Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-22 e-packet@6:00Monday, January 22, 2018 6:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda January 22, 2018Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda 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 Monday, January 22, 2018, at 6:00 p.m., in the Large Conference Room, Top Floor at City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: Call to Order. Roll Call. Agenda Review. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Study Session regarding consideration of possible Transient Occupancy Tax increase (Richard Lee, Director of Finance) 1. Study Session regarding recently adopted State housing legislation (Nell Selander, Economic & Community Development Deputy Director) 2. Adjournment. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/16/2018 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:18-37 Agenda Date:1/22/2018 Version:1 Item #:1. Study Session regarding consideration of possible Transient Occupancy Tax increase (Richard Lee,Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive this staff report considering a potential Transient Occupancy Tax increase and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION San Francisco’s status as an international tourist attraction coupled with South San Francisco’s proximity to the San Francisco International Airport (SFO)serve as the primary drivers for the City’s robust hotel industry.As such,there are 30 hotels and a total of 3,109 rooms within the City of South San Francisco.In terms of business revenue,the hotel industry is number five in South San Francisco,and number four in terms of business revenue growth. There are two hotels that are currently in development that will provide 280 additional hotel rooms:Fairfield Inn & Suites located at 128 W Harris and a franchise to be announced located at 550 Gateway. Heavy Volume of Police and Fire Calls:While the hotel industry provides a significant recurring revenue source for the City, it also places a commensurate demand on public safety resources. In 2017,Police responded 2,605 to various incidents at hotels in South San Francisco.Some hotels require more Police attention than others.One particular hotel in South San Francisco generated 490 Police Department incidents in 2017,for example.These Police responses required an estimated 2,225 hours of on-scene police work at hotels.Last year the Fire Department responded to 217 incidents requiring 691 on scene hours for South San Francisco hotels.Similarly high responses numbers were required in 2016,with 2,738 Police incidents and 303 Fire incidents.Public safety incident metrics from 2015 were similar,with 2,581 Police incidents and 219 Fire incidents. The Fire Department resources respond to a variety of incidents, including: ·Emergency medical calls; ·Fires; ·Fire alarms, including alarm system malfunctions; and ·Service calls when there is a potential for property damage. The Fire Department’s most frequent incident type is emergency medical calls.Emergency medical incidents consume five to nine personnel and apparatus of our on-duty capacity for a shorter window of time,and fires consume additional personnel and apparatus for a longer period of time. Fire Department command staff believes that the increasing number of hotel rooms and guests,and increasing vehicle and pedestrian traffic associated with hotels,will cause incident response volume to trend up in future City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/18/2018Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:18-37 Agenda Date:1/22/2018 Version:1 Item #:1. years. TOT Near Lowest in San Mateo County:South San Francisco’s current Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT)rate is 10 percent,the lowest in San Mateo County,except for Foster City,which is at 9.5 percent.The TOT rate was last increased by one percent nine years ago,in 2009.In addition,the South San Francisco Conference Center assesses a $2.50 tax per night per room.The City recently completed a comprehensive TOT and Commercial Parking Tax audit in FY 2015-16. In comparison,most agencies in San Mateo County have a TOT rate of 12 percent.The City of Daly City is contemplating increasing their TOT rate to a range between 12 and 15 percent.The City of Foster City is considering increasing their TOT rate to 12 percent,while the City of Redwood City is considering increasing their TOT rate to 15 percent. San Francisco’s TOT rate is 14 percent. Under the current rate of 10 percent,South San Francisco’s TOT revenues are projected to be $16.5 million in FY 2019-20.If the City Council were to consider increasing the TOT rate to 12,13,or 14 percent,the City would potentially receive $3.3, $5.0 and $6.6 million in additional TOT revenues, respectively. Election to Increase TOT:If the City Council was interested in increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax, because it is a tax,any increase would require approval by South San Francisco voters pursuant to state law.A general tax requires a simple majority approval, while a special tax requires a 2/3 approval. The statewide general election for 2018 is on November 6,2018.If the City Council were to support a TOT ballot measure,the deadline to submit a resolution to the County of San Mateo for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot is August 10,2018.If approved by South San Francisco voters,the new tax rate would be effective ten days after the results of the election are certified.For administrative purposes,staff recommends assessing a new tax rate, effective January 1, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT There is no legislative action being recommended at this time. As such, there is no financial impact. CONCLUSION The City of South San Francisco has a robust and growing hotel industry,but has a heavy demand for police and fire services.The City’s TOT rate is currently less than nearly every city in San Mateo County,and a rate increase would generate up to $6.6 million in additional TOT revenues in FY 2019-20. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/18/2018Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX City Council Study Session January 22, 2018 1 Hotel Statistics •30 hotels; •3,109 rooms; •2 hotels under construction; •2 hotels in development. 2 Total Incidents 2015 – 2017 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 2015 2016 2017 Total Fire On Scene Hours = 2,933 Total Police Hours Onscene = 6,900 3 Fire Incidents by Type 4 Police - Top Incidents – Example Hotel 2017 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Business checks 911 Disturbance calls Pedestrian stops Foot patrols 911 Hang-up calls Traffic stops 5 Current TOT •Current rate is 10%, last increased by 1% in 2009; •SSF Conference Center Tax is $2.50 per night/room; •TOT/Parking Tax audit completed in FY 2015-16. 6 City Current Rate (%) TOT Ballot Measure? Proposed Rate (%) Belmont 10 No Brisbane 12 NR Burlingame 12 No Daly City 10 Yes 12-15 Foster City 9.5 Yes 12 Half Moon Bay 12 No Millbrae 12 No Pacifica 12 No Redwood City 12 Yes 14 San Carlos 10 No San Francisco 14 NR San Mateo 12 No South San Francisco 10 Yes 12-14 7 FY 2019-20 TOT Revenue Projections (in millions) Rate Projected TOT Additional Revenue 10% $16.5 12% $19.8 $3.3 13% $21.5 $5.0 14% $23.1 $6.6 8 November 2018 Ballot Measure •General Tax – simple majority; •Deadline to Place on Ballot: August 10, 2018 •Election Date: November 6, 2018 •New rate effective: January 1, 2019; 9 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:18-27 Agenda Date:1/22/2018 Version:1 Item #:2. Study Session regarding recently adopted State housing legislation (Nell Selander,Economic &Community Development Deputy Director) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation on recently-adopted State housing legislation and how it impacts the City of South San Francisco. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Since the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2011,California cities have had few tools to create affordable housing.Today,affordable housing funding remains relatively scarce compared to the cost of construction and the need for housing that is affordable to a range of incomes.In 2017,the California State Legislature passed more than a dozen bills targeting the housing crisis,many of which have implications for the City of South San Francisco (“City”). Recently-Adopted State Housing Legislation Attachment 1 includes a summary of new State housing legislation signed into law by Governor Brown in September 2017.These new laws took effect on or before January 1,2018;however,the State has not yet provided administrative instruction for implementing all of the new programs and requirements.The new bills that most significantly impact the City are discussed below. Housing Accountability Act Reform Two bills,SB 167 (Skinner)/AB 678 (Bocanegra)and AB 1515 (Daly),reform California's Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”),codified at California Government Code §65589.5.Under existing law,a city may not deny or approve but reduce the density of a housing development project that conforms to all “objective”general plan and zoning standards,regardless of affordability,unless specific findings of adverse impact are made based on substantial evidence presented to the city.The new bills create the following new obligations for cities. ·A project must be deemed “consistent with objective standards”as long as there is “substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude" that the project is consistent. ·A city may not deny or approve at a lower density a project that complies with all “objective”general plan and zoning standards unless it makes specific findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence,not just substantial evidence,as previously required.This change raises the bar for cities to meet their burden of proof.The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the majority of the evidence contained in the record support the decision,whereas the substantial evidence standard only requires that the decision be sufficiently justified by the evidence presented. ·If a city determines that a project is inconsistent,not compliant,or not in conformity with its objective standards,it must inform applicants of the basis for this conclusion on a specific timeline,and if the local government fails to do so,the project is legally deemed to be consistent with such objective City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/18/2018Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:18-27 Agenda Date:1/22/2018 Version:1 Item #:2. standards. Currently,the City’s Planning Division promptly reviews and processes applications,and the new notice requirement for inconsistent applications that do not meet objective standards will not affect the Division’s current practice.However,the City may need to review and revise its current findings in support of denying an application in light of these heightened standards of proof to ensure that denials are based on objective standards rather than subjective evaluations.For example,the City is unlikely to be able to rely on “consistency with community character”as an objective standard to deny a housing project,but would most likely be able to base a denial on the basis that “the proposed use is not permitted in the zoning district.” The City’s Zoning Ordinance has many specific design requirements intended to preserve consistency with community character or otherwise promote high-quality architecture and design.Examples include (see Attachment 2 for excerpts from the Municipal Code): ·Chapter 20.080 Residential Districts includes standards for exterior materials,window trim or recess, second story additions, entrances, garage location, building articulation, entrances, and others; ·Chapter 20.090 Commercial,Office and Mixed Use Districts includes standards for entrance orientation,transparency,articulation of wall planes,heights,and roof forms,parking design,and off- site sidewalk improvements.This Chapter governs properties in the Community Commercial,Business and Professional Office, and Commercial and El Camino Real Mixed Use zoning districts; and ·Specific Plan Districts with detailed architectural requirements for Bay West Cove,Gateway,Oyster Point,Terrabay,Transit Village (BART area),Genentech,El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue,and Downtown Station Area. Collectively,the Zoning Ordinance provides fairly strong architectural standards for project review.The Planning Division has also prioritized the development of Residential Neighborhood Guidelines in 2018 (a mid -year budget request is forthcoming)that will formalize community character with design requirements to remain compliant with the new regulations. No Net Loss In addition to other changes made to Housing Element law detailed in Attachment 1,SB 166 (Skinner) strengthens the “no net loss”provision in state law.Under existing law,the “no net loss”provision prohibits cities and counties from downzoning residential sites or approving projects at a lower residential density than shown in their housing elements,unless enough sites remained to meet the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)goals.SB 166 strengthens this rule by requiring that cities may not downzone sites or reduce project density unless the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city’s RHNA share both by the number of units and by income category.If remaining housing element sites are insufficient to meet the RHNA share at a certain income level,the City must then identify additional,adequate,and available sites with an equal or greater residential density in its jurisdiction so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity at that income level. Pursuant to this change,cities are fully responsible for ensuring that residential sites contained in its housing element are sufficient to accommodate their unmet share of the RHNA allocations and to accommodate those remaining RHNA shares at each income level.Cities may not disapprove a housing development project on the basis that additional sites would need to be identified for a specific income category and rezoned.However,if a developer proposes a project at a density that would result in the remaining sites in the housing element notCity of South San Francisco Printed on 1/18/2018Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:18-27 Agenda Date:1/22/2018 Version:1 Item #:2. developer proposes a project at a density that would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to accommodate the city’s RHNA shares,the city may require the developer to comply with density requirements set forth in the city’s housing element.Ultimately,these new requirements impact the City if development applications are submitted to develop fewer units than indicated in the Housing Element. Streamlining SB 35 (Weiner)creates a streamlined,ministerial approval process for eligible residential development projects. Cities will be subject to the requirements of SB 35 if they either have not issued sufficient building permits to satisfy their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”)shares at each income level or have not submitted the required annual general plan report to the state for at least two consecutive years.The streamlining process under SB 35 only applies to eligible residential projects that have complied with objective planning standards and have met a series of rigorous affordable housing and labor requirements (see Attachment 3,Meyers Nave SB 35 Checklist). In the case where a city has not issued enough building permits to satisfy its RHNA obligations by income level,a project seeking to qualify for SB streamlining must satisfy the following affordable housing requirements. ·If the city has not issued sufficient building permits to meet its above-moderate income RHNA share, then the project must dedicate at least 10%of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 80% of the area median income in order to be eligible for streamlining. ·If the city has not issued sufficient building permits to meet its RHNA share for lower-income housing, then the project must dedicate at least 50%of the total number of units to housing affordable to households making below 80% of the area median income in order to be eligible for streamlining. ·If the city has not issued sufficient building permits to meet its RHNA share for low-and above- moderate-income housing,the project can choose between dedicating 10%or 50%of the total units for low-income households. As discussed in Attachment 4,a Memorandum summarizing the City’s progress toward meeting its RHNA, building permits have been issued to meet the City’s above-moderate income housing allocation,but not its moderate,low,or very low income housing allocation.As a result,should applicants wish to utilize the SB 35 streamlining process,their projects would need to designate 50%of the total number of units as affordable units for households earning 80%or below of the area median income.In addition,the projects would need to comply with prevailing wages, labor requirements, and “objective” plans and standards. If an applicant’s project becomes eligible for SB 35 streamlining,the City would have 60 to 90 days from submittal (depending on the size of the project)to provide the applicant with a list of inconsistencies with objective planning standards.The City would also have just 90 to 120 days (depending on the size of the project)to complete any design review or “public oversight”of the project.Projects eligible for streamlining under SB 35 are also entitled to a reduced parking requirements and the City would not be able to inhibit,chill or preclude the ministerial approval of the project provided it meets the City’s objective planning standards. The Palmer Fix Staff is preparing a study session for City Council on AB 1505,which addresses inclusionary housing for rental housing developments.AB 1505 is commonly known as the “Palmer Fix,”because it lifts some of the restrictions that were placed on cities as a result of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Palmer v.City of City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/18/2018Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:18-27 Agenda Date:1/22/2018 Version:1 Item #:2. restrictions that were placed on cities as a result of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Palmer v.City of Los Angeles.Staff’s analysis will include options for updating the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and a staff recommendation. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact on the General Fund of receiving this presentation.Depending on City Council direction, there may be a need to engage consultants to perform analysis or draft new ordinances. CONCLUSION Staff will update City Council once the California Department of Housing and Community Development provides administrative instructions to implement recently adopted housing legislation.These administrative instructions may alter the degree of impact SB 35 streamlining and other legislation pertaining to Housing Element law will have on the City. Attachments: 1.Digest of New State Housing Legislation 2.Excerpts from SSF Municipal Code 3.Meyers Nave SB 35 Checklist 4.Memorandum on RHNA Progress City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/18/2018Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ 2017 State Housing Bills Updated on 10.10.17 Funding Bills SB 2 (Atkins) Building Homes and Jobs Act Summary Imposes a $75 fee on each recorded document up to a maximum of $225 per transaction per parcel, estimated to raise $200 million per year. SB 2 provides a "permanent source" of funding for affordable housing. Documents subject to the tax include:  deed,  grant deed,  trustee’s deed,  deed of trust,  reconveyance,  quit claim deed,  fictitious deed of trust,  assignment of deed of trust,  request for notice of default,  abstract of judgment,  subordination agreement,  declaration of homestead,  abandonment of homestead,  notice of default,  release or discharge,  easement,  notice of trustee sale,  notice of completion,  UCC financing statement,  mechanic’s lien,  maps,  covenants,  conditions, and  restrictions. Documents exempted from the fee include the following.  Transferring a residential dwelling to an owner-occupant.  Those recorded in connection with transfers that are subject to the transfer tax.  Those expressly exempted from payment of recording fees. Effective Date Immediately upon signature (urgency ordinance) – September 29, 2017. Implications for the City The majority of the funding is designated for local government use.  50% of funds collected in 2018 go to local governments.  70% of funds collected in 2019 and onward go to local governments.  20% of all funds must be spent on for-sale, workforce housing. 2017 State Housing Bills Updated on 10.10.17 SB 3 (Beall) Summary SB 3 places on the November 6, 2018 ballot a bond measure to raise $3 billion for existing state affordable housing programs and $1 billion for the veterans' home purchase program. If passed by voters, funds will be allocated to the following existing affordable housing programs.  $1.5 billion for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund to assist in the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of rental housing for people with incomes of up to 60% of AMI.  $150 million for the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Fund to provide local assistance to municipalities, agencies, and developers for higher density uses close to transit.  $300 million for a Regional Planning, Housing, and Infill Incentive Account to fund infill incentive grants to construct and rehab infrastructure to support high-density development, including: o park creation, development, or rehabilitation; o water, sewer, or other public infrastructure costs; and o transportation improvements and traffic mitigation.  $450 million for the Self-Help Housing Fund: $150 million for the home purchase assistance program and $300 million to provide direct, forgivable loans for for-sale developments.  $300 million for the Farmworker Housing Grant Fund for grants and loans to municipalities, agencies, and developers for new or rehabbed housing for agriculture employees and families.  $300 million for the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund for competitive grants or loans to local housing trust funds to create pilot programs to demonstrate innovative, cost-saving approaches to creating or preserving affordable housing. Implications for the City Access to more grant and loan opportunities. AB 571 (E. Garcia) AB 571 makes several changes to the farmworker state low-income housing tax credit program to make the program more flexible.  Only 50% (rather than 100%) of the units funded must be occupied by farmworker households.  Allows advance payments of up to 20% of annual operating costs for migrant farm labor centers. 2017 State Housing Bills Updated on 10.10.17 Streamlining Housing Development Applications SB 35 (Weiner) Summary Creates a streamlined, ministerial approval process for infill developments in localities that have not issued enough building permits to satisfy their regional housing need allocation (RHNA) by income category provided the developments comply with 'objective' planning standards. To be eligible for streamlining, the project must:  be a multi-family housing development of two or more units;  be in an urban area;  be zoned or have a general plan designation for residential use;  not have contained housing occupied by tenants within 10 years;  provide a specified level of affordable housing;*  meet objective zoning standards like setback requirements; and  in most cases must commit to paying prevailing wages. *The specified level of affordable housing that must be provided is based on the local jurisdiction’s progress toward meeting RHNA.  If the locality has not issued sufficient building permits to meet its above-moderate requirement, then the project must contain at least 10% affordable to 80% of AMI or lower.  If the locality has not issued sufficient building permits to meet its requirement for 80% of AMI and below, then the project must contain 50% affordable to 80% of AMI or lower. There are exceptions to streamlining for sites in sensitive environmental areas – like high fire zones, wetlands, coastal areas, delineated fault zones, and hazardous waste sites – and historic properties. SB 35 requires localities to provide additional information in their Housing Element annual reports, including the number of entitlements, permits, and certificates of occupancy issued for housing projects. Effective Date January 1, 2018 through January 1, 2026. Implications for the City If the City does not meet its RHNA each year, for all income categories, it will have to ministerially approve multi-family residential development applications meeting the requirements above. Eligible projects also receive a parking reduction under the law. 2017 State Housing Bills Updated on 10.10.17 Housing Element Requirements Implications for the City Together, the bills below increase reporting requirements for the City and may result in less permitting fee revenue over time. AB 879 (Grayson) Summary Requires additional information in housing element annual reports, including reporting the number of housing development applications received each year and the number of units approved or denied. Additionally, the bill directs the HCD to complete a study of the reasonableness of local impact fees and make recommendations to substantially reduce fees for residential development by June 30, 2019. SB 166 (Skinner) Summary The existing "no net loss" provision in state law does not allow cities and counties to downzone sites or approve projects at less density than shown in their housing elements, unless enough sites remain to meet the regional housing need assigned to the city. SB 166 requires that in addition to the above, similar findings be made if sites are not developed for the income category shown in the housing element and extends the mandate to charter cities. AB 1397 (Low) Summary AB 1397 makes several changes to the "inventory of land suitable for residential development" analysis in housing element law, such as requiring a more detailed analysis before allowing sites with existing uses to be considered suitable for residential development. Also, limits 'by right' approvals on sites rezoned to achieve housing element compliance to those including at least 20% lower income units. AB 72 (Santiago and Chiu) Summary Gives HCD the authority to find a housing element out of compliance if a city's action or failure to take action, including down zoning sites, is inconsistent with state housing element law and refer a violation to the Attorney General for action. 2017 State Housing Bills Updated on 10.10.17 Housing Accountability Act Reforms Summary Currently, any project conforming to all 'objective' general plan and zoning standards may not be denied, or reduced in density, unless specific findings can be made. The bills below tighten the definition of "Objective Standards." The reformed HAA establishes a standard that is very favorable to housing developers and advocates:  A city may not deny or approve at a lower density a project that complies with all “objective” general plan and zoning standards unless it makes specific findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, not just substantial evidence.  If a city determines that a project is inconsistent, not compliant, or not in conformity with its objective standards, it must inform applicants of the basis for this conclusion on a specific timeline, and if the local government fails to do so, the project is legally deemed to be consistent with such objective standards.  The new law also clarifies that a project's eligibility for a bonus under California's Density Bonus Law does not render it inconsistent with the local jurisdiction's objective standards. Additionally, the reforms:  This new change raises the bar for cities to meet their burden of proof, since the preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the majority of the evidence contained in the record to support the decision, whereas the substantial evidence standard only requires that the decision be sufficiently justified by the evidence presented and there was a permissible basis to reject the project or reduce its density. Increases the availability of attorneys by making attorney's fees available – and presumptively required – regardless of whether the project contains affordable housing.  Increases fines and authority for courts to order projects be approved. Under the revised Act, after a successful court challenge, any local government that fails to comply with a court order within 60 days will be fined a minimum of $10,000 per housing unit.  Increase eligibility for mixed-use projects, by expanding the definition of mixed-use projects to including developments where 2/3 of the square footage are designated for residential use. This potentially expands the range of projects that would be eligible. The bills listed below reform California's Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Cal. Gov. Code §65589.5. Effective Date January 1, 2018. 2017 State Housing Bills Updated on 10.10.17 Implications for the City Unlike SB 35, these bills affect every housing development application reviewed by local government. SB 167 (Skinner)/AB 678 (Bocanegra) AB 678/SB 167 increases the burden on local jurisdictions when denying an affordable housing project. The legislation requires that local government provide developers with a list of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and all objective plans, zoning, and standards within 30 to 60 days after the housing application is complete, or the project will be 'deemed consistent' with all such plans, standards and policies. Additionally, it imposes fines for a violation of the Housing Accountability Act, expands judicial remedies for violations of the Act, and permits attorney’s fees for organizations that prevails in a lawsuit. AB 1515 (Daly) Makes changes to the HAA to encourage greater production of housing and expand the number of housing developments afforded the protections of the HAA by requiring the courts to give less deference to a local government's planning and zoning consistency determination. Inclusionary Rental Housing AB 1505 (Bloom and Chiu) Summary The “Palmer Fix” authorizes localities to establish inclusionary housing requirements for residential rental development. AB 1505 authorizes these requirements provided an alternate means of compliance, such as in-lieu fees, is also provided. If local ordinances require more than 15% low-income units, HCD may review the ordinance and an economic feasibility study supporting the requirement. Effective Date January 1, 2018. Implications for the City The City can now amend its Affordable Housing Ordinance to require BMR units in rental developments. 2017 State Housing Bills Updated on 10.10.17 Districts and Zones SB 540 (Roth) Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones Summary SB 540 authorizes cities and counties to establish Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones (WHOZ) by preparing an EIR and adopting a specific plan creating the zone, which must require a specific amount of low- and moderate-income housing. The establishment of a WHOZ would require:  The local government to approve housing developments that are consistent with the plan within 60 days after the application is deemed complete.  Payment of prevailing wages.  No additional environmental review if the EIR is updated every five years. HCD may provide grants or no-interest loans to localities to develop the specific plan and related EIR. Implications for the City If implemented, could help expedite housing development. If possible, consider converting an existing specific plan to a WHOZ. AB 73 (Chiu) Housing Sustainability Districts Summary AB 73 permits local jurisdictions, with HCD's approval, to create housing sustainability districts to permit residences through a ministerial permit. The district must contain a specified amount of low- and moderate-income housing. Grounds to deny a housing project would then be very specific and limited. The locality must include an EIR for the proposed district as part of the application to HCD, which will serve as the EIR for all housing projects developed in the district for the next 10 years. The bill requires payment of prevailing wages for projects with more than 10 units. Local agencies adopting these districts are eligible for "zoning incentive payments" administered by HCD. Implications for the City If implemented, could make funding available to the City though zoning incentive payments. 2017 State Housing Bills Updated on 10.10.17 Expiring Affordability Restrictions AB 1521 (Bloom and Chiu) Strengthens the law regarding the preservation of assisted housing developments by requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to accept a bona fide offer to purchase from a qualified purchaser, if specified requirements are met, and by giving HCD additional enforcement authority. For assisted housing developments, SB 1521: 1. requires the owner to provide notice of use restrictions that are expiring after January 1, 2021 to all prospective tenants and existing tenants within 3 years of the scheduled expiration; 2. expands potential remedies for failure to provide notice to include the re-imposition of restrictions, restitution of improper rent increases, and award of attorney's fees; 3. requires HCD to certify persons or entities that are eligible to purchase the development and to receive notice of the expiring restrictions based on their experience with affordable housing; 4. revises the procedure regarding the owner's ability to accept an offer to purchase; and 5. requires HCD to monitor compliance and produce an annual report starting March 31, 2019. Implications for the City Provides an opportunity for affordable housing managers to purchase properties like the Metro Hotel. South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 ZONING Division II – Base and Overlay District Regulations Part I: Base Districts Chapter 20.080 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 20.080.004 Supplemental Regulations      A.   Exterior Materials. Exterior building materials shall be selected from a list maintained by the Planning Division. The exterior use of plywood and aluminum as siding materials is prohibited.     B.   Design of Building Additions. Roo     3.    Entrances. The principal entry shall be located in a visible location facing the street and shall incorporate a projection (e.g. porch) or recess, or combination of projection and recess at least 40 square feet in area, with a minimum depth of       5.    Maximum Number of Driveways per Lot and Maximum Driveway Width. Driveway approaches (curb cuts) shall be permitted only to provide access to approved garages, carports and parking spaces.     a.    For lots less than 85 feet in width, a maximum of one driveway up to 20 feet wide is permitted for required parking.     b.    For lots 85 feet wide or more, the combined width of all driveways may not exceed 28 feet.     c.    Corner lots may be allowed more than one driveway if the lot has more than one approved garage, carport, or parking space.     6.    Maximum Paving in Street-facing Yards. No more than 50 percent of the entire front yard or the required street side yard may be covered with a paved impervious surface.     D.   Residential Multi-Unit Development. The following standards apply to Multiple-Unit development.     1.    Building Length. The maximum dimension of any single building shall not exceed 125 feet; exceptions may be granted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit based on the         b.    Variable Roof Form. Variable roof forms shall be incorporated into the building design, and no more than two side-by-side units may be covered by one unarticulated roof. Articulations may be accomplished by changing roof height, o     b.    Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden,     9.    Parking Area Access.     a.    One driveway or access per 120 feet of linear frontage is permitted.     b.    Driveway or accessway widths shall not exceed 25 feet unless a reduced width is approved by the City Engineer. Figure 20.080.004(D)(9) Parking Area Access                Figure 20.080(A) Residential Development Illustration, RL-1.3 Large Lot Single-Unit Residential     Figure 20.080(B) Residential Development Illustration, RL-5, 6, and 8 Detached Single-Unit Residential              Figure 20.080(C) Residential Development Illustration, RM-10, 15, and 17.5 Attached Single-Unit Residential              (Ord. 1445 § 2, 2011; Ord. 1432 § 2, 2010)            South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 ZONING Division II – Base and Overlay District Regulations Part I: Base Districts Chapter 20.090 COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS 20.090.005 Supplemental Regulations—CC, BPO, and CMX Districts      A.   Orientation of Primary Building Entrance. The primary entrance(s) of a building shall face or be oriented to within 45 degrees of a line drawn parallel to the street frontage. This entrance(s) must allow pedestrians to both enter and exit the building and must remain unlocked during business hours. Where a site is located on two public streets, a primary entrance shall be oriented toward the street with the highest classi shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least three feet deep. They shall not provide views into parking or vehicle circulation areas.       Figure 20.090.005(B) Building Transparency/Required Openings—Nonresidential Uses           1.    Reduction through Conditional Use Permit. The building transparency requirement for a project may be reduced through a Conditional Use Permit if the Planning Commission     Figure 20.090.005(C) Architectural Articulation                    D.   Location of Parking. On sites fronting local and collector streets, surface parking areas shall be located on the interior side or rear of the site and, where possible, placed behind buildings. On sites fronting an arterial street, parking may be located between a building and street.     E.    Limitations on Curb Cuts. Curb cuts shall be minimized and located in the location least likely to impede pedestrian circulation. Curb cuts shall be located at least 10 feet from an intersection curb return or pedestrian crosswalk.     F.    Landscaped Setback of Parking. Parking areas shall be set back from adjacent buildings and streets and landscaped in accordance with Section 20.300.007 (“Landscaping”) as follows:     1.    From Streets. Where parking is located between a building and street, a landscaped setback at least 10 feet wide must be provided between the parking area and the adjacent right-of-way.     2.    From On-Site Buildings. Parking areas must be separated from on-site buildings by a minimum distance of six feet, which may be occupied by landscaping or required walkways. Commercial buildings and developments with 50,000 square feet or more of gross         H.   Employee Eating Areas—Public/Semi-Public or Commercial Uses. All new public/semi-public or commercial development greater than 10,000 square feet in size and additions that expand existing     3.    The operation of the truck dock, loading area, or service area is compatible with the surrounding development.     Figure 20.090.005(I) Trucks Docks, Loading, and Service Areas           J.    San Bruno BART Station Area. Except for industrial, general service, warehousing, and related uses built prior to 2024 or before a program is in place for developing street extensions between South Spruce and South Maple Avenues, whichever comes     4.    Height. Maximum height is 80 feet.     5.    Building Design and Massing.     a.    Upper Story Stepback. A minimum of 50 percent of the street facing building frontage shall be stepped back within the area de         K.   Standards for Residential Uses Located within CC and CMX Districts.     1.    Exterior Materials. Exterior building materials shall be selected from a list maintained by the Planning Division. The exterior use of plywood and aluminum as siding materials is prohibited.     2.    Setbacks. In order to provide light and air for residential units, the following minimum setbacks apply to any building wall containing windows and facing an interior side or rear yard. When the site is adjacent to a Residential district, the project must comply with whichever standard results in the greater setback. The following setbacks shall be provided:     a.    For any wall containing windows, a setback of at least 10 feet shall be provided.     b.    For any wall containing bedroom windows, a setback of at least 15 feet shall be provided.     c.    For any wall containing living room or other primary room windows, a setback of at least 20 feet shall be provided.     d.    The required setbacks apply to that portion of the building wall containing and extending three feet on either side of any window.     Figure 20.090.005(K)(2) Required Side and Rear Setbacks for Residential Uses                    3.    Usable Open Space. A minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open space on balconies or patios.     4.    Residential Building Entry and Orientation Requirements.     a.    Entrances to residential units shall be physically separated from the entrance to the permitted commercial uses and clearly marked with a physical feature incorporated into the building or an appropriately scaled element applied to the facade.     b.    Garages or other enclosed or covered parking facilities for use by residents shall not be a major visible feature from the public street or from adjacent bikeways, sidewalks or other pedestrian amenities. Residential parking shall be clearly signed and reserved for the residents.     L.    Commercial Centers. Commercial centers containing 80,000 square feet or more of     2.    Pedestrian Walkways. A system of hard-surfaced pedestrian walkways at least     i.     Transit Facilities. Transit facilities, where included, shall be developed with e South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 ZONING Division II – Base and Overlay District Regulations Part I: Base Districts Chapter 20.090 COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS 20.090.006 Supplemental Regulations—ECRMX District      A.   Building Length and Separation. The maximum dimension of the portion of a building above 45 feet from     a.    The maximum length of the wall may be 40 feet if it includes approved artwork approved by the City through the design review process.     b.    The maximum length of the blank wall may be 30 feet for retail establishments with a gross     3.    To Neighbors. Direct and convenient access shall be provided from commercial and mixed-use projects to adjoining residential and commercial areas to the maximum extent feasible while still provided for safety and security.      4.    To Transit.  Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from transit stops to building entrances.  Sidewalk “bulb-outs” or bus “pull-outs” may be required at potential bus stops.     5.    Pedestrian Walkway Design.     a.    Walkways shall be a minimum of       L.    Standards for Residential Uses.     1.    Entrances. All units located along El Camino Real shall have the primary entrance, either individual or shared, facing El Camino Real and shall incorporate a projection (e.g. porch or stoop) or recess at least 40 square feet in area, with a minimum depth of         3.    Usable Open Space. A minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open space. Private areas typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced yards, and other similar areas outside the residence. Common areas typically consist of landscaped areas, patios, swimming pools, barbeque areas, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development; these can be located at the ground level, on parking podiums, or on rooftops, provided they are adequately landscaped.     a.    Minimum Dimensions.     i.     Private Open Space. Private open space located on the ground level (e.g., yards, decks, patios) shall have no dimension less than 10 feet. Private open space located above ground level (e.g., balconies) shall have no dimension less than six feet.     ii.    Common Open Space. Minimum dimension of 20 feet.     b.    Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 ZONING Division III – Speci Rear Yes Yes Yes Yes See (G) and Section 20.300.011 Projections into Required Yards Standards TV-C TC-R TV-RM TV-RH Additional Regulations Building Form and Location (Cont’d) Build-to Lines See Figure 20.250.004(E)  (H) Longest Façade Length (ft)300 300 250 250 (I) Pedestrian Orientation       Retail Frontage Continuity See Figure 20.250.004(J)  (J) Depth of Retail Space (ft)40 40 20 20 - Building Transparency Yes Yes --(K) Blank Walls Not allowed    (L) Building Entries Yes Yes Yes Yes (M) Vehicle Accommodation—Driveways and Parking     Required Parking See Chapter 20.330, On-site Parking and Loading (N) Driveway Restrictions Yes Yes --(O) Location of Parking See Figure 20.250.004(P)  (P) Percent allowable of parking podium visible from principal street 20 0 -20 (P) Required distance (ft) behind building façade 40 40 20 20 (P) Fee/Public Parking Structures Yes No No No (Q) Parking Structure Landscaping Yes Yes Yes Yes See (R) and Section 20.300.007 Landscaping Loading and Service Areas Yes Yes Yes Yes (S) Pedestrian Walkways Yes Yes Yes Yes (T) Other Standards       Bicycle Amenities Yes Yes --(U) Employee Eating Area Yes Yes Yes Yes (V) Trash Enclosures Yes Yes Yes Yes (W) Screening of Mechanical Equipment Yes Yes Yes Yes (X) Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 20.320, Nonconforming, Structures and Lots           A.   Minimum Lot Area. Minimum lot area required for corner residential lots shall be 6,000 square feet. Smaller lots may be approved under the provisions of Chapter 20.140 (“Planned Development District”).              B.   Maximum Density. Bonus     E.    Front Yard Setbacks. Setback requirements are shown in Figure 20.250.004(E).     1.    Required front yard setbacks along El Camino Real and McLellan Drive (if street design changes) include six feet adjacent to the sidewalk that shall be paved, similar in appearance to the public right-of-way. In these setbacks, projections of two and along these rights-of-way must be transparent, constructed of decorative metal or wood, and not more than six feet high. Trellises above the fence may extend to eight feet to assist in screening, privacy, and landscaping between residential yards.     H.   Build-To Lines. The minimum percentages of the front building elevation that must be located at the required setback line (the “streetwall”) are shown in Figure 20.250.004(E).     1.    In the TV-R sub-district, exceptions to this requirement may be granted for the provision of public improvements, including plazas, public art and water features, with approval of a Use Permit.     Figure 20.250.004(E) Setback Requirements     I.     Longest Façade Length. Large parcel structures shall have breaks in their façades, in order to create a sense of a walkable block scale. Breaks must be complete through the structure, and may provide pedestrian walkways or a combination of pedestrian and vehicular access. In some cases, if not feasible to break through the development block, then a deeply recessed break or other façade articulation may be acceptable upon design review.     J.    Retail Frontage Continuity. Retail street frontages are shown in Figure 20.250.004(J).                1.    In that portion of the Transit Village fronting on McLellan Drive, a minimum 70 percent of ground     M.   Building Entries. Entries may include primary or secondary and shared or individual residential entries, or entries to commercial spaces. Exit stairs, utility/service entries, or other doorways not regularly used by building occupants and visitors do not apply.     1.    Entries to any commercial spaces shall be from the sidewalk level, or where not feasible, a ramp entry must be designed as an integral element of the architecture.     2.    Stoop access to residential units, shared or individual, must be provided at no more than 50 feet on center. The maximum distance from     3.    Parking Reduction. The number of required parking may be reduced up to 25 percent with approval of a Use Permit. Additional reduction of parking requirements may be granted for shared parking, with approval of a Use Permit.     O.   Driveway Restrictions. In the TV-C and TV-R sub-districts, access to parking shall be from a side street or alley, wherever possible. Vehicular entries through a building façade shall be no wider than 20 feet.     P.    Location of Parking. Required and allowable parking types are shown in Figure 20.250.004(P).     1.    Surface parking shall be located at the rear or side of the building. No surface parking shall be visible from a principal street at any location in the Transit Village, except in the case of surface parking at the side of the building.     2.    In the Transit Village, no parking podium shall be visible from McLellan Drive. Views to limited surface parking at the side of the buildings are permitted.       3.    On other principal streets, up to 20 percent of a parking podium may be visible from the street.     4.    All parking in the Transit Village shall be located behind the main building with frontage on a principal street. Exceptions may be granted for locations where front loaded parking is allowed.     5.    Shallow lots (not deeper than 40 feet) fronting Mission Road may have front-loaded parking garages for individual residential units.     Figure 20.250.004(P) Parking                Q.   Parking Structures. Public parking structures are allowed only in the TV-C district. A minimum of 80 percent of the ground South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 ZONING Division III – Speci         C.   Depth of Required Commercial Frontage. The minimum average depth of the required commercial frontage shall be 75 feet, or 65 feet for parcels less than 100 feet in depth. The Chief Planner may approve a reduced average depth of 65 feet, or 55 feet for parcels less than 100 feet in depth to allow for e         E.    Blank Walls. No wall facing streets and the BART right-of-way may run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings ful     F.    Exterior Building Materials and Colors.     1.    A uni     H.   Required Parking. Required parking for any use in ERC/C sub-districts shall be established by the Chief Planner based on the particular characteristics of the proposed use and any other relevant data regarding parking demand. The Chief Planner may require the provision of parking studies or any other information at the applicant’s cost as needed to assess parking demand for the proposed project. Where a Conditional Use Permit is required for the use, the Planning Commission will establish the ultimate parking requirement during the Conditional Use Permit application process. Generally, parking shall not exceed two spaces per unit for residential uses and one space per 300 square feet of commercial use.       1.    Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. Parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold or rented separate from the residential unit. All spaces shall be reserved for residential tenants on the same site.     2.    In-Lieu Fees. In the ECR/C Parking District, the City may establish a parking mitigation fund and require payment of a fee in lieu of providing required parking on-site or o     1.    Buildings shall be placed as close to the street, or public plaza or open space provided along street, as possible in compliance with the required setback, with parking located either underground, behind a building, or on the interior side or rear of the site.     2.    Above ground parking may not be located within 40 feet of a street facing property line or BART right- of-way. Exceptions may be granted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit when the following     L.    Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access must be provided according to the following standards.     1.    Internal Connections. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any on-site open space areas or pedestrian amenities.     2.    To Street and Open Space Network. Regular connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk, public open space, and other pedestrian areas shall be provided.     3.    To Neighbors. Direct and convenient access shall be provided from commercial and mixed-use projects to adjoining residential and commercial areas to the maximum extent feasible while still providing for safety and security.     4.    To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from transit stops to building entrances. Sidewalk “bulb-outs” or bus “pullouts” may be required at potential bus stops.     5.    Interior Pedestrian Walkway Design.     a.    Walkways shall be a minimum of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 ZONING Division III – Speci       B.   Building Transparency and Required Openings. Exterior walls facing and within 20 feet of a front or street side property line shall include windows, doors, or other openings for at least 60 percent of the building wall area located between two and one-half and seven feet above the level of the sidewalk. No wall may run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings ful       C.   Architectural Articulation. Buildings shall include su         D.   Blank Walls. Walls facing streets shall not run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings ful       b.    The maximum length of a blank wall may be 30 feet for retail establishments with a gross     4.    In residential mixed-use developments, entrances to residential units shall be physically separated from the entrances to the commercial uses and clearly marked with a physical feature such as a recess or projection incorporated into the building or appropriately scaled element applied to the façade.     5.    All ground CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 11, 2018 TO: Mayor, Mayor Pro Tempore, and Councilmembers FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress This memo provides an update on the City’s progress toward meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Background California requires every jurisdiction to prepare a Housing Element every eight years to ensure jurisdictions plan for the projected housing demand statewide. The State advises each region of their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) – the number of housing units needed over the eight-year planning period. Then the regional planning agency – in South San Francisco’s case, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) – distributes the housing units across each jurisdiction in the region. The City of South San Francisco’s RHNA requirement for the current Housing Element planning cycle (2015 to 2023) is 1,864 units. The State requires jurisdiction have zoning in place that would permit the required units. In other words, the City is required to set the table for the development of the allocated number of housing units, but it is not obligated to build them itself. The City receives credit for housing units against its RHNA once Building Permits are issued. The City reports Building Permits issued for housing units to the State in its Annual Progress Report (APR), in addition to a status report on the City’s Housing Element. The City Council must accept the APR and direct staff to submit it to the State’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by April 1st each year (with a 60-day grace period). Staff will present the APR to Council for consideration this spring. RHNA Progress Summary As illustrated in the table below, the City is well on its way to issuing Building Permits all of the above-moderate income housing units required in this planning cycle (2015 to 2023). However, the City has only issued Building Permits a small fraction of the number of below market rate units allocated in the RHNA. RHNA 2015 2016 2017 Remaining % Remaining Very Low 565 0 0 80 485 86% Low 281 3 1 0 277 99% Moderate 313 10 13 5 285 91% Above-Moderate 705 28 92 275 310 44% Total 1,864 41 106 360 1,357 Implications for Not Meeting RHNA Requirement There are State and ABAG/MTC grant opportunities that tie eligibility for funding to whether a jurisdiction is complying with State Housing Element law. The City has an adopted Housing Element, which has been approved by the State, and it has submitted approved APRs to the State, as required. As such, the City is in compliance and qualifies for these grant opportunities. Currently, there are few implications for failing to catalyze the development of the units required by the RHNA and planned for in the Housing Element. However, last year, the State legislature adopted Senate Bill 35, requiring streamlining of housing development applications if certain requirements are met, including if a jurisdiction has not met its RHNA requirement. Although not adopted, yet, there have been discussions in the past by regional planning agencies and the State regarding whether or not to tie grant opportunities to RHNA performance, rather than completion of the Housing Element. At a subsequent City Council Study Session, staff will provide more information on SB 35 streamlining. Although currently not required to build the units required by the RHNA, simply have the zoning in place to permit them, the City has few resources to build the affordable housing allocated in the planning cycle. The City can require affordable units in market rate developments through inclusionary zoning, leverage affordable housing funds generated by in lieu fees, or donate or discount property to affordable projects. For example, in 2017, the City donated 316 Miller Avenue to the Rotary Plaza project to ensure the development of 80 very low-income senior housing units. At a subsequent City Council Study Session, staff will present more information on the City’s affordable housing program and present options for updating the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.