HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-05 e-packetMeeting will be held at:
CI'T'Y HALL ANNEX CONFERENCE ROOM
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOU'rH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 5,2015
8:30 A.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 and the Planning
Commission Housing Subcommittee of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Joint Meeting on
Wednesday, the 50' day of August 2015, at 8:30 A.M., at City Hall, Annex Conference Room, 315
Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
Purpose of the meeting:
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Public Comments.
4. Motion, to approve the Minutes of June 23, 2015.
5. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations.
6. East of 141 Residential Housing Options.
7. Short-Term Vacation Rentals (Airbnb, Homeaway, etc.)
Deputy City Clerk, qity of South San Francisco
c�
11po C) Staff Report
DATE: August 5, 2015
TO: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Housing Sub - Committee
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Joint City Council and Planning Commission Housing Sub - Committee
provide direction on possible changes to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan regulations.
BACKGROUND
Overview
The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ( DSASP) was adopted in February of 2015 after a robust
community input process spanning two years. The DSASP's primary goal is to focus new residential
and commercial density close to the SSF Caltrain Station, and offer transportation alternatives to
prospective residents or workers. The DSASP represents a change from previous development
standards, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure I
DC
GAC
DTC
DRC
Zoning District
Previous
Grand Ave
Downtown
Downtown
zoning
Core
Transit Core
Res Core
Density
No maximum
60 units /ac
100 units /ac
80 units /ac
Height
60' -0"
651-0"
851-0"
651-0"
FAR
3.0
3.0
6.0
3.0
200 bonus
Max Density with
100/125 if
within /a mi
80 units /ac
120 units /ac
Community Benefits
of Caltrain
senior
Max FAR with
n/a
4.0
8.0
3.25 if senior
Community Benefits
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
Under the previous zoning adopted in 2010, the Downtown Core (DC) zoning district allowed
substantial density and height allowances for projects in the downtown within 1/4 mile of the SSF
Caltrain Station. The new DSASP essentially takes the previous zoning and refines it — instead of a
blanket zoning district for Grand, Linden, and Miller Avenues, and Airport Boulevard, the DSASP
creates sub - districts, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 DSASP Sub - districts Map
f
I
I I�
u
Asa rr�ca� IVIPU
u
The greatest density and heights are only allowed within the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) sub - district
near the Caltrain Station (85' -0 "). The Downtown Residential Core (DRC) is the second densest sub-
district, followed by the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) sub - district. Both allow 65' -0" buildings. This
variation between sub - districts provides a gradient of density and height. New development potential is
focused at the future Caltrain Station, and scales down as the plan area travels westward (See
Attachment 1). In this sense, the urban design was thoughtful — the buildings will act as both an entry to
the Downtown area and an architectural statement with US -101 views.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
Potential City Council Concerns
Based on recently reviewed projects at the Planning Commission, Housing Subcommittee, and City
Council, Councilmembers have expressed the following concerns with the zoning standards of the
DSASP:
• Height limit of 85' -0" may be too out of scale with existing buildings and create shadowing;
• Density of new projects could overwhelm existing downtown neighborhoods;
• Architectural Design may not be consistent with traditional architecture; and
• Approval process does not include City Council for all new project review.
As follow -up to these valid concerns, staff has provided additional information and options for the
Subcommittee's feedback.
r'ITCr'TTcQMNT
Hei,,htAnalysis and Options
The tallest allowable heights are closest to the future Caltrain Station within the Downtown Transit Core
(DTC). Buildings can be as high as 85' -0" (typically 7- stories) with minimal setbacks. Height is scaled
back within the DSASP area along Grand Avenue and surrounding corridors within the existing
residential areas to 65' -0 ", consistent with the DSASP guiding principle to respect existing
neighborhoods. This type of gradient height is consistent with TOD best practices, too. It is also similar
to the neighboring City of San Bruno's recently adopted Transit Corridors Plan. The Transit Corridors
Plan envisions similar goals as the DSASP and promotes buildings up to 90' -0" or 7- stories closest to
the San Bruno Caltrain Station.
If the Subcommittee wants further review discretion, one option is to only allow buildings up to 85' in
the DTC sub - district, subject to City Council approval. By retaining the height options, the DSASP
remains flexible for special projects. Development between a 65' -0" and 85' -0" height limit would need
to satisfy DSASP design provisions and City Council preferences. For any project with a height of 65'-
0" or shorter, the Planning Commission could remain the final review authority. To manage shadowing
concerns, the DSASP could also be updated to require instead of recommend building stepbacks above a
certain height (50', for instance). Stepbacks are one way to manage the bulky appearance of a tall
building and improve daylight views.
Another option would be to reduce the maximum number of stories or overall height for the DTC sub-
district to 70' -0 ". This would still allow the most common wood construction up to four stories above a
two -story parking garage (as long as the building has sprinklers and is 1 hour fire rated) but would
address the City Council's height concerns. Unfortunately, it could also prove to be a blunt tool and
limit flexibility for future downtown projects or market conditions.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
Density Analysis and Options
How can density be managed to minimize the perceived impacts of new development? Figure 1
illustrates that the previous downtown zoning did not have a maximum density. New development was
only regulated by the size of the lot and the height limit of 60' -0" since the zoning update in 2010. With
adoption of the DSASP maximum densities, there are now clear limits. If the Housing Subcommittee
believes that new, dense projects could benefit from further discretionary review, review authority could
be adjusted in the Municipal Code to require City Council approval for a downtown project requesting a
density or floor area ratio bonus under the community benefits provision (discussed in more detail
below). The DSASP would still retain maximum development potential for a new project, as analyzed
by the environmental review document, but would require additional review by the City Council.
The perceived community impact from new residential units on existing infrastructure (street parking)
and residents (displacement) are other important issues. These were also major concerns during
community meetings and public hearings. The DSASP plan shouldn't exacerbate on- street parking
since a thorough study and recommendation for parking ratios was completed as part of the plan. To
remain ahead of the issue of parking spillover, however, the City has just begun a downtown parking
study to refine parking management. This could include a parking permit system, additional metering,
or establishing a parking in -lieu fee to fund another parking garage. When these options are evaluated,
it is likely that the Planning Commission and City Council will have new tools to manage on- street
parking concerns.
Both the DSASP and the Housing Element rely on up- zoning and increased density to meet regional
housing allocations. These actions, in concert with a heated housing market, could contribute to
gentrification and displacement in the absence of rent control provisions or other protections. The
DSASP includes commitments to study and mitigate displacement, however. The 21 Elements group
(which includes 20 San Mateo County cities and the County of San Mateo) has already made this the
next study topic priority for FY 15/16 and City staff will be participating. The DSASP also includes
community benefit provisions borne out of the community input process that are required when a
developer wishes to construct at the maximum density or floor area ratio. Community benefit options
range from local hire provisions and public art to new community space or affordable housing units.
Together, the 21 Elements effort and the DSASP's community benefit requirements offer a solution to
mitigate the impacts of new development on existing residents.
Architectural Vision Options
Some concern has been expressed regarding the compatibility of contemporary architectural style for
new buildings proposed in the downtown area. Modern or contemporary style of architecture is
currently allowed within the DSASP, but residents who have attended public meetings have expressed
that they would prefer traditional architectural styles over contemporary design. The Subcommittee
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
could recommend not encouraging modern or contemporary architecture, or, if this style is proposed, it
could require review by the City Council to assure aesthetic compatibility with adjoining buildings (in
addition to review by the Housing Subcommittee).
The proposal on the former Ford Property sites by the Sares Regis Group is an interesting example of
modern architecture that incorporates the industrial history and sustainable future of South San
Francisco. The buildings (shown in Attachment 3) take advantage of scale and location and benefit
from the lack of notable surrounding architecture. Based on preliminary feedback from the Housing
Subcommittee, this design is acceptable. But it may be worthwhile to create a modern materials palette
for distribution to developers that identifies the City's preferences. Additionally, the City could change
the DSASP to require traditional architecture for infill development along the Grand or Linden corridors
where there is a more established historic style.
Approval Process Options
Currently, the zoning for the DSASP establishes which uses are permitted by right, which require a
minor use permit and which require a conditional use permit. As an example, multi -unit residential and
mixed -use projects that meet the basic development standards are permitted by right within the DSASP
area, while residential -care, senior -care facilities and hotels may be conditionally permitted. All
projects, even those that are permitted by right within the DSASP area, are subject to the City's Design
Review process, which requires Planning Commission review for all new commercial, downtown,
employment, mixed -use, office and multi - family developments.
Within this current review structure, the City Council is only the final approval body for DSASP
projects that require 1) compliance with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 2) approval of a
Development Agreement, 3) approval of a Subdivision Map, or 4) otherwise require a discretionary
legislative action (i.e. amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan, or a Specific Plan).
If the City Council was interested in further project review for the tallest or densest development
projects, or those requiring community benefits, the following figure indicates alternatives:
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
Figure 3
Type of housing /mixed use project
in DSASP
Current Review
Authority
Proposed
Option 1
Proposed
Option 2
• Project includes sale of City land
City Council
• State Density Bonus requested
HS, PC,
• Development Agreement
(with recommendation
then CC
n/a
• Affordable Housing Agreement
from Planning
as final
for Inclusionary Housing
Commission)
authority
Ordinance for -sale units
• Privately owned multi - family dev
Planning Commission
HS then
• Project includes subdivision
HS, then
PC then
• Increased Density r FAR
y
(with recommendation
PC as
final
CC as
pursuant to DSASP Incentive
from Design Review
authority
final
Program (community benefits)
Board)
authority
(HS- Housing Subcommittee, PC- Planning Commission, CC -City Council)
Commentary
If the City Council has concerns about the adopted Downtown Station Area Specific Plan related to
height, density, and architectural style, minor revisions can be made with relative ease. Staff suggests
that a City Council review for the tallest or densest projects could be effective. If the City Council is not
comfortable with that approach, staff could reduce the maximum height and density within the
Downtown Transit Core sub - district. Staff could also research and identify specific architectural style
preferences for the DSASP zoning sub - districts to ensure that contemporary architecture is well -done.
The challenge with any height or density change is the potential impact to the City's recently adopted
Housing Element, which relies on the DSASP area to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) target of 1,864 new units over the next seven years. A potential adjustment to the Housing
Element and further state review could be necessary if dramatic changes to the DSASP are
contemplated. Additionally, any revisions could reduce density- potential closest to public
transportation, which is an adopted priority at the regional and state level and could endanger the City's
competitiveness for grant funds.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests input from the Joint Housing Subcommittee on potential changes to the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan regulations.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific an Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
Attachments:
Attachment I — DSASP Zoning Sub-districts Map
Attachment 2 — DSASP Allowable Building Heights
Attachment 3 — Example of Modem Architecture Project within DSASP area
2499475.1
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
Attachment 1 — DSASP Zoning Sub - districts Map
Figure 3. ass: Land Use Plan
I
1
� II�
I %iGirr
eau lu I Ilsuiusl�l��u�uuu�l�ul � � %�' ��
i
1 r �
fv
6
�? g (�r�rl rr,
wM.
ti
� IT�
�j gkd
+d 171 i�'f� �r �i�rc Jx,r� sal it
r
/�
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
Attachment 2 - DSASP Allowable Building Heights
Figure 5.02: Allowable audding Heights
r � � !'�' �1 � � i r Val i !ii rF r � i� ,r � 4✓ ,�k/
r j��t �/ �t �j7 � 'fir ;, y� r � // (ff'/ � /�� ✓,,, /,,,A / %,`�
tv d�
//M "+ sr
r ,
i r �f V�IY '
�TJ r 1 / r
/
z
I >
y
i
i
j Olt
MUMM,r
r.
� V
,J . ,,,;
tr
a
p � B
f '� t
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Regulations
DATE: August 5, 2015
Attachment 3 — Example of Proposed Modern Architecture Project within DSASP area
c�
11F0 C) Staff Report
DATE: August 5, 2015
TO: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Housing Sub - Committee
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: EAST OF 101 RESIDENTIAL HOUSING CONCEPT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Joint City Council and Planning Commission Housing Sub - Committee
provide direction on the proposed concept of housing development in the East of 101 area.
BACKGROUND
The East of 101 Area has historically been dedicated to Industrial uses, limited open space and
warehousing. Over the last 30 years the area has been transforming into the premier locale for R &D
offices and office parks on the Peninsula.
The current General Plan contains the following Guiding Policies related to the East of 101 Area:
3.5 -G -1: Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non - residential uses.
3.5 -I - -3: Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 Area.
This is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan, which was adopted in 1994. This plan's intent was to
"maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional industrial area
east of U.S. 101." The East of 101 Area Planoutlined provisions for design, infrastructure upgrades and
other pertinent land use related components. More recently, internal and external interest has been
growing to consider allowing residential uses east of 101 in carefully selected areas.
Airport Related Considerations
Pursuant to a 1998 Agreement between the City and the FAA (1998 Agreement), the City is required to
restrict land uses that are "incompatible" with airport operations. The FAA provides that residential uses
are a compatible land use outside of a 65 dB CNEL contour. Although the majority of the East of 101
Area fell within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour in the original 1983 noise contour maps, the majority of
the area is and has been outside of the 65 dB CNEL contour since at least 1995. Thus, residential
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: East of 101 Housing
DATE: August 5, 2015
development in the area outside of the 65 dB CNEL contour would be considered a compatible land use.
Further, residential uses within the 65 -70 dB CNEL noise contour would be compatible if the dwellings
contained sufficient noise insulation.
In the 1998 Agreement, the City agreed to restrict land uses incompatible with airport operations.
Specifically, the 1998 Agreement states:
Compatible Land Use. [City] will take appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws,
to the extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the
airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing
and takeoff of aircraft. In addition, it will not cause or permit any change in land use, within its
jurisdiction that will reduce the compatibility, with respect to the airport, of the noise
compatibility measures upon which Federal funds have been expended. (Paragraph C.15.)
This suggests that SSF's zoning laws must prohibit residential development within the vicinity of San
Francisco International Airport (SFO) to the extent that such development would constitute an
incompatible use with airport operations, including takeoff and landing.
Although the 1998 Agreement does not define what constitutes a compatible use, the FAA defines
compatibility according to land use and lists permissible thresholds for various land uses including
residential dwellings. (14 C.F.R. §A150.101 (2015).) Residential uses are compatible with airports when
they occur outside of a 65 dB CNEL contour. (Ibid.) Therefore, City is not precluded by the 1998
Agreement from permitting residential development in areas outside of the 65 dB CNEL contour.
Further, residential uses may be compatible within 65 -70 and 70 -75 dB CNEL contours when they
contain noise insulation that provides specified levels of NLR. (Ibid.) For residential uses within 65 -70
or 70 -75 dB thresholds, building codes must require 25 and 30 dB outdoor to indoor NLRB, or 5 -15 dB
over NLRB attributable to standard construction. (Ibid.) Thus, if the City requires appropriate insulation,
residential development may be permitted within the 65 -70 dB CNEL contour and potentially the 70 -75
dB CNEL contour.
Note that the 1998 Agreement remains in effect during the useful life of the Airport Noise Insulation
Program improvements, but no longer than 20 years. Thus, the 1998 Agreement will remain in effect
until 2018, unless the useful life of the improvements made pursuant to the project terminates sooner.
DISCUSSION
Roadmap to Residential
Staff recommends high density residential uses, with some supportive retail uses in very specific parts of
the East of 101 Area. To maximize the number of dwelling units in the designated areas east of 101, the
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: East of 101 Housing
DATE: August 5, 2015
optimum density would be anywhere between 80 — 150 dwelling units per acre. A density bonus could
be possible with public benefits, similar to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan provisions.
In order for the City to allow residential uses east of 101, two important documents would need to be
first amended by the City; the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning map. These
amendments would also require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. There are two
approaches to doing the amendments and concurrent CEQA analysis:
1. Comprehensive approach — this would be a lengthy, but more comprehensive approach in
evaluating where residential uses could be allowed. In discussion with two CEQA consulting
firms this process will require extensive community outreach, technical studies and evaluating
residential uses for a greater number of parcels in this area. The time range for this approach
would be 18 -24 months.
2. Site - specific approach — This approach involves designating a couple of sub -areas within the
East of 101 Plan Area with a Precise Plan or Specific Plan. This would be a more expeditious
approach as far as CEQA is concerned. The sub -areas could include several parcels which are
ideally suited for residential development in that they are proximate to public transportation and
amenities. This approach could take 10 -14 months.
Regardless of which option the City pursues, one way of being efficient would be to commence a few
technical studies as soon as possible. Once complete, these studies will help frame the CEQA analysis
and discussion. Moreover, the selected CEQA consultant would have access to recent CEQA analysis
completed for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The following studies are likely:
• Constraints Analysis
• Sewer and Water Capacity Analysis
• Geotechnical Report
• Traffic, Noise and Air Quality Analysis
• Impact Fee Analysis
It is important to note that the City would be obligated to conform to the SFO Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan, which prohibits residential uses within certain noise and safety zones (greater than
700). Potential residential nodes identified in Attachment 1 are consistent with these regulations
(included as Attachment 3).
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: East of 10 1 Housina
DATE: August 5, 2015
Commentary
The ideal location for residential uses would be V4 - %Z it from public transportation and amenities.
These enclaves should incorporate:
• Amenities/support services (comer store, ca f6, dry cleaner, etc.)
• Connectivity — not necessarily auto-centric
• Proximate to the ferry
• Near downtown and Caltrain
• Pedestrian and bike bridges
• Way-finding signage
The City could start setting up meetings with stakeholders and/or the community at-large to start
framing the discussion for this endeavor, if so desired. The City could also consider meeting with other
I
Peninsula cities that have recentIp allowed or are considodiiN allowia 0�0_ 103WIM�MD
as Mountain View, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale and Redwood City.
CONCLUSION
Attachments:
Attachment I —
Map of Potential East of 10 1 Residential Sub-Areas
Attachment 2
Examples of mid-rise, urban development
Attachment 3—
SFO Airport Noise and Safety Contour Maps
2499475.1
L
O
IIIIIII,j�� �� 1
11mC
L
�
a
°jIIII�
O
I I�
I
� W
f
n
L
O
IIIIIII,j�� �� 1
11mC
�I
°jIIII�
O
I I�
� W
n
vvewu.,amixna
EIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
■ I
a
" /, r �,WI " ^�o � C)
II
�ry
-
III ...ry
all
w
Cill
C
0
I
W
L
a
CD
�El
0
z
w
H
W
H
a�
L'?'O
�a o l
��'
�I 0 ,
0 11
II
c
~+
I ,,, ) LO
% D
a
C
c� < u
nrvw ....
q
LL
p P
m
mom'
z�
3
ATTACHMENT 2
Examples for East of 101— Mission Bay
4 2
E
zoo
LA
F1
.2 gi
AEI A
o 21.
2
t - 6
z 0
E
0
1! 14
L
ol
z 0
ol
a
sm
E
A m ey 31 A 1 (19 �.G.
I 8 -
E E
a
MMIA
I ID
.................. . .....
XX
SIV
y I
2 p
'r al 4ol.,
'its
10
A�
oe
`0 If
tV
V%,
ti
All,
4 oii
or
-1021
Ml�
�110 4 AA
, 14� jg
E9
4 001
11
L
El
"Mop
V
El
El
9
c�
Staff Report
11F0 C)
DATE: August 5, 2015
TO: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Housing Sub - Committee
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: SHORT -TERM VACATION RENTALS (i.e. AIRBNB, HOMEAWAY).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Joint City Council and Planning Commission Housing Sub - Committee
provide direction on the proposed recommendations for regulating short -term vacation rentals.
BACKGROUND
Overview
In response to City Council and citizen interest, staff has prepared recommendations for addressing
short-term vacation rentals, commonly listed on Airbnb, Homeaway, and other residential hosting
platform websites that have been gaining popularity as part of the sharing economy.
In preparation for the upcoming Housing Sub - Committee meeting, staff has prepared a brief summary
related to short-term vacation rentals, including:
• Background on the emerging short-term vacation rental market;
• Discussion of existing conditions in South San Francisco;
• A recommendation to consider requiring a Minor Use Permit for short-term vacation rental uses;
and,
• A comparison of regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions.
Short -Term Vacation Rentals
South San Francisco currently does not regulate short-term vacation rentals, in which hosts can make a
spare room or an entire home available to potential renters through residential hosting platform websites
such as Airbnb, Homeaway, Flipkey, or others, generally for 30 days or less. This type of vacation rental
has become much more popular over the past few years throughout the Bay Area, and around the
country, supplementing traditional vacation rental options such as hotels and bed - and - breakfasts. This
increase in popularity has occurred with the rise of the "sharing economy" in which people rent cars,
homes, beds, or other goods directly from other individuals, generally through internet hosting sites.
Since short-term vacation rentals, and the sharing economy in general, are relatively recent phenomena,
many municipalities do not currently regulate these uses, but are seeing the need to update ordinances
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short-Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015
and requirements to address them, and ensure that they are not negatively affecting communities in
which they are located.
Municipalities are addressing a variety of issues related to short-term vacation rentals, including quality
of life concerns for residential neighborhoods, preserving housing units, ensuring that business are
properly conducted, and collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT).
Currently, there is no state law in place addressing short-term vacation rentals; however, the state
legislature is considering SB 593. This bill which would establish reporting requirements for residential
hosting platform websites; prohibit hosting platforms from offering properties that are prohibited by
local law; and, require the hosting platform to collect and remit required taxes if requested by a local
jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Short -term Vacation Rental ListiyZs
Staff is considering options for regulating short-term vacation rentals, in order to monitor these uses and
mitigate potentially negative impacts to residential neighborhoods such as parking, noise, and safety /
security. While South San Francisco does not currently have the volume and interest in short-term
vacation rentals that other cities have experienced (such as the City of San Francisco), a cursory review
indicates that there are several listings on Airbnb.com, and it is anticipated that there may be additional
listings over the next few months, as the region prepares for Superbowl 50, which will be held on
Sunday, February 7, 2016 at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara.
Figure 1 (attached) illustrates the results of a search on Airbnb.com for short-term vacation rentals
available in South San Francisco for Superbowl weekend, indicating multiple listings available for
shared rooms, private rooms, or entire residences. Due to privacy concerns, exact addresses of rental
properties are not listed on the Airbnb website; however, as the map indicates, it appears that there are
approximately 10 -12 properties currently listed for Superbowl weekend.
Figure 2 (also attached) illustrates the results of an Airbnb.com search for Labor Day weekend of this
year (September 5 -7, 2015), yielding approximately 3 -4 properties available for rent in South San
Francisco.
Staff had a conversation with a concerned resident who is aware of an Airbnb.com short-term vacation
rental occurring on a regular basis in a multi - family residential building in South San Francisco. The
concerns that this resident discussed include safety and security, parking availability and adherence to
the building's parking rules, accessibility of the property owners, and the rate of guest turnover.
Existia Zonia Ordinance Regulations
The Zoning Ordinance does not currently include a definition for short-term vacation rentals.
The most comparable use addressed in the Zoning Ordinance is "Bed and Breakfast Lodging" (section
20.350.010), which is currently permitted with a MUP in all residential districts, in compliance with the
following performance standards:
A. Type of Residence. Must be located, developed and operated in a single -unit dwelling.
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short-Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015
B. Number of Rooms. No more than two rooms for rent may be allowed without a Minor Use
Permit.
C. Appearance. In all residential districts, the exterior appearance of a structure housing a bed and
breakfast establishment shall not be altered from its original single -unit character.
D. Parking. Parking spaces shall be provided according to the standards of Chapter 20.330 ( "On-
Site Parking and Loading "), at a ratio of one space per room for rent in addition to parking
required for the residential use. Such spaces shall not encumber access to a required parking
space for the residential use.
E. Limitation on Services Provided. Meals and rental of bedrooms shall be limited to registered
guests. Separate or additional kitchens for guests are prohibited.
Potential ZoniLg Ordinance &gulations and Considerations
Table 1 (below) is intended to address potential impacts from short-term vacation rentals in residential
neighborhoods, and ensure that appropriate tax and business license requirements are in place.
It includes a summary of the major issues regarding short-term rentals, and staff recommendations for
addressing these issues. These recommendations are intended to address potential impacts from short-
term vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods, and ensure that appropriate tax and business license
requirements are in place. Staff recommends a Minor Use Permit process for review and approval of
short-term vacation rental uses (discussed below).
Table 1: Short -Term Vacation Rental Recommendations
Issue
Staff Recommendation
Comment
Permitted Location
Single - family dwelling units
Multi- family residential buildings
include many shared spaces (lobbies,
corridors, parking areas); there could
be greater impacts to neighbors in
multi - family dwelling units from
short-term vacation rentals than in
single- family neighborhoods.
Number of Uses
No more than 1 short-term
vacation rental per lot
Duration of Permit
Valid for 2 years
Renewal of permit will be required
after 2 years. Allows for regular staff
review of short-term rental use.
Residency
Restricted to permanent
Helps to ensure that short-term
Requirements
residents (owner or lessee) of
rentals are operated by permanent
the dwelling unit
residents as an incidental use, and not
as a commercial venture by absentee
property owners or businesses.
Transient
Hosted Rentals: Maximum
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short-Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015
Issue
Staff Recommendation
Comment
Occupancy Limits
of 2 persons
Non - Hosted Rentals:
Maximum of 2
persons /bedroom plus 2
additional persons
Annual Cap
Hosted Rentals: No annual
Setting an annual cap for non - hosted
cap
rentals helps to ensure that the
Non - Hosted Rentals:
dwelling unit is the host's primary
Maximum of 90 days /
residence, and not being operated as a
calendar year
full -time vacation rental property.
This also can help ensure that
residential units are not being
removed from the market for the
purpose of providing short-term
vacation rental uses.
However, not requiring a cap for
hosted rentals allows flexibility for an
individual who rents out a room in
his /her home as a short-term vacation
rental while he /she is on site. It is
assumed that a hosted rental will
allow for additional oversight and
management of the use.
Parking
Minimum of one on -site
Requiring an on -site parking space
parking space required for
will help to minimize parking
use by the short-term
impacts in neighborhoods.
vacation rental occupants
Commercial
Commercial functions, uses,
Minimize impacts to residential
Activities
and events not permitted
neighborhoods, and preserve
neighborhood character.
Management
Local contact (permit holder
or designee) who can
respond to tenant or neighbor
complaints within 1 hour
House Rules /
Host must post house rules
House rules and policies must include
Policies
and policies in a visible
information about noise, parking and
location within the dwelling
conduct requirements, as well as
unit
emergency contact information.
Noise Standards
Must comply with adopted
Host must ensure that occupants do
noise standards for the
not create noise or disturbances
district
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short-Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015
Issue
Staff Recommendation
Comment
Conduct
Host must ensure that
transient occupants do not
engage in disorderly conduct,
or violate code provisions or
state law
Consistency with
Use must be permitted by
Other Agreements
HOA requirements, CC +Rs,
existing lease agreements
Business License
Required
Transient
Required
TOT rate is 10% of the gross rent
Occupancy Tax
paid by guests
Safety
Must meet all applicable
building, health, fire, and
related safety codes at all
times
Inspections
Require building inspection
before permit is issued
Enforcement
Issue a fine / Revoke permit
Fine applied for first violation of
if conditions are violated
conditions, permit revoked for any
additional violations
Register
Require a guest register per
Helps to address neighborhood safety
Requirement
existing code requirements
/ security concerns. Must be made
available to any time to any member
of the Police Department for review
and inspection.
Advertising
Must include permit number
on advertisements for short-
term vacation rental
Neighborhood
Required as part of Minor
Notice
Use Permit process
Minor Use Permit Process
Based on review of the current regulatory conditions in South San Francisco, and a preliminary review
of approaches being used or considered by other municipalities (summarized in the following section of
this memo) staff recommends requiring a Minor Use Permit (and associated fees) for short-term
vacation rentals. Requiring a Minor User Permit will ensure that short-term vacation rentals are
monitored and adhere to performance standards and requirements, and also will ensure that the City is
able to issue the appropriate business license, and collect Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for short-
term vacation rentals. Approval of a Minor Use Permit for a short-term vacation rental will include
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short-Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015
conditions of approval, ensuring that requirements and standards for the use are clearly stated.
Additionally, a Minor Use Permit process includes
A Minor Use Permit is comparable to the permitting process in place in other jurisdictions, and will
allow staff-level review of applications, without creating a lengthy process for applicants. Additionally,
a Minor Use Permit is required for a bed and breakfast, which is a similar use to a short-term vacation
rental.
Additionally, several municipalities reviewed including the cities of Berkeley, Palo Alto, and Brisbane
currently do not permit short-term vacation rentals but are currently considering options to permit and
regulate them.
Staff recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include a definition of short-term vacation
rentals as a commercial lodging use, and also include definitions for the sub-categories of "hosted
rentals" (a homeshare when the host is present), as well as "non-hosted rentals" (a rental that occurs
when the host is off site).
Staff requests input from the Joint Housing Subcommittee on the proposed recommendations for
regulating short-term vacation rentals. Following Subcommittee review and input, staff will revise the
recommended regulations, and will present them to the Planning Commission.
MAR ONI'll i IN It
Approved:
ike 4Ful
� �u 11
City Manager
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short-Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015
1. Figure 1: Short-Term Vacation Rental Listings, Superbowl Weekend 2016
2. Figure 2: Short-Term Vacation Rental Listings, Labor DayWeekend 2015
3. Table 2: Short-Term Vacation Rentals, Jurisdiction Review
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short -Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015
Attachment 1: Figure 1: Short -Term Vacation Rental Listings, Superbowl Weekend 2016
0
D I Ia�Iy
NrJf l', r ,gr a.�n
��J�11�11'�@S e
�rlis�
7Vr� ➢1� ➢N;�11�n1�
u „j�r'rsa
s.
1,gtr, PIP f.'i
Olga
�,
,J
'
wumAi
� �� 1
�1n1>
Souuwh; � rw
-
11111121:11:111
roStilm�h�1�
. ,
o
ED,
r1�85A AN
1� W rz- ,ar�,,.�✓�ti
f
z+ry
Avw VNNS„.V,u
"d 1, I qN IJ '.n Ya I//Ir W4m
5�v
K1
u
a
rc
NmYi Ill n(daf II I✓ Y
lr %u,BYIAI,,AVGIN „4qumvrU
y ,7u4,'LU�YJ
„(�i
U
V
r ;ov
4,i2.r m f 2,4
V4�,NY 4A Z^
a e
J
P,
�, v
r
La"ROpo'-•Idlrg �m W C';u r,!W Im gtr
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short -Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015
Attachment 2: Figure 2: Short -Term Vacation Rental Listings, Labor Day Weekend 2015
31l .,j 7 l.Up I..og In 11 It;llp
p ,edrch M, I nl the reap,
%l b�,e,ldrr
r.�
A
Dail icky
��i NmJ
iN9U�UUtV�,i�,C
i "sd k'rri7N�l�br7u
r X 4O, M G¢s,re
i
II(q�Nippnuip�t�q��
�� UPI to u��j ait WVNm�`C�p�iW��Vw .� aa� s- „�,r.•
u
9pV�mml
h
WW1,
I+ II
�,IlglrugUliuulu�l;,, �Jr�rin�torr�P`,vrr^�„Vrq"0 �� � Oy�iuipppgpN4) �� ° �''
^' 1 ., 11 p�e�(4(p4fltVl ��'�;,, ,v £i1i iarriiir4 r,7
�� 9N"('1� rrNP,V,gylrl VraPbl'rU V�U9d�i�,✓P F`
Mw( PAv tf L!'
Onra"evfl('49
�x
p, and Currency
w
O
V
i.
CC
ii
ii
O
V
�N
W 'L"
O H
C i.
O
N N
N
� CC
WW �
•� � �
�
�
�
U U
U U
I•�I
yU•i
r,
N
N
N
� U
a" �
N
O
00
bA CC
N
cz
C
cd N
b�A O •�
c N �.
ti) N �. U
�
a
N
U
O
O
�b�A
a"'
a"'
.U. bA
U
'7
,�
,� ,� O
O
U
N
C
N
Cl
Ln
U
Cz
�1
U
r--�
R.
O
bA C
0
u
U
cz
O
p„
O O
CZ
� a
0
�
O
U U
cz �i
o
O OLn
U
yN>>
iUi
791 U
p N�
O
�
U �
O
Ln
Ln
0
w
4
N
O
N
H �
H
C�
�Q
U
cz p
ct
a
U
cz 7 N C
U
7
bA
O
cz
r U
0
W N N
cz Li
p
cz
cz
cz
N O
rte''
U
O O
U
c
ct
a
U
5
N
+g
WO
O��I,
N
sO—�
d �U
UQQ
U
W
40.
40.
U
N
ON
0
cz
a
O•�
P �.
p.Ct
cz
20
0wwOM
cz
do
V
p
W
0
P-I
w
4
W
O
N
N �
H �
H
U
�Q
U
O
O
U N l�
4.1
�.
cvC c�C
�.
CSC
p
'��' iy • CC
�'� V
• �."
�.
O CC ,'� O O cC
O O O O
`
O s-� O
N
¢,
ct
7A �
..-4
it
a C"
U
U
U a
U
U �
bA
U
H
U
cz
+„"
N
N
4
N
U
U
O
a�
a
C9
a
U
O
i."
O
U
�
U
�
y
�
A
�
W
0
w
4
W
O
O
N
N �
H
U
�Q
H
�
Z
.�
cz
'
CQ U W
0
V)
U
U U
Ci."
O
V
�
7A
a C"
U
U
U a
U
U
05
bA
•�. O
U
H
Ln
y
p O
U ti
a U
i
, ¢r
O
CA
N
ct
N
t
N O
•�" O
O N
N
U
U "O
U "O
N
�. ti
�' N
��., •�+"
'C N �". �' �O
�, ' �l,
Ln
Ln
•,���•.
�N
• •��"
O
U
S"'
MM�
O
,2 O ,�•�
O N N O ,�•�
• U ,�•� O
O
U.
O
0
0
w
4
N
O
O
N
H �
H
U
�Q
U
a
U U
�i."
O
V
i."
7A
i."
a C"
U
U
U a
U
U �
bA
U
S.
W
U
U O
H U �
� � U •i
0
U
.O
ti
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Short -Term Vacation Rentals
DATE: August 5, 2015