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