-family housing development along key transit corridors and
in the downtown area.
Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints
South San Francisco is a largely developed community with sufficient infrastructure in place to
accommodate anticipated levels of development on most sites. A more detailed analysis of specific
sites is included in the review of Housing Opportunity sites. The City Engineer reports that there
are no significant issues related to the capacity of water, stormwater, or sewer systems that would
preclude future housing development as anticipated by the General Plan.
Housing Constraints 64
As a largely urbanized community, most housing sites in South San Francisco are infill in nature
and present few environmental issues. In recent years, developers of multi-family housing have
submitted Negative Declarations rather than EIRs for their projects, e.g., Park Station Lofts
development.
Looking forward, certain sites in the downtown area are thought to have some level of
environmental contamination. Overall, such sites represent a small portion of the land available for
development in the City. These sites are discussed in more detail in the Housing Opportunity sites
section of this document.
Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green
building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In addition,
these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced dependence on vehicles, and can
significantly contribute to reducing green house gases.
All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the
California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 2005 with
amended standards going into effect in 2009. Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local
governments through the building permit process. All new construction must comply with the
standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made.
The City’s proposed Green Building Ordinance is tentatively scheduled to go to Council for
adoption in May or June 2009. The Draft Ordinance includes Build-it Green’s Green Point rating
for residential construction and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for non-
residential construction.
Housing Constraints 65
Housing Resources
Available Sites for Housing
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that the City of South San Francisco
has a sufficient amount of land to accommodate its fair share of the region’s housing needs during
the planning period (January 1, 2007 – June 30, 2014). The State Government Code requires that
the Housing Element include an “inventory of land suitable for residential development, including
vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment”(Section 65583(a)(3)). It further
requires that the Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing
development is feasible during the planning period.
Demonstrating an adequate land supply, however, is only part of the task. The City must also show
that this supply is capable of supporting housing demand from all economic segments of the
community and for various housing types, including multifamily rental, manufactured housing, and
group housing, and transitional housing. High land costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet
the demand for affordable housing on sites that are designated for low densities. The State has
generally held that the most appropriate way to demonstrate adequate capacity for low and very
low income units is to provide land zoned for multiple-family housing with an allowed density of
30 dwelling units per acre or more. Hence this analysis focuses on the identification of sites that
could accommodate this level of density, in order to accommodate the need for lower-income
housing units.
For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in South San Francisco have been grouped into
three geographic areas. Each of these areas is described below, with accompanying maps and
tables used to quantify development potential. Because more than a quarter of the 7.5-year
planning period has already passed, the analysis also accounts for housing that has been
constructed since January 1, 2007.
The following analysis of sites in South San Francisco indicates the potential to develop 1,244
units of new housing during the current planning period. Moreover, nearly all opportunity sites
would support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater, providing favorable prospects for
affordable units. Compared against the RHNA, the City’s housing opportunity sites offer a
development capacity that exceeds the needs determination by more than 50 percent. As discussed
before, the City has a determined need of 1,635 units during the 2007 to 2014 planning period. A
total of 830 units have already been approved, constructed, or rehabilitated in the City since the
start of the current planning period in January 2007 and prior to the adoption of this Housing
Element update. Hence, there is a remaining need for 805 units, compared against an available
capacity for 1,244 units on identified sites.
Housing Resources 66
Table 40: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development Capacity
ssumed Avg.
A
AreaAcreageDensityUnit Capacity
Transit Village18.035622
South El Camino Real8.556474
Downtown4.334149
Total Capcity30.8401,244
Balance of 2007 - 2014 RHNA (a)805
Capacity as a Percentage of Remaining RHNA Balance155%
Note:
(a) See Table 25. Equals RHNA minus units built/rehabilitated between January 2007 and June 2009.
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009.
The available sites inventory conducted for the Housing Element focuses on sites with the potential
for 10 or more units. It also focuses on sites with near-term development potential, where the site
is currently vacant, highly underutilized, or where developers have come forward with plans to
redevelop existing uses. There may be additional sites in South San Francisco with housing
potential, including individual vacant lots and developed sites with marginally viable existing uses.
Approximately 50 percent of the City’s near-term residential development potential is in the
Transit Village area, which is already zoned for medium (30 dwelling units per acre) to high (50
dwelling units per acre) density residential development. An additional 38 percent of near-term
residential development potential is in the South El Camino Real area where existing zoning allows
densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre, and where the City is currently amending the General
Plan and updating the zoning to facilitate mixed-use and high-density residential development.
Finally, 12 percent of near-term residential development potential is in the Downtown area, which
is currently zoned for mixed-use residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre and
where the General Plan allows for higher densities
Transit Village Sites
With the adoption of the BART Transit Village Plan in 2001, the City of South San Francisco
established zoning standards and design guidelines that promote a vibrant mixed-use district
consistent with the area’s role as an important transit hub. A key element of the plan was to
upzone various parcels to allow for more intensive residential development. Since its adoption, the
City has realized more than 450 units of residential development within the Transit Village,
including a 361-unit apartment development, which includes 70 units deed restricted for low- and
moderate-income households, and a 99-unit condominium development with 20% of the units deed
restricted for low and moderate income households. Built at densities of approximately 50
dwelling units per acre, these properties are consistent with the City’s vision for higher density,
mixed use development in the area.
Looking ahead there are several vacant or underutilized parcels in and around the Transit Village
Housing Resources 67
area that present an excellent opportunity for housing development. Listed in Table 41 and shown
in Figure 8, these parcels contain 18 acres of land with a combined capacity for 622 units of
housing.
Table 41: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area
ExistingAllowableI/LEstimated Actual
SiteAPNAcresExisting UseAdjacent UsesZoning/GPDU/Acre (a)DU/AcreUnitsRatio (b)
1010-213-0700.5VacantMFR, BART, RetailTV-C/TV-RM3030140.0
Site 10.530140.0
SFR, MFR301.0
2011-171-5000.1Vacant SFRTV-RM303
300.5
2011-171-3301.5VacantBARTTV-RM3044
30
Site 21.6470.7
30
380.1
3010-292-1301.3Vacant MotelHospital, MFRTV-C30
50
3010-292-2801.3VacantTV-RH50630.0
50
3010-292-2703.1Lumber YardTV-RH501560.0
Site 35.62570.0
300.0
4NA7.6VacantMFR, Colma CreekTV-RM/P-C-L30228
300.0
Site 47.6228
230.0
UtilityMFRR-3-L307
5011-327-0500.3
230.0
Site 50.37
240.0
6011-312-0900.5VacantSFR, MFRR-3-L3012
240.0
Site 60.512
300.0
7NA1.5VacantColma CreekP-C-L3045
300.0
7NA0.4VacantHospitalP-C-L3012
30
Site 71.9570.0
35
TOTAL18.0622
Sites Estimated
30 DU/Acre +17.2603
Note:
(a) Allowable density is based on existing, adopted zoning standards.
(b) Ratio of Improvement (or Building) Value to Land Value.
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Making these sites good candidates for housing development during the planning period, each
opportunity site is owned by a single entity, including Sites 4 and 7, which were recently acquired
by the Redevelopment Agency. Moreover, all are either vacant or underutilized in the sense of
having very little improvement value compared to the high values of underlying land.
Sites 1, 4, 6, and 7
are entirely vacant.
Site 2
is highly underutilized and contains only a vacant single family residence with no
other permanent structures. The site is currently listed for sale by a commercial broker and
the City has engaged in pre-development discussions with an interested developer for the
site.
Site 3
consists of three parcels in common ownership. One parcel (010-292-130) contains
a vacant motel use whose parking lot is currently used as overflow parking for the adjacent
hospital. Per current San Mateo County Assessor’s records, the value of improvements on
the site is only one-tenth the value of the underlying land. The next parcel (010-292-280)
Housing Resources 68
is vacant. The final parcel (010-292-270) is leased to a lumber yard and has minimal built
improvements which are valued at less than one-tenth the value of underlying land.
Site 5
contains a small Cal Water pumping station but is otherwise vacant.
Housing Resources 69
Capacity Analysis
Below is an analysis of the realistic development capacity of housing opportunity sites in the
Transit Village area. This analysis considers factors including recent development trends, lot size,
physical constraints, and infrastructure.
Small Sites.
Site 1 is small, approximately one-half acre in size. Nonetheless, located in the heart
of the Transit Village, adjacent to BART and other multifamily residential development, it is
expected to develop with relatively dense multifamily development. Approximately one quarter of
the site is zoned TV-C, which allows multifamily residential above commercial with a density of
up to 30 dwelling units per acre, while the remaining three-quarters is zoned as TV-RM, which also
allows residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Based on the following
development standards for the site, it could comfortably accommodate approximately 14 dwelling
units (i.e., 30 dwelling units per acre):
Lot Size = 20,875 square feet
Minimum Setback Requirement = 0 to 10 feet
Maximum FAR = 2.0
Maximum Building Size = 41,750 square feet (FAR x Lot Size)
Gross Residential Square Footage = 30,000 square feet (assume approx. 70 percent
residential)
Net Residential Square Footage = 25,000 square feet (assume 15 percent for common
areas)
Average Unit Size = 1,200 square feet (typical for two-bedroom unit)
Expected Number of Units = 14 units
Site 5 and 6 are located adjacent to existing multifamily housing developments and are located in
an R-3-L zone, which allows residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Both sites
are less than an acre in size. Site 5 currently houses a Cal Water pumping station that occupies
approximately 1,500 square feet of the site, while the remainder of the site is vacant. Site 6 is
entirely vacant. Allowing for the Cal Water pumping station to remain, Site 4 has approximately
12,150 square feet of area available for residential development. Site 6 is approximately 22,000
square feet in size.
The City’s most recent experience with small scale residential development in the R-3-L zone is a
Habitat for Humanity development at 440 Commercial Avenue. This development was built
within a single-family neighborhood at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. Assuming a similar
intensity of development, Site 4 would accommodate approximately seven units, while Site 5
would accommodate approximately 12 units.
Other Sites.
Sites 2, 3, 4 and 7 are larger, measuring between 1.6 and 7.6 acres in size and are
zoned to allow densities of between 30 to 50 dwelling unit per acre, not including the available
affordable housing density bonus allowed under local ordinance and state law. With other recent
multifamily development in the Transit Village area, having recently been completed at the
Housing Resources 71
maximum density as allowed under existing zoning, 50 dwelling units per acre, it is assumed
development on these sites will be able to achieve the maximum densities as allowed under current
zoning. Hence, sites zoned for TV-RM are assumed to be able to accommodate development of 30
dwelling units per acre, while sites zoned for TV-RH are assumed to be able to accommodate
development of 50 dwelling units per acre. Sites 4 and 7 are part of the ongoing El Camino Real /
Chestnut Specific Plan process, which may ultimately allow higher density development on these
sites. Based on these density assumptions, the larger sites in the Transit Village area could
accommodate 588 housing units.
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
There are no known environmental issues that would limit development of the identified sites in the
Transit Village Area. Recent residential developments in the area, including the 99-unit Park
Station project completed in 2008, have submitted negative declarations. Moreover, no sites in the
1
area are listed with the State as having known or potential contamination.
The City Engineer has confirmed that infrastructure in the area is sufficient to support identified
levels of development, including the capacity of sewer, water, and waste water treatment facilities.
As is common practice in the City, developers may be required to pay for intersection or other
infrastructure improvements to offset project-specific impacts.
South El Camino Real Sites
The City is currently amending the General Plan policies that pertain to South El Camino Real area
updating the Zoning Ordinance. The City expects both of these planning projects to be completed
in 2009. The South El Camino Real General Plan update is intended to help transform an area with
a concentration of aging strip retail, into a more vibrant, transit corridor, including substantial
mixed use high-density (60 du/acre) residential development.
For purposes of this analysis, the City has identified three sites along the South El Camino Real
corridor with near-term redevelopment potential for multifamily housing. While numerous other
sites along the corridor are also ultimately expected to support residential development, due to
existing developer interest and/or a high degree of underutilization, these three present the most
significant and realistic opportunity for housing development within the current Housing Element
cycle, ending in 2014.
Listed in Table 42 and shown in Figure 9 are the near-term housing opportunity sites in the South
El Camino Real corridor. These sites total 21.3 acres and could accommodate approximately 475
housing units.
1
Source: Department of Toxic Control Substances, March 2009.
Housing Resources 72
Figure 9: Housing Opportunity Sites in South El Camino Real Area
SizeEstimated
(Acres)CapacitDU/Acre
Site
y
2.088 (a)50
8
914.829560 (b)
60 (b)
104.591
Total21.347456
Notes:
(a) Net of 12 existing units.
(b) Assumes density of 60 du/acre on
on 1/3 of site.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Housing Resources 74
Capacity Analysis
Below is an analysis of the development capacity of housing opportunity sites in the South El
Camino Real area. This analysis considers factors including recent development trends, lot size,
physical constraints, and infrastructure. All sites described below will be covered by the South El
Camino Real General Plan update and are expected to be zoned for mixed-use development,
accommodating up to 60 dwelling units per acre.
Site 8 is currently home to a mobile home park containing 12 housing units. The redevelopment
agency has provided a predevelopment and acquisition loan to Mid-Peninsula Housing for the
purpose of building an affordable housing development on the site. Mid-Peninsula is currently in
the design phase for the development and anticipates a building with approximately 100 units of
housing at a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre, slightly less than the maximum
density of 60 dwelling units per acre currently under consideration as part of the South El Camino
Real General Plan amendment. Net of existing units on the site, the Mid-Peninsula project is
expected to realize approximately 88 net new units on the site. The Redevelopment Agency has
developed a comprehensive relocation plan for existing residents on the site, including the option
for them to move into the new development.
Site 9 is currently home to an aging retail center anchored by Safeway and consists of a single
parcel measuring 14.8 acres in size. The City has held predevelopment discussions with the
property owner who has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site as a mixed use retail and
residential development. Under current scenarios, approximately one third of the site would be
occupied by residential buildings, while the remainder of the site would remain for commercial
uses. Assuming a density of 60 dwelling units per acre for this third of the site, consistent with
densities currently under consideration as part of the South El Camino Real General Plan
amendment, the site could accommodate 295 units. If a larger portion of the site were developed
1
with residential uses, the site could accommodate a substantially greater number of units.
Immediately adjacent, Site 10, consists of three parcels owned by a single entity. Existing uses
include parking areas and a vacant movie theater, which has since been replaced by a large
Cineplex, located approximately one block away within a separate retail complex. While there are
no known development plans for the site, the General Plan update is expected to allow mixed-use
development on the site including residential development of 60 dwelling units per acre or higher.
Assuming a density of 60 dwelling units per acre for this third of the site, it could accommodate
approximately 90 dwelling units.
1
As anticipated by the proposed South El Camino Real General Plan amendments, over the long term the South
El Camino Real corridor is expected to transition from lower density commercial development, to mixed use
development, including residential uses. The above housing opportunity analysis recognizes that this transition
will be an incremental process and hence assumes that only a portion (one-third) of the selected commercial
sites would transition to residential use during the 2007 to 2014 planning period. As described above, these
sites enjoy good prospects for near term redevelopment as they are the subject of active developer interest, in
the case of Site 9, and home to a vacant use, in the case of Site 10.
Housing Resources 75
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
The South El Camino Real Corridor is located approximately two miles from the San Francisco
International Airport and is situated directly below one of the principal flight paths. Consequently,
the corridor is subject to airport-related height limitations ranging from 161 to 361 feet. In
addition, new construction of residential development in the area must be insulated such that
normal aircraft operations will not result in indoor noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL.
Whereas current height limits, as set by the General Plan, are substantially less than would be
permissible under the airport-related height restrictions and whereas substantial residential
development exists in the vicinity of the South El Camino Real Corridor that has been sufficiently
insulated to meet noise standards, proximity to the airport is not expected to be a binding constraint
that would prevent medium to high density residential development in the South El Camino Real
Corridor. Nonetheless, proximity to the airport will necessitate an additional item for consideration
as developers conceive housing developments in this area of the City.
Notwithstanding the area’s proximity to the airport, there are no known environmental issues that
would limit development of the identified sites in the South El Camino Real Corridor.
Furthermore, the City is currently preparing a mitigated negative declaration for its General Plan
amendment that will lay the ground work for future high-density residential development in the
area.
As with the Transit Village area, the City Engineer has confirmed that the existing infrastructure in
the South El Camino Real area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including
the capacity of sewer, water, and waste water treatment facilities. As is common practice in the
City, developers may be required to pay for intersection and other infrastructure improvements to
offset project-specific impacts.
Downtown Sites
The City’s historic downtown area encompasses a range of underutilized publicly- and privately-
owned parcels which are suitable for mixed-use residential development. Through the ongoing
comprehensive zoning ordinance update and related efforts, the City has already paved the way for
housing on key parcels in the downtown area in keeping with the long-term goal of creating a
vibrant and sustainable urban center. For this Housing Element, the City has identified nine key
sites in the downtown area with near-term redevelopment potential. Listed below in Table 43 and
shown in Figure 10, eight of these sites are owned by the City/RDA and one is privately owned. In
total, they represent 4.3 acres with a combined development capacity for 143 units.
Housing Resources 76
Figure 10: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009.
SizeEstimated
Site(Acres)CapacitDU/Acre
y
111.44330
0.31030
12
72
0.324
13
30
140.310
30
150.310
30
0.310
16
30
170.722
30
180.27
45
0.314
19
Total4.314934
Housing Resources 78
Capacity Analysis
Currently, the Downtown Area is covered primarily by two zoning districts: the Retail
Commercial (C-1) Zone and the Downtown Commercial (D-C) Zone. Both districts allow
multifamily residential construction up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Within the Retail
Commercial Zone the main development standards controlling the building envelope are a
maximum 50 percent lot coverage and a maximum building height of 35 feet. For the Downtown
Commercial Zone development standards are less restrictive, allowing a 100 percent lot coverage
and a maximum height of 50 feet. For both districts, required setbacks are relatively small,
between zero and 15 feet. Consistent with these development standards, sites in the downtown area
1
could comfortably accommodate a density of 30 dwelling units per acre.
One site that has been slated for higher density residential development is Site 14. The RDA
controls this site and plans to take it through the entitlement process including seeking a General
Plan and zoning amendment to allow for a residential density of approximately 72 dwelling units
per acre. The RDA is currently working with an architect on a plan for 24 units on the site and
expects to move forward with the entitlement process during 2009.
Publicly-Owned.
Among the best near-term opportunities for housing development in South San
Francisco are various publicly-owned sites in the downtown area. Through its Downtown Strategy
planning process the City has established a redevelopment vision for these sites that would
transform vacant and underutilized sites into multifamily residential and mixed use developments,
contributing to the vitality of downtown. These sites fall into three categories:
Vacant sites (Sites 12 and 14);
Underutilized public parking lots (Sites 13, 15, 16, and 18); and
Surplus City facilities, including a municipal office building (Site 17) and a closed
firehouse (Site 19).
In all cases, these sites have been identified for future housing and mixed-use development through
the Downtown Strategy with the City expressing an intention and willingness to sell them in order
to realize residential mixed use development on the sites. In total these sites measure 2.8 acres
with a capacity for 106 dwelling units.
Privately-Owned.
In addition to these publicly-owned sites, there is at least one privately-owned
site in the Downtown Area with good near-term potential for housing development. Site 10, a
1
Calculation of maximum density based on Downtown Commercial Zone development standards.
One acre = 43,560 square feet
43,560 x 50 percent maximum lot coverage = 21,780 square feet (maximum building footprint)
21,780 x 2 stories of residential = 43,560 gross square feet of residential development
Net residential square feet = 37,026 square feet (assume 15 percent for common areas)
Average unit size = 1,200 square feet (typical for two bedroom unit)
Maximum density = 30.9 du/acre (37,026 square feet / 1,200 feet)
Housing Resources 79
vacant site at the north end of downtown held in a single ownership. At a density of 30 dwelling
units per acre, this 1.4 acre site could accommodate 43 housing units.
Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis
Certain sites within the Downtown Area have suspected of environmental contamination, which
may require clean up, in order to facilitate housing development. These include Site 10, 11, 12,
and 17. As of March 2009, Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were not available for any of
these sites.
As with the Transit Village area, the City Engineer indicated that infrastructure in the downtown
area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer,
water, and waste water treatment facilities.
One obstacle to development of public parking lots is the need to first develop a replacement
garage. As of March 2009, the City/RDA has fully funded such a project, the Miller Avenue
Garage, and was accepting bids for work. The City anticipates the project will break ground in
2009, creating the potential for the redevelopment of City-owned parking lots during 2010.
Analysis of Ability to Accommodate Various Housing Types
As described, housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village, South El Camino Real, and
Downtown area are able to accommodate a range of housing types.
Lower Income Multifamily Residential.
Nearly all sites identified can realistically
accommodate densities of 30 dwelling units to the acre or greater, a level of density, which
the State acknowledges is consistent with allowing for lower-income multifamily housing.
Special Residential Care Facilities.
This housing type would be permitted on the two
housing opportunity sites identified in the Transit Village area as being in the R-3 zone.
Group Care Facilities.
These facilities would be permitted with a conditional use permit
on housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village area located in R-3 and TV districts.
Transitional Housing.
As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City will explicitly
address transitional and supportive housing to assure it is allowed subject only to those
restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone Hence
transitional housing will be a permitted or conditionally-permitted use on all identified
housing opportunity sites.
Group Residential.
Consistent with the existing Zoning Ordinance, Group Residential
uses would be permitted on those housing opportunity sites located in the R-3, D-C, and C-
1 districts. Group Residential is a broad category encompassing housing that is occupied
by persons not defined as a family on a weekly or longer basis.
While none of the sites identified above would accommodate an Emergency Shelter based on
existing zoning, the City already has an existing emergency shelter facility that is sufficient to
accommodate local demand. Moreover, as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City will be
identifying at least one district in the City where an emergency shelter can be built by right
Housing Resources 80
Financial Resources
The City of South San Francisco has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources
available for affordable housing activities. These include programs from federal, state, local and
private resources.
Community Development Block Grant Program Funds
Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments for a wide range of
housing and community development activities for low-income persons.
Based on previous allocations, South San Francisco expects to receive approximately $3.0 million
in CDBG funds during the remaining 2009 to 2014 period. In accordance with the policies
established by the City Council, South San Francisco is committed to increasing and maintaining
affordable housing in the City. CDBG funds are used for site acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time
homebuyer assistance, development of emergency and transitional shelters and fair
housing/housing counseling activities. Additional activities in support of the new construction of
affordable housing include site clearance and the financing of related infrastructure and public
facility improvements.
Redevelopment Set-Aside Funds
In accordance with State law, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (RDA) sets aside
20 percent of all tax increment revenue generated from its redevelopment project areas to fund
projects that increase, improve or preserve the supply of affordable housing. Housing developed
with these set-aside funds must be deed restricted and affordable to low- and moderate-income
households. Between 2009 and 2014, the Agency expects to receive approximately $40 million in
set-aside funds.
HOME Investment Partnership Act Funds
The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National
Affordable Housing Act provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing
projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County
HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the Consortiums annual grant
allocation. Funds are distributed on a competitive basis through a request for proposals process
administered by San Mateo County. HOME funds may be used by the City for direct expenditure
or may be issued as low-interest loans to a private or not-for-profit developer to jointly undertake
the production of housing units that will be affordable to low-income residents. Under the program,
30-year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded with the property to ensure future affordability.
HEART
South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART), which
raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County.
Housing Resources 81
Formed in 2003 as a public/private partnership among the cities, the county, and the business,
nonprofit, education, and labor communities, to date, HEART has received over $8 million in
funding gifts and pledges to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County. HEART has
pledged $1,000,000 of funding toward an affordable housing development proposed by Mid-
Peninsula housing on South El Camino Real Avenue.
4: Redevelopment Agency Housing Set Aside Funds, 1999-2004
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program has been used in combination with City
and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-
income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a ten-year period,
provided that the housing meets the following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20
percent of the units must be affordable to households at 50 percent of area median income (AMI)
or 40 percent of the units must be affordable to those at 60 percent of AMI. The total credit over
the ten-year period has a present value equal to 70 percent of the qualified construction and
rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value.
Section 8 Assistance
The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income
persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference
between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30 percent of their
income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment standard
but the tenant must pay the extra cost. This program is administered by the San Mateo County
Housing Authority.
Opportunities for Energy Conservation
With respect to residential construction, opportunities primarily take the form of construction of
new homes using energy efficient designs, materials, fixtures, and appliances, or retro-fitting
existing homes to be more energy efficient (e.g., weather stripping, upgrading insulation, upgrading
to more energy efficient fixtures and appliances). At a minimum, new housing construction in
South San Francisco must comply with the State of California Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
The City’s Building Division is currently drafting a Green Building Ordinance, which will likely
require new homes or substantial remodels to achieve a set number of “Build-it Green” points.
Staff expects the Green Building Ordinance to be adopted by City Council in the Summer of 2009.
These requirements are and would be enforced through the building plan check process.
In addition to the design and construction of individual buildings, the development industry is
becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy conservation at the site planning level and
even at the community planning level. New developments are increasingly being planned so that
building orientations will take advantage of passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use
planning is increasingly considering benefits of compact urban form (i.e., higher densities) as a
means to reduce auto dependency for transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use land use
patterns to make neighborhoods more self-contained so that residents can walk or bicycle to places
Housing Resources 82
of work, shopping, or other services. Compact urban development patterns are also necessary to
improve the effectiveness of buses and other forms of public transit. If effective public transit is
available and convenient, energy will be conserved through reduced auto use. In the future, the
City will consider incorporating these and/or other sustainable development principles into new
developments that are planned within South San Francisco.
Summary
Consistent with the City’s long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential
development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing production.
These include primarily sites for housing development, and a variety of funding sources, as
summarized below:
South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the
regional housing need between 2007 and 2014. There is sufficient land to support the
production of more than 1,195 new housing units.
Nearly 100 percent of the City’s development capacity consists of higher density housing
sites (densities exceeding 30 units per acre) all of which are located within developed areas
already served with needed infrastructure, including sewer, water, stormwater, and
transportation facilities.
The City’s housing capacity is found primarily in three areas: the Transit Village, South El
Camino Real, and the Downtown area.
South San Francisco has a variety of financial resources to support affordable housing
production, including most importantly HOME funds and Redevelopment Housing Set
Aside funds as well as access to HEART funds.
Housing Resources 83
Housing Plan
Based on the needs, constraints and resources identified above, the following section of the
Housing Element sets forth South San Francisco’s housing plan for the 2007 to 2014 planning
period. The City has established this plan in consideration of its own local needs and priorities, as
well as its obligations under State Housing Element law.
The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related implementing policies.
Accompanying each implementing policy are one or more programs that the City will implement
over the 2007 to 2014 planning period. These programs are summarized in a seven-year Action
Plan which presents the programs together with implementing agencies, funding sources and time-
frames for implementation. Finally, the Housing Plan sets forth quantified objectives for housing
construction, rehabilitation and conservation for the Housing Element planning period.
The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation
programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element.
Goal:
Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature.
Implementing Policies:
Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment.
Program:
An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy. Implementation
programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated time
frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the calendar year in which the activity is
scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on
City staffing and budgetary considerations. Quantified objectives (where applicable to individual
implementation programs) are the number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed,
conserved, or rehabilitated.
Quantified Objective:
The number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed,
conserved, or rehabilitated, and the number of households the City expects will be assisted through
Housing Element programs based on general market conditions during the timeframe of the
Housing Element.
Housing Plan 84
Promote New Housing Development
Goal 1. Promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for
all income groups in the community (Existing Goal 1)
Implementing Policies
Policy 1-1: The City shall implement zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of
land to meet its 2007 to 2014 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 373
very low income units, 268 low income units, 315 moderate income units, and 679 above
moderate units. (Existing Policy 1-1)
Program 1-1A - Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory: The City shall annually update
its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels identified in this Housing Element. The
City shall also conduct an annual review of the composition of the housing stock, the types
of dwelling units under construction or expected to be constructed during the following
year, and the anticipated mix, based on development proposals approved or under review
by the City, of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the period covered by
the Housing Element. This analysis will be compared to the City’s remaining 2007 to 2014
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any changes in land use
policy are warranted (Existing Program 1-1A).
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-2: The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
(Existing Policy 1-2)
.
Program 1-2A – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The City shall continue to implement
the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring new residential development over four units
to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percent low- and moderate-income housing.
(Existing Program 1-2A)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development;
City Council
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 40 low-income units and 60 moderate-income by 2014.
units
Policy 1-3: As feasible, the City will investigate new sources of funding for the City’s affordable
housing programs. (Existing Policy 1-3)
Housing Plan 85
Program 1-3A – Investigate Commercial Linkage Fee. The City will investigate the
feasibility of a commercial linkage fee to support affordable housing. (Revised Program 1-
3A)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division; City Council
Time Frame: FY 2009-2010
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-4: The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers in consolidating infill
parcels designated for multi-family residential development when it facilitates efficient
development of the parcels. (Existing Policy 1-4)
Program 1-4A - Site Assembly: The Redevelopment Agency shall acquire or work with
nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or were developed with
underutilized, blighted, and/or nonconforming uses and will make the sites available for
developing affordable housing. (New Program).
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Housing and
Redevelopment Division
Time Frame: 2007-2014
Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: Acquire land sufficient for 60 units by 2014.
Policy 1-5: The City shall promote the construction of lower cost units by providing incentives and
encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, loft-style units, and manufactured
housing. (Existing Policy 1-5)
Program 1-5A – Complete Revision of Zoning Ordinance: The City shall complete the
ongoing revision of its Zoning Ordinance to assure that it has the tools and flexibility
needed to encourage a variety of unit sizes and mix of housing types including single
family homes, duplexes, condominiums, apartments, townhomes, lofts, mobile homes,
senior projects, residential second units and manufactured housing. The Zoning Ordinance
revision will include the following:
a) Revised residential parking standards
b) Reduced discretionary review of housing development
c) More specific design standards
d) Consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan
e) Identification of a zoning district where an emergency shelter is permitted by right
f) Allowance for transitional and supportive housing subject only to those restrictions that
apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Housing Plan 86
(Revised Existing Program 1-5A)
Responsibility: Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council
Time Frame: Complete review and amendments by December 2009.
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-6: The City shall review and continue to implement the Density Bonus Ordinance
(Existing Policy 1-6A)
Program 1-6A – Review Density Bonus Ordinance: In conjunction with the overall update
of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the City shall review the Density Bonus Ordinance for
projects that include affordable housing in over 20 percent of the project. The ordinance
will be modified to be consistent with State law as necessary. (Existing Program 1-6A)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council
Time Frame: December, 2009
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 50 units by 2014.
Policy 1-7: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas
designated as Downtown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density
Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business
Commercial and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San Francisco
BART Transit Village Zoning District. (Existing Policy 1-7)
Program 1-7A - Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area. Explore increased
residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in the downtown area
to support the objectives of the Downtown Strategy and General Plan policies.
Policy 1-8: The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on
single-family designated and zoned parcels. (Existing Policy 1-8)
Program 1-8A - Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council
Time Frame: December, 2009
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: 20 second units by 2014.
Program 1-8B - Second Dwelling Unit Community Education: Actively promote
community education on second units by posting information regarding second units on the
Housing Plan 87
City’s website and providing brochures at the public counter in the One Stop Permit
Center.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 1-9: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill and
redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating
conflicts with industrial operations.
Program 1-9A - Through the Zoning Ordinance update, South El Camino Real General
Plan update, the El Camino Real / Chestnut Specific Plan, the City will identify
opportunities for residential development through infill and redevelopment of underutilized
sites.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Housing Plan 88
Remove Constraints to Housing Development
Goal 2. The City of South San Francisco will take necessary steps to remove
government and public infrastructure constraints to housing development through
administrative support, intergovernmental cooperation, public-private partnerships
and permit streamlining. (New Goal)
Implementing Policies
Policy 2-1: The City shall continue to operate the “One Stop Permit Center” in order to provide
assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of
local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local
needs. (Revised Existing Policy 1-11)
Program 2-1A - Expedite Permit Review: To support private market construction, the City
shall work with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit
review process; design housing projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this
Housing Element; provide timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental
review requirements, and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project
approval; and interface with community groups and local residents to ensure public support
of major new housing developments. (Existing Program 1-11A).
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division, Building Division and Housing and Redevelopment Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2-2: The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets,
water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential
development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public
services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed
improvements are already committed. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private
access to public rights-of-way. (Existing Policy 1-13)
Policy 2-3: The City shall continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an
active interest in seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems. The City supports efforts such
as the San Mateo County Sub RHNA effort which seek to bring the 21 jurisdictions of San Mateo
County together to address common housing and planning needs. (Existing Policy 1-14)
Program 2-3A - MCC Program. The City shall participate with San Mateo County in its
Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Housing Plan 89
Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: California Debt Limit Allocation Committee
Quantified Objective: Assist 20 moderate income households with home
purchases
Policy 2-4: The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes
with existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy 1-15)
Program 2-4A - City will implement design guidelines under consideration as part of the
Zoning Ordinance update.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame: 2009/2010
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 2-5: The City shall support excellence in design through the continued use of the design
review board and/or staff and adherence to CEQA while ensuring that this process is carried out
expeditiously. (Existing Policy 1-16)
Policy 2-6: The City shall ensure that developers and city residents are made aware of key housing
programs and development opportunities. (Existing Policy 1-18)
Program 2-6A: Disseminate Information on Affordable Housing Programs. To widen the
availability of information to interested residents, the City shall update its website to
include information on affordable housing, housing programs, and inclusionary units.
(Revised Existing Program 1-18A)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Housing Plan 90
Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods
Goal 3: South San Francisco will strive to maintain and preserve existing housing
resources, including both affordable and market-rate units (Formerly Goal 2).
Implementing Policies
Policy 3-1: Encourage Private Reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and the
private rehabilitation of housing. (Existing Policy 2-1)
Policy 3-2: As appropriate, the City shall use State and Federal funding assistance to the fullest
extent these subsidies exist to rehabilitate housing. The City shall continue to give housing
rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds. (Existing Policy 2-2)
: The City will provide funds to assist
Program 3-2A - Housing Rehabilitation Program
very low- and low-income owner and renter households to undertake repairs to their homes
to bring them into a good state of repair and maintain them as viable units in the local
housing stock.
Policy 3-3: The City shall prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds for the
acquisition and rehabilitation of housing in older residential neighborhoods. The City will target
funds in order to preserve the older housing stock that exists in older neighborhoods and for low
income families earning less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). (Existing Policy 2-
3)
Policy 3-4: The City shall maintain and improve neighborhoods through the use of systematic code
enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs and other
available incentives. The City shall focus on properties in older neighborhoods such as Village
Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck’s Lots.
(Existing Policy 2-4)
Program 3-4A - Enforce Housing, Building and Safety Codes: The City shall continue to
aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes. (Existing Program 2-4A)
Responsibility:City Attorney; Fire Department, Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 3-4B - Eliminate Blight: The City shall seek to eliminate incompatible land uses
or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement
and other available regulatory measures. (Existing Policy 2-4B)
Housing Plan 91
Responsibility:City Attorney; Fire Department, Building Division
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding Source:City funds
Quantified Objective:NQ
Policy 3-5: The City shall continue to support the revitalization of older neighborhoods by keeping
streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in good repair. The City shall continue to work
cooperatively with other agencies and utilities concerning the maintenance of their properties and
equipment in South San Francisco. (Existing Policy 2-6)
Program 3-5A -Capital Improvement Program for Older Neighborhoods: As appropriate,
the City shall create a capital improvement program to upgrade housing in older
neighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old
Town), Irish Town, and Peck’s Lots. (Existing Program 2-6A)
Responsibility:Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 3-6: The City shall ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize
with existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy 2-7)
Policy 3-7: The City shall strive to maintain its existing single- and multi-family housing stock.
(Existing Policy 2-9)
: The City shall provide
Program 3-7A - Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation
low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing by
supporting the Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding. The City
shall give priority to homes in the Downtown Target Area. (Existing Program 2-9A)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community
Development, Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective:40 Units by 2014.
. The City shall support the South San Francisco
Program 3-7B - Support SSF PHA
Housing Authority in the continued operation and rental of 80 units of public housing.
(Existing Program 2-9B)
Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority
Housing Plan 92
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source:HUD funds and return on rents
Quantified Objective:Preserve 80 units.
Policy 3-8: The City shall strive to preserve and/or improve existing boarding houses and Single
Room Occupancy (SRO) developments. (Existing Policy 2-10)
Program 3-8A – Financial Assistance for SROs. The City shall provide financial
assistance for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms and Single Room
Occupancies in the Downtown area. (Existing Program 2-10A)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
Time Frame:2007-2014
Funding Source:20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective:NQ
Policy 3-9: The City shall strive to limit the conversion of apartment units to condominiums.
(Existing Policy 2-11)
Program 3-9A – Condominium Conversion Limitations. The City shall continue to enforce
limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified in Chapter
19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are allowed only if they meet the
following general criteria:
a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists;
b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City’s available housing stock;
c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting condominium
projects;
d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the
time of conversion; and
e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan.
(Existing Program 2-11A)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding Source:NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 3-10: The City shall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing units
at risk of converting to market rate housing. (Existing Policy 2-13)
Housing Plan 93
Maintain and Improve Quality of Life
Goal 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic
integrity of existing neighborhoods is a high priority for the City of South San
Francisco (Formerly Goal 5)
Implementing Policies
Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate
mitigation measures are taken. (Existing Policy 5-1)
Policy 4-2: The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with
adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property-related crimes.
(Existing Policy 5-2)
Program 4-2A - Administer Minimum Building Security Standards. The City shall
continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security Standards, of the
Municipal Code. (Existing Program 5-3B)
Responsibility: Police Department
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All new residential units shall comply with City standards.
Policy 4-3: As appropriate and required by law, the City shall continue the abatement
of unsafe structures. (Existing Policy 5-3)
Program 4-3A - Review Projects for Major Environmental Hazards during the
Environmental Review Process. The City shall review residential projects for major
environmental hazards during the environmental review process. The City shall not
approve the projects unless the hazards are adequately mitigated. (Existing
Program 5-3A)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All residential projects.
Policy 4-4 - The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as
contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing Policy 5-4)
Housing Plan 94
Program 4-4A - Review all new residential development for compliance
with the County Airport Land Use Plan. Any incompatible residential
use will either be eliminated or mitigation measures will be taken to
reduce interior noise levels within the acceptable range in accordance
with the Noise Element. (Existing Program 5-4A)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: All new residential projects.
Program 4-4B - Support the Airport Noise Insulation Program. Assist homeowners in
insulating units adversely affected by airport noise, pursuant to the Aviation Safety and
Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Section 49 USC 2101 et seq.). This is a broad-based project
to reduce aircraft-associated noise inside residences. This program is available regardless
of income level. (Existing Policy 5-4B)
Responsibility: Department of Public Works
Time Frame: 2007-2014
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: To insulate existing homes within the 65 CNEL zone.
Housing Plan 95
Support Development of Special Housing Needs
Goal 5. Support the development of an adequate supply of safe, decent and
affordable housing for groups with special housing needs (revised existing goal 3)
Implementing Policies
Policy 5-1: The City shall continue to give special attention in housing programs to the needs of
special groups, including the disabled, large families, the elderly, and families with low incomes.
(Existing Policy 3-1)
Senior Housing
Policy 5-2: The City shall encourage the development of housing for elderly. (Existing Policy 3-2)
Policy 5-3: The City shall encourage non-profit groups to provide housing for the elderly citizens
of South San Francisco. The City should encourage the development of senior housing in higher
density areas close to shopping and transportation. (Existing Policy 3-3)
Program 5-3A – Density Bonus for Senior Housing. The City shall continue to grant
density bonuses for senior housing projects. The City shall allow up to 50 units per acre for
senior housing projects and permit reduced parking standards. (Existing Program 3-3A)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division and Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: 10 senior housing units between 2007 and 2014.
Program 5-3B – Minor Housing Repair Program for Seniors. The City shall continue to
provide funding for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by low-income senior
citizens. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and
masonry work. (Existing Program 3-3B)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 100 units from 2007 to 2014
Policy 5-4: The City shall encourage the establishment of a range of housing types for
seniors including residential board and care facilities for the elderly in the community. (Existing
Policy 3-4)
Program 5-4A -Reduced Parking Requirement for Board and Care Facilities.
Housing Plan 96
The City shall continue to allow reduced parking requirements for residential board and
care facilities. (Existing Program 3-4A)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: NQ
Housing for the Disabled
Policy 5-5: Consistent with State law, the City shall require the inclusion of handicapped
accessible units in all housing projects. In all new apartment projects with five or more units, State
law requires that five percent of the units constructed be fully accessible to the physically disabled.
(Existing Policy 3-5)
Program 5-5A - Ensure Consistency with State Accessibility Laws. The City shall review
development plans to assure consistency with state handicap and accessibility laws and
require modifications for accessibility. (Existing Program 3-5A)
Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: NA
Quantified Objective: Enforcement of applicable State and federal standards.
Program 5-5B – Revise Zoning Ordinance to Facilitate Housing for the Disabled. The City
shall complete a review of its Zoning Ordinance and other development procedures to
ensure compliance with fair housing laws and ensure that these regulations do not create a
hardship for persons with disabilities. The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance and
change its permit processing procedures, as needed, to facilitate accessibility for disabled
persons. (Revised Existing Program 3-5B)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Timeframe:December, 2009
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 5-6: The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the
needs of disabled citizens. (Existing Policy 3-6)
Program 5-6A- The City shall continue to provide funds to make housing units accessible
to the disabled. (Existing Program 3-6A)
Housing Plan 97
Responsibility: Department Economic and Community Development, Housing and
Community Development Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 125 units from 2007-2014
Policy 5-7: The City shall provide reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities to
ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of this is to provide a process for individuals with
disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the various
land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City.(Existing
Policy 3-7)
Program 5-7A - The City shall amend its Municipal Code as necessary to provide
individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and
procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. (Existing Policy 3-
7A).
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Timeframe:Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 5-7B - The City shall create a public information brochure on reasonable
accommodation for disabled persons and provide that information on the City’s website.
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development
Timeframe:Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Housing for Large Families
Policy 5-8: The City shall encourage provision of adequate affordable housing suitable for large
families. (Existing Policy 3-8)
Housing and Emergency Shelter for the Homeless
Policy 5-9: The City shall assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. At least one
site shall remain available in the City for the operation of an Emergency shelter. (Revised Existing
Policy 3-9)
Policy 5-10: The City shall be an active participant in the County of San Mateo “Continuum of
Care” planning process that supports emergency shelters, temporary housing, transitional
programs, and general housing assistance for the homeless. (Existing Policy 3-10)
Housing Plan 98
Program 5-10A – Support Continuum of Care Planning. The City shall continue to be an
active participant in the Continuum of Care planning process with the appropriate
homeless agencies in its efforts to address the needs of South San Francisco residents in
need of emergency shelter or temporary housing. (Existing Program 3-10A)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Planning Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing
Set-Aside Fund
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 5-10B - The City shall support non-profits that offer housing solutions and
services for homeless, The City shall continue to provide funds to non-profit organizations
that offer creative solutions to solving homeless and/or provide housing related services for
the homeless or at-risk homeless. (Existing Program 3-10C)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund
Quantified Objective: NQ
Program 5-10C – Transitional Housing.The City shall continue to provide funds to
organizations that provide transitional housing. (Revised Program 3-10C)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG & 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside
Fund
Quantified Objective: 200 placements of families and/or individuals
between 2007 and 2014
Program 5-10D- Support Ongoing Operation of 90-Bed Emergency Shelter in South San
Francisco. The City shall continue to support the operation of a 90-bed year round
homeless shelter within the city limits. (Revised Existing Program 3-10D)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community
Development
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG, RDA Housing & Set Aside Funds.
Quantified Objective: NQ.
Program 5-10E - The City shall continue to provide financial assistance to organizations
helping families with social services including case management and referrals for housing
and homeless prevention. (Existing Program 3-10E)
Housing Plan 99
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: Case management and referrals for 500 individuals and families per
year from 2007 to 2014.
Housing Plan 100
Assure Equal Access to Housing
Goal 6. South San Francisco values diversity and strives to ensure that all
households have equal access to the City’s housing resources. (existing goal 4)
Implementing Policies
Policy 6-1: The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in
housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic
background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent
housing.(Revised Existing Policy 4-1)
Policy 6-2: The City shall provide information and referrals regarding fair housing complaints,
tenant-landlord conflicts, habitability, and other general housing assistance. (Existing Policy 4-2)
Program 6-2A-Legal Counsel and Advocacy Assistance. The City shall provide access to
legal counseling and advocacy concerning fair housing laws, rights, and remedies to those
who believe they have been discriminated against. Persons requesting information or
assistance related to housing discrimination are referred to one or more fair housing groups
for legal services. (Existing Program 4-2A)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 5 discrimination cases and 10 tenant-landlord cases
pursued each year between 2007 and 2014.
Program 6-2B - The City shall provide funding assistance to organizations that provide
counseling and tenant-landlord issues, habitability and other general housing assistance.
(Existing Program 4-2B)
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: 100 habitability cases pursued each year between
2007 and 2014.
Program 6-2C - The City shall participate with other jurisdiction in San Mateo County to
periodically update the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing in San Mateo County
report which helps jurisdictions identify impediments to fair housing and develop
solutions.
Housing Plan 101
Responsibility of: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Housing and Community Development Division
Time Frame: On-going
Funding Source: CDBG
Quantified Objective: NQ
Housing Plan 102
Energy Conservation
Goal 7. The City of South San Francisco will promote energy efficiency in
residential development within the City, including reduction of energy use through
better design and construction in individual homes, and also through energy
efficient urban design. (existing goal 6)
Implementing Policies
Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new
residential structures. (Existing Policy 6-1)
Program 7-1A - The City shall assist with energy and water conserving modifications/
features in existing residential rehabilitation projects. (Existing Program 6-1A)
Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development,
Housing and Community Development Division; Fire Department, Fire
Prevention/ Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG funds
Quantified Objective: 10 units annually.
Program 7-1B – Complete Green Building Ordinance: The City shall complete the
ongoing Green Building Ordinance to assure that new dwelling units and significant
remodels incorporate green building practices and materials into the design.
Responsibility: Department ofEconomic and Community Development,
Building Division; City Council
Time Frame: Complete review and amendments by Summer 2009.
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Policy 7-2: When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to respond to
climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shadow patterns. (Revised Existing Policy
6-5)
Program 7-2A- The City shall continue to provide information on energy-efficient
standards for residential buildings (e.g., brochures and other information). The City shall
promote the use of passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential
buildings to ensure that State residential energy conservation building standards are met.
(Existing Program 6-5A)
Housing Plan 103
Responsibility of : Department of Economic and Community Development,
Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: State standards enforced in all new construction.
Policy 7-3: The City shall promote the use of weatherization programs for existing residential units
especially among low-income households. (Existing Policy 6-6)
Policy 7-4: The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving design and
construction techniques in all types of projects (including new construction and remodeled and
rehabilitated structures). (Existing Policy 6-7)
Program 7-4A - Title 24. The City shall continue to enforce State requirements, including
Title 24 requirements, for energy conservation in residential development and encourage
residential developers to consider employing additional energy conservation measures with
respect to the following:
1. Street and driveway design
2. Lot pattern and configuration
3. Siting of buildings
4. Landscaping
5. Solar access
(Existing Program 6-7A)
Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/ Building Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: City funds
Quantified Objective: NQ
Housing Plan 104
Quantified Objectives
The following table summarizes quantified objectives for the construction, rehabilitation, and
conservation of housing in the City of South San Francisco for this Housing Element.
Table 44: Summary of Quantified Objectives
Affordability
Above
Very LowLowModerateModerateTotal
Determined Need -- RHNA (2007-2014)3732683156791,635
New Construction
Constructed / Approvals (Prior to July 2009)506474627815
Additional Market Rate Construction (July 2009 to June 2014) (a)000500500
Program 1-2A - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance040600100
Program 1-4A - Affordable Housing Site Assembly406000100
Program 1-6A - Density Bonus Ordinance02525050
Program 1-8A - Promote Second Units00101020
Program 2-3A - Mortgage Credit Certificate Program0020020
Program 5-3A - Density Bonuses for Senior Housing640010
Total New Construction961931891,1371,615
Rehabilitation
Units Rehabilitated Prior to July 2009690015
Program 3-7A - Low Interest Rehabilitation Loans20200040
Program 5-3B - Minor Housing Repair Program for Seniors95500100
Program 5-6A - Funds to Make Units Accessible to Disabled120500125
Total Rehabilitation2413900280
Preservation / Conservation
Program 3-7B Support SSF Public Housing Authority40400080
Total Preservation/Conservation40400080
(a) Assumes 80 additional market rate units per year, consistent with construction trends during previous housing element cycle.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009
Means to Achieve Consistency with Remainder of General Plan
The City of South San Francisco has conducted a review of the proposed Housing Element Update
and determined that the proposed Update will not create any inconsistencies with the City’s other
General Plan elements. As the proposed Housing Element Update proceeds through the revision
process toward adoption of a final Housing Element Update, the City will continue to review the
proposed document for consistency. Should any inconsistencies result from future changes to the
proposed Housing Element Update, the City will determine the most appropriate means to achieve
overall General Plan consistency, which would likely involve amending other parts of the General
Plan as necessary to achieve consistency with the proposed Housing Element Update.
Housing Plan 105
Related Plans & Policy Documents
City of South San Francisco Consolidated Plan
The Consolidated Plan outlines the City’s objectives and strategy for meeting its housing and
community development needs using CDBG funds.
San Mateo County Continuum of Care Plan
The San Mateo County Continuum of Care Plan identifies priorities and strategies for meeting the
housing and service needs of homeless and at-risk populations for the County generally, including
the City of South San Francisco. The Plan addresses service shortfalls in existing facilities and
programs for homeless households and discusses strategies to expand capacity in the following
areas: homelessness prevention, outreach and assessment, emergency shelter, transitional housing
and permanent housing affordable to extremely low-income and homeless households.
Redevelopment and Housing Implementation Plan
The Redevelopment and Housing Implementation Plan describes the South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency’s strategy for use of Agency tax increment funds, including the 20 percent
housing set-aside funds. The Plan details the Agency’s strategy in meeting the affordable housing
obligations (inclusionary and replacement) in City redevelopment project areas.
Housing Plan 106
Appendix A: Housing
Accomplishments, 1999 to 2006
Appendices 107
Appendix B: Comparison of Housing
Permit Issuance by Jurisdiction
Appendices 114
Appendix C: Home Price Affordability
Calculations by Income Level
Appendices 116
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing
Terms
Household
: All persons occupying a single dwelling unit.
Family Household
: Two or more related persons occupying a dwelling unit.
Non-Family Household
: A single person living alone, or two or more unrelated persons sharing a
dwelling unit.
Large Family
: A family of five (5) or more persons.
Elderly
: Persons 65 years of age or older.
Disabled:
Persons determined to have a physical impairment or mental disorder which is expected to
be of long continued or indefinite duration and is of such a nature that the person's ability to live
independently could be improved by more suitable housing conditions.
Very Low-Income Household
: A household whose income, with adjustments for household size,
does not exceed 50 percent of the County median household income, as published annually by the
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
Low-Income Household
: A household whose income, with adjustments for household size, does not
exceed 80 percent of the County median household income, as published annually by the State of
California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
Moderate-Income Household
: A household whose income, with adjustment for household size, falls
between 80 percent and 120 percent of the County median household income, as published annually
by the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
Above Moderate-Income Household
: A household whose income, with adjustment for household
size, is greater than 120 percent of the County median household income, as published annually by the
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
Dwelling Unit
: The place or customary abode of a person or household which is either considered to
be real property under State law or cannot be easily moved.
Affordable Housing
: Housing South San Francisco households can buy or rent without paying over
30 percent of their income.
Appendices 118
City of South San Francisco
General Plan
2007-2014 Housing Element
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft
May 15, 2009
City of South San Francisco
Prepared for
General Plan
The City of South San Francisco
2007-2014 Housing Element
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(650) 877-8583
Prepared by
PBS&J
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 361-1500
Draft
May 15, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.INTRODUCTION....................................................
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration....................
IS/MND Approach.................................................
Mitigation Measures the City Requires as Standard Conditions of Project Approval............I-3
II.PROJECT INFORMATION.............................................
III.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM....................................
IV.ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...........................................
V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................
Project Background..............................................
Relationship of the Housing Element to the CityÔs General Plan..
Housing Element Update Process..................................
Major Assumptions of the Housing Element........................
Related Planning Efforts........................................
Descriptions of Opportunity Areas................................................
Transit Village Area............................................
South El Camino Real Area.......................................
Downtown Area...................................................
VI.EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.............................
1.Aesthetics......................................................
2.Agriculture Resources...........................................
3.Air Quality.....................................................
4.Biological Resources............................................
5.Cultural Resources..............................................
6.Geology and Soils.............................................................
7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................
8.Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................
9.Land Use and Planning..........................................................
10.Mineral Resources...............................................
11.Noise...........................................................
12.Population and Housing..........................................................
13.Public Services.................................................
14.Recreation......................................................
15.Transportation/Traffic..........................................
16.Utilities and Service Systems...................................
16.Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page i
Draft May 15, 2009
FIGURES
Regional Location...............................................
Figure 1
Figure 2Planning Area (with Opportunity Sites)..........................
Figure 3Opportunity Sites...............................................
Figure 4Transit Village Area Sites......................................
Figure 5South El Camino Real Area Sites.................................
Figure 6Downtown Area Sites.............................................
TABLES
Table 1 Transit Village........................................
Table 2 South El Camino Real...................................
Table 3 Downtown Area..........................................
APPENDICES
Appendix A Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial
and Multi-Family Residential Projects
Appendix B Greenhouse Gas Calculations
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page ii
Draft May 15, 2009
I.I
NTRODUCTION
In accordance with State law, the City of South San Francisco (ÑCityÒ) proposes to adopt a General
1
Plan Amendment (ÑGPAÒ) for the 2007-2014 Housing Element (Ñproposed projectÒ) as a part of the
CityÔs General Plan. An updated Housing Element is required of each city in the State of California
(ÑStateÒ) to address the housing needs of all residents, in all income levels, over the planning period
(2007-2014). The CityÔs previous Housing Element was adopted in December 2002.
The CityÔs Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element may be viewed and printed by going to the CityÔs web
or www.ssf.net. A copy of the 2007-2014 Housing Element, as well as this
site at www.ci.ssf.ca.us
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ÑIS/MNDÒ), and theonmental documents upon
which this IS/MND relies, may also be obtained at the CityÔs Economic and Community Development
Department Ï Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco,
California, 94080. Copies of the document may also be viewed at the Office of the City Clerk, West
Orange Library, and the Grand Avenue Library. For additional information, please call the Economic
and Community Development Department Ï Planning Division, at 650.877.8535, or e-mail
Ñgerry.beaudin@ssf.net.Ò
IS/MND
NITIAL TUDYITIGATED EGATIVE ECLARATION
This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ÑCEQAÒ), which can be found in the State Public Resources Code (ÑPRCÒ), Section 21000 et. seq.,
and the CEQA Guidelines, found in State Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et.
seq., as amended.
The Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with adoption and
implementation of the CityÔs 2007-2014 Housing Element. Pursuant to Section 15074 of the State Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, when considering adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the Lead Agency is bound by the following:
A.Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to
body shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
before making its recommendation.
B.Prior to approving a Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration only if it finds o
before it that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect
on the environment and that a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
reflects the Lead AgencyÔs independent judgment and analysis.
1
Throughout this document, the 2007-2014 Housing Element will be referred to as the ÑHousing ElementÒ or
the Ñproposed project.Ò
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page I-1
Draft May 15, 2009
C.When adopting a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Lead
Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
D.When adopting a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Lead
Agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has
either required in the Project or made a condition of approval to avoid or mitigate
significant environmental impacts.
E.A Lead Agency shall not adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
for a Project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport l
comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted for a Project within two nautical
miles of a public use airport without first considering whether the Project will result in a
safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or
working in the Project area.
The Lead Agency for the 2007-2014 Housing Element is the City of South San Francisco. The
decision-making body is the City of South San Francisco City Council. During the 30-day comment
period, please mail comments on this IS/MND to the project manager for the Lead Agency following
address:
Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department Ï Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
A
IS/MND
PPROACH
This IS/MND evaluates the environmental impacts of the 2007-2014 Housing Element. Since the
Housing Element is a planning document, which does not authorize or analyze any
development proposals, this IS/MND has been prepared as a programmatic review. As such, this
document focuses on the overall effects of the adoption and implementation of the Housing Element in
the Planning Area. The analysis does not examine the effects of individual, site-specific projects that
may occur within the overall umbrella of this program in the future. Impacts of such projects will
necessarily be evaluated once the specific projects have been proposed.
General Plan elements, including the Housing Element, include proposed policies that are intended to
be general, with details to be worked out during implementation. Thus, many of the impacts associated
with implementation of the 2007-2014 Housing Element can only be described in general terms.
Furthermore, the development of 1,200 dwelling units (ÑduÒ) to meet this Housing Element would be
subject to goals, policies, and programs under the General Plan (including the 2007-2014 Housing
Element), Municipal Code (which included the CityÔs Building Code and Zoning Ordinance), and the
Standard Conditions and Limitations (ÑSCLÒ) for multi-family residential projects, promulgated by the
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page I-2
Draft May 15, 2009
City. Accordingly, environmental review for the 2007-2014 Housing Element relies on the
environmental review that was certified and adopted for the CityÔs General Plan, subsequent GPAs,
and zoning code ordinances. Relevant goals, policies, and programs, as well as SCLs have been
included, when appropriate, to mitigate or reduce potential impacts.
MCRSCPA
M
ITIGATION EASURES THE ITY EQUIRES AS TANDARD ONDITIONS OF ROJECT PPROVAL
The following Conditions of Approval (ÑCOAÒ) implement environmental mitigations and, are
required through the CityÔs standard project review and approval procedures. Each of the following
requirements identified in this section will be imposed upon and incorporated into the proposed p
as conditions of approval and or conditions of issuance of a building permit. Implementation of t
COA, along with mitigation measures identified in this document, will insure that impacts associated
with the proposed project remain less than significant.
Air Quality:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the impact associated with air quality
plans to a less-than-significant level:
AQ-1 Implement feasible control measures for construction emission of PM-10. The project sponsor
shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction,
in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction si
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
at construction sites.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets.
AQ-2 Green Building Measures for New Construction. The following green building measures shall
be incorporated, at the discretion of the Planning Department, into new residential
construction:
Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated to maximize summer shade and to
minimize winter shade. Canopy cover shall extend over 50 percent of non-permeable
surfaces following a ten-year growth period.
Residential construction shall use ÑgreenÒ cement, which contains recycled materials (slag
or fly-ash) and is produced using emission-reducing technologies, if available, structurally
appropriate for the intended use, and where feasible and practicable.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page I-3
Draft May 15, 2009
New construction shall use energy efficient lighting, to the extent feasible and appropriate.
At the minimum, all buildings shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in energy use associated
with lighting over existing Title 24 standards.
Residential buildings shall include passive solar design features that include roof overhangs
or canopies that block summer shade, but that allow winter sun, from penetrating south
facing windows.
Roofing materials used in commercial/retail buildings shall be Energy Star® certified. All
roof products shall also be certified to meet ATSM high emissivity requirements.
Where feasible, recycled, rapidly renewable, reclaimed and/or certified components shall
be used in the construction of new residential buildings.
Cultural Resources:
Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce impacts to paleontological/
geological features and human remains to a less-than-significant
CR-1 Protect unique paleontological/geological features. Should a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geological feature be identified at an opportunity site during any phase of
construction, the project sponsor shall cease all construction activities at the site of the
discovery and immediately notify the City. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified
paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project
site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The
project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional prescribed mitigation
measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City.
CR-2 Protect human remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resource
shall be halted and the City and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately, according t
Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and
Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the
NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to
in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a
professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field
investigation of the project site, and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified
by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the
Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The
City shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate,
taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section
15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall
implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City, before the resumption of ground
disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page I-4
Draft May 15, 2009
Noise:
Mitigation Measure NO-1 would reduce the impact associated with construction noise to a less-
than-significant level:
NO-1 Implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The project sponsor shall
incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the
project construction contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control
devices (e.g., mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g.,
surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), would not require major equipment
redesign:
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly
noisy areas of the site or around the entire site;
Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission
of noise to sensitive receptors;
Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and
Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used
on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling
equipment, shall be used whenever feasible.
d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction
with the CityÔs Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and
schools, are avoided as much as possible.
f. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50
feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page I-5
Draft May 15, 2009
II.PI
ROJECT NFORMATION
1. PT
ROJECT ITLE
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Element
2. LANA
EAD GENCY AME AND DDRESS
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
(mailing)
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
(physical)
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
3. CPPN
ONTACT ERSON AND HONE UMBER
Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner
650.877.8535
4. PL
ROJECT OCATION
City of South San Francisco
5. PS'NA
ROJECT PONSORS AME AND DDRESS
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
(mailing)
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
(physical)
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
6. GPD
ENERAL LAN ESIGNATION
City-wide; Planning Area, encompasses all General Plan Designations
7. Z
ONING
City-wide; Planning Area, encompasses all Zoning Districts
8. DP
ESCRIPTION OF ROJECT
See Section V (Project Description), below, for a full descripti
9. SLUS
URROUNDING AND SES AND ETTING
See Section IV (Environmental Setting), below.
10. OPAWAR
THER UBLIC GENCIES HOSE PPROVAL IS EQUIRED
None.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page II-1
Draft May 15, 2009
IV.ES
NVIRONMENTAL ETTING
The City of South San Francisco (ÑPlanning AreaÒ) is located in northern San Mateo County
(ÑCountyÒ), on the San Francisco Peninsula (ÑPeninsulaÒ) (see Figure 1, Regional Location). The
City is adjacent to the cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, and San Bruno, as well as
unincorporated portions of the County. The City is served by Highway 101 (ÑU.S. 101Ò), Interstate
380 (ÑI-380Ò), Interstate 280 (ÑI-280Ò), and Caltrain, as well as a BART station, which opened in June
2003 (see Figure 2, Planning Area [with Opportunity Sites]). In addition, the City is adjacent to the
San Francisco International Airport (ÑSFOÒ) and is anticipating
during the current Housing Element planning period (2007-2014). The City measures 9.6 square miles
and was incorporated in 1908. The City is home to a collection of compact neighborhoods including
an active and walkable downtown. Its population has tripled since the Second World War, but
population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has become increasing developed.
East of U.S. 101 is an office and industrial area, where many of the CityÔs biotechnology businesses
are located as well as the Oyster Point Marina, situated on the San Francisco Bay (ÑBayÒ). The City is
known as the birth place of the biotechnology industry.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page IV-1
Draft May 15, 2009
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Source:
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
1000008084
V.PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an update to the Housing Element of the CityÔs General Plan. The current
Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2002, and the General
Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on October 13, 1999. This Housing Element
(update) focuses on housing needs from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014 in accordance with the
Housing Element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions established by State law.
The City has prepared its General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Element to meet the requirements of
State law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with the other elements of the CityÔs General
Plan, adopted in October 1999, with the exception of some of the land use designations for some of the
identified opportunity sites. A General Plan Amendment (ÑGPAÒ) is currently underway to make the
land use designations consistent with the Housing Element density and requirements.
The purpose of a Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs, and set forth
goals, policies, and programs that address those needs. The 2007-2014 Housing Element, a component
of the CityÔs General Plan, is a statement by the City of its current and future housing n
proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income levels, and
presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and actions for the years 2007-2014. The City
adopted its current Housing Element in December 2002. The 2002 Housing Element was subsequently
ÑcertifiedÒ as legally adequate by the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(ÑHCDÒ).
This project description includes a discussion of the following:
Project Background;
Relationship of the Housing Element with to CityÔs General Plan;
Housing Element Update Process;
Major Assumptions of the Housing Element;
Related Planning Efforts; and
Descriptions of Opportunity Areas.
PB
ROJECT ACKGROUND
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ÑABAGÒ), in its final Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(ÑRHNAÒ) figures, allocated the City 1,635 housing units for the period from 2007 to 2014. The
timeframe for this RHNA process is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2014 (a seven and a half year
planning period). This unit count includes the need for 373 very low-, 268 low-, and 315 moderate-
income units. The allocation is equivalent to an annual need of 218 housing units for the seven-and-a-
half-year time period. A total of 830 units have been approved, constructed, or rehabilitated in the
City since the start of the current planning period in January 2007. Hence, there is a remaining need
for 805 units.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page V-1
Draft May 15, 2009
RHECÔGP
ELATIONSHIP OF THE OUSING LEMENT TO THE ITYS ENERAL LAN
State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements ÑÈcomprise an integrated,
2
internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.Ò This implies that
all elements have equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The
Housing Element must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use
Element, and closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Housing
Element must also be consistent with area Specific Plans including those currently being developed in
South San Francisco described under ÑRelated Planning Efforts,Ò below. As part of the
implementation process for this Housing Element, a GPA and Zoning Ordinance Update are required to
achieve internal consistency.
HEUP
OUSING LEMENT PDATE ROCESS
The Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element will be presented to the CityÔs Planning Commission and City
Council for review before being forwarded to the HCD in June 2009. After a mandatory 60-day
review period, HCD will provide the City with comments and recommendations on the Draft 2007-
2014 Housing Element.
MAHE
AJOR SSUMPTIONS OF THE OUSING LEMENT
Housing Opportunity Sites.
The City is built out, and all new housing opportunity sites identified in
the 2007-2014 Housing Element are located on a limited number of infill and redevelopment sit
transit, providing the City with the chance to promote high-quality transit and pedestrian-oriented
neighborhoods that include a full range of housing types and affordability levels (see Figure 3,
Opportunity Sites). To meet ABAGÔs housing needs determination, the Housing Element has identified
19 opportunity sites for mixed-use and high-density housing deve
are geographically clustered into three areas:
The Transit Village area
The South El Camino Real area
The Downtown area
The Transit Village area is zoned for medium (30 dwelling units/acre [Ñdu/acÒ]) to high (50 du/ac)
density residential development, and provides approximately 31 percent of the CityÔs near-term
residential development potential (see Figure 4, Transit Village Area Sites). The South El Camino
Real area provides approximately 55 percent of the CityÔs near-term residential development potential
(see Figure 5, South El Camino Real Area Sites). The City is currently amending its General Plan and
updating the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate mixed-use and high-density residential development in the
South El Camino Real area. The Downtown area provides approximately 14 percent of the CityÔs
near-term residential development potential (see Figure 6, Downts). The Downtown area
is currently zoned for mixed-use residential development of up to 30 du/ac; however, an ongoing
downtown strategy planning process may lead to increased densities.
2
California Government Code, Section 65300.5.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page V-2
Draft May 15, 2009
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Source:
FIGURE 5
South El Camino Real Area Sites
1000008084
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Source:
FIGURE 6
Downtown Area Sites
1000008084
Goals and Policies.
Taking into account the needs, constraints, and resources iden
City has developed a ÑHousing PlanÒ in consideration of its own local priorities, as well as its
obligations under State law. The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related
implementing policies. Accompanying each implementing policy, there are one or more programs that
the City will implement over the 2007-2014 planning period. The proposed Goals, Policies, and
Programs contained in the 2007-2014 Housing Element have been modified from the 2002 Housing
Element based on the Housing Needs Assessment, Constraints Analysis, and Housing Resources
inventory contained within the 2007-2014 Housing Element.
The goals listed below form the core of the CityÔs vision for the preservation and development of
residential areas:
Goal 1: Promote the provision of housing by the private, public and non-profit sectors for all
income groups in the community.
Goal 2: Take necessary steps to remove government and public infrastructure constraints to
housing development through administrative support, intergovernmental cooperation, public-
private partnerships and permit streamlining.
Goal 3: Strive to maintain and preserve existing housing resources, including both affordable
and market-rate units.
Goal 4: Maintain and improve the quality of life, safety and his
neighborhoods as a high priority for the City.
Goal 5: Support the development of an adequate supply of safe, decent and affordable housing
for groups with special housing needs.
Goal 6: Ensure that all households have equal access to the CityÔs housing resources.
Goal 7: Promote energy efficiency in residential development within the City, including
reduction of energy use through better design and construction in individual homes, and also
through energy efficient urban design.
To establish benchmarks to assess the progress toward achieving the CityÔs housing goals, the 2007-
2014 Housing Element also presents a five-year action plan, along with quantified objectives for the
construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing.
PE
R
ELATED LANNING FFORTS
Under a separate action from its 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City is currently evaluating the
environmental effects (CEQA compliance) of certain GPA/Zoning Ordinance changes to the South El
Camino Real and Downtown areas. This process is expected to be completed in approximately three to
six months.
El Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan.
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to create an
implementable development vision for the area around the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page V-7
Draft May 15, 2009
Avenue. The gross plan area is approximately 65 acres. It is within one mile of the South San
Francisco BART station and located one and a half miles west of Downtown. The anticipated
completion date for the Specific Plan is Fall/Winter 2009.
South El Camino Real General Plan Update.
The current land use designation for much of the
southern portion of El Camino Real is ÑCommunity Commercial.Ò Community Commercial
designation does not allow for residential or mixed-use development. The proposed/drafted GPA
allows for mixed-use development throughout the southern portion
are proposed to be increased to allow for 80 feet as of right, and up to 120 feet with additional review
and approval. This is up from the existing 50-foot height limit that currently exists for most of the
properties on South El Camino Real. Finally, the permitted Residential Density has been set at 60
units per acre, with increases possible through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. The
anticipated completion date for the South El Camino Real General Plan Update is Summer 2009.
Zoning Ordinance Update.
The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update is underway to
ensure that current standards and guidelines support the implementation of the General Plan, including
the Housing Element. The update is structured into four Ñmodules.Ò Staff, the CityÔs consultant, and
the CityÔs Planning Commission are currently working through modules 2 and 3. The anticipated
completion date for the update is Fall/Winter 2009.
OA
D
ESCRIPTIONS OF PPORTUNITY REAS
Transit Village Area
The Transit Village area is located in the northwestern portion of the City, and is generally bound by
McLellan Drive to the north, Chestnut Avenue to the south and east, and El Camino Real to the west
(see Figure 4). The Transit Village area was recently identified in the BART Transit Village Plan.
With the adoption of the BART Transit Village Plan in 2001, the City of South San Francisco
established zoning standards and design guidelines that promote brant mixed-use district consistent
with the areaÔs role as an important transit hub. A key element of the plan was to upzone various
parcels to allow for more intensive residential development. Since its adoption, more than 450
residential units have been developed within the Transit Village
development, of which 70 units are designated for low- and moderate-income households; and a 99-unit
condominium development. Built at densities of approximately 50 du/ac, these properties are
consistent with the CityÔs vision for higher density, mixed-use development in the area.
Six housing opportunity sites were identified in and around the Transit Village area, as listed in
Table 1, and shown in Figure 4. These six parcels contain approximately 18 acres of land with a
combined capacity for up to 622 housing units.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page V-8
Draft May 15, 2009
Table 1
Transit Village
Estimated
Actual
Existing Allowable
a
Site Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses Zoning du/ac
du/ac Units
BART, Multi-Family Transit Village
Residential (ÑMFRÒ), & (ÑTVÒ) -
1 0.5 Vacant 30 30 14
Retail/Commercial Residential
(ÑCÒ) (ÑRÒ) & -C
Site 1 0.5 30 14
Vacant &
Single Family
2 0.1 SFR & MFR TV-RM 30 30 3
Residential
(ÑSFRÒ)
2 1.5 Vacant BART TV-RM 30 30 44
Site 2 1.6 30 47
3 1.3 Vacant Motel Hospital & MFR TV-C 30 30 38
3 1.3 Vacant TV-RH 50 50 63
3 3.1 Lumber Yard TV-RH 50 50 156
Site 3 5.6 257
TV-RM & TV-
Planned
4 7.6 Vacant MFR, Colma Creek
30 30 228
Commercial
(ÑP-CÒ)
Site 4 7.6 30 228
5 0.3 Utility MFR R-3-L 30 23 7
Site 5 0.3 23 7
6 0.5 Vacant SFR & MFR R-3-L 30 24 12
Site 60.5 24 12
7 1.5 Vacant Colma Creek P-C-L 30 30 45
7 0.4 Vacant Hospital P-C-L 30 30 12
Site 7 1.9 30 57
TOTAL 18.0 35 622
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009
Notes:
a. Allowable density is based on existing, adopted zoning standa
As listed, the Transit Village area housing opportunity sites are either currently vacant or underutilized.
Sites 1, 3, 5, and 6 are entirely vacant. Site 2 contains a vacant single family development but
otherwise has no permanent structures. Site 2 is currently listed for sale by a commercial broker and
the City has engaged in pre-development discussions with an interested developer for the site. Site
contains a small Cal Water pumping station but is otherwise vacant. In all cases, each opportunity s
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page V-9
Draft May 15, 2009
is owned by a single entity, including Sites 3 and 6, which were recently acquired by the
Redevelopment Agency.
South El Camino Real Area
The South El Camino Real area is located in the South-central portion of the City, and is generally
bound by Orange Avenue to the north, Noor Avenue to the south, Huntington Avenue to the east, and
El Camino Real to the west (see Figure 5). The City is currently amending the General Plan policies
that pertain to the South El Camino Real area, updating the Zoning Ordinance to allow for residential
development and increased densities. The City expects both of these planning projects and
accompanying CEQA documentation to be completed in 2009. The South El Camino Real General
Plan update is intended to help transform an area with a concentration of aging strip retail into a more
vibrant transit corridor, including substantial mixed-use high-density (60 du/acre) residential
development.
For purposes of this analysis, the City has identified three sit
corridor with near-term redevelopment potential for multi-family housing. These three housing
opportunity sites are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 5. These sites total 21.3 acres and could
accommodate approximately 474 housing units.
Table 2
South El Camino Real
Existing Proposed Estimated
Existing Adjacent
Max Max Actual
Site Acres Use Uses
GP Density GP Density Density Units
High School, Mixed
Mobile
8 2.0 SFR, & MDR 30 du/ac Use 60 du/ac 50 du/ac 100
Home
Retail (ÑMUÒ)
Site 8 2.0 Less 12 existing residential units 88
60 du/ac
9 14.8 Retail Retail, Office MDR 30 du/ac MU 60 du/ac (on 1/3 295
of site)
Site 9 14.8 295
10 0.6 Parking C 30 du/ac MU 60 du/ac 13
60 du/ac
10 0.5 Parking C 30 du/ac MU 60 du/ac 10
(on 1/3
of site)
Vacant
10 3.8 Retail, Office C 30 du/ac MU 60 du/ac 68
Cinema
Site 10 4.5 91
TOTAL 21.3 474
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page V-10
Draft May 15, 2009
While numerous other sites along the corridor are also ultimately expected to support residential
development, due to existing developer interest and/or a high degree of underutilization, these t
present the most significant and realistic opportunities for housing development within the current
Housing Element cycle, ending in 2014.
Downtown Area
The Downtown area is located in the northeastern portion of the City, and is generally bound by
Linden Avenue to the north, Commercial Avenue to the south, U.S. 101 to the east, and Maple Avenue
to the west (see Figure 6). The City is currently developing a Downtown Strategy to establish a vision
for future development in the Downtown area. Covering a range of underutilized publicly- and
privately-owned parcels, the strategy provides conceptual develo
throughout the Downtown. As part of the strategic planning process the City is exploring potential
changes to zoning and the General Plan to accommodate increased densities and support a more vibrant
mix of land uses. Building on the Downtown Strategy and for purposes of this analysis, the City has
identified 10 sites in the downtown area with near-term redevelopment potential.
These nine housing opportunity sites are listed below in Table 3 and shown in Figure 6. Sites 12, 13,
16, 17, and 18 are owned by the Redevelopment Agency (ÑRDAÒ); Sites 14, 15, and 19 are owned by
the City; and Sites 10 and 11 are privately owned. As indicated in Table 3, these 10 sites total 4.3
acres, with a combined development capacity of up to 143 units.
The CityÔs 2007-2014 Housing Element is consistent with the CityÔs long-term commitment to
supporting high-quality residential development and will be required of comply with the goals, policies,
and programs already established under the CityÔs General Plan, in addition to those proposed under
the Housing Element. Furthermore, future development will also be subject to the CityÔs multi-family
residential SCLs (included as Appendix A, Standard Conditions and Limitations).
There is sufficient land to support the production of more than 1,195 new housing units. Nearly 100
percent of the CityÔs development capacity consists of higher density housing sites (densities e
30 du/ac), all of which is located within developed areas alreaded with needed infrastructure,
including sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation facilities.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page V-11
Draft May 15, 2009
Table 3
Downtown Area
Existing Estimated Actual
Adjacent Uses
Existing
Site Acres Use
Zoning Max Density Density Units
MFR, Gas
11 1.4 Vacant C-1-L 30 du/acre 30 43
Station, Utility
Site 11 1.4 30 43
12 0.3 Vacant SFR, MFR, C C-1-L 30 du/acre 30 10
Site 12 0.3 30 10
13 0.3 Auto SFR, MFR,C DHDR 40 du/acre 72 24
Site 13 0.3 72 24
14 0.3 Restaurant SFR, MFR, C C-1-L 30 du/acre 30 10
Site 14 0.3 30 10
Downtown
Hotel, MFR,
15 0.3 Parking Commercial 30 du/acre 30 10
Public
(ÑD-CÒ)
Site 15 0.3 30 10
Hotel, MFR,
16 0.3 Parking D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 10
Public
Site 16 0.3 Less 6 existing residential units 30 4
Financial
17 0.3 C D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 10
Building
17 0.2 Parking C-1-L 30 du/acre 30 5
17 0.1 O C-1-L 30 du/acre 30 2
17 0.2 C C-1-L 30 du/acre 30 5
Site 17 0.7 30 22
18 0.1 Vacant C D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 2
18 0.1 Vacant C D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 4
Site 18 0.2 30 7
Vacant
19 0.2 Fire C D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 5
Station
19 0.3 Parking D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 10
Site 19 0.3 30 14
TOTAL 4.3 143
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Eleent Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page V-12
Draft May 15, 2009
VI.EEI
VALUATION OF NVIRONMENTAL MPACTS
The development of approximately 1,200 dwelling units (ÑduÒ) under the CityÔs 2007-2014 Housing
Element, of which 805 dus need to be developed by the City to meet its remaining RHNA allocation,
would be subject to the goals, policies, and programs of the CityÔs General Plan (including the 2007-
2014 Housing Element), the CityÔs Standard Conditions and Limitations for multi-family residential
projects (included as Appendix A), and the Municipal Code (which includes the CityÔs Building Code
and Zoning Ordinance). As such, the Housing Element would have less-than-significant impacts or no
impacts on the following items:
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion:
a) Scenic Vistas
The opportunity sites are not located within formally designated public vistas, nor would they result in
the obstruction of any formally designated public vista. The South San Francisco General Plan does
not contain policies pertaining to scenic vistas; thus, the proposed project would not conflict with an
adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas.
b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes
The City of South San Francisco does not have formally designated scenic routes; however, Highway
280 is a state designated scenic highway located along the western side of the City. The proposed
project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic routes. The South San
Francisco General Plan does not contain policies pertaining to scenic routes. As such Housing
Element would not impact scenic resources along scenic routes.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-1
Draft May 15, 2009
c) Visual Character
South San FranciscoÔs industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, which contrasts with a
visually distinct setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the
west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with particular visual resources. The City
is contained by hills on three sides and the terrain within the City ranges from the flatlands along the
water to hills to the east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San
Bruno Mountain are visual landmarks. Much of the CityÔs topography is rolling, resulting in distant
views from many neighborhoods.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to visual character:
Policy 2-G-1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents
from changes in non-residential areas.
Policy 2-G-6: Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and
redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial
operations.
Policy 2-I-2: Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated on Figure 2-3 (from the
CityÔs General Plan). For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately
base district uses.
Policy 2-I-7: Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strategy.
Policy 2-I-8: As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review,
improve the community orientation of new development.
Policy 2-I-9: Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted
reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following goal applies to scenic resources and would be followed
with the implementation of the Housing Element:
Goal 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of
existing neighborhoods is a high priority for the City of South San Francisco (Formerly Goal 5).
While future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to be consistent
with the CityÔs General Plan, to fully achieve the vision of the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City is
exploring GPAs/Zoning Ordinance changes, which would alter portions of the CityÔs land use
designations and zoning within the South El Camino Real and Downtown area opportunity sites. In th
South El Camino Real area, this would include a change in the land use designation to a mix of uses
(Ñmixed-useÒ), which could include residential development of up
this would also include a change in the land use designation to
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-2
Draft May 15, 2009
possibility of increased density. Both areas currently allow for up to 30 du/ac, with one opportunity
site within the Downtown area allowing density of up to 40 du/ac. Such densities could require the
raising of the height limitations in the zoning of the opportunity sites.
Standard Conditions and Limitations.
The following Standard Conditions and Limitations are
applicable to the Housing Element:
Item 9: No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the site
without prior approval.
Item 10: Adequate trash areas shall be provided and enclosed by a six (6) foot high decorative
masonry wall. Adequate solid gates and vehicular access to such areas shall be provided.
Item 11: All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and all
other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent to the building
shall be screened from public view.
Item 12: All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping
areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving,
landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be permanently
maintained.
Item 13: There shall be no open storage of materials or equipment on the subject property, except
as approved by each permit.
Municipal Code.
Title 13 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Tree Preservation. The
regulations contained within the Title 13 provide strict guidelines for the protection and preserv
City street trees and protected trees. Title 2 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Historic
Preservation CommissionÔs guidelines to preserving neighborhood character. In addition, Title 20 of
the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs guidelines to preserving for keeping with the visual
character of the street or area in which a project is proposed. Developm Housing Element
would adhere to all of the above-mentioned Municipal Codes.
d) Light or Glare
General Plan.
The City of South San FranciscoÔs General Plan does not contain goals, polices, or
programs that are related to light and glare, therefore, the Housing Element would not conflict with an
adopted planning policy regarding light and glare.
Standard Conditions and Limitations.
In addition to Item 12, above, the following Standard
Conditions and Limitations is applicable to the Housing Element:
Item 8: All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that there shall be no illumination on
adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either objectionable by adjacent property
owners or hazardous to motorists.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-3
Draft May 15, 2009
Municipal Code.
Title 20 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs General Sign Standards.
The regulations contained within the Title 20 provide guidelines to minimize glare and spillover light.
Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
Finding:
Compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the CityÔs General Plan, Municipal Code Titles
13 and 20, and Standard Conditions and Limitations Items 8 through 13, would ensure that the scale
and character of the CityÔs existing neighborhoods remain intact under the Housing Element, there
would not be impacts to scenic vistas or scenic resources and there would not be impacts with regard to
no impact
light and glare. As such, the proposed project would have to aesthetics.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-4
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
2. Agriculture Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion:
a Ï c) Farmland Impacts
As stated in the 2002 Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2002 Housing Element, the City is
3
located in a heavily urbanized area and does not contain agricultural resources within its limits. No
Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at, or
around, the opportunity sites. No parts of the opportunity sites are under a Williamson Act contract
and no part of the opportunity sites or surrounding areas are zoned for agricultural uses (South San
Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance).
Finding:
no impact
The proposed project would have to agricultural resources and would not convert designated
Farmland to non-agricultural use.
3
City of South San Francisco, Negative Declaration/Initial Study for the South San Francisco G
Plan/Housing Element Update., October 16, 2002.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-5
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
f) Result in a cumulatively considerable
increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
Discussion:
a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan
The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards
and as a nonattainment area for the State PM-10 standard. As required by federal and State air quality
laws, the 2001 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan have been
prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) has prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to air quality plans:
Policy 7.3-I-1: Cooperate with the BAAQMD to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment
pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, by implementation
of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-6
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 7.3-I-3: Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines.
The standard mitigation referred to in Policy 7.3-I-3 would apply to all projects under the Housing
Element that are subject to CEQA. Mitigation Measure AQ-1, as follows, would reduce any impacts to
air quality plans to a less-than-significant level:
AQ-1 Implement feasible control measures for construction emission of PM-10. The project sponsor
shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction,
in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
streets.
b) and c) Air Quality Standards
Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps
within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. The persistent winds in South San Francisco
result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. However, during the fall and winter months, there
are periods of several days when winds are light and local pollu
The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended,
and the 1988 California Clean Air Act. In particular, the BAAQMD regulates ozone (O), carbon
3
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO), sulfur dioxide (SO), particulate matter (PM-10), and lead
22
(Pb). In general, within the City, residents and workers may ex
10 standards due to construction activities and other local dust sources. Residents and workers may
also experience elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide along congested freeway segments and at
congested intersections.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to Policies 7.3-I-1 and 7.3-
I-3, as listed above. In addition, the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan
policies with regard to air quality standards:
Policy 7.3-G-1: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State
ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary
and mobile sources, where feasible.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-7
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 7.3-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to
the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling.
Policy 7.3-I-2: Use the CityÔs development review process and the CEQA regulat
and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality.
Policy 7.3-I-4: Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-
burning fireplaces and wood stoves.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following goal, polices, and programs from the 2007-2014 Housing
Element apply to air quality standards and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing
Element.
Goal 7: The City of South San Francisco will promote energy efficiency
within the City, including reduction of energy use through betteand construction in
individual homes, and also through energy efficient urban design
Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new
residential structures.
Program 7-2A: The City shall continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for
residential buildings (e.g., brochures and other information).
Policy 7-3: The City shall promote the use of weatherization programs for existing residential units
especially among low-income households.
Policy 7-4: The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving design and
construction techniques in all types of projects (including new construction and remodeled and
rehabilitated structures).
Standard Conditions and Limitations.
The following Standard Conditions and Limitations is
applicable to the Housing Element:
Item 14: The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a
minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation
Municipal Code.
Title 8 of the CityÔs Municipal Code restricts the burning of solid waste. The
regulations contained within Title 8 provide guidelines to minimize air pollution from the burning
solid waste.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-8
Draft May 15, 2009
d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to sensitive receptors:
Policy 7.3-G-3: Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by
distancing them from one another.
e) Odors
During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on construction sites would
create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the construction sites.
Residential land uses are not anticipated to result in indoor emissions. Offensive odors are typically
associated with industrial land uses rather than residential uses.
General Plan.
The City of South San FranciscoÔs General Plan does not contain goals, polices, or
programs that are related to odor; therefore, the Housing Element would not conflict with an adopted
planning policy regarding odor.
Municipal Code.
Title 8 of the CityÔs Municipal Code restricts the burning of solid waste, and Title
20 outlines restrictions on odors generated by certain land uses. The regulations contained within the
Municipal Code provide guidelines to minimize odors affecting surrounding land uses. Development
under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 8 and 20 of the Municipal Code.
f) Result in a Cumulative Considerable Increase in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Overview.
Global climate change is a long-term alteration of global weather patterns, as measured by
wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperatures. The science of global climate change is
evolving and remains subject to debate and uncertainties; however, recent reports from the United
NationsÔ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ÑIPCCÒ) have concluded that global climate
change is likely due, at least in part, to emissions of greenhouse gases (ÑGHGÒ) from human
4
activities. Greenhouse gases are most frequently produced by the burning of fossil fuels for
transportation and electricity generation, and include carbon dioxide (ÑCOÒ), methane (ÑCHÒ),
24
nitrous oxide (ÑN0Ñ), sulfur hexafluoride (ÑSFÒ), perfluorocarbons (ÑPFCÒ), and hydrofluorocarbons
26
(ÑHFCÒ). They allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere but trap a
infrared radiation, thereby warming the air. The process is similar to the effect greenhouses have in
raising the internal temperature.
Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potential (ÑGWPÒ). The GWP is the potential of a gas
or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a
specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas.
Because CO contributes to over 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, GWP is measured in
2
4
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change,
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/w1/w1-report.html.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-9
Draft May 15, 2009
CO equivalencies (COe). The GWP of CH is 23 times the GWP of CO, while the GWP is 296
2242
times the GWP of CO.
2
5
According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report, the following climate change effects,
which are based on the IPCC predictions, can be expected in California over the course of the next
century:
A diminishing Sierra snow pack resulting in depletion and destabilization of the StateÔs water
supply;
Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit under the higher emission scenarios,
leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are
exceeded in most urban areas;
Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and i
Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months.
Additionally, health effects may arise from predicted temperature increases and extreme weather
events. The frequency of outbreaks of climate-sensitive diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever,
yellow fever, and encephalitis, may increase. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes may
displace people and harm crops. Climate change may also contribute to air quality problems from
increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies.
Currently the federal government does not actively regulate
emissions of GHGs; however, the State has been proactive in developing GHG emissions limits. In
2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target
dates by which statewide emission of GHGs would be progressively reduced as follows:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 1evels;
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 1evels; and
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In 2006, the State Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly
Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32),
which requires the California Air Resources Board (ÑCARBÒ) to design and implement emission limits,
regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are
reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions).
CARB has also approved a 1990 emissions inventory of 427 million metric tons per year of COe
2
emissions, with a 2020 target reduction of 169 million metric tons COe per year.
2
In June 2007, CARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for reducing GHG emissions under AB
32. The early actions include development of: a low carbon fuel standard, regulations for refrigerants
with high GWP, guidance and protocols for local governments to facilitate GHG reductions, and
5
California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and
the Legislature, March 2006
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-10
Draft May 15, 2009
6
measures for ports and industries. In total, the 44 recommended early actions have the potential
reduce GHG emissions by at least 42 million metric tons COe per year by 2020, representing about 25
2
7
percent of the estimated reductions needed by 2020.
General Plan.
The CityÔs General Plan contains several policies that would help to reduce residential
GHG emissions. These include the following:
Policy 1-7: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas
designated as Downtown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density
Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business
Commercial and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San Francisco
BART Transit Village Zoning District.
Policy 1-9: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, including through
infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or
creating conflicts with industrial operations.
Policy 7.3-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to
the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling.
Policy 4.3-G-1: Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle
riding for transportation and recreation.
Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through
residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
Policy 4.3-G-3: In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations.
Policy 4.3-G-4: In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems
management plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a positive
supportive business environment.
Policy 4.3-I-8: Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not li
following components:
Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100
o
peak period trips.
Establishment of additional requirements for all new projects seeking a FAR bonus.
o
6
California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft List of Early Action Measures to Reduce
Greenhouse
7
California Air Resources Board Res. No. 07-55 (December 6, 2007
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-11
Draft May 15, 2009
An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are actually
o
implemented.
Reduce parking requirements for new projects implementing a TDM Program.
o
New housing units developed pursuant to the Housing Element would have the potential to generate
approximately 13,844 metric tons of COe. This includes 3 metric tons COe from direct natural gas
22
consumption, 1,494 metric tons COe from indirect electricity generation, 1,379 metric tons COe from
22
solid waste emissions, and 10,967 metric tons COe from project-related vehicle trips. Additional
2
emissions would be generated during construction; however, thesecannot be accurately estimated at the
program level due to the variables associated with individual construction projects. Calculations are
provided as Appendix B.
The GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Housing Element would contribute to the
cumulative global climate change impact. However, the General Plan policies identified above would
help to minimize GHG emissions by reducing energy consumption, m
and providing trip reductions. Moreover, as discussed in the project description, the new housing unit
would consist of infill development and would be located near public transit facilities. The City also has
several policies encouraging mixed-use development, which has proven trip reduction benefits. This
land use pattern would result in energy efficiency and a reduction in the number and length of single-
occupancy vehicle trips, the largest GHG-generating source of emissions associated with the Housi
Element.
With implementation of the Mitigation Measure below, the Housing ElementÔs contribution to the
cumulative global climate change effect would be less than significant:
AQ-2 Green Building Measures for New Construction. The following green building measures shall
be incorporated, at the discretion of the Planning Department, isidential construction:
Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated to maximize summer shade and to
minimize winter shade. Canopy cover shall extend over 50 percent of non-permeable
surfaces following a ten-year growth period.
Residential construction shall use ÑgreenÒ cement, which contains recycled materials (slag
or fly-ash) and is produced using emission-reducing technologies, if available, structurally
appropriate for the intended use, and where feasible and practicable.
New construction shall use energy efficient lighting, to the extent feasible and appropriate.
At the minimum, all buildings shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in energy use associated
with lighting over existing Title 24 standards.
Residential buildings shall include passive solar design features that include roof overhangs
or canopies that block summer shade, but that allow winter sun, from penetrating south
facing windows.
Roofing materials used in commercial/retail buildings shall be Energy Star® certified. All
roof products shall also be certified to meet ATSM high emissivity requirements.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-12
Draft May 15, 2009
Where feasible, recycled, rapidly renewable, reclaimed and/or certified components shall
be used in the construction of new residential buildings.
Finding:
Compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the CityÔs General Plan, Standard Conditions
and Limitations Item 14, the Municipal Code, and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would ensure
that development under the Housing Element would comply with federal, State, and local air quality
standards.
The Housing Element would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan and would not result in a cumulatively considerable a net increase of criteria non-attainment
pollutants (ozone precursors and PM-10). In addition, it would not violate any air quality standard,
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors. As
less-than-significant impact
such, the proposed project would have to air quality.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-13
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-14
Draft May 15, 2009
Discussion:
a) Ï d) Habitat, State and Federal Regulations, Waters, and Wildlife Corridors
South San FranciscoÔs natural environment has undergone drastic changes during its history of
urbanization; many natural areas have been completely developed, the Bay has been filled, and the
hillsides have been graded extensively. However, the remaining presence of hillsides and marshlands
gives the City a wide diversity of plant and animal life and habitat.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to habitat and state and federal regulations:
Policy 2-I-13: As part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas require specific
environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources
Conservation.
Policy 7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco,
including species that are State or federally listed as Endanger
Policy 7.1-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and wetlands.
Policy 7.1-I-1: Cooperate with State and federal agencies to ensure that development does not
substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or federal list for any rare,
endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval
of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive habitat, as depicted in Figure 7-1 (of the
CityÔs General Plan).
Policy 7.1-I-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated in Figure 7-1 to complete
assessments of biological resources.
Municipal Code.
Title 20 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs guidelines to requiring that
construction of projects is consistent with the CityÔs habitat conservation plan. Development under the
Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
e) and f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans
Any development under the Housing Element would comply with the San Bruno Mountain and Sign
Hill Habitat Conservation Plans (ÑHCPÒ); however, none of the op
these HCP-protected areas.
Title 20 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs guidelines requiring that construction of
projects is consistent with the CityÔs habitat conservation plan. Development under the Housing
Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-15
Draft May 15, 2009
Finding:
Compliance with the goals and policies of the CityÔs General Plan would ensure that development
under the Housing Element would not result in impacts to biological resources.
Development at the opportunity sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element would occur as
infill, in an urbanized and built-out City. Since the opportunity sites would not be located on identified
ecologically sensitive lands, the Housing Element would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
species, riparian or natural habitats, federally-protected wetlands, migratory corridors, or nursery sites.
In addition, the Housing Element would not conflict with local policies or provisions of an adopted
no impact
HCP. As such, the proposed project would have to biological resources.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-16
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in '15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Discussion:
a) Historic Resources
Despite its rich history, the City has relatively few designated historic resources. Local, state, and
national historic resources are accorded special protection against alteration and demolition under the
CityÔs Municipal Code and State and federal law. Historic resources in the City of South San
Francisco include: the potential Downtown Historical Commercial District, which is composed of late
thth
19 and early-mid 20 century commercial buildings; the national historic landmark, Sign Hill; and
many local landmarks, including several homes, commercial, and industrial buildings.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to historic resources:
Policy 7.5-G-1: Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic,
educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San FranciscoÔs ident
quality of life.
Policy 7.5-G-2: Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for
South San FranciscoÔs historic, cultural, and archaeological res
Policy 7.5-I-1: Explore the feasibility of establishing a Downtown South San Francisco Historical
Commercial District, to promote the revitalization and redevelopment of the area.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-17
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 7.5-I-2: Institute downtown urban design guidelines, and require a design review of
developments in the proposed Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District to
ensure that the height, massing, and design of buildings further
Policy 7.5-I-3: Explore mechanisms to incorporate South San FranciscoÔs industrial heritage in
historic and cultural preservation.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following goal from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to
historic resources and would be followed with implementation of Housing Element:
Goal 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of
existing neighborhoods is a high priority for the City of South San Francisco (Formerly Goal 5).
Municipal Code.
Title 2 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Historic Preservation
CommissionÔs guidelines to preserving neighborhood character. In addition, Title 20 of the CityÔs
Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs guidelines to preserving for keeping with the visual character of the
street or area in which a project is proposed. Development unde Housing Element would adhere
to Title 2 and Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
b) Ï d) Archaeological Resources
Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native American
village sites and shell mounds scattered around the City. Known resources include: a Native Ameri
archaeological village containing household items, projectile points, dietary debris, and human burials,
located within the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area; and a large shell mound and two small
shell middens near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. South San FranciscoÔs coastal location,
and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of additional prehistoric and historic
archaeological resources likely.
General Plan.
In addition to policies 7.5-G-1, 7.5-G-2, and 7.5-I-3, as listed above, development
under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to
archaeological resources:
Policy 7.5-I-4: Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the
records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources.
Policy 7.5-I-5: In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan
and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are
uncovered.
The standard mitigation referred to in Policy 7.5-I-5 would apply to all projects under the Housing
Element that are subject to CEQA. The following Mitigation Measures would reduce the impact to
cultural resources to a less-than-significant level:
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-18
Draft May 15, 2009
CR-1 Protect unique paleontological/geological features. Should a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geological feature be identified at an opportunity site during any phase of
construction, the project sponsor shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery
and immediately notify the City. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to
provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a
less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation
for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be
responsible for implementing any additional prescribed mitigation measures prescribed by the
paleontologist and approved by the City.
CR-2 Protect human remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resource
shall be halted and the City and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately, according t
Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and
Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the
NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in
the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project spons
archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the
project site, and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As
necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant,
including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City shall be responsible for
approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions
of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code,
Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by
the City, before the resumption of ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the
remains were discovered.
Finding:
Compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the CityÔs General Plan and Municipal Code and
implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would ensure that development under the
Housing Element would comply with federal and State laws protecting cultural resources.
Development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to survey for cultural, pre-
historic, and historic resources, and abide by any applicable federal and/or State laws. In addition,
should any sensitive resources be discovered during the construction of future development under the
2007-2014 Housing Element, all building activity should cease until a resource mitigation
monitoring program is prepared by a qualified professional. As such, the proposed project would have
a less-than-significant impact
to cultural resources.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-19
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
6. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-20
Draft May 15, 2009
Discussion:
a) i) Ï iii) Surface Fault Rupture, Seismic Ground-Shaking, and Seismic-Related Ground Failure
The City is subject to earthquakes from seismic activity generated both on nearby and distant fault
systems. There are approximately 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of
generating earthquakes. Because of its presence within South Sa
considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire City. Both ground rupture, with associated
displacement and ground cracking, and high levels of ground shaking that would accompany a rupture
in the area, are possible hazards. The San Andreas Fault is included within an Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone. Additionally, the San Gregorio Fault Zone is also located in the vicinity of the City.
The San Gregorio Fault is a major right oblique slip fault; the closest location of the fault is
approximately 7 miles west of the City. The fault has been active, although there has not been a
known large magnitude surface faulting earthquake on the San Gregorio Fault.
In addition to these potentially active fault traces, there are several fault traces within City limits that
are considered to be potentially inactive. They are the Serra, Coyote Point/Hillside, and San Bruno
Fault Zones.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policy with regard to surface fault rupture, seismic ground-shaking, and seismic-related ground
failure:
Policy 8.1-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity a
in South San Francisco.
Municipal Code.
Title 15 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Buil
incorporates the 2001 California Building Code (ÑCBCÒ). The regulations contained within the CityÔs
Building Code provide strict guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological
suitability. In addition, Title 19 of the CityÔs Municipal Coded outlines expansive soil investigation
requirements prior to the construction of a subdivision. Develop Housing Element would
adhere to Title 15 and Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
a) iv) Landslides and c) Geologic Instability
The parts of the San Francisco Bay region that have the greatest susceptibility to landsliding are hilly
areas underlain by weak bedrock units of slope greater than 15 percent. In South San Francisco this
hazard is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain and near Skyline Boulevard.
The opportunity sites are not within landslide areas.
Most of the lowland areas of South San Francisco are mapped by the County of San Mateo as
potentially having liquefaction hazards, with moderate liquefaction potential in the alluvial fan of
Colma Creek and in a narrow strip of land south of Sister Cities
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-21
Draft May 15, 2009
General Plan.
As mentioned above, development under the Housing Element would be subject to
Policy 8.1-G-1 with regard to geologic hazards.
Municipal Code.
Title 15 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Buil
incorporates the CBC. The regulations contained within the CityÔs Building Code provide strict
guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological suitability. In addition, Title 19
of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines expansive soil investigation requirements prior to the
construction of a subdivision. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 and
Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
According to the CityÔs General Plan, the City can be categorized by three geological zones:
Lowland Zone. A large portion of the City, primarily east of U.S. 101, is underlain by deposits of Bay
mud up to 80 feet deep in some places. Associated development hazards include expansive soil,
settlement, and corrosivity. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction.
Development in the lowland zone often requires engineering solutions to address soil constraints and
the increased risk of geologic and seismic hazard in this area.
Upland Zone. Soils in this zone are mostly developed, covered by urban land and cut-and-fill. The
cut-and-fill in some areas has superimposed the alluvial soils of the Colma Creek floodplain. The
difficulty in this zone is the varying nature of the fill, which was laid with varying attention to
engineering practices. There is a moderate potential for expansive soil and/or erosion hazard here.
Hillside Zone. The Hillside Zone includes some slopes of over 30 percent. The native soils of this
zone are characterized as various sandy and gravelly loams with generally high to very high erosion
potential, low strength and stability, and shallow depth. These areas are susceptible to soil creep and
small landslides.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to erosion or loss of top soil:
8.1-I-2: Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade should be ret
Policy
natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow exis
extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum.
Standard Conditions and Limitations.
The following Standard Conditions and Limitations is
applicable to the Housing Element:
Item 6: Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City's
Building Division.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-22
Draft May 15, 2009
Municipal Code.
Title 13 of the Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Tree Preser
regulations contained within the Title 13 provide strict guidelines for the protection and preserv
City street trees and protected trees that help prevent erosion and loss of top soil. Title 14 outlines
watercourse protection from erosion.
Title 15 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Buildi
The regulations contained within the CityÔs Building Code provide strict guidelines for where struc
can be placed in regards to geological suitability. In addition, Title 19 outlines erosion control for
subdivisions and Title 20 outlines the general erosion control requirements. Development under the
Housing Element would adhere to Titles 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 of the Municipal Code regarding
erosion control.
d) Expansive Soils
Refer to the above discussion under Item b, Erosion or Loss of Topsoil, for a brief description of the
soil types found in the City.
General Plan.
In addition to the aforementioned Policy 8.1-G-1, development under the Housing
Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to expansive soils:
Policy 8.1-I-1: Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools, and other
structures that are important to protecting health and safety in
Figure 8-2.
Policy 8.1-I-3: Explore programs that would build incentives to retrofit unrei
buildings.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following goal, polices, and program from the 2007-2014 Housing
Element apply to expansive soils and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing
Element:
Goal 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of
existing neighborhoods is a high priority for the City of South San Francisco.
Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety prems) unless adequate mitigation
measures are taken.
Policy 4-3: As appropriate and required by law, the City shall continue the abatement of unsafe
structures.
Program 4-3A: Review Projects for Major Environmental Hazards during the Environmental
Review Process.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-23
Draft May 15, 2009
Standard Conditions and Limitations.
Item 6 of the Standard Conditions and Limitations, as
described above, is applicable to the Housing Element in regard to expansive soils.
Municipal Code.
Title 15 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Buil
incorporates the CBC. The regulations contained within the CityÔs Building Code provide strict
guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological suitability. In addition, Title 19
of the Municipal Code outlines expansive soil investigation requirements prior to the construction of a
subdivision. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 15 and 19 of the
Municipal Code regarding expansive soils.
e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks
2007-2014 Housing Element.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to
Policies 4-1 and 4-3, along with Program 4-3A, as listed above, rd to expansive soils.
Implementation of the programs associated with these goals of the proposed project will serve as a
beneficial impact to the Planning Area through the use of systematic code enforcement, regulatory
measures, and cooperative neighborhood improvement programs. and the maintenance and
improvement of the quality of life and safety of the structures
Standard Conditions and Limitations.
The following Standard Conditions and Limitations is
applicable to the Housing Element:
Item 16: Prior to any on-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer.
Municipal Code.
Title 15 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Buil
incorporates the CBC. The regulations contained within the CityÔs Building Code provide strict
guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological suitability. Development under
the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 15 of the Municipal Code regarding septic tanks.
Finding:
Compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan, Title 15 of the Municipal Code, and
Standard Conditions and Limitations Item 16 would ensure that development under the Housing
Element would comply with federal and State laws protecting geologic resources. The General Plan
policies listed above have been crafted to ensure that future development would comply with federal
and State laws in regards to geology and soils, and the CityÔs Municipal Code would ensure that future
development is in compliance with the standards established by the State. In addition, future
development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to prove site suitability, in
regards to geologic hazards, through a geological investigation. As such, the proposed project would
no impact
have to seismic-related failures, geologic instability, erosion, expansive soils, and the
support of septic tanks.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-24
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-25
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
a) Ï d) Hazardous Materials
Numerous industrial and commercial operations, both past and present, have manufactured, handled,
stored, and disposed of hazardous materials in South San Francisco. Hazardous material sites include
manufacturing operations, active and abandoned landfills, facilities with leaking underground storage
tanks (USTs), permitted dischargers, and generators of hazardous wastes. Most hazardous materials
concentrations are located in the East of 101 area; however there are 114 know sites with leaking USTs
within the City as identified by the Cortese List, published in December 1994.
No sites in the Transit Village or South El Camino Real areas are listed with the State as having known
8
However, certain sites within the Downtown area have been suspected of
or potential contamination.
environmental contamination, which may require clean up, in orde facilitate housing development.
These include Site 10, 11, 12, and 17. As of March 2009, Phase II Investigations were not available
for any of these sites. Prior to development at these sites, a Phase II Investigation and, if required,
remediation shall be completed in accordance with the CityÔs Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and
Policies 8.3-G-2 and 8.3-I-2, described below.
General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to hazardous materials:
Policy 8.3-G-1: Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those
materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Policy 8.3-G-2: Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, st
transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable
regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous substances as established
by federal (Environmental Protection Agency [ÑEPAÒ]), State (Department of Toxic substances
Control [ÑDTSCÒ], Regional Water Quality Control Board [ÑRWQCBÒ]
Safety and Health Administration [ÑCal OSHAÒ], California Environmental Protection Agency
[ÑCal EPAÒ]), and local (County and City) regulations.
8
Department of Toxic Control Substances, March 2009.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-26
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 8.3-I-2: Continue to maintain hazardous waste regulations in the CityÔs Zoning Ordinance.
Policy 8.3-I-3: Prepare a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage for the sites included in
the Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites.
Policy 8.3-I-4: Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting haza
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to
hazardous materials and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element:
Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety prems) unless adequate mitigation
measures are taken. (Existing Policy 5-1)
Municipal Code.
Title 8 of the Municipal Code outlines health and welfare regulations and Chapter
8.16 discusses disposal of hazardous materials. Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines coordination
with hazardous materials inventory and response program. In addition, Title 15 of the Municipal Code
outlines the CityÔs Fire Code with respect to hazardous materials. Also, Title 20 of the Municipal
Code outlines regulations on the storage of hazardous materials. Development under the Housing
Element would adhere to Titles 8, 14, 15, and 20 of the Municipal Code.
e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip
The City is located just north of the San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo
County Airport Land Use CommissionÔs (ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within
ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. In 1981, the San
Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77,
established a 211-foot height limit for some buildings within ALUC jurisdiction.
The South El Camino Real area is located approximately two miles from SFO, and is situated directly
below one of the principal flight paths. Consequently, the area is subject to airport-related height
limitations. In addition, new construction of residential development in the area must be insulated such
that normal aircraft operations will not result in indoor noise
Whereas current height limits, as set by the CityÔs General Plan, are substantially less than would be
permissible under the airport-related height restrictions (ranging from 161 to 361 feet), and whereas
substantial residential development exists in the vicinity of thSouth El Camino Real area that has been
sufficiently insulated to meet noise standards, proximity to the airport is not expected to be a binding
constraint that would prevent medium to high density residential development in the South El Camino
Real area.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-27
Draft May 15, 2009
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to
airport-related hazards and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element:
Policy 4-4: The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as
contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing Policy 5-4)
Municipal Code.
Title 20 of the Municipal Code outlines the Airport Related District Use regulations
and the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. Development under the Housing Element would
adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
In 1995, the City prepared an Emergency Response Plan, integrate
Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. The CityÔs plan is in compliance with existing law. The objectives of
the plan are to reduce life, injury, and property losses through effective management of emergency
forces. The CityÔs plan also defines the duties of the Operations, Planning, Logistics and Finance
Units, and defines the roles of the South San Francisco Emergency Operations Center and other
emergency services organizations. In addition, it describes the operations and procedures that should
occur during the pre-emergency, emergency, and recovery periods; and establishes rules affecting
registration and use of volunteer disaster service workers.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to the Emergency Response Plan:
Policy 8.6-G-1: Use the CityÔs Emergency Response Plan as the guide for emergency management
in South San Francisco.
Policy 8.6-I-1: Maintain and update the CityÔs Emergency Response Plan, as required by State law,
to minimize the risk to life and property of seismic and geologi
materials and waste, and fire.
Policy 8.6-I-3: Coordinate regular emergency drills with emergency organizations, including City
and County Fire, Police, Emergency Medical Services, and Public Works; San Francisco
International Airport; and California Environmental Protection Agency.
h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires
Many areas of open space within the City pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding
resources. Topographic, climatic, and land use conditions create fire hazards, along with
accumulations of unmaintained vegetation and poor access to public infrastructure. Sign Hill, the
Hillside School area, and the area along Dundee Drive have the highest fire risk due to a combination
of fuel characteristics, infrastructure, and adjacent uses.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-28
Draft May 15, 2009
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to wildland fires:
Policy 8.4-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in So
Policy 8.4-1-2: Explore incentives or programs as part of the comprehensive fire hazard
management program to encourage private landowners to reduce fire hazards on their property.
Policy 8.4-I-3: Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access
as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the
City.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
Policy 4-1 from the 2007-2014 Housing Element, as aforementioned,
applies to wildland fires and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element.
Municipal Code.
Title 15 of the Municipal Code outlines building and construction requirements and
Chapter 15.24 provides the fire code that new buildings must adhere to. The development under
Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 of the Municipal Code.
Finding:
Compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the CityÔs General Plan and Municipal Code
Titles 8 and 15 would ensure that future development under the Housing Element would comply with
federal and State laws in regard to hazards and hazardous materi
not be impacted
would by hazards and hazardous materials.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-29
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-30
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
Discussion:
a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
The City is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
(STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo
County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge
permit. STOPPPÔs goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San
Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Man
development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through
standard City conditions of project approval.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements:
Policy 7.2-G-1: Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to
maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources.
Policy 7.2-I-1: Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of
the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of surface water and
groundwater quality.
Policy 7.2-I-2: Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in
STOPPP as needed.
Policy 8.2-I-1: Continue working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the
implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution
(STOPPP).
Municipal Code.
In addition, Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations;
Chapter 14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses
water quality control. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 of the
Municipal Code. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process for the City Council
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-31
Draft May 15, 2009
to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standar
Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 and 19 of the Municipal Code.
b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater
The area southwest of Colma Creek is underlain by a portion of the San Mateo Groundwater Basin,
which stretches from Daly City to Menlo Park. Groundwater flows from Lake Merced easterly toward
the San Francisco Bay. Much of the alluvium that underlies the lowland areas of the City is capable of
transmitting groundwater, especially in the southwestern portion of the City. Low elevation and the
Colma Creek flood plain in the eastern part of the City provide conditions conducive to relatively high
groundwater, especially in areas near the creek. In the southern part of the City, groundwater is fo
throughout the year just a few feet below ground surface.
A small portion of the CityÔs potable water supply is derived fr
vicinity of Chestnut and Mission Streets. The Colma/Merced aqui
and are capable of providing about 1,530 acre-feet per year of water. The Colma/Merced aquifers
have some high levels of nitrate and manganese, but otherwise have good water quality.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject Policies 7.2-G-1 and 7.2-I-
1, above, with regard to groundwater.
Municipal Code.
In addition, Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations;
Chapter 14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses
water quality control. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 of the
Municipal Code. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process for the city council to
determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards
Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 and 19 of the Municipal Code.
c) and d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns: Erosion and Siltation Effects and Flooding Effects
Colma Creek, the CityÔs main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about
16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The
basin is bounded on the northwest by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by the ridge traced by
Skyline Boulevard. Colma Creek is almost entirely channelized w of the Bayshore Freeway. There
are some sedimentation basins, but no other impoundments on Colma Creek. Drainage is controlled by
a series of lined creek beds and storm drains.
Runoff in the hills is relatively rapid because of steep slopes
lowland areas. Runoff is collected in storm drains and is discharged to Colma Creek or the San
Francisco Bay. Some infiltration into the ground occurs, but because the City is largely developed
with high proportions of impermeable surface, runoff is relatively high.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would generally be in the flatland areas and
would not significantly alter existing drainage patterns.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-32
Draft May 15, 2009
Municipal Code.
Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter
14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water
quality control. Title 15 outlines building and construction requirements and Chapter 15.54 provides
flood damage protection regulations. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process
for the city council to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards through disposal
of its wastewater. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 14, 15, and 19 of the
Municipal Code, regarding drainage patterns.
e) and f) Runoff Exceeding Drainage Capacity/Increased Polluted Runoff and Otherwise Degrade
Water Quality
Discharges into the water from fixed points, known as point sources, consist mostly of effluent
discharges from industrial facilities and municipal wastewater systems. Waste discharges are regulate
through NPDES permits, with specific requirements established in
are mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and in South San Francisco
specifically by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.
Nonpoint sources of pollution include general pollutants entrained in runoff from streets, open areas,
and urban lands in which runoff is not collected and directed into a wastewater treatment plant. In
general, nonpoint source pollution has been difficult to manage.
General Plan.
In addition to the aforementioned Policies 7.2-G-1, 7.2-I-1, 7.2-I-2, and 8.2-I-1,
development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with
regard to increased polluted runoff and overall water quality:
Policy 7.2-G-2: Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination.
Policy 7.2-G-3: Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances within the
city.
Municipal Code.
Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter
14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water
quality control. Title 15 outlines building and construction requirements and Chapter 15.54 provides
flood damage protection regulations. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process
for the city council to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards through disposal
of its wastewater. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 14, 15, and 19 of the
Municipal Code, regarding drainage patterns.
g) Ï i) Flood Hazards
Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek.
Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the City; since South San Francisco is
highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during
periods of heavy rainfall. The principal flooding problem in the city is an inadequate culvert and
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-33
Draft May 15, 2009
channel system where Colma Creek runs under the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line. Peak flood
flows in Colma Creek back up and pond east of the tracks, and water moves away from the creek along
city streets.
Flood depth during a 100-year storm is two to three feet in the
homes in South San Francisco may be exposed to this hazard as thwere constructed with insufficient
elevation to remain above even shallow floodwaters. New development west of the SPRR right-of-way
may be constrained by potential flooding, but careful design could minimize flooding hazards and
damage.
Policy 8.2-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South
Policy 8.2-I-2: Use the CityÔs development review process to ensure that proposed development
subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards, in areas identified in
Figure 8-3 of the General Plan.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to
hydrology and water quality and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element:
Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety prems) unless adequate mitigation
measures are taken. (Existing Policy 5-1)
Municipal Code.
Title 15 outlines building and construction requirements and Chapter 15.54 provides
flood damage protection regulations. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process
for the city council to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards through disposal
of its wastewater. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 and 19 of the
Municipal Code, regarding drainage patterns.
j) Tsunami Hazards
Earthquakes can cause tsunami (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in
the Bay. As portions of the City are located adjacent San Francisco Bay, and are low-lying, tsunami or
seiche inundation is a possibility. Wave run-up is estimated at approximately 4.3 feet (mean sea level
[ÑmslÒ]) for tsunami with a 100-year recurrence and 6.0 feet (msl) for a 500-year tsunami.
Earthquake damage inflicted on structures and infrastructure witin the city is not only a function of the
seismic risks outlined above, but also of the form, structural design, materials, construction quality,
and location of the structure. Since the 1970s, the Uniform Building Code (ÑUBCÒ) in California has
incorporated minimum strength standards to which a building must be designed. New construction in
South San Francisco is required to meet the requirements of the 1994 UBC, and buildings of special
occupancy are required by the State to meet more stringent desig
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-34
Draft May 15, 2009
Finding:
Compliance with the goals and policies of the CityÔs General Plan and Municipal Code Titles 14 and
15 would ensure that future development would comply with federal and State laws with regard to
hydrology and water quality. Future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be
required to adhere to regulations pertaining to hydrology and water quality. As such, the proposed
no impact
project would result into hydrology and water quality.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-35
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
9. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Discussion:
a) Division of an Established Community
Development under the Housing Element would not divide established communities and would adhere
to all applicable goals, policies, and programs.
b) Conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
As indicated in the 2007-2014 Housing Element, among the government constraints to development of
adequate housing are the General PlanÔs existing land use designations. Future development under the
2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to be consistent with the CityÔs General Plan.
Concurrent with the adoption of the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City is exploring GPAs/Zoning
Ordinance changes, which would alter portions of the CityÔs land use designations and zoning within
the South El Camino Real and Downtown areas and facilitate fulfillment of the Housing ElementÔs
goals. At the South El Camino Real area, this would include a change in the land use designation to a
mix of uses (Ñmixed-useÒ), which could include residential development of up to 60 du/ac. At the
Downtown area, this would also include a change in the land use designation to mixed use, while
exploring the possibility of increased density. Both areas currently allow for up to 30 du/ac, with one
opportunity site within the Downtown area allowing density of up to 40 du/ac. Though not proposed
as part of the Housing Element, the Housing Element acknowledges that achievement of such densities
could require the raising of the height limitations in the zoning of the opportunity sites. To the
required, future planning and development proposals, including pending General Plan Amendments,
will be required to evaluate the impacts of such increases in height restrictions. Discrepancies between
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-36
Draft May 15, 2009
the existing and proposed land use designations and zoning can bound in Tables 2 and 3 of this
document. For example, Site 10 (within Table 2) is currently designated for retail/commercial uses,
with a maximum density of up to 30 du/ac. Upon adoption and implementation of the South El
Camino Real General Plan Update (described in Section V of this document), the land use designation
will change to mixed-use, with a maximum density of up to 60 du/ac.
Under a separate action from its 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City is currently evaluating the
environmental effects (CEQA compliance) of the GPA/Zoning Ordinance changes to the South El
Camino Real and Downtown areas. This process is expected to be completed in approximately three to
six months, and the aforementioned GPAs/Zoning Ordinance changes will not occur until this process
is complete. Hence, the existing land use designations constitute a government constraint to
achievement of the allotted housing needs articulated in the 2007-2014 Housing Element. However,
the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be consistent with and subject to several existing General Plan
policies (including the following), and would not obstruct achievement of remaining General Plan
policies.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation:
Policy 2-G-1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents
from changes in non-residential areas.
Policy 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued
economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San FranciscoÔs prominent inner bay
location and excellent regional access.
Policy 2-G-3: Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that
will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locatio
Policy 2-G-4: Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial
businesses at specific locations.
Policy 2-G-5: Maintain Downtown as the CityÔs physical and symbolic center, and a focus of
residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.
Policy 2-G-6: Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and
redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial
operations.
Policy 2-G-7: Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where
they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to
neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can
help to foster identity and vitality.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-37
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 2-G-8: Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to
promote alternative transportation modes.
Policy 2-I-1: Update the CityÔs Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations contained in the
Municipal Code for consistency with the General Plan.
Policy 2-I-2: Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated
CityÔs General Plan). For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately
base district uses.
Policy 2-I-3: Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high
community design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards.
Policy 2-I-8: As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review,
improve the community orientation of new development.
Policy 2-I-9: Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted
reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following goal, policies, and programs from the 2007-2014
Housing Element would lead to enforcement of existing codes, revitalization, rehabilitation, and
redevelopment of blighted properties, furthering preservation of existing communities.
Goal 1: Promote the provision of housing by both the private and publi
groups in the community. (Existing Goal 1)
Policy 1-7: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas
designated as Downtown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density
Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial
and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San Francisco BART Transit
Village Zoning District. (Existing Policy 1-7)
Program 1-7A: Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area.
Policy 1-9: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill and
redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts
with industrial operations.
Program 1-9A: Through the Zoning Ordinance update, South El Camino Real General Plan update,
the El Camino Real / Chestnut Specific Plan, the City will identify opportunities for residential
development through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites.
The City shall ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize
Policy 3-6:
with existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy 2-7)
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-38
Draft May 15, 2009
Municipal Code.
Title 20 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs zoning regulations.
Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plans
Any development under the Housing Element would comply with the San Bruno Mountain and Sign
Hill HCPs; however, none of the opportunity sites are located within these HCP-protected areas.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to conservation plans:
Policy 2-I-13: As part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas specific
environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources
Conservation.
Municipal Code.
Title 20 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs guidelines requiring that
construction of projects is consistent with the CityÔs habitat conservation plan. Development under the
Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
Finding:
Compliance with the goals and policies of the CityÔs General Plan and the Municipal Code would
ensure that development under the Housing Element would not divide an established community or
conflict with conservation plans. While the Housing Element identifies opportunity sites that are not
currently designated and/or zoned for residential use, or not currently zoned at the densities proposed
in the Housing Element, in accordance with state law, the Housing Element has identified local efforts
(most of which are already underway) to remove these government constraints on meeting the regional
housing need. Further, because the Housing Element will advance (and be subject to) several existing
General Plan policies, without hindering achievement of the remaining policies, the Housing Element
does not conflict with the General Plan. Nor does the Housing Element conflict with other applicable
no impact
plans. As such, the Housing Element would have to land use and planning.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-39
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
10. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Discussion:
a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources at the opportunity sites. The CGS Mineral Resource Zones and
Resource Sectors San Francisco and San Mateo Counties map classifies the opportunity sites as MRZ-
1, which constitutes an area Ñwhere adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits
are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.Ò According to the CGS
maps, the nearest mineral deposit classified areas are Sector NN, which is less than 1 mile north of
Downtown South San Francisco, and Sector X, which is approximately 1 mile north of Downtown
9
South San Francisco.
Finding:
The opportunity sites do not contain any locally or regionally-significant mineral resources. As such,
no impact
the Housing Element would have on the loss of mineral resources.
9 California Geological Survey, Special Report 146 Ï Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Mate
San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area, Part II: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas South San Francisco
Bay Production-Consumption Region, Plates 2.42, and 2.3. 1983.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-40
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
11. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Discussion:
a) Ï c) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of
Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary
or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing
Without the Project.
Noise is an important and complex issue in South San Francisco. The City has a comparatively high
level of noise exposure, stemming from aircraft flyovers and proximity to major roadways, including
U.S. 101, I-280, Skyline Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, We
Real, and Hickey Boulevard. In addition, BART, Caltrain, and Southern Pacific freight trains create
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-41
Draft May 15, 2009
noise and vibration impacts within the community. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise-
sensitive uses such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. Although noise is also controlled
around commercial, industrial, and recreational uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum
recommended levels for these uses.
According to the Noise Element of the General Plan, residential areas should have a range of less than
65 dBA. If the noise level is between 65 to 70 dBA, development would require analysis of noise
reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to an increase in noise levels:
Policy 9-G-1: Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing
noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future.
Policy 9-G-2: Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions,
and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on
adjacent land uses.
Policy 9-I-4: Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and
homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels
greater than 65 dB CNEL (Figure 9-3 of the CityÔs General Plan), incorporate mitigation measures
to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.
Policy 9-I-5: Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise
generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a profess
acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures.
Policy 9-I-6: Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive
development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This
noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical.
Policy 9-I-7: Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design,
landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be noise
generators.
Standard Conditions and Limitations.
The following Standard Conditions and Limitations is
applicable to the Housing Element:
Item 14: The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a
minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation.
Municipal Code.
In addition, Title 8 of the Municipal Code, Health and Welfare, provides a chapter
on noise regulations (Chapter 8.34). This chapter outlines the regulations pertaining to noise levels and
compliance. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 8 of the Municipal Code.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-42
Draft May 15, 2009
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project.
Project construction at the opportunity sites would most likely result in temporary short-term noise
increases due to the operation of heaving grading and demolition equipment. Noise levels from
grading operations typically range from about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmov
and impact equipment. Construction noise would be lower ranging, from 75 to 85 dBA at 25 feet for
most types of construction equipment.
The following mitigation measure would reduce the temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to
construction to a less-than-significant level:
NO-1 Implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The project sponsor shall
incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the
project construction contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control
devices (e.g., mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures
(e.g., surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), would not require major
equipment redesign:
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly
noisy areas of the site or around the entire site;
Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission
of noise to sensitive receptors;
Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and
Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used
on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling
equipment, shall be used whenever feasible.
d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction
with the CityÔs Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and
schools, are avoided as much as possible.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-43
Draft May 15, 2009
f. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50
feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site.
Municipal Code.
In addition, Title 8 of the Municipal Code, Health and Welfare, provides a chapter
on noise regulations (Chapter 8.34). This chapter outlines the regulations pertaining to noise levels and
compliance. In addition, Title 20 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs standards and
regulations for construction noise. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 8
and 20 of the Municipal Code.
e) and f) Aircraft Noise
South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a large portion of departures from the San Francisco
International Airport (SFIA), particularly large, heavy aircraft climbing slowly over the coast range for
Pacific Rim destinations. Aircraft flyovers comprise the CityÔs
The SFIA Airport Land Use Plan, prepared by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission,
identifies standards for different types of development in areas impacted by aircraft noise. These
standards have been adopted by the City. In addition, the City has joined other San Mateo County
jurisdictions in a Memorandum of Understanding with SFIA for aircraft noise mitigation efforts, to be
funded by SFIA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Average aircraft noise levels measured in 1997 indicates that ar
experience noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL. A smaller area in the vicinity of El Camino Real
near the San Bruno border has noise levels in excess of 70 dB CN
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to aircraft noise:
Policy 9-I-1: Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to suppl
CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft nois
Policy 9-I-2: Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land
use controls.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
Implementation of the following policy and programs from the 2007-
2014 Housing Element will further implement the CityÔs continued efforts of abating noise associated
with it close proximity to SFIA:
Policy 4-4: The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as
contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing Policy 5-4)
Program 4-4A: Review all new residential development for compliance with the County Airport
Land Use Plan.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-44
Draft May 15, 2009
Program 4-4B: Support the Airport Noise Insulation Program.
Municipal Code.
Title 15 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines real estate transfer disclose regarding
airport noise. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 of the Municipal
Code.
Finding:
Compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Title 8 of the Municipal Code and the
implementation of Mitigation Measure NO-1 would ensure that future development would comply with
a less-than-
federal, State, and local noise standards. As such, the Housing Element would have
significant impact
regarding noise generation.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-45
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
12. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
With a population of nearly 64,000 residents, South San Francisco is the fourth largest City in the
County. Between 1990 and 2000, the CityÔs population grew at a rate that was similar to the region,
averaging an increase of 1.09 percent per year. Since 2000, growth in the City has slowed
substantially, reflecting its increasingly developed character. tween 2000 and 2008, average annual
population growth in the City was just 0.64 percent, still faster than the population growth rate for the
County (0.56 percent), but substantially slower than the region-on growth rate of 0.92
percent per year. Consistent with these data, the City has continued to account for a somewhat
outsized share of population growth within the County. Between 2000 and 2008, South San Francisco
accounted for 9.9 percent of countywide population growth, although it accounts for only 8.6 percent
of total countywide population.
a) Population Growth
The potential development of approximately 1,200 dwelling units under the CityÔs 2007-2014 Housing
Element, of which 805 dus need to be developed by the City to meet its remaining RHNA allocation,
would be subject to the goals, policies, and programs of the CityÔs General Plan (including the 2007-
2014 Housing Element), Municipal Code (which includes the CityÔs Building Code and Zoning
Ordinance), and Standard Conditions and Limitations (for multi-family residential projects). All of the
goals, policies, and programs outlined in the 2007-2014 Housing Element are designed to allow the
City utilize its existing housing stock in the most efficient and inclusive ways possible. This includes
the acquisition of blighted and underutilized properties within the Planning Area.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-46
Draft May 15, 2009
The potential development of approximately 1,200 dus over the reining duration of the current
planning period (2009 to 2014) would not induce substantial population growth, but rather would be
built to meet the CityÔs housing needs in accordance with ABAGÔs RHNA.
b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People
The 2007-2014 Housing Element does not include any measures that would displace any of its
residents; instead, it works to make more housing available to its current and future (projected)
residents. This would not, however, cause a direct increase in
the 2007-2014 Housing Element is to meet the needs of the RHNAÔs future projections.
Municipal Code.
Title 19 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Relocation assistance plan.
Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
Finding:
no impact
The Housing Element would have to population and housing or displacement of people.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-47
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
13. Public Services
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion:
a) i) Fire Protection
The South San Francisco Fire Department works to prevent or reduce the loss of life and property due
to fire, sub-standard building construction, natural disasters, hazardous materials, and emergency
medical incidents by means of direct response, public education and code development and
enforcement. The 85 members of the South San Francisco Fire Department provide residents with fire
suppression, emergency medical services, code enforcement, fire investigation, and public education.
The South San Francisco Fire Department provides a full emergency medical services program for our
citizens with certified paramedics on the fire engines and quints as well as staffing two full time
Advanced Support ambulances. The department staffs three engine companies, two quints
(combination fire engine and fire truck), and a battalion chief in addition to the two ambulances
10
Minimum on-duty staffing at one time is 20 persons.
10
City of South San Francisco Fire Department, ÑFire Department Mission StatementÒ, accessed at
http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=258 on April 28, 2009.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-48
Draft May 15, 2009
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to fire protection services:
Policy 8.4-G-2: Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizensÔ needs.
Municipal Code.
Title 15 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs Fire Code. Development
under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 of the Municipal Code.
a) ii) Police Protection
The South San Francisco Police DepartmentÔs jurisdictional area includes the entire City. Two
unincorporated pockets, including the California Golf and Country Club, are under the jurisdiction of
the San Mateo County SheriffÔs office.
As of 1999, when the General Plan was published, the Department had a total of 122 employees, with
80 sworn officers and 37 police units. The ratio of officers in 1999 was 1.4 per 1,000 residents. The
Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation departments share facilities within the CityÔs Municipal
Building. The Police Department also has one station, located in the Municipal Building at 33 Arroyo
Drive.
The Department is generally able to respond to high-priority calls within two to three minutes.
times are within the departmentÔs response time goals. The entire City is patrolled except for the
undeveloped Sierra Point area. The Department typically works a four-beat system, but the watch
supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and
objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one-officer unit with between six and nine other officers
consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to police protection services:
Policy 8.5-G-1: Provide police services that are responsive to citizenÔs needs to ensure a safe and
secure environment for people and property in the community.
Policy 8.5-I-1: Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies
and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times.
Policy 8.5-I-3: Reduce crime by strengthening the police/community partnership
Policy 8.5-I-5: Continue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, State and
federal plans.
Municipal Code.
Title 2 of the CityÔs Municipal Code states that the CityÔs police department will
adhere to State Standards. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 2 of the
Municipal Code.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-49
Draft May 15, 2009
a) iii) Schools
South San Francisco Unified School District operates all public schools serving the City, the
Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno. The District is the largest school district
in San Mateo County. The District operates 16 schools, including 6 elementary (K-5), 3 middle (6-8),
and 2 high schools. The District also runs a continuation high school, an adult school, a preschool
child care center, and three day care schools.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to schools:
Policy 5.2-G-1: Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to maintain and
improve educational facilities and services.
Policy 5.2-I-2: Investigate creation and application of a single-purpose schoo
sites.
a) iv) Parks
Despite the relatively small quantity of parkland in South San Francisco, a broad range of outdoor
recreation opportunities exist, each reflecting the variety of the cityÔs landscape and pattern of
development. These range from shoreline open space on San Francisco Bay, to Sign Hill Park,
situated at an elevation of more than 600 feet. In addition, the San Bruno Mountain County Park,
which is a major regional open space resource and prominent visual landmark, lies directly north of the
city.
As of 1999, when the General Plan was published, South San Francisco included 319.7 acres of parks
and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents, for public use. This includes 70 acres of developed
parkland (community, neighborhood, mini, and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space, and 81.2
acres of school lands. While the overall amount of parkland appears adequate to meet the communityÔs
needs, closer analysis reveals that only 1.2 acres of developed parkland, excluding school parks and
open space, is available per 1,000 residents.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to parks:
Policy 5.1-I-2: Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per
1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new
employment areas.
Policy 5.1-I-3: Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features
and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on Figure General Plan.
Policy 5.1-I-5: Use the PROS Master Plan process to achieve additional parkland acreage, as
necessary, to meet the residential parkland need at General Plan buildout.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-50
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 5.1-I-9: Review the current regulations for the dedication of parkland in subdivisions to
ensure that requirements are adequate to meet the standards of the General Plan at Plan buildout.
Municipal Code.
Title 19 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines requirements for subdivisions and
Chapter 19.24 discusses improvements, including recreational facnd in lieu fees, to be
made by the developers. These regulations provide strict guidelines for dedication of land, payment of
fees, or both, for park and recreation land in subdivisions. Development under the Housing Element
would adhere to Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
a) v) Other Public Facilities
Other Public Facilities in the City include libraries and community centers. There are two libraries in
the City and a Community Learning Center. These services are available to all South San Francisco
residents.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to
public services and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element:
Policy 2-2: The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets,
water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential
development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public
services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements
are already committed. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public
rights-of-way. (Existing Policy 1-13)
Finding:
Compliance with the goals and policies of the CityÔs General Plan and Municipal Code Title 19 would
ensure that future development under the Housing Element would comply with federal and State laws in
regards to public services. Future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be
required to provide adequate police, fire, school, and parks services. As such, the Housing Element
no impact
would have to public services.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-51
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
14. Recreation
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Discussion:
a) and b) Recreation
Community and recreation centers provide many classes and services that are central to South San
FranciscoÔs recreation programs. The City has six community/recreation buildings, some of which are
used for specialized services such as senior programs at the Magnolia Center, public meetings at the
Municipal Services Building, and Boys and Girls Club programs at the Paradise Valley Recreation
Center. The City also has an indoor public pool at Orange Park. Outdoor pools at South San
Francisco High School and El Camino High School supplement Orange Pool in the summer.
The City offers a variety of recreation and special programs, ranging from pre-school day care to
senior activities. Both indoor and outdoor recreational programs occur in a combination of school and
City facilities. The types of programs offered range from recreational and competitive swimming to
classes and performances in the cultural and performing arts. The City offers programs geared toward
specific age groups, such as teenagers or seniors, and day camp, preschool, and after-school programs
for children.
General Plan.
Development of up to 1,200 residential units under the Housing Element could increase
the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, development
under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to
recreation:
Policy 5.1-I-2: Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per
1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new
employment areas.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-52
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 5.1-I-3: Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features
and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on Figure General Plan.
Policy 5.1-I-5: Use the PROS Master Plan process to achieve additional parkland acreage, as
necessary, to meet the residential parkland need at General Plan buildout.
Policy 5.1-I-9: Review the current regulations for the dedication of parkland in subdivisions to
ensure that requirements are adequate to meet the standards of the General Plan at Plan buildout.
Municipal Code.
Title 19 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines requirements for subdivisions and
Chapter 19.24 discusses improvements, including recreational facnd in lieu fees, to be
made by the developers. These regulations provide strict guidelines for dedication of land, payment of
fees, or both, for park and recreation land in subdivisions. Development under the Housing Element
would adhere to Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
Finding:
The additional of residential development could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks, as well as other recreational facilities. However, compliance with the goals and policies of the
CityÔs General Plan and Municipal Code Title 19 would ensure that future development under the
Housing Element would comply with federal and State laws in regards to public services. Future
development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to provide adequate recreational
areas for present and future residents of South San Francisco. As such, the proposed project would
no impact
have to recreation.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-53
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
15. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Discussion:
a) and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity
The 1995 Congestion Management Program for San Mateo County reports I-280 operating at Level of
Service (LOS) F and U.S. 101 operating at LOS D in the vicinity of South San Francisco during peak
commute hours. Levels of service were calculated for the CityÔs roadway segments with current daily
volume counts. Current congestion on South San Francisco streets occurs along the Oyster Point
Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard corridors, and on
Westborough Boulevard near the I-280 interchange and the Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection.
Other locations with congestion include the intersection of El Camino Real with Westborough
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-54
Draft May 15, 2009
Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and the Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/U.S. 101 interchange. During
the evening peak commute period, East Grand Avenue under the U.S. 101 overpass has some back up.
In general, the CityÔs transportation system can adequately serve existing travel demand. Most travel is
conveyed by automobile and the roadway system within the City has capacity to accommodate
additional growth. However, traffic volumes on the regional roadways that provide access to the City,
U.S. 101, and I-280, are projected to exceed their capacities during commute periods.
General Plan.
The addition of up to 1,200 residential units under the Housing Element would likely
result in an increase in vehicular traffic. However, development under the Housing Element would be
subject to the following General Plan policies related to transportation and traffic:
Policy 4.2-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement
of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems
serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled.
Policy 4.2-G-7: Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements
including mechanisms such as development impact fees. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-
2001, September 26, 2001)
Policy 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain Level-of-Service (ÑLOSÒ) D or better on arterial and collector
streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the
Policy 4.2-G-9: Accept LOS E or F after finding that: 1) There is no practical
mitigate the lower level of service; and 2) The uses resulting i
clear, overall public benefit.
Policy 4.2-G-10: Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain.
Policy 4.2-I-7: Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and
other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service
levels.
Policy 4.2-I-10: Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS
standards.
Policy 4.3-I-8: Adopt a Transportation Demand Management (ÑTDMÒ) program or ordinance
which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: 1) Establishment of baseline TDM
requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips; 2) Establishment of
additional requirements for all new projects seeking a FAR bonus; 3) An ongoing monitoring and
enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented; 4) Reduce parking
requirements for new projects implementing a TDM Program. (Amended by City Council
Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001)
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-55
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 4.3-I-9: Favor TSM programs that limit vehicle use over those that exte
hour.
Municipal Code.
Title 11 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs standards and regulations
for traffic and vehicles. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 11 of the
Municipal Code.
c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns
South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a large portion of departures from SFIA, particularly
heavy aircraft that climb over the coast range for Pacific Rim destinations. However, the Housing
Element would not affect or alter existing air traffic patterns that ar
d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses
The Housing Element does not implement the construction or modification of any roadway, or the
addition of incompatible uses.
e) Emergency Access
Municipal Code.
The Housing Element would be required to comply with the Building Code
provisions for emergency access as prescribed by law. Title 15 of the Municipal Code discusses
regulations pertaining to buildings and construction.
f) Parking
The CityÔs Zoning Ordinance has parking requirements to ensure that adequate numbers of parking
spaces are provided onsite for most uses. The Downtown area has a parking district: instead of each
property owner providing their own parking, parking is consolidated into City-owned lots. In general,
the amount of parking in the Downtown area is currently sufficient; however, there are a few locations
with capacity shortages.
The industrial areas of the City experience on-street truck parking. The parked trucks and the
loading/unloading activities frequently interfere with vehicular circulation.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to parking:
Policy 4.3-I-11: Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by allowing parking
reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking.
(Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 2
Policy 4.3-I-12: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for all
projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implemen
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-56
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 4.3-I-13: Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce
the number of new parking stalls required.
Municipal Code.
Title 11 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines requirements vehicles and traffic
while Chapters 11.40 (Stopping, Standing, or Parking) and 11.56 (Parking Lots, Parking Meters, and
Parking Zones) specifically discusses parking. In addition, Title 20, Zoning Ordinance, discusses
parking regulations in individual districts. These regulations outlined in the Municipal Code provide
strict guidelines for parking in the City. Development under th Housing Element would adhere to
Title 11 of the Municipal Code.
g) Alternative Transportation
Shuttle buses, vanpools, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and informal carpools, also serve the
travel needs of South San Francisco. These modes provide an alternative to the single-occupant
automobile. South San Francisco is also served by public transportation, such as SamTrans, Caltrain,
and BART.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan policies with regard to alternative transportation:
Policy 4.3-G-1: Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle
riding for transportation and recreation.
Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through
residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
Policy 4.3-G-3: In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations.
Policy 4.3-G-4: In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems
management plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a positive and
supportive business environment.
Policy 4.3-I-1: Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list
or map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program.
Policy 4.3-I-4: Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future
multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses.
Policy 4.4-G-1: Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco.
Policy 4.4-G-2: Explore mechanisms to integrate various forms of transit.
Municipal Code.
Title 11 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines requirements vehicles and traffic;
Chapter 11.24 discusses pedestrian regulations and Chapter 11.44 discusses bicycle licenses. These
regulations provide strict guidelines for alternative modes of transportation. Development under the
Housing Element would adhere to Title 11 of the Municipal Code.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-57
Draft May 15, 2009
Finding:
The general plan policies listed above are extensive, and have been crafted to ensure that future
development would comply with federal and State laws in regards to transportation/traffic. Policy 4.2-
G-9 would ensure that development of future projects under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would not
create significant traffic impacts on a project or cumulative level. In addition, almost 60 percent of
future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be for low/moderate income
households, with convenient access to bus and commuter rail service, likely reducing the amount of
vehicle trips the average new household would make. Under the Housing Element, there would be no
change in air traffic patterns, hazardous designs, emergency access, parking capacity, and applicable
no
plans and policies supporting alternative transportation. As such, the Housing Element would have
impact
to transportation/traffic. In addition, per the CityÔs General Plan, Policy 4.3-I-8 (described
above) the City has adopted a TDM which includes a methodology to determine eligibility for land use
intensity bonuses, procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity
bonuses, requirements for off-site improvements, and reduced parking requirements.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-58
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
projectÔs projected demand in addition
to the providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
projects solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Discussion:
The construction of up to 1,200 residential unites in South San Francisco would increase the demand
for water, waste water treatment, and solid waste removal. To the extent that housing is developed on
vacant parcels, an increase in impervious surfaces could increase storm water runoff. However,
development under the Housing Element would be subject to General Plan polices and the Municipal
Code.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-59
Draft May 15, 2009
a), b), and e) Water and Wastewater Treatment Standards, Facilit
Potable water is provided for the City and much of County by the California Water Service Company
(ÑCWSCÒ), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (ÑSFWDÒ).
The CityÔs sanitary sewer system has an interconnecting network of gravity sewers, force mains, and
nine pump stations, which function together to bring wastewater from individual homes and businesses
to the wastewater treatment plant. All wastewater produced within the City is treated at the CityÔs
Water Quality Control Plant (ÑWQCPÒ), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge
of the San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San
Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities.
The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a
portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. Th General Plan EIR indicated
that major water delivery, and major wastewater treatment facili
improved, in order to meet project water and wastewater demand growth.
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan polices with regard to water and wastewater treatment standards
Policy 5.3-G-1: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water supply
system to meet projected needs.
Policy 5.3-G-3: Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing water
service to new development.
Policy 5.3-G-4: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the wastewater
system to meet projected needs.
Policy 5.3-G-5: Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing wastewater
service to new development.
Policy 5.3-G-6: Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management practices.
Policy 5.3-I-1: Work with California Water Service Company and Westborough County Water
District to ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of
growth.
Policy 5.3-I-3: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with
providing water service to new development in South San Francisc
Policy 5.3-I-4: Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of
growth.
Policy 5.3-I-5: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with
providing wastewater service to new development in South San Francisco.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-60
Draft May 15, 2009
Policy 5.3-I-6: Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet
various federal, State, and regional standards; treatment costs should remain affordable.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to
waste water facilities and would be followed with the implementation of the proposed project:
Policy 2-2: The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets,
water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential
development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public
services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements
are already committed. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public
rights-of-way. (Existing Policy 1-13)
Municipal Code.
Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter
14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water
quality control. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 of the Municipal
Code.
c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Colma Creek, the CityÔs main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about
16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The
basin is bounded on the northwest by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by the ridge traced by
Skyline Boulevard. Colma Creek is almost entirely channelized w of the Bayshore Freeway. There
are some sedimentation basins, but no other impoundments on Colma Creek. Drainage is controlled by
a series of lined creek beds and storm drains.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
Policy 2-2, as aforementioned, from the 2007-2014 Housing Element
applies to drainage facilities and would be followed with the implementation of the proposed projec
Municipal Code.
Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter
14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water
quality control.
d) Water Supply
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The CWSC serves the portion of the City east of
Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San FranciscoÔs area, including the opportunity
sites. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo with no restrictions on water allocation among
these communities. The five-year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the
utilityÔs projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range
from 5.9 million gallons per day (ÑMGDÒ) to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is
not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the
highest projected demand.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-61
Draft May 15, 2009
General Plan.
In addition to Policies 5.3-G-1, 5.3-G-3, 5.3-I-1, and 5.3-I-3
under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan polices with regard to water
supply:
Policy 5.3-G-2: Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed
development.
Policy 5.3-I-2: Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and
use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and
additions to existing buildings.
2007-2014 Housing Element.
The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to
drainage facilities and would be followed with the implementation of the proposed project:
Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new
residential structures. (Existing Policy 6-1)
Program 7-1B: Complete Green Building Ordinance: The City shall complete the ongoing Green
Building Ordinance to assure that new dwelling units and signifi
building practices and materials into the design.
f) and g) Solid Waste
Disposal and treatment of solid and hazardous waste is overseen
collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the Scavenger
CompanyÔs materials recovery facility and transfer station (MRF/
recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, located along State Route
92 between Half Moon Bay and the City of San Mateo. Allied Waste Industries, formerly Browning-
Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the
Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expi
Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill.
11
In 2007,
The Ox Mountain Landfill currently has a maximum disposal rate of 3,598 tons per day.
household waste disposal from South San Francisco was 9,697 tons
12
from the City of 88,194 tons.
11
California Integrated Waste Management Board, ÑActive Landfills Profile for Ox Mountain Sanitary
Landfill (41-AA-0002),Ò accessed at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/LandFill/LFProfile1.asp?
COID=41&FACID=41-AA-0002, accessed on April 28, 2009.
12 California Integrated Waste Management Board, ÑJurisdiction Profile for City of South San Francisco,Ò
accessed at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID=511&JUR= South+
San+Francisco, accessed on April 28, 2009.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-62
Draft May 15, 2009
General Plan.
Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General
Plan polices with regard to solid waste.
Policy 8.3-G-1: Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those
materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Policy 8.3-I-1: Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and complying
with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
Municipal Code.
Title 8 of the CityÔs Municipal Code outlines the CityÔs health and welfare
regulations, and Section 8.16 discusses the solid waste requirements of the City. These guidelines
establish strict guidelines for the handling of solid waste. Development under the Housing Element
would adhere to Title 8 of the Municipal Code.
Finding:
Compliance with development under the Housing Element would be subject to the goals, policies, and
programs of the CityÔs General Plan, and Titles 8 and 14 of the Municipal Code. Adherence to these
regulations would ensure that future development would provide adequate water and wastewater
collection and treatment and solid waste removal for present and future residents of South San
no impact
Francisco. As such, the Housing Element would have to utilities and services systems.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-63
Draft May 15, 2009
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion:
Development at the opportunity sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element would occur as
infill, in an urbanized and built-out City. In addition, biolog
subject to the regulations outlined in the Biological and Cultural Resources sections of this document,
which would ensure compliance with federal and State regulations protecting sensitive biological and
cultural resources.
Compliance with the CityÔs Building Code, General Plan Policy 8.1-G-1 (discussed in the Geology and
Soils Section), and 2007-2014 Housing Element Policy 4-1 (discussed in the Hazards/Hazardous
Materials Section) would ensure no adverse environmental effects would occur to human beings
through pre-construction investigations, regulation of project placement, and adherence to building
standards.
The 2007-2014 Housing Element is a forecast of all current and future residential growth within the
City, and the analysis contained in this document takes into account all of the effects of this growth.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-64
Draft May 15, 2009
As has been stated throughout this document, all current and future development will be subject to the
goals, policies, and programs of the CityÔs General Plan, Municipal Code, and Standard Conditions
and Limitations, in addition to all federal and State regulations. While such issues and traffic,
emissions, and noise may increase incrementally, the policies and regulations already in place at time
of implementation of the proposed project, and the mitigation measures outlined below, will ensure that
future development under the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact.
Air Quality:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the impact associated with air quality
plans to a less-than-significant level:
AQ-1 Implement feasible control measures for construction emission of PM-10. The project sponsor
shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction,
in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction si
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
at construction sites.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets.
AQ-2 Green Building Measures for New Construction. The following green building measures shall
be incorporated, at the discretion of the Planning Department, into new residential
construction:
Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated to maximize summer shade and to
minimize winter shade. Canopy cover shall extend over 50 percent of non-permeable
surfaces following a ten-year growth period.
Residential construction shall use ÑgreenÒ cement, which contains recycled materials (slag
or fly-ash) and is produced using emission-reducing technologies, if available, structurally
appropriate for the intended use, and where feasible and practicable.
New construction shall use energy efficient lighting, to the extent feasible and appropriate.
At the minimum, all buildings shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in energy use associated
with lighting over existing Title 24 standards.
Residential buildings shall include passive solar design features that include roof overhangs
or canopies that block summer shade, but that allow winter sun, from penetrating south
facing windows.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-65
Draft May 15, 2009
Roofing materials used in commercial/retail buildings shall be Energy Star® certified. All
roof products shall also be certified to meet ATSM high emissivity requirements.
Where feasible, recycled, rapidly renewable, reclaimed and/or certified components shall
be used in the construction of new residential buildings.
Cultural Resources:
Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce impacts to paleontological/
geological features and human remains to a less-than-significant
CR-1 Protect unique paleontological/geological features. Should a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geological feature be identified at an opportunity site during any phase of
construction, the project sponsor shall cease all construction activities at the site of the
discovery and immediately notify the City. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified
paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project
site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The
project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional prescribed mitigation
measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City.
CR-2 Protect human remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resource
shall be halted and the City and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately, according t
Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and
Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the
NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to
in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a
professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field
investigation of the project site, and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified
by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the
Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The
City shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate,
taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section
15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall
implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City, before the resumption of ground
disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered.
Noise:
Mitigation Measure NO-1 would reduce the impact associated with construction noise to a less-
than-significant level:
NO-1 Implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The project sponsor shall
incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the
project construction contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control
devices (e.g., mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g.,
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-66
Draft May 15, 2009
surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), would not require major equipment
redesign:
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly
noisy areas of the site or around the entire site;
Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission
of noise to sensitive receptors;
Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and
Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used
on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling
equipment, shall be used whenever feasible.
d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction
with the CityÔs Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and
schools, are avoided as much as possible.
f. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50
feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Ï 2007-2014 Housing Elet Ð Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-67
Draft May 15, 2009