HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-19 e-packet@5:00Monday, November 19, 2018
5:00 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
Housing Standing Committee of the City Council and
Planning Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
November 19, 2018Housing Standing Committee of the
City Council and Planning
Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council and the Planning Commission Housing Standing Committee of the City of South San
Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Monday, November 19, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall, City
Manager's Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call To Order.
Roll Call.
Public Comments.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Motion to approve the Minutes from the meeting of September 17, 2018.1.
Report regarding interview of a developer for the retired Firehouse located at 201
Baden Avenue, a City of South San Francisco owned site, and recommendation to the
South San Francisco City Council. (Julie Barnard, Economic Development
Coordinator, Economic and Community Development Department)
2.
Report regarding Housing Standing Committee study session on potential zoning
changes to reduce the minimum lot size in the Downtown residential districts. (Adena
Friedman, Senior Planner)
3.
CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 201 Baden Avenue
Agency Negotiators: Alex Greenwood, and Julie Barnard
Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco and Firehouse Live/Work
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
4.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/4/2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-1032 Agenda Date:11/19/2018
Version:1 Item #:1.
Motion to approve the Minutes from the meeting of September 17, 2018.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/15/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
1. Call to Order. TIME: 5:03 p.m.
2. Roll Call. PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, Councilmember
Addiego, Planning Commissioners Shihadeh
and Wong
ABSENT: Planning Commissioner Faria
3. Public Comments.
None.
Matters for Consideration
1. Motion to approve the Minutes from the meetings of July 16, 2018 and August 20, 2018
Motion – Planning Commissioner Wong / Second – Councilmember Addiego: to approve the
minutes.
Approved by roll call vote:
Yes: 3 - Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, Councilmember Addiego, and Planning Commissioner Wong
No: 1 - Planning Commissioner Faria
2. Presentation of a proposed eight- unit residential project at 645 Baden Avenue (Justin Shui,
Consultant Planner and Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager)
Director Greenwood explained the purpose of presenting the project to the committee.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto requested the plans prior to the meeting to allow her to view the site
with the plans.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
HOUSING STANDING COMMITTEE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting will be held at:
CITY MANAGER CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
5:00 p.m.
JOINT HOUSING STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 2
Manager Mehra anticipated infill projects to be more common in the future. He discussed the
success based on collaboration between the DRB, staff and the applicant.
Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner, summarized the proposed project and adjustments to design.
Pradeep Gandhi, applicant, presented an example of a resident struggling to purchase a single
family unit. He presented the project including two proposed BMRs, partnership and
collaboration with the City, design modifications, parking, architectural style, neighborhood
input, location near transportation, shops and high schools, three story building, and garage
location and curb appeal.
Planning Commissioner Wong stated the style looked nice but the challenge was meshing with
the neighborhood. Mr. Gandhi discussed the surrounding buildings. Planning Commissioner
Wong discussed the narrowness of the lane.
Councilmember Addiego expressed concern about parking and the driveway adjacent to the
project. He confirmed that there was an existing historic home on the property. He asked about
parking in the center. Mr. Gandhi stated the DRB had a similar concern and they hired an
engineer to address any issues. Manager Mehra added that City engineers would conduct turning
analysis to ensure the proposed parking would work. Councilmember Addiego stated he was
impressed with the proposed project. Mr. Gandhi stated two BMRs would be provided and all
units would be three bedrooms.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto asked the square footage. Mr. Gandhi stated the units ranged from
1,500 to 1,700 square feet. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto discussed the need for housing and trade
off of design. She stated she was willing to sacrifice parking for units and expressed gratitude
that the neighborhood was receptive.
Councilmember Addiego asked about the entrances. Mr. Gandhi explained the use of
concessions, for entrances, setbacks, and parking.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto asked if the BMRs would be distinguishable. Mr. Gandhi stated
there would be no visible differences.
Planning Commissioner Wong asked if all entrances were ground level. Mr. Gandhi stated all
entrances were on the bottom and were three stories.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto asked the price range. Mr. Gandhi estimated the price to be
$587,000 or $600,000. He stated the teacher was not really named Ms. Brown.
Planning Commissioner Wong stated he liked the setback and fencing. Mr. Gandhi stated the
goal was to feel like a single family unit.
Councilmember Addiego confirmed that the HOA would take care of the landscape strip between
the sidewalk and curb.
JOINT HOUSING STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 3
Manager Mehra discussed the next steps. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto requested the project be
included in the monthly project update.
CLOSED SESSION
3. Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 201 Baden Avenue
Agency Negotiators: Alex Greenwood, Nell Selander, and Julie Barnard
Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco and Firehouse Live/Work
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
Entered closed session at 5:44 p.m.
Returned from closed session at 6:07 p.m.
Report out of closed session by Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto: no reportable action.
Adjournment
Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
Gabriel Rodriguez, Deputy City Clerk _______________, Councilmember
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-931 Agenda Date:11/19/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding interview of a developer for the retired Firehouse located at 201 Baden Avenue,a City of
South San Francisco owned site,and recommendation to the South San Francisco City Council.(Julie Barnard,
Economic Development Coordinator, Economic and Community Development Department)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Housing Standing Subcommittee of the City Council and Planning
Commission “Subcommittee”interview the Firehouse Live/Work team for the developer selection for the
disposition of the retired Firehouse at 201 Baden Avenue and make a recommendation to City Council.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
This report provides an update on the developer selection for the disposition of the City-owned old Firehouse,
located at 201 Baden.
In 2017,the City issued a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”)for a well-qualified development team to create a
high-quality,mixed-use,transit-oriented development on the Old Firehouse.Four RFQ responses were
received,however one was deemed incomplete and a paper screen determined a shortlist team of three
remaining developers. The shortlist was then invited to respond to a Request for Proposals (“RFP”).
In July 2018,the Housing Standing Subcommittee of the City Council and Planning Commission
(“Subcommittee”)convened to interview the three developer teams on the shortlist and,in closed session,
review their price and terms.One developer team was removed from the shortlist at this stage and staff was
instructed to continue to negotiate with the two remaining teams and to present progress at the following
meeting, in August.
The Subcommittee reviewed the developer responses to staff’s negotiation requests in August,and further
narrowed the developer list to one developer team,Firehouse Live/Work.The Firehouse Live/Work team is
comprised of Group 4 Architects (who intends on owning and operating the Firehouse)and Lawlor Land Use
(who intends to develop the housing portion of the site).The Subcommittee directed staff to obtain further
clarifications from the developer team before any recommendation was made to the City Council.
At the last meeting,on August 20,2018,the Subcommittee directed staff to work with part of the developer
team,Group 4 Architects,to see if they would be willing to amend their proposal to include 100 percent Below
Market Rate “BMR” housing.
Amendments to the Proposal and Interview
Group 4 responded positively to the change in direction and they have worked to partner with Habitat for
Humanity -an affordable housing developer that would bring the appropriate expertise,track record,and
resources needed to pursue an increased affordable housing product.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/15/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-931 Agenda Date:11/19/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
It is recommended that the Subcommittee interview the development team who will present on the changes to
their proposal which includes increased levels of affordability and their revised partnership.
Next Steps
Following the Subcommittee’s interview with the development team,the Subcommittee will consider the
developer’s revised price and terms in closed session and make a recommendation to the City Council for final
approval.
Following Council’s approval,if the City opts to proceed with the project and the selected developer,staff will
negotiate an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“ENRA”)that will form the basis of a Development
Agreement and Purchase and Sales Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
This report is intended to support the developer interviews being held by the Subcommittee.There is no impact
to the City’s General Fund at this early stage in the Project.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Subcommittee conduct developer interview and forward a recommendation to the
full City Council for consideration.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/15/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-1003 Agenda Date:11/19/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding Housing Standing Committee study session on potential zoning changes to reduce the minimum lot size
in the Downtown residential districts.(Adena Friedman, Senior Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Housing Standing Committee receive this staff report and provide input and direction
regarding potential zoning changes to reduce the minimum lot size in the Downtown residential districts.
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Residential Zoning Districts (Downtown Residential Low,Medium and High or DRL,DRM,and DRH,
illustrated in Attachment 1),comprise the neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown Core.These districts include a mix
of single-family,duplex,and multi-family residential units.Per South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)Section
20.100, Downtown Districts, the purposes of these districts is to:
·Promote and maintain Downtown’s historic role as the City’s center by developing a variety of residential types
and densities consistent with the policies of the General Plan and complementary to the goals and policies of the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District (Chapter 20.280);
·Improve the quality and mix of retail uses in the Downtown districts to make the area attractive to residents,
businesses, and visitors;
·Expand housing choices in the Downtown districts while protecting and enhancing the character and livability of
the Downtown residential neighborhoods;
·Promote infill development,intensification,and reuse of currently underused sites consistent with the General
Plan;
·Establish design standards to ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing
structures maintains the Downtown districts’ traditional development pattern; and
·Provide sites for public and semi-public land uses such as parks,libraries,and religious assembly uses that will
serve City residents and will complement surrounding residential development.
DISCUSSION
The minimum lot size in the Downtown Districts is currently 5,000 square feet (sq.ft.),and while the density and
other development standards allow for a range of housing densities,the minimum lot size requirement limits the
ability to maximize residential development potential in these districts,specifically opportunities for ownership
housing.Reducing the minimum lot size in these districts would also give existing homeowners the ability to
subdivide and sell property to others to develop,an option that could allow those on limited income to remain in their
homes.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/15/2018Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1003 Agenda Date:11/19/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
While current densities would permit the development of multiple units on a 5,000 square foot lot (for example,2.86
units (rounded up to 3)would be permitted on a 5,000 square foot lot in the Downtown Residential -Medium Density
District),the minimum lot size would prevent these units from being constructed as for-sale housing,with the
exception of a Tenancy-in-Common (TIC).A TIC can be a less desirable ownership option than condominium or fee-
simple ownership.Members of the development community have indicated that the minimum lot size requirement in
the Downtown Districts is an obstacle to housing development and providing ownership opportunities.
Staff contracted the consulting firm PlaceWorks to analyze the feasibility and implications of the proposed maximum
density increase,to assess existing development standards for potential changes to address compatibility,and to complete
the required CEQA analysis.PlaceWorks provided a memo analyzing the opportunities and development constraints
associated with reducing the minimum lot size to permit subdivision of existing lots (Attachment 2 to this staff report).
The major findings of the analysis are:
·Through lots (those with frontage on both a street and a lane)would be most likely to subdivide,since both of the
subdivided lots would have required access.
·Development prototypes in each of the Downtown districts illustrates that on most lots,a subdivided lot in each
of the districts could accommodate a two-or three-bedroom single-family residence,including a two-car tandem
garage.
·In addition to reducing the minimum lot size,changes to minimum lot depth,lot with,setbacks,and building
articulation are recommended in each Downtown residential district to ensure development feasibility and design
compatibility. The memo in Attachment 2 details the recommended zoning text amendments.
·Staff recommends the following minimum lot sizes (reduced from 5,000 sq. ft.):
o Downtown Residential Low (DRL):2,750 sq.ft.;would allow approximately 215 lots (out of a total of
383 lots) to subdivide.
o Downtown Residential Medium (DRM): 2,500 sq. ft.; would allow approximately 130 lots (out of a total
of 308 lots) to subdivide.
o Downtown Residential High (DRH): 2,250 sq. ft.; would allow approximately 275 lots (out of a total of
641) to subdivide.
·Almost all of the lots in the Downtown residential districts are developed, many with more than one dwelling unit
on the lot.
·Staff and the consultant team conducted a visual survey to determine the number of through-lots with no
structures on the portion of lot adjacent to the lane to determine approximate number of sites that could easily be
subdivided and developed with an additional unit.
o The analysis determined that approximately 35-40 lots throughout all three Downtown residential
districts meet these conditions.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/15/2018Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-1003 Agenda Date:11/19/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
o Additional lots could be subdivided and developed if existing structures such as sheds or garages adjacent
to the lanes were removed.
CONCLUSION
In summary,under current zoning,multiple dwelling units per lot (such as accessory dwelling units,duplexes,and multi-
family residential)are permitted in the Downtown residential districts.Reducing the minimum lot size would not increase
the overall development potential in these districts,but would provide more flexibility to maximize development on each
lot by allowing lots to be subdivided and developed as ownership housing.
Staff requests that the Housing Standing Committee provide input and direction regarding the potential zoning changes to
reduce the minimum lot size and amend associated development standards in the Downtown residential districts.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Downtown Districts Map
2.Lot Split Zoning Analysis Memo, PlaceWorks, 2018
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/15/2018Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
MAPLE AVELINDEN AVECOMMERCIAL AVEEUCALYPTUS AVEGRAND AVE
CYPRESS AVEDRH
2ND LN
3RD LN
MILLER AVE
PARK WY
GATEWAY BLVDCOMMERCIAL AVE
4TH LN
HEMLOCK AVE
A STTAMARACK LN
B STBADEN AVE
S SPRUCE AVEINDUSTRIAL WY1ST LN
GRAND AVE
S CANAL ST SPRUCE AVEROCCA AVE
ELM CTMAPLE AVEN CANAL ST
6TH LN
MAYFAIR AVEC STALMOND AVE
CIRCLE CT
8TH LN
LINDEN AVE
FIR AVE7TH LN
P A L M A V E
LUX AVE
MY
RT
L
E
A
V
E PECKS LNMITCHELL AVEASH AVEARDEN AVE9TH LN
PRODUCE AVED STRAILROAD AVE OLIVE AVEPINE TERRSTARLITE STCHERRY AVEDIAMOND AVE
L
E
O CIR
US HIGHWAY 101BEECH AVE
COTTONWOOD AVEJAMES CTASPEN AVEDRAKE AVEMEM
ORIAL DR
W HARRIS AVEPOPLAR AVERANDOLPH AVE
HAWTHORNE PLPINE AVE HICKORY PLIDA DR
2 N D S T BELMONT AVEW ALNUT AVECHESTNUT AVELILAC LNNURSERY WYG ARDINER AVESYLVESTER RDBAY CTS T O N E G A T E D R HIGHLAND AVEEDISON AVECLAREMONT AVEMANZANITA AVEACACIA AVEC
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
RCYPRESS AVEARMOUR AVE
JUNIPER AVE CHAPMAN AVEORANGE AVES MAGNOLIA AVETOYON AVE
VILLAGE WY
CALIFORNIA AVE
JOSEPH DR
M ADRO NE AVEBAKER STRIDGE CT
TREESIDE CTV
I
E
WMO
N
T
T
E
R
R
MAHOGANY DRSONJA RDCORTESI AVEWOODSIDE CTIDLEWOOD DRIVY WYSUNSET AVEIDLEWOOD CTL
E
WI
S
A
V
E
AMBERWOOD CIRM
U
L
B
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
S C H O O L S T
ALDENGLEN DRTENNIS DR EUCALYPTUS AVEROCCA CTLAUREL AVEREDWOOD AVE CEDAR PLUS HIGHWAY 101A
L
L
E
Y
DRL
DRH
DRH
DRM
DRM
DRM
DRH
DRM
PQP
Legend
DRL DRM DRH Zones
Downtown Station Area Specifi c Plan
MEMORANDUM
DATE November 2, 2018
TO Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
South San Francisco
FROM Bruce Brubaker and Pranjali Deokule
SUBJECT Potential to Update Zoning Regulations for the Downtown Residential Districts
Lot Split Development Analysis
This memorandum presents a lot split analysis for three Downtown Residential Districts: Downtown
Residential Low (DRL), Downtown Residential Medium (DRM), and Downtown Residential High (DRH).
The goal of this analysis is to understand the opportunities and development constraints for reducing
the minimum lot size to allow subdivision of existing lots, thereby encouraging additional residences
to be developed.
This memorandum contains two sections: Parcel Size Analysis and Prototype Development Analysis.
November 2, 2018 | Page 2
Parcel Size Analysis
Placeworks analyzed lot sizes for the districts to get an understanding of the range of lot sizes, average
and median sizes for each district, and to consider a recommendation for a minimum lot size for each
district. Figures 2 through 4 present the three Downtown Residential Districts, the variation in lot
sizes, and the potential opportunity sites within each district. These potential opportunity sites were
selected based on the following: lots that are approximately equal to the average lot size in each
district; through lots with access from both ends (a street and a lane); and lots which appear to be
underutilized in aerial maps. Opportunity sites are marked for each district in Figure 2 through 4. One
opportunity site was selected within each district for testing feasibility for lot subdivision and
development.
Downtown Residential Low District:
The existing required minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet.
The Downtown Residential Low District (DRL) contains 382 lots in total, out of which 216 (56%)
lots are through-lots with area greater than 5,500 square feet, which could be potentially
considered for subdivision.
The most common through-lot size is between 5,000 to 7,000 square feet. These lots have a
typical depth of about 140 feet but vary in width from 35 to 50 feet.
Therefore, we recommend that through-lots greater than 5,500 square feet could be considered
for potential subdivision. This results in a new minimum lot size of 2,750 square feet in the DRL
District.
Downtown Residential Medium District:
The existing required minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet.
The Downtown Residential Medium District (DRM) contains 308 lots in total, with 129 (52%) of
lots greater than 5,000 square feet, which could be potentially considered for subdivision.
The most common through lot size is between 4,000 to 5,000 square feet and 6,000 to 7,000
square feet. These lots vary in size from 122 feet to 140 feet in depth and from 30 to 50 feet in
width.
Estimating that a 30 feet wide lot will offer limited development opportunities, we included lots,
which are at least 5,000 square feet in size and greater than 35 feet wide for further analysis.
Therefore, we recommend that through-lots greater than 5,000 square feet could be considered
for potential subdivision. This results in a new minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet in the DRM
District.
November 2, 2018 | Page 3
Downtown Residential High District:
The existing required minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet.
The Downtown Residential High District (DRH) contains 641 lots in total, out of which 277 (43%)
lots are through-lots with an area greater than 4,500 square feet, which could be potentially
considered for subdivision.
The most common through lot size is between 3,000 to 4,000 square feet and there is a
substantial number of lots that have an area from 4,000 to 7,000 square feet. These lots vary in
size from 122 feet to 140 feet in depth and from 25 to 50 feet in width. The through-lots between
3,000 to 4,000 square feet are narrow lots, with a width of less than 32 feet. Considering that it
would be challenging to develop the narrow lots with the existing zoning setback requirements,
we recommend including lots greater than 4,500 square feet for further analysis.
Therefore, we recommend that through-lots greater than 4,500 square feet could be considered
for potential subdivision. This results in a new minimum lot size of 2,250 square feet in the DRH
District.
November 2, 2018 | Page 4
Residential Zoning Districts
DRL
Smallest residential lot (Acres)1,844.83 sf (0.04 Acres)
Largest residential lot (Acres)20,839.13 sf (0.48 Acres)
Average Residential lot (Acres)6030 (0.14 Acres)
Area (Square Feet)Number of Lots
0-2000 sf 1
2000-3000 sf 5
3000-4000 sf 39
4000-5000 sf 43
5000-6000 sf 112
6000-7000 sf 105
7000-8000 sf 57
Above 8000 sf 20
Total Number of Lots 383
Number of Through Lots (accessible from Avenue and Lane)253 (66%)
Through Lots above 5,500 sf 216 (56%)
Lot Analysis for Residential Zones- DRL
November 2, 2018 | Page 5
Residential Zoning Districts
DRM
Smallest residential lot (Acres)1,479.71 sf (0.03 Acres)
Largest residential lot (Acres)95,323.33 sf (2.19 Acres)
Average Residential lot (Acres)6125 sf (0.14 Acres)
Area (Square Feet)Number of Lots
0-2000 sf 4
2000-3000 sf 19
3000-4000 sf 41
4000-5000 sf 72
5000-6000 sf 44
6000-7000 sf 60
7000-8000 sf 42
Above 8000 sf 26
Total Number of Lots 308
Number of Through Lots (accessible from Avenue and Lane)187 (61%)
Through Lots above 5,000 sf 129 (52%)
Lot Analysis for Residential Zones- DRM
November 2, 2018 | Page 6
Residential Zoning Districts
DRH
Smallest residential lot (Acres)836.05 sf (0.02 Acres)
Largest residential lot (Acres)15,670.84 sf (0.36 Acres)
Average Residential lot (Acres)4,712 sf (0.11 Acres)
Area (Square Feet)Number of Lots
0-2000 sf 46
2000-3000 sf 110
3000-4000 sf 133
4000-5000 sf 81
5000-6000 sf 88
6000-7000 sf 90
7000-8000 sf 61
Above 8000 sf 30
Total Number of Lots 641
Number of Through Lots (accessible from Avenue and Lane)421 (66%)
Through Lots above 4,500 sf 277 (43%)
Lot Analysis for Residential Zones- DRH
November 2, 2018 | Page 7
Prototype Development Analysis
PlaceWorks tested three lots, one within each district, to show prototypical development after
subdivision of lots, by applying the existing zoning regulations for setbacks, density, and height.
Exceptions to the Development Standards are noted in a table for each prototype. We looked at
through-lots with access from both ends: a street and a lane, which would have more development
potential in terms of access. All of the districts have some lots that are not through-lots, and these lots
will not be opportunities for development through subdivision because of the minimum width
requirement. However, our analysis of lots in downtown residential districts shows the number of lots
that are not through-lots is relatively small in each district. We did not look at corner lots, as we found
that most corner lots are fully developed and opportunities for subdivision are few. A note about the
lot sizes – many of the blocks in the downtown residential areas are 140 feet deep, but some lots are
122 feet deep, for example between Commercial Avenue and Railroad Avenue. We analyzed both
these lot depths in our analysis. These are the lot sizes analyzed:
For DRL, a 42 feet wide by 140 feet deep lot (total lot size 5,880 sq. ft.)
For DRM, a 38 feet wide by 140 feet deep lot (total lot size 5,320 sq. ft.)
For DRH, a 37 feet wide by 122 feet deep lot (total lot size 4,514 sq. ft.)
DRL District Prototype
The first graphic presents a 5,880 square feet lot located within the Downtown Residential Low
District, which is subdivided into two lots of size 2,940 square feet each. This fits within the suggested
minimum lot size of 2,750 square feet. It illustrates how a prototypical development project on the
subdivided lot would result in a residence facing the lane with at footprint of 32 feet x 41 feet,
including a two-car tandem parking garage. A typical two-car, side-by-side garage was not a
considered a feasible option and would likely push the ground floor living spaces into the interior of
the lot, and would occupy more than fifty percent of the width of the front façade of the building.
However, with a tandem two-car garage, a very livable three bedroom residence of about 2,000 sq. ft.
(living area) could be achieved.
Recommendations for lot development within the DRL District:
• Require minimium lot size of 2,750 square feet.
• Require minimum lot width of 40 feet.
• Require minimum lot depth of 60 feet.
• Require five feet minimum and 10 feet maximum front setback (including porches or projections) to
discourage parking in the front yard.
• Require the garage to have a minimum and maximum setback (build-to line) of 10 feet in the front
yard.
• At least fifty percent of the second story façade must be least 10 feet from side property lines to
ensure light and air to neighboring properties.
Lot Size
Lot Size A�er Subdivision
Total Fl oor Are a
Living Area
Tandem Parki ng
Number of Stori e s
FAR
Du/Acre
De velopment Standards Proposed Current Zoning
Minimum Lot Si ze 2,750 sq. �.5,000 sq. �.
Minimum Lot Wi dth 40 �.50 �.
Mi nimum Lot Depth 60 �.80 �.
Front Setback 5 �. Mi n. ; 10 �. Max.15 �.
Interi or Side Setback
5 �. Mi n. first story; At
l e ast 50% side yard
f açade setback 10 �.
f rom si de property l ine
above the first story
5 �.
Garage Se tback 10 �. Min. and Max.
P rot otypical DRL Lot Analysis
5,880 sq. �.
2,940 sq. �.
2,409 sq. �.
2,009 sq. �.
400 sq. �. (2 spaces)
2
14.8
0.82
November 2, 2018 | Page 9
DRM District Prototype
The second graphic presents a lot of approximately 5,320 square feet, within the Downtown
Residential Medium District, which is subdivided into two lots of size 2,660 square feet each. This fits
within the suggested minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet. It illustrates how a prototypical
development project on the subdivided lot would result in a residence facing the lane with a footprint
of 28 feet x 46 feet, with a tandem-parked two car garage. Our analysis shows that with the tandem
garage, living spaces could face both the front (lane side) and the rear of the lot, and a very livable
three bedroom residence of about 1,800 sq. ft. (living area) could be achieved.
Recommendations for lot development within the DRM District:
• Require minimium lot size of 2,500 square feet.
• Require minimum lot width of 36 feet.
• Require minimum lot depth of 60 feet.
• Require five feet minimum and 10 feet maximum front setback (including porches or projections) to
discourage parking in the front yard.
• Require the garage to have a minimum and maximum setback (build-to line) of 10 feet in the front
yard.
• At least fifty percent of the second story façade must be at least 10 feet from the property lines to
ensure light and air to neighboring properties.
Lot Si ze
Lot Si ze A�er Subdi vision
Total Fl oor Area
Living Are a
Tande m Parki ng
Number of Stori e s
FAR
DU/Acre
Development Standards Proposed Current Zoning
Mini mum Lot Size 2,500 sq. �.5,000 sq. �.
Minimum Lot Wi dth 36 �.50 �.
Minimum Lot De pth 60 �.80 �.
Front Setback 5 �. Mi n. ; 10 �. Max.15 �.
Interi or Side Setback
5 �. Min. first story; At
least 50% sideyard
façade setback 10 �.
from side property l ine
above the fi rst story
5 �.
Garage Se tback 10 �. Min. and Max.
Prototypical DRM Lot Analysis
400 sq. �. (2 spaces)
2
16.3
5,320 sq. �.
2,660 sq. �.
2,210 sq. �.
1,810 sq. �.
0.83
November 2, 2018 | Page 11
DRH District Prototype
The third graphic presents a lot of approximately 4,514 square feet, within the Downtown Residential
High District, which is subdivided into two lots of size 2,257 square feet each. It illustrates how a
prototypical development project on a subdivided lot would result in a residence facing the lane with
a footprint of 27 feet x 46 feet. The narrow lot width means that a two-car side-by-side garage would
not comfortably fit, and the shorter depth of the lot means an enclosed tandem garage would also not
fit within the setbacks. Therefore, we show a reduced front setback to accommodate the two-car
tandem parking garage The analysis shows that with this garage arrangement, living spaces could face
both the front (lane side) and the rear of the lot, and a smaller, but very livable two bedroom
residence of about 1,500 sq. ft. (livable space) could be achieved.
Recommendations for lot development within the DRH District:
• Require minimium lot size of 2,250 square feet.
• Require minimum lot width of 36 feet.
• Require minimum lot depth of 60 feet.
• Require five feet minimum and 10 feet maximum front setback (including porches or projections) to
discourage parking in the front yard.
• Require the garage to have a minimum and maximum setback (build-to line) of 10 feet in the front
yard.
• At least thirty three percent of the second story façade must be at least 10 feet from the property
lines to ensure light and air to neighboring properties.
Lot Size
Lot Size A�er Subdi vision
Total Fl oor Area
Living Are a
Tandem Parki ng
Number of Stori e s
FAR
DU/Acre
Development Standards Proposed Current Zoning
Lot Si ze 2,250 sq. �.5,000 sq. �.
Minimum Lot Wi dth 36 �.50 �.
Minimum Lot De pth 60 �.80 �.
Front Setback 5 �. Mi n. ; 10 �. Max.15 �.
Interi or Side Setback
5 �. Min. first story; At
least 33% side yard
façade setback 10 �.
from si de property l ine
above the fi rst story
5 �.
Garage Se tback 10 �. Min. and Max.
DU/Acre 19.2 (15.1 Mi n.)20 to 30
19.2
Prot otypical DRH Lot Analysis
1,556 sq. �.
400 sq. �.
2
4,514 sq. �.
2,257 sq. �.
1,956 sq. �.
0.86
November 2, 2018 | Page 13
CEQA Analysis
Based on our analysis, if there is no new development potential (no increase in the overall number of
units that could be built under existing conditions) then the project would qualify for a Class 5
Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations). The Class 5 exemption consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with
an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density.
November 2, 2018 | Page 14
Proposed Amendments to Existing Zoning & Development Standards
MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE 20.100.003: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
LOT AND DENSITY STANDARDS DRL DRM DRH ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 2,750 5,000 2,500 5,000 2,250
Corner Lot 6,000 6,000 6,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.) 50 40 50 36 50 36
Corner Lot 60 60 60
Minimum Lot Depth (sq. ft.) 80 60 80 60 80 60
Minimum Density (du/acre) 5.1 15.1 20.1 15.1
Maximum Density (du/acre) 15 (A) 25 (A) 40, 30 on lots <
1 acre (A) See Ch. 20.390 Bonus
Residential Density
BUILDING FORM AND LOCATION DRL DRM DRH ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
Maximum Height (ft.)
Main Building 28 (B) 35 50 (C) See Section 20.300.006
Height and Height Exceptions
Accessory Building 12 (D) 12 (D) 12 (D) See Section 20.300.006
Height and Height Exceptions
Maximum Number of Stories 2 3 (E) 4
Minimum Yards (ft.)
Front
15 5; 10
Maximum
(I)
15 5; 10
Maximum
(I)
15 5; 10
Maximum (I)
See Section 20.300.011
Projections into Required
Yards
Interior Side
5 5 for the
first story,
At least 50%
of sideyard
façade
setback 10
ft. from side
property
line above
the first
story
5 5 for the
first story,
At least 50%
of sideyard
façade
setback 10
ft. from side
property
line above
the first
story
5 for the first
two stories, 10
thereafter (C)
5 for the first
story,
At least 33% of
sideyard façade
setback 10 ft.
from side
property line
above the first
story
See Section 20.300.011
Projections into Required
Yards
Street Side 10 10 10
See Section 20.300.011
Projections into Required
Yards
November 2, 2018 | Page 15
BUILDING FORM AND LOCATION DRL DRM DRH ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
Rear 20 (F) 20 (F)
10 for the first
two stories, 15
thereafter (C, F)
See Section 20.300.011
Projections into Required
Yards
Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot) 80 90 90 See Ch. 20.040
Rules of Measurement
Maximum Floor Area (FAR)
.70 or to
allow 2,000
sq. ft.,
whichever is
greater (I)
1.25 n/a See Ch. 20.040
Rules of Measurement
ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
Usable Open Space (sq. ft. per
residential unit) n/a n/a n/a See Supplemental Regulations
Section 20.100.004(D)(10)
Minimum Private Open Space (sq. ft.
per residential unit) 100 100 80
Minimum Common Open Space (sq. ft.
per residential unit) 100 100 100
Minimum Amount of Landscaping (% of
site) n/a 10 10 See Section 20.300.007
Landscaping
ADDITIONAL DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Density Bonuses.
1. 20 percent for residential developments located within 1/4 mile of a fixed-guideway transit (BART
or Caltrain station or City-designated transit corridor).
2. Additional density up to a maximum of 50 units per acre for a senior citizen housing development
as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the State Civil Code.
B. Increased Height. Allowable height may be increased to a maximum of 35 feet with Minor Use
Permit approval only if the following findings can be made:
1. The height of the proposed structure does not exceed the average height of structures on
adjoining lots;
2. The proposed structure will not substantially interfere with solar access or privacy available to
residences to the side, rear, or directly across the street;
3. The design includes architectural details, articulation, and other features to minimize the visual
impact of the additional bulk created by the increased height; and
4. The height, bulk, and mass of the proposed structure is comparable to that of the surrounding
neighborhood.
November 2, 2018 | Page 16
C. Transitional Standards. Where a DRH district is near an RL or DRL district, the following standards
apply:
1. The maximum height within 40 feet of an RL or DRL district is 30 feet. The maximum height within
50 feet of an RL or DRL district is 40 feet.
2. The building setback from the RL or DRL district boundary shall be 10 feet for interior side yards
and 15 feet for rear yards.
3. A landscaped planting area, a minimum of five feet in width, shall be provided along all RL or DRL
district boundaries. A tree screen shall be planted in this area with trees planted at a minimum
interval of 15 feet.
D. Accessory Building Height. The average height between the floor slab plate and ridge pole is
limited to 12 feet. If floor joist type of construction is used, the height limit may be increased to 15
feet.
E. Limitations on Third-Story Structures. Third stories in the DRM district are subject to the following
standards:
1. Any third story must be either set back a minimum of 10 feet from all interior lot lines or located
inside a pitched roof with a slope of at least 1:3.
2. Dormers are permitted on third stories, provided that they do not exceed 15 feet in width and do
not occupy more than 20 percent of the total roof area.
F. Reduced Setbacks.
1. Existing Structures. When the existing rear yard setback is less than 20 feet, additions to such
structures may conform to the existing setback, provided that the addition is located no closer
than 15 feet to the rear property line.
2. Through Lots. On a through lot with the rear yard abuts a lane, required rear yard setback may be
reduced to 15 feet for a residential structure oriented toward the lane.
3. Existing structures within the Downtown Residential Districts (DRL, DRM, and DRH) are allowed to
have a minimum six feet rear setback from new property line after lot subdivision.
G. Building Frontage. In the DMX District, buildings shall be located between zero and 10 feet from
street-facing property lines for at least 70 percent of the linear street frontage.
H. Small Lots. In the DRL District, maximum floor area ratio (FAR) on lots less than 3,000 square feet
in size is increased to allow a minimum of 1,800 square feet of living area and a 200 square foot
garage, for a total floor area of 2,000 square feet. (Ord. 1498 § 2, 2015; Ord. 1432 § 2, 2010)
1. In the Downtown Residential Districts (DRL, DRM, and DRH), on lots that are subdivided, the
garage shall be setback 10 feet from front yard property line where residences face a lane.
November 2, 2018 | Page 17
TABLE 20.330.007: REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Land Use Classification Required Parking Spaces
Single-Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 900 sq. ft. and less than 3
bedrooms
1 space per dwelling unit, 2
spaces maximum per unit General Requirements for all Single-Unit
Residential Parking*:
For new construction, required parking up to 2
spaces must be within a garage. For existing
development, all existing garage spaces, up to a
maximum of two spaces, must be maintained.
A carport shall not be substituted for a required
garage except for existing dwellings on lots
adjacent to a lane.
900 to 2,500 sq. ft. or 3 or 4
bedrooms 2 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
2,501 sq. ft. or more than 4
bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
Second Unit 1 space for each. See Section 20.350.033 Second Dwelling Units
Multi-Unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq. ft. 1 space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi-Unit
Residential Parking*:
One covered space shall be designated for each
unit.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800 sq. ft. 1 space minimum, 1.5 spaces
maximum per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8 spaces
maximum per unit
Three or more bedrooms and 1,101
sq. ft. or larger 1.5 spaces minimum, 2 spaces
maximum per unit
*Existing residences on Grand Avenue shall not be required to provide off-street parking after subdivision of lot.
20.330.010 PARKING AREA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Handicapped Parking. Each lot or parking structure where parking is provided for the public as
clients, guests, or employees shall include parking accessible to handicapped or disabled persons as
near as practical to a primary entrance and in accordance with the standards for the number of
spaces, size, location, signing, and markings/striping set for in Chapter 71, “Site Development
Requirements for Handicapped Accessibility” of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
B. Tandem Parking. Tandem parking may be permitted to satisfy the off-street parking requirement
for a residential unit in accordance with the following.
1. No more than two vehicles shall be placed one behind the other.
2. Both spaces shall be assigned to a single dwelling unit.
3. The tandem parking bay shall be a minimum 40 feet by 10 feet in dimension.
4. Tandem spaces with a width greater than 10 feet (i.e., side-by-side tandem) shall use decorative
pavers or “grasscrete.”
5. Tandem parking to meet required parking for multi-unit development shall be located within an
enclosed structure and the number of tandem parking spaces shall not exceed 50 percent of the
total number of spaces.
6. Tandem parking shall not be used to satisfy the parking requirement for guest parking.
November 2, 2018 | Page 18
C. Carpool and Vanpool Parking. At least 10 percent of the required parking spaces for offices and all
uses within the Employment Use Classification shall be designated and reserved for carpools or
vanpools. These spaces shall be located closest to the main entrance of the project (exclusive of
spaces designated for handicapped).
20.300.011 PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARDS
Building projections may extend into required yards, subject to the following standards and all
applicable requirements of the California Building Code:
A. Maximum Projection Allowed. Notwithstanding any other subsection of this section, no projection
may extend closer than three feet to an interior lot line or into a public utility easement.
B. Architectural Projections. Cornices, canopies, eaves or other architectural features may project up
to two feet into any yard, provided that such projection shall not exceed one-half the otherwise
required yard width or depth.
C. Fire Escapes. Fire escapes, required by law, ordinance, or regulations of a public agency may
project up to four feet into any required yard.
D. Bay Windows and Chimneys. Bay windows and chimneys may project up to two feet into any
interior side yard and three feet into any front, rear, or street side yard, provided that they do not
occupy, in the aggregate, more than one-third of the length of the building wall on which they are
located.
E. Stairways, Stair Landings, and Balconies. Stairways, stair landings, and balconies that service above
the first floor level of the building may project up to two feet into any interior side yard and three feet
into any front, rear, or street side yard, provided that all such structures shall be open, unenclosed
and without roofs, except for lattice type guard railings. Structural supports for stairways and landings
may be enclosed.
F. Decks, Porches, and Stairs. Decks, porches, and stairs which do not extend above the first floor
level of the building may be built to within three feet of interior side and rear lot lines, to within 10
feet of the front and to within seven feet of corner side lot lines. If exceeding 18 inches above ground
elevation, the maximum project into any yard is three feet. Within the Downtown Residential Districts,
through lots that face a lane shall allow porches, decks, and stairs to be built to within five feet of
front lot line.
G. Depressed Ramps or Stairways and Supporting Structures. Depressed ramps or stairways and
supporting structures, when designed to permit access to parts of buildings below average ground
level, may extend into any required yard not more than 42 inches.
H. Ramps and Similar Structures for Disabled Person feets Accommodation. Reasonable
accommodation will be made consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Ord. 1432 § 2,
2010).
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-932 Agenda Date:11/19/2018
Version:1 Item #:4.
Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 201 Baden Avenue
Agency Negotiators: Alex Greenwood, and Julie Barnard
Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco and Firehouse Live/Work
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/15/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™