HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-08 e-packet0
City of South San Francisco
October, 2014
Housing Investment Plan
1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
II. Assets ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Residential Property Assets ........................................................................................................... 3
Loan Portfolio Assets ................................................................................................................... 13
Cash Assets ................................................................................................................................... 14
Total Housing Assets ....................................................................................................................15
III. Current Situation ....................................................................................................................... 16
Property Management ................................................................................................................. 16
Tenant Issues ............................................................................................................................ 16
Maintenance .............................................................................................................................. 17
Current Revenues ...................................................................................................................... 17
IV. Land Utilization Strategies and Options ................................................................................... 18
V. Recommendations for Affordable Residential and Commercial Properties ............................. 19
A. 109 Longford ............................................................................................................................ 20
B. 380 Alta Vista .......................................................................................................................... 20
C. 714-718 Linden ......................................................................................................................... 21
D. 339-341 Commercial ............................................................................................................... 21
E. Miller Avenue ........................................................................................................................... 22
F. 418 Linden Avenue .................................................................................................................. 23
G. 201 Baden Avenue ................................................................................................................... 23
VI. Housing Investment .................................................................................................................. 24
VII. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 25
2
I. Introduction
The City of South San Francisco seeks to create a thriving city where its residents have the
ability to live, work, and participate in the community. In order to create a thriving community,
the City needs quality housing for residents of all income levels. Currently, the City has an array
of housing and commercial land assets that are underutilized. This Housing Investment Plan
(“Plan”) seeks to provide strategies to maximize the development of affordable and market-rate
housing while aligning these efforts with the City Council’s goals of improving the Downtown.
The recent dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies (“RDA”) by the California Legislature
eliminated the City’s main tool for developing affordable housing. Without RDA funding the City
must be creative, collaborative, and flexible in order to continue creating affordable housing.
During the Redevelopment era the City had a robust and sustainable funding source, however
the City now faces an era of limited resources and assets. The few resources the City does have
must be strategically used to create quality affordable housing.
The end of Redevelopment has also diminished the City’s ability to support the development of
market-rate housing. The Successor Agency Oversight Board, however, has been amenable to
allowing the City to pursue development opportunities on the properties owned by the former
RDA. These properties are discussed in detail in the Successor Agency’s Long Range Property
Management Plan (LRPMP) and are not discussed in this Plan. The City, however, does own the
former Central Fire Station at 201 Baden Avenue which presents an opportunity to develop
housing and is therefore included in this report.
This Plan will 1) look at the City’s current housing assets and the 201 Baden Avenue land asseet;
2) describe the current situation and challenges the City faces regarding its affordable housing
assets; 3) identify potential strategies for how the City can better utilize and manage its housing
assets; 4) assess the possibility of increasing affordable housing for each strategy and; 5) provide
recommendations for which strategy to implement on a per property basis.
3
II. Assets
The City has limited assets in the form of real property, outstanding loans and cash. When the
RDA was dissolved on January 31, 2011 the City opted to become the Housing Successor Agency.
This allowed the City to retain the RDA’s housing loan portfolio and real property. However, the
City was not able to retain RDA’s $20 million in affordable housing funds which were disbursed
to the taxing agencies pursuant to the RDA dissolution statutes. In addition, the City also has
cash assets collected from housing developers in the form of housing in-lieu fees. The City’s
assets also include the former Central Fire Station. This section looks at each of these assets and
their allowable uses. The total estimated value of the City’s affordable housing property assets is
$7,262,266 and $1,089,000 for 201 Baden Avenue.
Residential Property Assets
The City currently owns and manages seven (7) scattered site residential properties ranging
from single family homes to multi-unit properties. This section will provide an overview of the
properties, their size, the purpose of acquisition, the purchase price and current estimated value1
and their current uses. With the exception of 109 Longford Avenue, these assets were
transferred from the RDA to the City.
A. 109 Longford – This single family home (3 bedrooms/1 bath) was purchased in 1998
for the purpose of removing a blighted unit. The City rehabilitated the property in 2009
using a wide array of green building techniques, such as solar panels, tank-less water
heaters, and recyclable insulation. Since then it has been used as a model “green” home
to educate contractors, students, and homeowners. While this home has served as an
educational tool for the City, the home’s technology is no longer cutting edge and is
quickly becoming obsolete as a model “green” home.
109 Longford Avenue
1 The estimated values of the properties were derived on September 30, 2014 from Zillow.com, an online
home and real estate database.
4
Summary Profile:
Property size: 4,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 1998
Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property – previous owner believed
home was unsafe, refused to occupy it and let it fall into disrepair.
Age of Building: 61 years (1952)
Building Sq. Ft.: 1,030
Purchase Price: $207,000 (funding source : General Fund)
Current Estimated Value:$585,610
Current Use: Green building model home
5
B. 380 Alta Vista – A single family home (3 bedrooms/2 bathrooms) purchased in 2005.
It was purchased by the City because the unit had become a nuisance and social problem
for the neighborhood. In order to remove the blighting conditions and illegal bedrooms,
the City expended $328,818 in addition to the $1,035,000 acquisition price. Due to the
size of this home it could be modified again to accommodate several more bedrooms or
subdivided into 2 separate units.
380 Alta Vista
6
Summary Profile
Property Size: 9,100 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2005
Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property – previous owner had let
house fall into disrepair and had overcrowding conditions with nuisance tenants.
Age of Building: 68 years (1945)
Building Sq. Ft.: 3,828
Purchase Price: $1,035,000 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value: $1,507,798
Current Use: rented to city employee at below market rental rates
7
C. 714-718 Linden Avenue – This triplex of two bedroom units is located near the City’s
Downtown core. It was purchased in 2005 for the purpose of preserving the affordability
of the units.
714-718 Linden Avenue
Summary Profile
Property Size: 4,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2005
Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing – City helped owner
rehabilitate property in return for charging affordable rents. At expiration of
affordable restriction, owner intended to sell property. City acquired property to
maintain affordability.
Age of Building: 72 years (1941)
Building Sq. Ft.: 2,856
Purchase Price: $862,000 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value:$864,582
Current Use: Affordable housing
8
D. 339-341 Commercial Avenue – This property consists of four two-bedroom units in
two buildings. The City purchased the property in 1999 for the purpose of preserving the
affordability of the units.
339-341 Commercial Avenue
Summary Profile
Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 1999
Purpose of Acquisition: Mitigate blighted property/create affordable housing
units – property had fallen into disrepair and presented an opportunity to create
affordable units.
Age of Building: 118 years (1895)
Building Sq. Ft.: 3,874
Purchase Price: $430,000 (funding source: $107,500 RDA, $322,500 HOME)
Estimated Value: $1,142,298
Current Use: Affordable housing
9
E. 310 -314 Miller Avenue – The Miller Avenue properties consists of three adjacent
properties: a triplex with three one- bedroom units (310 Miller), a fourplex with units
ranging from one bedroom to three bedrooms (312 Miller), and a 3 bedroom single
family home (314 Miller). The estimated value of the combined properties is $2,461,978.
These properties were purchased between 2004 and 2008. The City purchased these
units to preserve the affordability in the short-term and for the future development of
the property. The City also owns a parking lot adjacent to 314 Miller making this site
assemblage more attractive for a new development.
310-314 Miller Avenue
Summary Profiles
310 Miller
Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2005
Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing – City financed
rehabilitation in return for affordable rents. Owner intended to sell property
putting affordability at risk. City acquired property to maintain affordability.
Age of Building: 101 years (1912)
Building Sq. Ft.: Not Available
Purchase Price: $589,000 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value: $800,000
Current Use: Affordable housing. Currently leased to the San Mateo County
Emancipated Youth Program.
10
312 Miller
Property Size: 6,000 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2004
Purpose of Acquisition: Preserve affordable housing – City helped owner
rehabilitate property in return for charging affordable rents. Owner intended to
sell property putting affordability at risk. City acquired property to maintain
affordability.
Age of Building: 106 years (1907)
Building Sq. Ft.: 3,650
Purchase Price: $715,000 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value: $950,397
Current Use: Affordable housing. Currently leased to the San Mateo County
Emancipated Youth Program.
314 Miller Ave
Property Size: 3,500 sq. ft.
Purchase Date: 2008
Purpose of Acquisition: Parcel assembly for future development. This property
sits between City owned properties at 310-312 Miller Avenue and surface parking
lot. Acquisition resulted in the assembly of a 0.56 acre site.
Age of Building: 107 years (1906)
Building Sq. Ft.: 1,456
Purchase Price: $679,950 (funding source: RDA)
Estimated Value: $711,581
Current Use: Affordable housing. Currently leased to the San Mateo County
Emancipated Youth Program.
11
F. 418 Linden Avenue – In 2008, the City Council amended the Affordable Housing
Agreement (Amended AHA) with Myers Peninsula Venture (Myers) that required Myers
to construct 32 affordable housing units as a condition of the Final Terrabay Specific
Plan. In lieu of developing the 32 affordable housing units, the Amended AHA required
Myers to convey to the City the property located at 418 Linden Avenue at no cost. The
property was previously entitled to build a 25-unit market-rate development with 7,000
square feet of retail but the project became unviable after the demise of redevelopment.
418 Linden Avenue
Property Size: 14,000 sq. ft.
Acquisition Date: 2008
Purpose of Acquisition: Land bank for the future development of affordable
housing in lieu of Myers developing 32 affordable efficiency units on the site.
Age of Building: N/A
Building Sq. Ft.: N/A
Purchase Price: $0 (conveyed at no cost to the City)
Estimated Value: $700,000 (based on $50 per square foot)
Current Use: Surface parking lot
12
G. 201 Baden Avenue – This site (APN #012-335-100) is the old City Central Fire
Station, located in the southeast part of the downtown area one block south of Grand
Avenue near the corner of Baden Avenue and Cypress Avenue. The main building is one-
story with a second story area over the apparatus bay and a three-story drill tower. It has
three apparatus bays, offices, a kitchen, a recreation room, restrooms, a repair shop, a
locker room with showers and a dormitory. It was purchased/built in 1949 for $85,899
for the purpose of housing a fire station. Currently the building is vacant, the bays
however are rented to Giorgi Brothers for furniture storage on a month-to-month basis.
The building is largely obsolete. Potential options for this property include: (1) Sell
property to an interested buyer for the purpose of redevelopment into market-rate
housing; (2) Hold as City-owned property for the purpose of redevelopment into
affordable housing units.
201 Baden Avenue
Summary Profile
Property Size: Approximately 21,780 sq. ft.
Purchase Date/Year Built: 1949
Purpose of Acquisition: Housing a Fire Station
Age of Building: 65 years old
Building Sq. Ft.: 11,690 sq. ft.
Purchase Price: $85,899
Estimated Value: $1,089,000 (based on $50 per square foot)
Current Use: Vacant
13
Loan Portfolio Assets
The City has two types of housing loans in its portfolio: 1) amortized first time homebuyer loans,
and 2) deferred loans to nonprofit housing developers.
Amortized First Time Homebuyer Loans
The City of South San Francisco has a first time homebuyer loan program that is open to
individuals and households who live or work in the City of South San Francisco. In the
past, the program provide qualified buyers low-interest loans of up to $100,000 to
purchase a Below Market Rate (BMR) homes or a homes on the open market. At the start
of the housing crisis in 2008, the City suspended making loans on homes in the open
market and only made loans on BMR units. Since the dissolution of redevelopment, the
City program has been limited to rolling existing loans from sellers to new homebuyers
at existing BMR units. The City is currently not initiating loans that require new funds
going into the program. Excluding loan pay offs, the program currently generates
approximately $4,000 per month in payments.
As a result of past lending activity, the City currently has 22 outstanding first time
homebuyer loans. As of September 30, 2015, the value of this portfolio is valued at
$1,401,899. This amount is composed from the following fund sources:
o $933,507 is from former RDA funds (now the City’s Housing Fund 241)
o $445,856 is from federal Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG),
and
o $22,536 is from developer in-lieu fees.
Monthly payments received and loan payoffs are deposited into their respective funding
sources.
Because the monthly cash flows from repayments are limited and loan payoffs are
sporadic, the outstanding loan fund balances are not included in the available cash asset
discussion below.
Deferred Loans to Nonprofit Developers
These loans were made to nonprofit developers to build the City’s main affordable
housing stock including 636 El Camino, Grand Oak Apartments, Greenridge, Chestnut
Creek Senior housing and others. This loan portfolio is estimated at about $24,760,669.
The loans were made by the RDA and are now a City asset per the Redevelopment
Dissolution Statutes.
Unfortunately, the City cannot count on using these funds. First, nonprofit developers
only make annual payments on the loans if they have excess cash proceeds after paying
for all operating and reserve expenses. Generally the City received total repayments of
$0 to $2,000 per year from this source. Second, the loans are not due for 25+ years. In
all likelihood when these loans come due they will have to be renewed into new 50 year
terms in order to continue the affordability, replacement and maintenance of the
14
properties. The one exception to this that City recently received a repayment of
$1,115,839 from Mid-Peninsula Housing due to construction cost savings at 636 El
Camino Real (this was negotiated into the funding contract approved by both parties).
These funds were deposited into Housing Fund 241 and are available for uses as
described below.
Cash Assets
In addition to the City’s residential properties, the City has cash assets that are available for
creating and/or preserving affordable housing. Although the City has these cash assets, the
dissolution of the RDA has left the City with no mechanism for generating new funds. The City
must consider whether it wants to utilize these funds the traditional way through a single use
scenario by working with a nonprofit housing developer, or utilize them in a way that will recycle
the funds over the years for continuous use. Currently, the total cash available for affordable
housing is $4,535,233. Below is a description of the City’s cash assets and how they can be
expended.
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund 205)
The City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund was created as a result of developer
agreements and the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. If developers were unable to
incorporate affordable units into their housing or commercial developments, the City in
limited cases accepted in-lieu fees (e.g. Terrabay). In other cases, the City required a
housing fee in addition to the affordable units (e.g. Oak Farms). These funds can only be
used for the development of new affordable housing. These funds can be used to help
residents at any affordable income level – 0% to 120% of area median income (AMI).
Funds Available: $1,045,0002
Housing Fund (Fund 241)
Upon becoming the Successor Agency for the RDA’s housing assets on February 1, 2011,
the City established the Housing Fund. Revenues from housing rental properties, RDA-
funded loan repayments, and interest are deposited into this fund. The fund can be used
to develop housing or for any other purposes that advances the creation or preservation
of affordable units, including staffing. The funds can be used for any housing related
expenses, including new construction, first time homebuyer loans, rehabilitation and
staff expenses as long as they are consistent with past RDA law. Currently, these funds
are being used for housing related expenses including staff, maintenance and other
incidental expenses. Funds can be used to help residents at any affordable income level
(0% to 120% AMI).
Funds Available: $1,079,444 3
2 Fund balance as of September 30, 2014
15
Bonds
On February 1, 1999, the City’s RDA issued bonds for the purpose of creating
affordable housing. Pursuant to HSC Section 34176(g)(2) dissolving
redevelopment agencies, the housing successor agency (i.e. the City as successor
agency) has the right to retain and expend bond proceeds at its discretion so
long as it is in a manner that is consistent with the bond covenants.
The bond funds are made available to the City upon 1) the Successor Agency
receiving its Finding of Completion, 2) the City committing the bond funds to a
project, and 3) the Successor Agency including the obligation in an approved
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS).
The Successor Agency received its Finding of Completion on May 24, 2013. Staff
included the bond fund request in ROPS 13-14B (January 1 through June 30,
2014) and the California Department of Finance (DOF) authorized the City to
draw these funds down. However, the funds are not committed to a project
therefore the City cannot draw the funds until it does so. These funds can only
be used for the development of new affordable housing. The use of these funds
must also be consistent with past RDA law and can be used to help residents at
any affordable income level (0% to 120% AMI).
Funds Available: $2,410,789 4
Total Housing Assets
The total value of the City’s housing assets is approximately $37,960,067. However, as
described above, the liquidity of these funds and the City’s ability to utilize them varies
by type. As listed in Table 1 below, the City has approximately $4,535,233 in cash and
cash equivalents that the City can immediately utilize for affordable housing purposes.
The City also has $7,262,266 in land assets that the City can convert into cash by selling
the properties, or in the case of the Miller Avenue properties and 418 Linden Avenue,
have the value contributed towards the development of affordable housing. The
remaining $26,162,568 is composed of amortized and deferred loans that are not
readily available for use, or may not be available at all.
Table 1
Asset Type
Liquid Assets Illiquid Assets
Total Cash Land Sales Not Liquid
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
$4,535,233 $4,535,233
Land $7,262,266 $7,262,266
Loans $26,162,568 $26,162,568
Total $4,535,233 $7,262,266 $26,162,568 $37,960,067
3 Fund balance as of September 30, 2014, net of recent encumbrances
4 Fund balance as of September 30, 2014
16
Given the City’s current cash and land assets, the City has the potential to utilize these
assets to increase the City’s supply of affordable housing. Options for utilizing these
funds and/or developing affordable housing are discussed in Sections V and VI below.
III. Current Situation
With the end of redevelopment, the City is faced with the need to reassess and develop new
strategies for managing its housing assets. Some of the main issues affecting the City are an
increasing property management burden, limited resources, and the desire to stimulate
development in the Downtown.
Property Management
As mentioned earlier, the City owns and manages all of its residential properties. Given the City
Council’s new priorities and the need to sell the former RDA’s non-housing land assets, the
management of the residential properties has become an increased burden on staff and
resources. Property management requires staff to collect rent, market and lease vacant units,
issue late payment and eviction notices and address various maintenance issues ranging from
large scale repairs such as broken sewer lines to minor repairs such as a clogged sink. Due to the
demanding nature of property management, i.e. tenant requests/issues and the timing of when
these issues occur, staff is frequently on call. As a result, staff at all levels has to be involved in
managing the properties. For example, lower level staff typically deals with collecting rents
however higher level staff has to approve repairs and issue late payment or eviction notices. This
has created a highly ineffective and costly way of managing the properties. It also takes staff
away from fulfilling other responsibilities. Finally, the City is faced with difficult tenants and
continuous maintenance issues while receiving minimal rent revenues due to the affordable
rents being charged.
Tenant Issues
The City has difficult tenants who routinely pay rent late, which has required staff to spend an
exorbitant amount of time addressing the issue. City inherited these tenants when it acquired
the buildings or from North Peninsula Neighborhood Services which briefly managed the
properties in the past. Since 2011, staff has had to issue nine (9) Three-Day Notices to Pay or
Quit. A Notice to Pay or Quit is a notice whereby if the tenant does not pay within three days the
City will proceed with the eviction process. The City has also received twenty-four (24) late
payments and evicted one tenant in the last two years. The eviction process is very lengthy and
can last up to six months which consumes a significant amount of staff and City Attorney time.
In FY 12-13, the Housing and Community Development Division (HCD) staff spent a combined
1,349 hours managing the various properties.
Recently, the City leased several of the Miller Avenue properties to the County for its
emancipated youth program with the expectation that this would relieve some property
management issues as well as provide housing for youth. Unfortunately, the youth have required
the same level of City staff resources as past tenants and the County has added an extra level of
administrative coordination resulting in a total increase in staff resource utilization.
17
Maintenance
The City is also faced with ongoing and deferred maintenance issues due to the age of its
residential properties. For example, all of the City’s residential properties are over 50 years old
and four of them are over 100 years old. Most of the properties have some deferred maintenance
that needs to be addressed, as described in Appendix 1. Additionally, the City has experienced
unforeseen and/or emergency maintenance issues due to the age of the buildings. Most recently
the City had to spend approximately $180,000 5 to make emergency repairs to the gas and sewer
lines at the 310 and 312 Miller Avenue properties. These repairs had to be made immediately to
avoid a potentially catastrophic gas explosion.
Current Revenues
The City’s residential properties are not generating enough revenue to keep up with staff costs to
manage the properties and address the increasing maintenance needs. In FY 12-13 the City had
$60,575 6 in staff and maintenance expenses while receiving $121,170 in rent revenues. While
the City is not operating on a deficit it is only netting approximately 50% of its rent revenues. As
shown in Table 2 below the properties also offer the City a low annual return on investment
(ROI). Since the properties are intended to be affordable units and are rented at below market
rates, there are few options for increasing revenue therefore the City must find a solution to
reduce its operating expenses.
Table 2
Net
Revenue
(Rev)-(Exp)
0.03870-387207,000-0.2%
24.51,12716,80015,6731,035,0001.5%
298.613,84828,95015,102430,0003.5%
205.410,23525,16014,925700,0002.1%
310 Miller Ave 338.514,4729,000-5,472589,000-0.9%
312 Miller Ave 398.016,31419,6603,347715,0000.5%
314 Miller Ave 84.94,19221,60017,408679,9502.6%
821.334,97750,26015,2831,983,9502.1%
All Properties1,350 60,575121,17060,5954,355,9501.4%
Miller Ave*
Miller Ave Total
109 Longford
Property
380 Alta Vista
Commercial Ave
Linden Ave
ExpensesRevenues
HCD
Staff
Hours
City
InvestmentROI
* This does not include the approximate $180,000 used to make emergency repairs at 310-312 Miller or $328,818 in
rehabilitation costs at 380 Alta Vista.
5 This amount is not included in the expenses provided in the section below
6 This does not include the approximate $180,000 used to make emergency repairs at 310-312 Miller
18
IV. Land Utilization Strategies and Options
As discussed above, the City’s current property management system is inefficient and needs to
change in order to reduce resource utilization. Taking into consideration these issues, this
section describes potential strategies to overcome these issues while maintaining or increasing
the City’s affordable housing stock.
City staff has identified four strategies for managing the City’s housing land assets: 1) divest, 2)
transfer to a non-profit, 3) hold, or 4) redevelop (note: the redevelopment option only applies to
the Miller Avenue properties). This section will define each strategy and analyze the positive and
negative implications of each strategy. The next section will identify which strategy can provide
the most benefit on a property by property basis.
1. Divest: The City would sell its housing land asset(s) at market rate. This option would
eliminate the staffing and financial issues the City faces regarding property management
and would increase the City’s housing cash assets. However the implications of this
would be that the City would need to replace the affordable units elsewhere along with
providing relocation payments to a few of the current tenants that are eligible for
relocation. If the City divests itself of the Miller Avenue properties it will also lose the
opportunity to develop new housing on that site.
2. Transfer Management to a Non-profit: The City would transfer management of its
housing land assets to a non-profit organization and impose affordability restrictions on
the properties. This would allow the City to preserve the affordability of the units and
relieve the City of its property management burdens. However, this strategy would not
relieve the City of on-going repair liabilities
3. Hold Assets: The City would keep its current housing assets however it would need to
make operational changes. For example, the City would need to contract with a third
party property management company to oversee the lease up process, rent collection,
maintenance, and tenant eligibility screening. This strategy would relieve City staff of its
property management burdens and potentially increase the City’s net rent revenue by
allowing the property manager to increase the affordability income levels of the tenants.
Currently the City is only netting 50% of its rent revenues, however, if the City uses a
property management company, the City could allow the company to increase the
income affordability to 80% AMI, thus offsetting the property management cost and
potentially increasing the City’s net revenue. Holding the City’s housing land assets,
however, does not increase the City’s affordable housing stock, generate significant new
cash flows, and still leaves the City facing the deferred maintenance and rehabilitation
needs of the properties.
4. Redevelopment: Staff has been studying the development potential of City-owned and
Successor Agency-owned downtown properties. The City Council has expressed the goal
of revitalizing the Downtown through the development of market-rate and mixed-
income housing. Staff has determined that the best way to accomplish this on the smaller
19
sites is by collaborating with a private developer to build mixed-income projects or an
affordable housing project. Under this strategy the City would contribute the land and
potentially make a financial contribution to the project in return for the developer
providing a specified number of affordable units within a market-rate housing
development. This strategy would relieve the City of the burden of managing scattered
affordable housing sites with myriad problems and create revenues for additional future
affordable housing development.
V. Recommendations for Affordable
Residential and Commercial Properties
This section recommends an optimal strategy for each of the City’s properties. Each property is
discussed in detail below and the information is summarized in Table 3 below. The
recommendations are based on the issues the City is currently facing and an analysis of the
potential strategies described above.
Table 3
Property
Divest
Transfer to
NPO*
Hold
Assets
Redevelopment
A. 109 Longford
B. 380 Alta Vista
C. 714-718 Linden
D. 339-341 Commercial
E. 310-314 Miller
Avenue Properties
F. 418 Linden Avenue
G. 201 Baden Avenue
*Non-profit Organization
20
A. 109 Longford
Recommendation: Divest
It is recommended the City sell this property on the open market. Its value is approximately
$585,610. As mentioned previously in this report, the home is quickly becoming unusable as a
model “green” home due to outdated technology. It is also operating on a deficit due to no rental
revenue. The property would be able to generate a high sale price due to its fairly recent
remodel and green technology upgrades. Additionally the City wouldn’t need to pay any
relocation costs or replace this unit elsewhere as the property was never operated as an
affordable rental unit. The City would contract with a real estate company to market, show, and
sell the property. Due to the limited supply of housing on the market and an increasing demand,
the City anticipates that this property would sell quickly. Since the property was purchased with
general funds, part of the proceeds could be deposited into the general fund and part should be
deposited into the housing fund since the housing fund paid for the extensive rehabilitation of
the property.
Alternatives: No other alternative recommended. This property is not suitable for
redevelopment and continuous ownership by the City is not financially sound. The property may
be transferred to a nonprofit housing agency and maintained as affordable housing. However,
when leased to Shelter Network in the past, the house frequently remained vacant for long
stretches of time due to the City’s requirement that only South San Francisco victims of
domestic violence be housed there.
B. 380 Alta Vista
Recommendation: Divest
It is recommended the City sell this property on the open market. Its value is approximately
$1,507,798. The home is very large and underutilized in its current single-family configuration.
It is also rented as a low-income unit and generates very little rental revenue. Having been
recently remodeled and in a fairly desirable area, the property should sell quickly. There are no
relocation issues but the current tenant (a City employee) must be given a 90-day notice to
vacate. The affordable unit has to be replaced but it can easily be accommodated in an
affordable or mixed-income project elsewhere. The replacement unit cost will be offset by the
estimated sale price of approximately $1,000,000. The City may consider remodeling the
unused lower portion of the building to create a legal second unit if it results in a net financial
gain to the City.
Alternatives: No other alternative recommended. This property is not suitable for
redevelopment and continuous ownership by the City is not financially sound. The property may
be transferred to a nonprofit housing agency and maintained as affordable housing. However,
its distance from public transit could be a burden to low-income tenants that would likely rely
on public transit.
21
C. 714-718 Linden
Recommendation: Divest
It is recommended the City sell this property on the open market. The property’s resale value is
approximately $864,582. Selling the property relieves the City of the property management
burden and generates revenue for use in a new affordable or mixed-income housing
development. As indicated earlier in this report, the revenue generated from this property is
insufficient to fund operating expenses, maintenance and a replacement reserve. However, if the
City sells the property it will have to replace three affordable units. The City will also have to
relocate two families currently residing there that are eligible for relocation assistance. The City
will have to relocate the families at a cost of $15,000 to $20,000 each. The funds generated by
the sale will be sufficient to replace the units in another development and to reimburse the
housing fund for relocation costs.
Alternative: Transfer to a Nonprofit
The City Council also considered transferring the property to a nonprofit agency but opted to go
with recommendation to sell the property.
D. 339-341 Commercial
Recommendation: Transfer to NPO
It is recommended the City transfer this property to a nonprofit service agency through an RFP
process that gives priority to agencies serving clients in priority areas identified by the City
Council. This property was largely purchased with Federal HOME funds. Because it was
predominantly purchased with HOME funds there is little financial advantage for the City to
divest of the property as it would have to repay the HOME program. Additionally, it is not clear
whether City (or a subsequent owner) could terminate the affordability restrictions due to the
HOME funds. Therefore, the best option for the City is to reduce its management burden by
transferring the property to a nonprofit agency that would continue to operate it as affordable
housing serving a special needs group. Under this scenario, the City can issue an RFP to
nonprofit agencies offering them the opportunity to take ownership of the property and utilize it
to serve their clients. The nonprofit agency would assume the HOME loan and either repay the
City its limited investment or take a second loan against the City’s funds. In the RFP the City can
stipulate its conditions for transferring the property as well as giving the nonprofit agencies the
opportunity to indicate whether they would be able to repay the City its funds and/or establish a
repayment schedule (if any).
22
Alternative: Hold
Based on the use of restrictive HOME funds to purchase this property and the City’s limited
financial interest, the second best alternative is to hold this property under its current status.
However, if the City Council elects to hold this property, staff recommends that City contract
with a commercial property manager to manage the property. Doing so would increase the
operating costs of owning property but will substantially reduce the utilization of City
Resources. The City would still have a net positive cash flow from the property which it would
need to set aside in a capital replacement reserve.
E. Miller Avenue
Recommendation: Redevelopment
It is recommended these properties be redeveloped. The City currently owns three affordable
residential properties and a parking lot on the 300 block of Miller Avenue. The 0.56 acre site is
suitable for a housing development of 50 or more residential units that would make better use of
the land. A market-rate project can potentially be built on the site but the City will face
challenges finding a developer willing to build the project due to the smaller lot size. The site
may also be suitable for a mixed-income project or an affordable project as described below.
A 100% affordable project could be built on the site. Nonprofit housing developers have
expressed an interest in building in the City. However, a 100% affordable project may require
financial assistance from the City including the contribution of land. If a nonprofit housing
developer is not able to raise sufficient private capital, the City would likely have to contribute
the land.
A mixed-income project on the site would have to include a minimum of seven affordable units
to replace the units currently existing on the site. Given the site’s development challenges, it is
likely the City would need to collaborate with a developer in some capacity to develop the site.
The City’s participation would make the project feasible by reducing the developer’s entitlement
and financial risk. By helping to reduce these risks, a developer will be more likely to develop a
smaller project (<100 units) and invest in an unproven housing market. To participate in such a
project, the City would contribute the land to the project in return for the required affordable
units. The new units would benefit the City and residents by replacing the older, run down units
with modern units.
Alternative: No other alternative recommended. Continuous ownership by the City is not a
financially sound option. The property may be transferred to a nonprofit housing agency and
maintained as affordable housing. However, even a nonprofit agency taking ownership of these
homes would likely look at the land as a future higher-density development site. If not
developed, the parking lot next to the units would also go underutilized.
23
F. 418 Linden Avenue
Recommendation: Redevelopment
It is recommended this property be redeveloped. The City currently uses the property as a
surface parking lot. The 14,000 square foot site is suitable for a housing development of 25-30
residential units. A market-rate project can potentially be built on the site but the City will face
challenges finding a developer willing to build the project due to the smaller lot size. Therefore,
the site is more suitable for a mixed-income project. Given the site’s development challenges,
the City Council has determined that the City would collaborate with a developer on the site. The
City’s participation will consist of grant and loan financing in return for the production of
affordable units in the project.
Alternative: No other alternative recommended.
G. 201 Baden Avenue
Recommendation: Redevelopment
It is recommended this property be redeveloped. The property is currently vacant with the
exception of a month-to-month lease with Giorgi Brothers who uses the bays for storage. The
0.5 acre site is suitable for a housing development of 50-60 residential units that would make
better use of the land. A market-rate project can potentially be built on the site. Given the site’s
smaller size, the City may need to provide developer incentives to have this site developed.
Alternative: No other alternative recommended. The site is underutilized and the building
may exterior may become blighted soon and require upkeep if an alternate use is not found.
24
VI. Housing Investment
The City has a total of approximately $11,797,499 available to invest on affordable housing. The
funds must be used for the production or rehabilitation of affordable housing. Funds can be
used for 100% affordable projects (newly constructed or rehabilitated) or to subsidize units in
market-rate projects so that a portion of them are affordable (i.e. mixed-income projects).
Currently the City Council is considering the current projects:
$2,461,978 Rotary, approximately 69-94 senior units on Miller Avenue properties
$3,105,000 Brookwood, approximately 12 affordable in 60 unit development (48 market-
rate) at Grand-Cypress
$1,615,000 Brookwood, approximately 6 affordable in 30 unit development (24 market-
rate) at 418 Linden Avenue
$2,500,0007 Acquire and rehabilitate an existing 25-unit apartment building
$2,115,521 Future projects
$11,797,499 Total Available
Strategic Economics estimated the subsidy needed to produce a two-bedroom affordable rental
unit in San Mateo County for a family at 90% of median income as $200,083. Using this metric,
the City would be able to produce and additional 11 affordable units with the $2,115,521
remaining for future projects. If the City Council elected to use these funds to encourage the
development of mixed-income projects with 20% of the units affordable, this would yield a 55
unit development with 11 affordable units and 44 market rate units.
VII. Conclusion
The Housing Asset Management Plan is recommending that the City end the practice of owning
hard-to-manage, scattered affordable housing sites and instead recapture financial resources by
selling various sites and using the Miller Avenue properties to advance the development of
higher density housing in the downtown. Combined with cash assets, the sale properties and/or
the contribution of land into projects gives the City over $11 million with which to advance its
affordable housing mission and to potentially facilitate market-rate housing in the downtown
through mixed-income projects. Finally, the City should attempt to utilize strategies that would
leverage the limited supply of affordable housing funds and ensure that these funds are recycled
so they can be reutilized again in the future.
Enacting the recommendations in this plan will allow the City to achieve various goals including,
initiating development of market-rate housing in the downtown, eliminating the City’s cost and
burden of managing affordable housing, replacing old affordable housing units with new units
and potentially recycling affordable housing funds for future developments. If the City Council
supports the strategies outlined in this Plan, staff will initiate steps to carry out the strategies
contained herein including steps to sell the scattered affordable housing sites and preparing
agreements for the development of 418 Linden Avenue and the Miller Avenue properties.
7 This amount is an estimate based on contributing both acquisition and rehabilitation matching funds to a nonprofit
entity that would pursue tax credits or other funding sources to complete a project.
25
Appendix 1
Property Repairs Needed
109 Longford No repairs needed
380 Alta Vista New window screens and paint for one exterior wall
Fill holes in yard
Repair broken fence
339 A Commercial New door bell, window screens, stove fan, and closet door
Replace missing kitchen cabinet door
339 B Commercial Not recently inspected
341 A Commercial New screen door and interior painting
341 B Commercial New window screens, interior paint, kitchen fan, and bedroom light
fixture
Replace missing kitchen cabinet door
Remediate mold on bathroom ceiling
Repair heater
714 Linden Repair cracked ceiling and damaged wall
New interior paint and light covers
Remove graffiti from garage door
716 Linden New blinds, refrigerator, door, window screen, and light covers
718 Linden No repairs needed
310 Miller New window screen and refrigerator
Fix hard to open windows and damaged ceiling
Clean the flooring
310 A Miller Remediate mold in bedroom
Fix hard to open windows and repair broken window
New stove, porch light, and door bell
Entire unit needs to be cleaned
311 Tamarack New stove
312 Miller New interior paint, carpet, and light fixtures
Repair damaged wall
312 A Miller New interior paint and carpet
313 A Tamarack No repairs needed
313 B Tamarack Repair leaking toilet
New kitchen fan and linoleum
314 Miller Repair broken steps/landing
New carpet
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments -Parking Place Commission and Planning Commission Powers and Duties
Date: October 8,2014
Page 2 of3
operation, surrounding parking occupancy, and ability of any surrounding public parking lots to meet that
on-site deficit. The PPC reviews and approves or denies applications for parking exceptions only within
the Downtown Parking District. An appeal of the PPC' s parking reduction decision is reviewed by the City
Council.
Proposed Revisions
The proposed zoning amendment would transfer parking reduction decisions within the Downtown Parking
District from the PPC to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is presently the designated
"Decision Maker" for parking exception requests for all areas in the City outside of the Downtown Parking
District. With this zoning amendment, the Planning Commission would be the decision making body for all
parking reduction requests throughout the City. All other PPC duties, including setting parking meter rates
and reviewing yearly operation and expense reports for the District would not be affected by this zoning
amendment and would remain with the PPC. The City Council would remain the appeal authority for all
parking reduction decisions. A complete "marked-up" version of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment is
included in the draft amendment resolution as Exhibit A.
Benefits to the Transfer of Parking Exception Review Duties
The review of parking reductions for proposed businesses in the City's Parking District will be an
appropriate duty of the Planning Commission since members are deeply experienced with the new
development review process and have a proven record of reviewing parking reduction requests throughout
the commercial and employment zoning districts of the City. This change ensures continual and consistent
analysis of parking policies throughout the City, as well. As new development is proposed for the
downtown core, the Planning Commission's evaluation will help guide and balance the demand for parking
in the District.
Additionally, the Planning Commission has two scheduled meetings per month, whereas the Parking Place
Commission only meets once per month, as necessary. The additional meeting will potentially allow
projects to move through the City's review process faster when only a parking exception is required.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Any change to the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plans. In this case, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments would change the review authority for
Parking Exceptions in the Parking District but would not otherwise alter the process available to residents
or business owners. The General Plan supports reduced parking requirements in the downtown commercial
district and flexible standards given the close proximity of surface parking lots, on-street parking, transit
connections, and overall walkability of the downtown core. The proposed text amendments will remain
consistent with the City's General Plan vision for community and economic development.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
There is no possibility that the Zoning Code Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment.
Therefore, the Amendment is not subject to CEQA. Even if the Amendment were considered a "project"
for CEQA purposes, it would be exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines Section, 15320 regarding
ORDINANCE NO. __ _
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE, RELATED TO
THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE PARKING PLACE
COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, in an effort to reorganize the duties and powers of the Parking Place
Commission, the review of parking reduction requests in the City's Parking District would be
transferred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, transferring these powers and duties to the Planning Commission would (1)
facilitate a streamlined review of new development in the downtown zoning districts and (2)
ensure orderly review of new development impacts on the existing downtown parking supply;
and
WHEREAS, City staff developed the Zoning Ordinance text amendment ("Amendment")
to remove the review of parking reduction requests from the Parking Place Commission and add
said duty to the Planning Commission, and clarify the Planning Commission as the decision
making body for parking reduction requests in the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance would have no significant effect on the environment because changes to the
organization oflocal agencies is categorically exempt and no further CEQA review is required to
approve the amendments; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
CEQA finding and the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, take public testimony, and make
a recommendation to the City Council on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
-1-
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"» and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on September 18, 2014; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on October 8,
2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South -San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because although the proposed amendments would change the review authority for Parking
Exceptions in the Parking District, they would not otherwise alter the process available to
residents or business owners or make physical impacts to existing properties. The General Plan
supports reduced parking requirements in the downtown commercial district and flexible
standards given the close proximity of surface parking lots, on-street parking, transit
connections, and overall walkability of the downtown core. The proposed text amendments will
remain consistent with the City's General Plan vision for community and economic development
and will not impede achiev'ement of any of the goals, policies, ,or land use designations
established in the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendments would only change the review authority for
parking reductions in the Parking District and thus would not affect any particular subject
property differently than under the current conditions. Parking reduction approvals in the
Parking District, made of several Downtown zoning districts, will preserve properties so that
they remain generally suitable in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related
uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council
since no physical changes to land would occur. .
3. The proposed zoning amendments would not be detrimental to the use of land in
any adjacent zone because the proposed change in review authority would maintain all existing
new development review standards to ensure that no spillover parking or parking demand issues
are created with approval of a parking reduction in the Parking District.
-2-
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating
addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included
below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A. Clarify the parking reduction review process and remove the Parking Place
Commission as the review authority and transfer duties to the Planning Commission.
20.330.007 Downtown Parking
A. Required Parking. Each land use in the Downtown District shall be provided at least the
number of on-site parking spaces stated ill Table 20.330.007. The parking requirement for any
use not listed in Table 20.330.007 shall be the same as required for the land use in any other
district as stated in Table 20.330.004.
B. In-Lieu Fees. In the Downtown Parking District, the City may establish a parking
mitigation fund and allow payment of a fee in lieu of providing required parking on -site or
off site.
1. In-Lieu Fee Amount. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated and paid as set
forth in a resolution of the City Council.
2. Use of Funds. In-lieu fees shall be used for programs to reduce parking impacts including,
but not limited to, any of the following:
a. Off-street parking facilities, including acquisition, development, and maintenance of
parking facilities located in the Downtown Parking District;
b. Mass transit equipment, including stock and attendant facilities serving the area in which
the buildings for which the payments are made are located;
c. Transit or paratransit passes, coupons, and tickets to be made available at a discount to
employees and customers and to promote and support incentives for employee ride-sharing and
transit use; or
d. Transportation system management projects, all costs including but not limited to
personnel, equipment, and physical facilities.
C. Parking Reduction. Ia-For the Downtown Parking District, the Planning Commission shall
review any prior to Chief Planfler or PlanB:ing Commissioft deeision on a Use Permit that
insludes a request for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, and the P8:fking
Plase Commission shall make a determination whether there is sufficient parking within the
District to accommodate the proposed use. The detennmatioB shall be ferwaroeti to the Pla:B1liBg
Commission for sonsitieration with the Use Pamlt.
B. Add parking reduction review authority in the Parking District to the Planning
Commission's Powers and Duties.
20.440.004 Planning Commission
The Planning Commission is established and organized pursuant to Chapter 2.56
("Planning Commission") of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and the requirements
of the California Government Code. The powers and duties of the Planning Commission
under this Ordinance include, but are not limited to:
-3-
A. Initiate, conduct hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed
amendments to the General Plan map and text pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
20.540 ("Amendments to General Plan").
B. Annually review progress towards implementation of the General Plan and recommend to
the City Council changes needed due to new legislation, development trends and
changing economic, social and environmental conditions.
C. Initiate, conduct hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed
amendments to the Zoning Map and to the text of this Ordinance pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 20.550 ("Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Map").
D. Initiate, conduct hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed
Specific Plans and plan amendments pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.530
("Specific Plans and Plan Amendments").
E. Approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny Conditional Use Permits, Precise Plans
(except within Terrabay Specific Plan District) and variances pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 20.490 ("Use Permits"), and Chapter 20.500 ("Variances").
F. Hear and decide on modifications to approved Conditional Use Permits and variances
pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.450.012 ("Modification").
G. Approye. approve with modifications. or deny requests for modifications of the parking
standards in Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and Loading") within designated parking
districts.
H. Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the City Council on applications for
preliminary development plans pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.140 ("Planned
Development District") and Precise Plans within the Terrabay Specific Plan District.
I. Hear and decide appeals from decisions of the Chief Planner on decisions,
determinations, or interpretations made by the Chief Planner in the enforcement of this
Ordinance and any other decisions that are subject to appeal pursuant to the procedures in
Chapter 20.570 ("Appeals and Calls for Review").
J. Make environmental determinations on any approvals it grants that are subject to
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of
South San Francisco's adopted environmental review guidelines pursuant to the State law
and the procedures in Chapter 20.460 ("Environmental Review").
K. Adopt by resolution guidelines and standards for conducting design review pursuant to
Chapter 20.480 ("Design Review").
L. Initiate proceedings to revoke Use Permits pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.580
("Enforcement and Abatement Procedures").
M. Designate historic resources pursuant to Chapter 2.56.
N. Conduct design review of applications for the demolition, relocation, alterations, and/or
modifications to a designated historic resource in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 20.480 ("Design Review") and the design review guidelines.
-4-
O. Review applications for, and issue Certificates of Alteration authorizing alteration,
demolition or construction affecting designated historic resources.
C. Remove parking reduction review authority in the Parking District from the
Parking Place Commission's Powers and Duties.
20.440.007 Parking Place Commission
The Parking Place Commission is established and organized pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.60
("Parking Place Commission") of the ~outh San Francisco Municipal Code and the requirements
of the California Government Code. The powers and duties of the Parking Place Commission
under this Ordinance include, but are not limited to:
A. Exercise the powers set forth in Chapter 4, Part 4, Division 18, Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California, and such other powers as they are duly authorized by law to
carry out under the terms of said provisions; and
B. Operate, manage, and control the parking places within designated parking districts and
make and enforce all necessary rules for their use,!,;--aatl .
C. Approve, appro';e with modifieations, or deny reqllests for modifieations of the parking
standards in Chapter 20.330 ("On Site Parking and Loading") within designated parking
distriets. (Ord. 1432 § 2, 2010)
D. Revise the Review Authority table to reflect the Planning Commission's role as
the decision maker for Parking District Parking Exceptions.
20.440.011 Summary of Review Authorities for Decisions and Appeals
TABLE 20.440.011: REVIEW AUTHORITY
Application or Action Found in
Type Chapter Advisory Body Decision Maker Appeal Body
Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions
Parking District Parking 20.330 N/A PIlfkiBg Plase GemmissieH City Council
Exceptions Planning Commission
SECTION ITI. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
-5-
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 8th day of October, 2014.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
Ci ty Council held the day of , 2014 by the following vote:
AyES : ________________________________ _
NOES: ___________________________ _
ABSTENTIONS: ______________________ _
ABSENT: _________________________ _
Attest: ------------------------------Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this ___ day of ,2014.
Mayor
2326650.2
-6-
Excerpt from 09-18-14 PC Minutes
Parking Place Commission Zoning Ord.
City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant
Citywide
P07-0136:ZA14-000S
Chairperson Martin opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Associate Planner Rozzi
presented a brief staff report explaining that previously the Parking District operations were managed by the
Economic and Community Development Department, which also staffed the Parking Place Commission. As
part of a reorganization recommended by the City Manager and approved by City Council, these functions
have been transferred to the Public Works Department. Additionally, as part of this reorganization it was
recommended that the parking exception review role would be tranSltloned to the Planning Commission.
There being no speakers the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments/questions:
• Commission inquired whether it is required by law to have a Parking Place Commission . Assistant
City Attorney Rosenberg stated that a commission for the Parking District IS required.
• Commission asked about the appeal process. Senior Planner Gross explained that any Parking
Exception decision by the Planni~ Commission could be appealed to the City Cou~iI, consistent
with the current appeal review proCess.
• Commission clarified that they already revi ew parking reductions. Assistant City
Attorney Rosenberg acknowledgedl'hls butn()ted that this zoning amendment would now Include
any parking reductions granted within the Downtown Parking DiStrict, which is currently, per the
Zoning Ordinance; reviewed by the Parkmg Place Commission. Associate Planner Rozzi explained
that the Parking Place Commission would remain a commISSion with authority to review and
recommend parkmg rates.
• Commission noted that it was not aware of the Downtown in-lieu fee. Senior Planner Gross stated
that this has not currently been an option beca\Jse a specific fee has not been adopted.
Motion--Vice Chairperson Wong/Second--Commissioner Zemke: that the Planning Commission make
findings and adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the
Zoning Ord i nance regarding the powers and duties of the Parking Place Commission and Planning
Commission. Approved by unanmlOUS roll call vote (7-0)
-7 -
RESOLUTION NO. 2749-2014
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING MODIFICATIONS TO
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE,
RELATED TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE
PARKING PLACE COMMISSION AND PLANNING
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, in an effort to reorganize the duties and powers of the Parking Place
Commission, the review of parking reduction requests in the City's Parking District would be
transferred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, transferring these powers and duties to the Planning Commission would (1)
facilitate a streamlined review of new development in the downtown zoning districts and (2)
ensure orderly review of new development impacts on the existing downtown parking supply;
and
WHEREAS, City staffdeveloped the Zoning Ordinance text amendment ("Amendment")
to remove the review of parking reduction requests from the Parking Place Commission and add
said duty to the Planning Commission, and clarify the Planning Commission as the decision
making body for parking reduction requests in the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance would have no significant effect on the environment because changes to the
organization oflocal agencies is categorically exempt and no further CEQA review is required to
approve the amendments; and
WHEREAS, on September 18,2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
CEQA finding and the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, take public testimony, and make
a recommendation to the City Council on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the
South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments; and all reports,
minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed
September 18, 2014 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources
Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
-8-
SECTION I FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. Exhibit A attached to this Resolution, is incorporated by reference and made a
part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.·
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because although the proposed amendments would change the review authority for Parking
Exceptions in the Parking District, they would not otherwise alter the process available to
residents or business owners or make physical impacts to existing properties. The General Plan
supports reduced parking requirements in the downtown commercial district and flexible
standards given the close proximity of surface parking lots, on-street parking, transit
connections, and overall walkability of the downtown core. The proposed text amendments will
remain consistent with the City's General Plan vision for community and economic development
and will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations
established in the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendments would only change the review authority for
parking reductions in the Parking District and thus would not affect any particular subject
property differently than under the current conditions. Parking reduction approvals in the
Parking District, made of several Downtown zoning districts, will preserve properties so that
they remain generally suitable in terms of access; size of parcel, relationship to similar or related
lises, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council
since no physical changes to land would occur.
3. The proposed zoning amendments would not be detrimental to the use of land in
any adjacent zone because the proposed change in review authority would maintain all existing
new development review standards to ensure that no spillover parking or parking demand issues
are created with approval of a parking reduction in the Parking District.
SECTION II RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and
recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Code, as attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
-9-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon i~ passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of September,
2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Chaimerson Martin, Vice Chaimerson Wong, Commissioner Giusti. Commissioner
Khalfin, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Zemke
NOES: ______________________________________________________ _
ABSTENTIONS: ____________________________________________ __
ABSENT: ________________________________________________ __
Attest: /s/Susy Kalkin
SusyKalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
-10-
Exhibit A
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Related to the Powers and Duties of the Parking
Place Commission and Planning Commission
-11-
ORDINANCE NO. __ _
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE, RELATED TO
THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE PARKING PLACE
COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, in an effort to reorganize the duties and powers of the Parking Place
Commission, the review of parking reduction requests in the City's Parking District would be
transferred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, transferring these powers and duties to the Planning Commission would (1)
facilitate a streamlined review of new development in the downtown zoning districts and (2)
ensure orderly review of new development impacts on the existing downtown parking supply;
and
WHEREAS, City staff developed the Zoning Ordinance text amendment ("Amendment")
to remove the review of parking reduction requests from the Parking Place Commission and add
said duty to the Planning Commission, and clarify the Planning Commission as the decision
making body for parking reduction requests in the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in accordanc e with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance would have no significant effect on the environment because changes to · the
organization of local agencies is categorically exempt and no further CEQA review is required to
approve the amendments; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
CEQA finding and the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, take public testimony, and make
a recommendation to the City Council on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
-12-
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part 0 f this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"» and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on September 18, 2014; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on ,
2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because although the proposed amendments would change the review authority for Parking
Exceptions in the Parking District, they would not otherwise alter the process available to
residents or business owners or make physical impacts to existing properties. The General Plan
supports reduced parking requirements in the downtown commercial district and flexible
standards given the close proximity of surface parking lots, on-street parking, transit
connections, and overall walkability of the downtown core. The proposed text amendments will
remain consistent with the City's General Plan vision for community and economic development
and will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations
established in the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendments would only change the review authority for
parking reductions in the Parking District and thus would not affect any particular subject
property differently than under the current conditions. Parking reduction approvals in the
Parking District, made of several Downtown zoning districts, will preserve properties so that
they remain generally suitable in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related
uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council
since no physical changes to land would occur.
3. The proposed zoning amendments would not be detrimental to the use of land in
any adjacent zone because the proposed change in review authority would maintain all existing
new development review standards to ensure that no spillover parking or parking demand issues
are created with approval of a parking reduction in the Parking District.
-13-
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in strikeeut indicating deletion and double underline indicating
addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included
below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A. Clarify the parking reduction review process and remove the Parking Place
Commission as the review authority and transfer duties to the Planning Commission.
20.330.007 Downtown Parking
A. Required Parking. Each land use in the Downtown District shall be provided at least the
number of on-site parking spaces stated in Table 20.330.007. The parking requirement for any
use not listed in Table 20.330.007 shall be the same as required for the land use in any other
district as stated in Table 20.330.004.
B. In-Lieu Fees. In the Downtown Parking District, the City may establish a parking
mitigation fund and allow payment of a fee in lieu of pro\'iding required parking on-site or
offsite.
1. In-Lieu Fee Amount. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated and paid as set
forth in a resolution of the City Council.
2. Use of Funds. In-lieu fees shall be used for programs to reduce parking impacts including,
but not limited to, any of the following:
a. Off-street parking facilities, including acquisition, development, and maintenance of
parking facilities located in the Downtown Parking District;
b. Mass transit equipment, including stock and attendant facilities serving the area in which
the buildings for which the payments are made are located;
c. Transit or paratransit passes, coupons, and tickets to be made available at a discount to
employees and customers and to promote and support incentives for employee ride-sharing and
transit use; or
d. Transportation system management projects, all costs including but not limited to
personnel, equipment, and physical facilities.
C. Parking Reduction. ffi-For the Downtown Parking District, the Planning Commission shall
review any prier to Chief Planner er Planniag Cemmissi()B deeisiea ea a Use Permit that
mehtdes a request for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, .and ilie Padciag
Place Cemmissiea shall make a detennination whether there is sufficient parking within the
District to accommodate the proposed use. The determiaatiea shall be fonyaFded te the Plaaning
Cemmissien for eeasideratiea with the Use Permit.
B. Add parking reduction review authority in the Parking District to the Planning
Commission's Powers and Duties.
20.440.004 Planning Commission
The Planning Commission is established and organized pursuant to Chapter 2.56
("Planning Commission") of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and the requirements
of the California Government Code. The powers and duties of the Planning Commission
under this Ordinance include, but are not limited to:
-14-
A. Initiate, conduct hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed
amendments to the General Plan map and text pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
20.540 ("Amendments to General Plan").
B. Annually review progress towards implementation of the General P l an and recommend to
the City Council changes needed due to new legislation, development trends and
changing economic, social and environmental conditions.
C. Initiate, conduct hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed
amendments to the Zoning Map and to the text of this Ordinance pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 20.550 ("Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Map").
D. Initiate, conduct hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on proposed
Specific Plans and plan amendments pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.530
("Specific Plans and Plan Amendments").
E. Approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny Conditional Use Permits, Precise Plans
(except within Terrabay Specific Plan District) and variances pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 20.490 ("Use Permits"), and Chapter 20.500 ("Variances").
F. Hear and decide on modifications to approved Conditional Use Pennits and variances
pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.450.012 ("Modification").
G. Approye, approve with modifications, or deny requests for modifications of the parking
standards in Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and Loading") within designated parking
districts.
H. Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the City Council on applications for
preliminary development plans pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.140 ("Planned
Development District") and Precise Plans within the Terrabay Specific Plan District.
I. Hear and decide appeals from decisions of the Chief Planner on decisions,
determinations, or interpretations made by the Chief Planner in the enforcement of this
Ordinance and any other decisions that are subject to appeal pursuant to the procedures in
Chapter 20 .570 ("Appeals and Calls for Review").
1. Make environmental determinations on any approvals it grants that are subject to
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of
South San Francisco's adopted environmental review guidelines pursuant to the State law
and the procedures in Chapter 20.460 ("Environmental Review").
K. Adopt by resolution guidelines and standards for conducting design review pursuant to
Chapter 20.480 ("Design Review").
L. Initiate proceedings to revoke Use Permits pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.580
("Enforcement and Abatement Procedures").
M. Designate historic resources pursuant to Chapter 2.56.
N. Conduct design review of applications for the demolition, relocation, alterations, and/or
modifications to a designated historic resource in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 20.480 ("Design Review") and the design review guidelines.
-15-
O. Review applications for, and issue Certificates of Alteration authorizing alteration,
demolition or construction affecting designated historic resources.
C. Remove parking reduction review authority in the Parking District from the
Parking Place Commission's Powers and Duties.
20.440.007 Parking Place Commission
The Parking Place Commission is established and organized pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.60
("Parking Place Commission") of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and the requirements
of the California Government Code. The powers and duties of the Parking Place Commission
under this Ordinance include, but are not limited to:
A. Exercise the powers set forth in Chapter 4, Part 4, Division 18, Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California, and such other powers as they are duly authorized by law to
carry out under the terms of said provisions; mId
B. Operate, manage, and control the parking places within designated parking districts and
make and enforce all necessary rules for their use,l,-;-a:Bti
C. l'\pprove, approve 'llith modifications, or deny requests for modifications of the parking
staadards in Chapter 20.330 ("On Site Parking and Loading") within designated parking
distriets. (Ord. 1432 § 2,2010)
D. Revise the Review Authority table to reflect the Planning Commission's role as
the decision maker for Parking District Parking Exceptions.
20.440.011 Summary of Review Authorities for Decisions and Appeals
TABLE 20.440.011: REVIEW AUTHORITY
Application or Action Found in
Type Chapter Advisory Body Decision Maker Appeal Body
Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions
Parking District Parking 20.330 N/A PaffiiBg Plaee Gemmissien City Council
Exceptions flanning Commission
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
-16-
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (l) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the __ day of ,2014.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the __ day of ,2014 by the following vote:
AyES: ___________________________________________________ __
NOES: _________________________________________________ _
ABSTENTIONS: ____________________________________________ __
ABSENT: __________________________________________________ __
Attest: -----------------------------Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this day of ,2014.
Mayor
2326650.2
-17 -
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments -Banks and Financial Institutions Uses
Date: October 8,2014
Page 2 of 10
At the direction of the City Council, staff has examined the City's current zoning regulations relative to
these uses and other jurisdictions' regulations in order to recommend zoning revisions that would limit
proliferation of payday lending and other alternative loan businesses. The proposed zoning amendments
would change the way the City defines "Banks and Financial Institution" uses, revise the zoning districts
where aiternatiye loan businesses such as check cashing businesses, payday lenders and similar uses are
allowed, and strengthen the performance standards for these uses.
DISCUSSION
Current Regulations
"Check Cashing Businesses" and "Banks and Credit Unions" are currently sub-classifications of the
existing Zoning Ordinance's "Banks and Financial Institutions" commercial use classification. Payday
lenders or deferred depositors (as they are referred to in the State's Civil Code) are currently classified
·under the City's "Check Cashing Businesses" definition. This "Check Cashing Businesses" use
classification also includes businesses that cash checks for compensation as their primary business, but
does not include retailers that cash checks as an incidental part of their business such as a supermarket.
Check Cashing Businesses are conditionally permitted in the commercial, downtown, and employment
districts of the City and are also subject to special performance standards (SSFMC Section 20.350.011).
These performance standards include a limit to the size of the business, require a location on an arterial
street at least 1,000 feet from any other Check Cashing Business, and security plan requirements. The
current definitions and performance standards are included as an attachment to this staff report.
Proposed Revisions
The primary change with the proposed zoning amendment would be to introduce new definitions that
capture a wide array of alternative loan businesses that represent a collective overconcentration in the
downtown area. This new definition would include check cashers, payday lenders, microfinance lenders!
and pawnbrokers.
The Zoning Ordinance definitions and terms are organized ,by classifications with sub-classifications, as
needed. The City currently has two sub-classifications for Banks and Financial Institutions -"Banks and
Credit Unions" and "Check Cashing Businesses" -and these uses are permitted or conditionally permitted
in appropriate zoning districts citywide. Staff is recommending that a new sub-classification called "Other
Financial Services" be created in order to differentiate between traditional and non-traditional financial
institutions and be able to regulate them differently. The "Check Cashing Businesses" sub-classification
would be eliminated and replaced with "Alternative Loan Businesses" as a sub-sub-classification of "Other
Financial Services." This represents a broader definition that should be clearer to prospective business
applicants and City staff for zoning purposes. Additionally, since pawnbrokers represent a type of financial
service, "Pawnbroker" has also been included as a definition and type of use that would fall under "Other
Financial Services" and would be regulated similarly to check cashing, payday lending, or micro finance
businesses.
1 Microfmance institutions are characterized by their use of interest rates that are higher than traditional banks and credit unions
and typically targeted towards low-income borrowers or borrowers with limited or no credit history.
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments -Banks and Financial Institutions Uses
Date: October 8, 2014
Page 4 of 10
"check casher" as that tenn is defined in California Civil Code section 1789.31. as amended from
time to time. This classification also includes the business of deferred deposits, or "payday
lending," WfleFeby the sheek sasher which is defined as an establishment owned or operated by a
"licensee," as that tenn is defined in California Financial Code section 23001Cdl. as amended from
time to time refrains &om depositiDg a persoDal sheek wTitteB by a eustomer u.Dtil a speeifie date
plifSu.ant to a ' .. witteD agreem:eBt as provided iD Civil Code 1789.33. Similar lending services that
provide vehicle title loans or micro finance loans shall also be included in this classification.
Microfinance institutions are characterized by their use of interest rates that are higher than
traditional banks and credit unions and typically targeted towards low-income borrowers or
borrowers with limited or no credit history. Cheek CashiDg Alternative Loan Businesses do not
include state or federally chartered banks, savings associations, credit unions, or industrial loan
companies. They also do not include retail sellers engaged primarily in the business of selling
consumer goods, such as consumables to retail buyers that cash checks or issue money order
incidental to their main purpose or business.
Pawnbroker. Means every person who keeps a place of business where personal property is
received and for which money is advanced, with the right of privilege granted to the person to
whom said money is advanced to reclaim such property upon repayment of said money. together
with all legal charges incident thereto. This does not include Banks and Credit Unions, as defined
by this section.
These zoning amendments would establish a new use sub-classification under "Banks and Financial
Institutions" named "Other Financial Institutions" with two new sub-definitions: "Alternative Loan
Businesses" and "Pawnbroker". Check cashing businesses, payday lenders, vehicle title loan lenders,
micro finance institutions and similar uses would be included in the "Alternative Loan Businesses"
definition. This new definition would update the City's approach to Check Cashing and Payday Lending
businesses in particular by referencing the state's civil code definition for those businesses, which should
provide flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance since any civil code changes to further define or regulate
payday lenders will be reflected in the City's definition. Microfinance Institutions are defined to capture
businesses targeting low-income borrowers and charging substantially higher interest rates than traditional
banks and credit unions.
A new definition for "Pawnbroker" is also introduced to provide a fonnal definition in the Municipal
Code's Title 20: Zoning and then regulate it as an "Other Financial Institutions" use. Although
"Pawnbroker/Secondhand Dealer" is currently regulated by the Municipal Code's Title 6: Business
Regulations and requires a conditional use permit, "Pawnbroker" was not defined or included in the 2010
Zoning Ordinance update. By introducing the definition and use into the land use tables, the City would
have the ability to further control the location of pawnshops throughout the City similar to the City's
previous version of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments -Banks and Financial Institutions Uses
Date: October 8,2014
Page 5000
2. Revise Section 20.350.011 "Check Cashing Businesses to read as follows:
20.350.011 Cheek CashiBg Busmesses Other Financial Services
Cheek oashing businesses Other Financial Services subject to this section, which includes Alternative Loan
Businesses and Pawnbrokers, shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following
standards:
A. Maximum Size. Limited to 2,500 square feet in size.
B. Location. Cheek cashing businesses Other Financial Services shall be located on an a major
arterial or higher classification street, and at least 1,000 s€Jtla:re feet from any other oheek cashing
Other Financial Services business.
C. Queuing Area. Adequate queuing area shall be provided within the building. Queuing on
the sidewalk is prohibited.
D. Security. A security plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner
and the City of South San Francisco Police Department. The plan shall provide for adequate
security, including a central station alarm system to the Police Department. Bars on the windows~
exterior phones and roll up doors are prohibited.
E. Hours of Operation. The business shall not open prior to 7:00 AM or close for business
after 7:00 PM, daily. Any alteration to these hours or operation may be granted with approval of a
Use Permit.
Both "Alternative Loan Businesses" and "Pa~nbrokers" would be regulated according to SSFMC Section
20.350.011 performance standards. This allows the City the ability to implement appropriate distance and
overconcentration criteria, along with safety standards for all uses considered "Other Financial Services".
Arterial roads that would allow an "Other Financial Services" business include El Camino Real,
Westborough Boulevard, Chestnut Boulevard, S.lAirport Boulevard, E. Grand Avenue, Forbes Boulevard
and Bayshore Boulevard.
3. Update Table 20.090.002 -Land Use Regulations, Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use
Districts, as indicated below:
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments -Banks and Financial Institutions Uses
Date: October 8, 2014
Page 6 of 10
TABLE 20.090.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-COMMERCL<\L, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE
DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Banks and Financial See sub-classifications below
Institutions
Banks and Credit L'nions P P P P
Other Financ.ial Services. See s.ub-c.l(J£s.i~liQl1s belQw.
Cheek Cashing MUP MUP MUP l\1UP See Section 20.350.011 Qreek
/Jl:tSil'le5Se!i Alternative Cashing "Businesses Qilier
Loan B7J3.il1ess.e.s FinllDcial Services
Pawnbroker ~ ~ ~ ~ See S!;:QtiQO 2Q,350.011, Qtb!i:r
EinanQial S!i:ITi~!i:s and ChaJ;!ter
6.92 Pawnbroker/Se~Qndhand
Dealer
For property in Commercial, Office, and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts, "Alternative Loan Businesses"
would remain conditionally permitted uses and only the use classifications would be revised in the land use
tables (for instance, Check Cashing Businesses would become Alternative Loan Businesses).
"Pawnbrokers" would be a new listed use in the tables and would be conditionally permitted, consistent
with Chapter 6.92 provisions and subject to the revised performance standards in Section 20.350.011.
4. Update Table 20.100.002 -Land Use Regulations, Downtown Districts, as indicated below:
TABLE 20.100.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations
Banks and Financial See sub-classifications below
Institutions
Banks and Credit MUP(3) MUP ---
Unions
Cheek Ce.shing MUP(J) MYJl ---See Seeti9B 2Q.J!iQ.Qll_Chesk
/JlH1ine!iSe!i Gashing "Busiaesses
For property in the Downtown Zoning Districts, "Other Financial Services" would no longer be a permitted
use and the existing "Check Cashing Businesses" use would be eliminated from the land use table. This
means that any new check cashing, payday lending, micro finance, or pawnbroker business would be
prohibited. Any existing business that meets the new "Other Financial Services" definition would become
a legal non-conforming use. Although no new business could locate in the downtown zoning districts, any
closure of an "Other Financial Services" use could be reopened within one year (SSFMC § 20.320.008
Abandonment of Nonconforming Uses). The one year timeline commences once a site is vacated, the
business license lapses, utilities are terminated or the lease is terminated.
Staff Report
Subject: Zorung Code Amendments -Banks and Financial Institutions Uses
Date: October 8,2014
Page 7 of 10
5. Update Table 20.110.002 -Lan d Use Regulations, Employment Districts, as indicated below:
TABLE 20.110.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below
Banks and Credit Unions P P -P
Other Eil1al1c.ial Services s.ee. s.ub.-c1(l~(kations be.lQl1!.
Cheek Cashing MUP MUP -MUP See Section 20.350.011 Gftesk
BWJinesses Alternative Cashiag Busmesses Other Financial
LQ(lll Bus.il1e.s.s.es Services
Pawnbroker ~ ,Q -~ See Section 20.350.011 Other =
Einancial Sm>:ices and ChaRt~r 6.22
fawnbroker L Secondhand Dealer
For property in Employment District Zoning Districts, "Alternative Loan Businesses" would remain
conditionally permitted uses and only the use classifications would be revised in the land use tables (for
instance, Check Cashing Businesses would become Alternative Loan Businesses). "Pawnbrokers" would be
a new listed use in the tables and would be conditionally permitted, consistent with Chapter 6.92 provisions
and subject to the revised performance standards in Section 20.350.011. The only exception is for the
Freeway Commercial Zoning District, which does not currently allow any "Other Financial Services" and
this would remain unchanged.
Benefits to the Proposed Zoning Amendment
The proposed changes to Banks and Financial Institutions, with specific interest in limiting the proliferation
of payday lending and other alternative loan businesses that would now be classified as "Other Financial
Services" offer the City an increased ability to prevent blight or unattractive commercial development for
residents. The more robust performance standards for "Other Financial Services" would limit these uses to
major arterial streets and zoning changes would eliminate these businesses as permitted uses in the
downtown area, where some of the most economically-vulnerable residents are located. Although the
existing "Other Financial Services" in the downtown area would remain as legal, non-conforming uses,
these uses could not expand.
New retailers seeking to provide services to the unbanked community who do not fit clearly within either
existing definition for "Banks and Credit Unions" or "Check Cashing Businesses" would be captured under
the "Other Financial Services" sub-classification instead. For example, the Planning Commission approved
a use permit for a financial institution called Apoyo Financiero in February of 2013. Apoyo Financiero is
located at 481 Grand Avenue and represents itself as a "microfrnance" company that serves primarily those
members of the Latino population that have no credit history and thus cannot access traditional forms of
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments -Banks and Financial Institutions Uses
Date: October 8, 2014
Page 8 of 10
credit. Its interest rates are higher than traditional financial institutions at 36 percent but lower than payday
lenders. Given the relatively high interest rate, however, future business types like this would now be
regulated under the "Other Financial Services" performance standards and prohibited from the downtown
zoning districts where there is an overconcentration of alternative loan businesses.
Finally, and consistent with recent legislation adopted throughout the Bay Area, tighter regulation of these
types of financial services will protect the City'S low-income residents that are most likely to use payday or
other high-interest loans. Research into the social and economic impacts of these uses suggest that these
businesses typically target poor or minority communities that have limited access to traditional banks and
extract spending power from families with fees and high-interest rates 2
, and these uses often create a cycle
of repeat loans and indebtedness3 • Although not all "Other Financial Servic.es" may have this impact,
regulating these uses as a whole provides the City with the ability to ensure orderly and diverse
development without creating an overconcentration. Additionally, since similar legislation has been
adopted in Pacifica, East Palo Alto, Daly City and unincorporated San Mateo County, this amendment is
consistent with surrounding jurisdictions and could help prevent future spillover of payday lending
businesses into South San Francisco.
Community Outreach
The proposed zoning amendment would address some of the supply side concerns with these alternative
loan businesses by limiting new locations. These uses, however, have historically provided financial
services to the unbanked community who would otherwise have few choices for short-term loans. In the
future, there are additional policy initiatives that could be considered, such as multilingual seminars and
other outreach to educate residents about financial planning and loan alternatives. This item will remain
ongoing and likely require future guidance from the City Council as follow-up to this proposed legislation.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Any change to the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plans. In this case, the proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan because
the Zoning Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, is consistent with the relevant specific
plans, and is consistent with the City'S overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and
protection of the downtown area as a center of commercial activity and interaction without an
overconcentration of "Other Financial Services" that could contribute to blight as set forth in the General
Plan. None of the new or revised use definitions and modifications to allowable land uses will conflict with
or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General
Plan.
2 For more infonnation related to impacts on minority or poor communities, please visit
http://v.ww.siliconvalleycf.orgl docs/payday-Iending-reportpdf.
3 For more infonnation related to chronic payday loan borrowing, please visit http:.'/edq.sagepub.com'contentl17/1/8.abstract or
http://www.responsiblelending.org/payday-lending/research-analysis/phantom-demand-final.pdf.
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments -Banks and Financial Institutions Uses
Date: October 8,2014
Page 10 of 10
ATTACHMENT:
1. Draft Zoning Amendment Ordinance
2 . Planning Commission Draft Minutes -Meeting of September 18, 2014
3. Planning Commission Resolution 2748-2014 -Zoning Text Amendment Resolution
4. Current-Zoning Ordinance Definitions and Perfonnance Standards for "Check Cashing Businesses"
5. Map of Current "Other Financial Services" Businesses
2336111.1
ORDINANCE NO. __ _
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE, RELATED TO
BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS USES
CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
adopted a comprehensive update to the City's zoning ordinance, Which repealed the then-existing
Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code ("Zoning Ordinance"), and replaced it with
an entirely new Title that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
refonnatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards; and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010, the City has identified
areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, andlor correction, including
revisions to the City's Chapter regulating Banks and Financial Institutions uses Citywide, as
further set forth in the Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS~ the City Council has expressed concern about the potential impact(s) that
certain financial institution uses might have on the City; and
WHEREAS, more specifically, Other Financial Institutions uses, as defined herein, which
include check cashing businesses, payday lenders, pawnbrokers and other alternative loan
products, may put financially vulnerable residents at risk with very high interest rates or fees;
and
WHEREAS, research has indicated that these Other Financial Institutions could trap
users in a cycle of debt that could contribute to increased rates of poverty in the City; and
WHEREAS, research identifies that Other Financial Institutions are more likely to target
low-income residents or minority communities by locating their business nearby; and
WHEREAS, these Other Financial Institutions are clustered near the City's lower income
census tracts adjacent to the downtown zoning districts in the City; and
WHEREAS, this overconcentration of Other Financial Institutions can contribute to
blight and prevent high quality development and economic activity in the downtown zoning
districts; and
-1-
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the City's land us e regulations
applicable to Banks and Financial Institutions uses; and
WHEREAS, City staff prepared this Zoning Code text amendment ("Zoning
Amendment") to limit the zoning districts where Other Financial Institutions such as alternative
loan businesses or pawnbrokers may locate, and strengthen the performance standards for these
uses; and
WHEREAS, said Zoning Amendment revises or adds definitions and regulations for
Banks and Financial Institution, including Banks and Credit Union, Alternative Loan Business,
and Pawnbroker uses to the City's Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial StudylNegative Declaration ("ISIND") in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
("CEQA"), which ISIND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the
environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed
established thresholds of significance; and,
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, andlor corrections set forth in this Zoning
Amendment, as they relate to Banks and Financial Institutions uses Citywide, are minor in
nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed
and analyzed in the ISIND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law~ the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA")) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2901 updates to the General Plan and 2001
-2-
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on September 18, 2014; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on October 8,
2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan
because the Zoning Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, is consistent with the
relevant specific plans, and is consistent with the City's overall vision for community
development, economic vitality, and protection of the downtown area as a center of commercial
activity and interaction without an overconcentration of Other Financial Services that could
contribute to blight as set forth in the General Plan. None of the new or revised use definitions
and modifications to allowable land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the
goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2. The Zoning Amendment to revise the Banks and Financial Institutions definitions
and limit locations for Other Financial Services would protect future land uses in the downtown
zoning districts but would not affect any particular subject property. The zoning districts where
Other Financial Services would be permitted or conditionally permitted are generally suitable in
terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations as
deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the proposed uses are
consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to maintaining a
balanced land use program with appropriate performance standards to prevent an
overconcentration of Other Financial Services.-
3. The proposed change in permitted or conditionally permitted uses in certain
zoning districts will not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the
proposed Zoning Amendment will strengthen performance standards for Other Financial Uses
that pertain to overconcentration and safety, preserve the downtown zoning districts by removing
Other Financial Services such as alternative loan businesses and pawnbrokers as pennitted uses,
and permit these uses on major arterial streets only that are not in close proximity to sensitive
uses.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in strikeaat indicating deletion and double underline indicating
-3-
addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included
below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A. Revise Chapter 20.620.004 "Banks and Financial Institutions" definitions
(Commercial Use Classifications) as follows:
20.620.004 Commercial Use Classifications
Banks and Financial Institutions.
Banks and Credit Unions. Financial institutions. including federally-chartered banks. savings
associations. industrial loan companies. and credit unions that provide pro'lidiBg retail banking
services to individuals and businesses. This classification includes only those institutions
engaged in the on-site circulation of money, and whose deposits are insured by the state or
federal government and/or a state or federal sponsored entity, including credit unions. This
classification specifically excludes but 6*eludiag ·Other Financial Services. cheek eashing
businesses. as defined by this section.
Other Financial Services Other Financjal Services are business establishments that provide
customers with some fonn of currency in a transact jon as part of an alternative loan product.
This use classification may include check cashing. paYday loans. vehicle title lOanS.
microfinance loans. pawnbrokers. or similar. This use classification specifically excludes Banks
and Credit Unions. as defined by this section.
Cheek Gashing Businesses Alternative Loan Businesses. Establishments that;-feF
eompensation, conduct a check cashing business. and/or engage in the business of
cashing checks, warrants, drafts, money orders, or other commercial paper ser\ling the
same purpose enterprise defined herein. The term "check cashing business" as used
herein includes a retail business owned or operated by a IIcheck casher II as that term is
defined in California Civil Code section 1789.31. as amended from time to time. This
classification also includes the business of deferred deposits, or "payday lending,"
~ereby the eheek casher which is defined as an establishment owned or·operated by a
IIlicensee." as that term is defined in California Financial Code section 2300lCdl. as
amended from time to time refrains from depositing a 13ersonw ehoek ' .. witten by a
eu~omer Mill a B)3eeifie date 13ursuaBt to a '.vrittea agreement as provided in CiYfil Code
1789.33. Similar lending services that provide vehicle title loans or micro finance loans
shall also be included in this classification. Microfinance institutions are characterized
by their use of interest rates that are higher than traditional banks and credit unions and
typically targeted toWards low-income borrowers or borrowers with limited or no credit
history. Cheek CashiBg Alternative Loan Businesses do not include state or federally
chartered banks, savings associations, credit unions, or industrial loan companies. They
also do not include retail sellers engaged primarily in the business of selling consumer
goods, such as consumables to retail buyers, that cash checks or issue money orders
incidental to their main purpose or business.
Pawnbroker. Means everv person who keeps a place of business where personal
property is received and for which money is advanced. with the right ofprivilege granted
to the perSon to whom said money is advanced to reclaim such property upon repayment
-4-
of said money. together with all legal charges incident thereto. This does not include
Banks and Credit Unions. as defined by this section.
B. Revise Section 20.350.011 "Check Cashing Businesses to read as follows:
20.350.011 Cheek CaskiBg Busmesses Other Financial Services
Cheek cashing businesses Other Financial Services subject to this section, which includes
Alternative Loan Businesses and Pawnbrokers. shall be located, developed, and operated in
compliance with the following standards:
A. Maximum Size. Limited to 2,500 square feet in size.
B. Location. Cheek cashing businesses Other Financial Services shall be located on
an a maior arterial or higher classification street, and at least 1,000 square feet from any
other check cashing Other Financial Services business.
C. Queuing Area. Adequate queuing area shall be provided within the building.
Queuing on the sidewalk is prohibited.
D. Security. A security plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Chief
Planner and the City of South San Francisco Police Department. The plan shall provide
for adequate security, including a central station alann system to the Police Department.
Bars on the windows. exterior phones and roll up doors are prohibited.
E. Hours of Operation. The business shall not open prior to 7:00 AM or close for
business after 7:00 PM. daily. Any alteration to these hours of operation may be granted
with approval ofa Use Pennit. .
C. Update Table 20.090.002 -Land Use Regulations, Commercial, Office and Mixed-
Use Districts, as indicated below:
TABLE 20.090.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE
DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC BPO CMX I ECRMX Additional Regulations
BankS and Financial See sub-classifications below
Institutions
Banks and Credit Unions P P P I p
Other FinQncial Servic.es See s.u.b.-c.l(J§,Siti¥.QliQns b.e.IQl!!.
Cheek C96hing MUP MUP MUP I MUP See Section 20.350.011 Gheek
Bft5ine66e5 Alternative GaslHBg BasiH6sses Other
-5-
Loaa Bus.il1es.s.es. finandal Servic~s
Pawnbroker ~ ~ ~ ~ See SectiQn 20.350.01 I I Qth~r
financial Services and Cha~[
6.22 £awnbrQkerlSecondband
Dealer
D. Update Table 20.100.002 -Land Use Regulations, Downtown Districts, as indicated
below:
TABLE 20.100.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations
Banks and Financial See sub-classifications below
Institutions
Banks and Credit MUP(3) MUP ---
Unions
Check Cashing MUF(3) MYP ---See SeebeB ;W.3~Q.QIlJ;heek
BN6inesses Cashing BusiBesses
E. Update Table 20.110.002 -Land Use Regulations, Employment Districts, as
indicated below:
TABLE 20.110.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below
Banks and Credit Unions P P -P
Other. Fiaanci(ll Se.O!.ic.es See. s.ub.-c.lassitic.aliQns b.e.IQW
Cheek Ces-hing MUP MUP -MUP See Section 20.350.011 Qesk
BN6il'lesses Alternative. CashiBg Busmesses ()ther Financial
LQan liu.siae.s.s.e.s. Servic~s
Pawnbroker ~ ~ -~ See Section 20.350.011 Other =
FiDanQial Sezyices and ChaQter 6.22
Pawnbrok~ L S!;lcQodhand Dealer
SECTIONID. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
-6-
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 8th day of October, 2014.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the __ day of ,2014 by the following vote:
AyES: ___________________________________________________ _
NOES: ___________________________________________________ _
ABSTENTIONS:, _______________________ _
ABSENT: __________________________________________________ __
Attest ______________ __
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this
__ day of ,2014.
Mayor
-8-
Excerpt from 09-18-14 PC Minutes
Check Cashing Businesses
City of South San Francisco-Owner/Applicant
Citywide
P07-0136:ZA14-0003
Chairperson Martin opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Associate Planner Rozzi
presented a brief staff report recommending that the Planning Commission make findings and adopt a
resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding
regulations related to Banks and Financial Institution uses.
There being no speakers the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments/questions:
• Commission asked about the definition of a major arterial. Senior Planner Gross informed the
Commission that the General Plan in the Transportation Element has the definition of a major
arterial and Identified the major arterials throughout the City.
• Commission had a question for staff regarding the differences between "Other Financial Services"
and "Banks and Credit Unions" and interest rates charged. Associate Planner Ro.zzi explained that
per the definitions, "Banks and Credit Unions" are engaged In on-site circulation @t currency and
Insured by the state or federal government.
• Commission expressed concern and asked for clarification that these businesses were not being
pushed out but rather that the revised regulatlons would control their location to prevent an over-
concentration. Associate Planner RozzI stated that.as long as the businesses have appropriate state
licensing and permits, they can continue to operate but new "Other Financial Services" businesses
would be prohibited In the downtown area .
• Commission asked staff if these lending companies are regulated by the state in regards to interest
rates and fees involved. AssoCIate Planner ROZZi replied affirmatively that the Department of
Business Oversight is the regulating state agency.
• CommIsSIon tnt:juired about how foreign currency remittance businesses would be categorized.
AssocIate Planner Rozzi stated that this type of business was not specifically listed in the definition
blJt that the Chief Planner would need to look at the existing definitions and see the closest
apprOXimation for this type of business. He further explained that this is closer to an alternative
loan business than a tradjoonal bank or credit union.
• Comm~S1on inquired whether this would apply to check cashing as an ancillary or primary
business. Associate Planner Rozzi stated that this would apply to check cashing as a primary use
only. .
• Commission questipned the non-conforming use time frame and whether it runs with the
property. AssociatePlailher Rozzi stated that a non-conforming use would be allowed to continue
with another owner.A~$j5tant City Attorney Rosenberg further explained that a non-conforming use
abandoned for over a year cannot re-establish but change of ownership or name wouldn't affect
their ability to continue a legal non-conforming use in the same location providing they follow the
City Municipal Code Chapter regarding non-conforming uses.
• Commission Inquired about the process to operate this type of business. Associate
Planner explained that any proposed "other Financial Services" business would go through a minor
use permit hearing and need to meet the zoning and performance standards.
• Commission question whether a new bank, financial institution, pawnshop or check cashing
business would be allowed Downtown. Associate Planner Rozzi stated only a new bank or credit
union would be allowed in the Downtown if this zoning amendment was adopted.
-9-
• Commission asked which other cities have adopted this regulation. Associate Planner Rozzi stated
that most recently Pacifica, East Palo Alto, Daly City and San Mateo County have adopted similar
regulations regarding radius concentrations or a numerical cap approach.
• Commission expressed concern with reduCing the number of "Other Financial Services" bUSinesses
since this could create monopoly power. Associate Planner Rozzi stated that this was a concern of
the City Council and City Manager. If the City takes a cap approach, this would give monopoly
power to these businesses. The idea of this legislation is to limit the number of these uses in the
City and prevent an overconcentration, but still allow them in other parts of the City to prevent a
monopoly by current uses.
• Commission suggested providing education to the community regarding these types of predatory
businesses.
Motion--Commissioner Ochsenhirt/Second--Commissioner Giusti: that the Planning Commission
make findings and adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the
Zoning Ordinance regarding regulation s related to banks and financial institution uses. Approved by
unanimous roll call vote (7-0).
-10-
RESOLUTION NO. 2748-2014
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING MODIFICATIONS T() THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO ZONING CODE, RELATED TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS USES CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
adopted a comprehensive update to the City's zoning ordinance, which repealed the then-existing
Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code ("Zoning Ordinance"), and replaced it with
an entirely new Title that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards; and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010, the City has identified
areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction, including
revisions to the City's Chapter regulating Banks and Financial Institutions uses Citywide, as
further set forth in the Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed concern about the potential impact(s) that
certain financial institution uses might have on the City; and
WHEREAS, more specifically, Other Financial Institutions uses, as defined herein, which
include check cashing businesses, payday lenders, pawnbrokers and other alternative loan
products, may put financially vulnerable residents at risk with very high interest rates or fees;
and
WHEREAS, research has indicated that these Other Financial Institutions could trap
users in a cycle of debt that could contribute to increased rates of poverty in the City; and
WHEREAS, research identifies that Other Financial Institutions are more likely to target
low-income residents or minority communities by locating their business nearby; and
WHEREAS, these Other Financial Institutions are clustered near the City's lower income
census tracts adjacent to the downtown zoning districts in the City; and
-11-
WHEREAS, this overconcentration of Other Financial Institutions can contribute to
blight and prevent high quality development and economic activity in the downtown zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, ·the City Council now desires to amend the City'S land use regulations
applicable to Banks and Financial Institutions uses; and
WHEREAS, City staff prepared this Zoning Code text amendment ("Zoning
Amendment") to limit the zoning districts where Other Financial Institutions such as alternative
loan businesses or pawnbrokers may locate, and strengthen the performance standards for these
uses; and
WHEREAS, said Zoning Amendment revises or adds definitions and regulations for
Banks and Financial Institution, including Banks and Credit Union, Alternative Loan Business,
and Pawnbroker uses to the City's Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial StudylNegative Declaration ("I SIND") in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
("CEQA"), which ISIND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the
environment becaus,e none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed
established thresholds of significance; and,
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Zoning
Amendment, as they relate to Banks and Financial Institutions uses Citywide, are minor in
nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed
and analyzed in the ISIND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
proposed amendments, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council
on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the
South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments; and all reports,
minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed
-12-
September 18,2014 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources
Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
SECTION I FINDINGS
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part ofthis Resolution.
2. Exhibit A attached to this Resolution, is incorporated by reference and made a
part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple A venue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan
because the Zoning Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, is consistent with the
relevant specific plans, and is consistent with the City's overall vision for community
development, economic vitality, and protection of the downtown area as a center of commercial
activity and interaction without an overconcentration of Other Financial Services that could
contribute to blight as set forth in the General Plan. None of the new or revised use definitions
and :m:odifications to allowable land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the
goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2. The Zoning Amendment to revise the Banks and Financial Institutions definitions
and limit locations for Other Financial Services would protect future land uses in the downtown
zoning districts but would not affect any particular subject property. The zoning districts where
Other Financial Services would be permitted or conditionally permitted are generally suitable in
terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations as
deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the proposed uses are
consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to maintaining a
balanced land use program with appropriate performance standards to prevent an
overconcentration of Other Financial Services.
3. The proposed change in permitted or conditionally permitted uses in certain
zoning districts will not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the
proposed Zoning Amendment will strengthen performance standards for Other Financial Uses
that pertain to overconcentration and safety, preserve the downtown zoning districts by removing
Other Financial Services such as alternative loan businesses and pawnbrokers as permitted uses,
and permit these uses on major arterial streets only that are not in close proximity to sensitive
-13-
uses.
SECTION II RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and
recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Code, as attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of September, 2014 by
the following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner
Khalfin, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Zemke
NOES: __________________________________________________ __
ABSTENTIONS: ____________________________________________ ___
ABSENT: __________________________________________________ __
Attest: /s/Susy K alkin
SusyKalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
-14-
Exhibit A
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Modify Regulations Related to Banks and
. Financial Institutions
-15-
ORDINANCE NO. __ _
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE, RELATED TO
BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS USES
CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
adopted a comprehensive update to the City's zoning ordinance, which repealed the then-existing
Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code ("Zoning Ordinance"), and replaced it with
an entirely new Title that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
refonnatied many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards; and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010, the City has identified
areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction, including
revisions to the City's Chapter regulating Banks and Financial Institutions uses Citywide, as
further set forth in the Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed concern about the potential impact(s) that
certain financial institution uses might have on the City; and
WHEREAS, more specifically, Other Financial Institutions uses, as defined herein, which
include check cashing businesses, payday lenders, pawnbrokers and other alternative loan
products, may put financially vulnerable residents at risk with very high interest rates or fees;
and
WHEREAS, research has indicated that these Other Financial Institutions could trap
users in a cycle of debt that could contribute to increased rates of poverty in the City; and
WHEREAS, research identifies that Other Financial Institutions are more likely to target
low-income residents or minority communities by locating their business nearby; and
WHEREAS, these Other Financial Institutions are clustered near the City's lower income
census tracts adjacent to the downtown zoning districts in the City; and
WHEREAS, this overconcentration of Other Financial Institutions can contribute to
blight and prevent high quality development and economi c activity in the downtown zoning
districts; and
-16-
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the City's land use regulations
applicable to Banks and Financial Institutions uses; and
WHEREAS, City staff prepared this Zoning Code text amendment ("Zoning
Amendment") to limit the zoning districts where Other Financial Institutions such as alternative
loan businesses or pawnbrokers may locate, and strengthen the performance standards for these
uses; and
WHEREAS, said Zoning Amendment revises or adds definitions and regulations for
Banks and Financial Institution, including Banks and Credit Union, Alternative Loan Business,
and Pawnbroker uses to the City's Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial StudylNegative Declaration ("I SIND") in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
("CEQA"), which ISIND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the
environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed
established thresholds of significance; and,
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Zoning
Amendment, as they relate to Banks and Financial Institutions uses Citywide, are minor in
nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed
and analyzed in the ISIND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA")) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
-17 -
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on September 18, 2014; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on ,
2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco " 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan
because the Zoning Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies, is consistent with the
relevant specific plans, and is consistent with the City's overall vision for community
development, economic vitality, and protection of the downtown area as a center of commercial
activity and interaction without an overconcentration of Other Financial Services that could
contribute to blight as set forth in the General Plan. None of the new or revised use definitions
and modifications to allowable land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the
goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2. The Zoning Amendment to revise the Banks and Financial Institutions definitions
and limit locations for Other Financial Services would protect future land uses in the downtown
zoning ,districts but would not affect any particular subject property. The zoning districts where
Other;Financial Services would be permitted or conditionally permitted are generally suitable in
terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations as
deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the proposed uses are
consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to maintaining a
balanced land use program with appropriate performance standards to prevent an
overconcentration of Other Financial Services.
3. The proposed change in permitted or conditionally pennitted uses in certain
zoning districts will not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the
proposed Zoning Amendment will strengthen perfonnance standards for Other Financial Uses
that pertain to overconcentration and safety, preserve the downtown zoning districts by removing
Other Financial Services such as alternative loan businesses and pawnbrokers as permitted uses,
and permit these uses on major arterial streets only that are not in close proximity to sensitive
uses.
SECTIONll. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating
-18-
addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Drdin ance are not included
below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A. Revise Chapter 20.620.004 "Banks and Financial Institutions" definitions
(Commercial Use Classifications) as follows:
20.620.004 Commercial Use Classifications
Banks and Financial Institutions.
Banks and Credit Unions. Finan cial institutions. including federally~chartered banks. savings
associations. industrial loan companies. and credit unions that provide pro .... iding retail banking
services to individuals and businesses. This classification includes only those institutions
engaged in the on~site circulation of money, and whose deposits are insured by the state or
federal government and/or a state or federal sponsored entity. including credit unions. This
classification specifically excludes but ex eluding Other Financial Services. eheek eashing
businesses. as defined by this section.
Other Financial Services Other Financial Services are business establi shments that provide
customers with some fonn of currency in a transaction as part of an alternative loan product.
This use classification maY include check cashing. payday lOanS. vehicle title loans.
micro finance loanS. pawnbrokers. or similar. This use classification specifically excludes Banks
and Credit Unions. as defined by this section.
Cheek Cashing Businesses Alternative Loan Businesses. Establishments that;--fef
compensation, conduct a check cashing business, and/or engage in the business of
cashing checks, warrants, drafts, money orders, or other commercial p8f>er sePling the
same purpose enterprise defined herein. The teon "check cashing business" as used
herein includes a retail business owned or operated by a "check casher" as that tenn is
defined in California Civil Code section 1789.31. as amended from time to time. This
classification also includes the business of deferred deposits, or "payday lending,"
whereby the eheek easher which is defined as an establishment owned or operated by a
"licensee," as that teon is defined in California Financial Code section 23001Cdl. as
amended from time to time refrains from depositiftg a personal eheek '.vritten by a
eustomer UBtil a speeifie date pursuant to a ' .. vfltteft agreement as provided in Civil Code
1789.33. Similar lending services that provide vehicle title loans or micro finance loans
shall also be included in this classification. Microfinance institutions are characterized
by their use of interest rates that are higher than traditional banks and credit unions and
typically targeted towards low~income borrowers or borrowers with limited or no credit
history. Cheek CashiHg Alternative Loan Businesses do not include state or federally
chartered banks, savings associations, credit unions, or industrial loan companies. They
also do not include retail sellers engaged primarily in the business of selling consumer
goods, such as consumables to retail buyers, that cash checks or issue money order
incidental to their main purpose or business.
Pawnbroker. Means every person who keens a place of business where personal
property is received and for which money is advanced, with the right of privilege granted
to the person to whom said money is advanced to reclaim such property upon repayment
-19~
of said money. together with all legal charges incident thereto. This does not include
Banks and Credit Unions, as defined by this section.
B. Revise Section 20.350.011 "Check Cashing Businesses to read as follows:
20.350.011 Cheek CashiBg BusiBesses Other Financial Services
Cheek cashing businesses Other Financial Services subject to this section, which includes
Alternative Loan Businesses and Pawnbrokers, shall be located, developed, and operated in
compliance with the following standards:
A. Maximum Size. Limited to 2,500 square feet in size.
B. Location. Cheek eashing businesses Other Financial Services shall be located on
an a maior arterial or higher classification street, and at least 1,000 square feet from any
other eheek eashing Other Financial Services business.
C. Queuing Area. Adequate queuing area shall be provided within the building.
Queuing on the sidewalk is prohibited.
D. Security. A security plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Chief
Planner and the City of South San Francisco Police Department. The plan shall provide
for adequate security, including a central station alarm system to the Police Department.
Bars on the windows. exterior phones and roll up doors are prohibited.
E. Hours of Operation. The business shall not open prior to 7:00 AM or close for
business after 7:00 PM. daily. Any alteration to these hours of operation may be granted
with approval of a Use Permit.
C. Update Table 20.090.002 -Land Use Regulations, Commercial, Office and Mixed-
Use Districts, as indicated below:
TABLE 20.090.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS--COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE
DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC I BPO I CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Banks and Financial See sub-classifications below
Institutions
Banks and Credit Unions P I p I p p
Qther Financia.l Services See ~b::.c.IQs.sitk,QliQ1:1J. b.e.IQH!
Cheek Cashing MUP I MUP I MUP MUP See Section 20.350.011 Gheek
lJusine65e5 dlternauve Gashing Basmesses o.tru:r
-10-
Loal1 Bus.iuesses. Ein§\;~]cial Servi!;;es
Pawnbroker k ~ ,Q ~ See Section 2Q.35Q,0 11, Other
Einallcii!l Smi!;;es aDd Cha~ter
6,22 EawnbrQkerlSecondhand
Deal er
D. Update Table 20.100.002 -Land Use Regulations, Downtown Districts, as indicated
below:
TABLE 20.100.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Addit ional Regulations
Banks and Financial See sub-classifications below
Institutions
Banks and Credit MUP(3) MUP ---
Unions
Cheek Ceshing MUP(3) Ml:W ---See Seesen ;W.3~G .GII_Gheek
l1w;inesses Gashi ng Blisinesses
E. Update Table 20.110.002 -Land Use Regulations, Emplo yment Districts, as
indicated below:
TABLE 20.110.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS-EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification BC ETP FC MI Additional Regulations
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below
Banks and Credit Unions P P -P
Qthe.r. Financial SeIT.ice.s. s.e.e. .s.ub-clas.s.{ficQtians b.e/a'd!.
Cheek Geshing MUP MUP -MUP See Section 20.350.011 Gheek
l1lHiinesses Alternative. Gashing RasiBesses Other Financial
LQan Bu.s.ines.s.es. Services
PaW71broker. s;;, s;;, -,Q See Section 20,35Q,011 Other =
Einancial ServiQes and ChaRter 6,22
~awnbroker L Secondband Dealer
SECTIONDI. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
-21-
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, c l ause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (l) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a: certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the day of ,2014.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the __ day of ,2014 by the following vote:
AYES: ______________________________ ~----------------------
NOES: ---------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTENTIONS: _______________________ _
ABSENT: _________________________ ___
Attest: -----------------------------Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
-22-
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the fo:regoing Ordinance this
__ day of ,2014.
Mayor
2326650 .2
-23-
Check Cashing Businesses Definition
SSF Municipal Code 20.620.004
Check Cashing Businesses. Establishments that, for compensation, engage in the business of
cashing checks, warrants, drafts, money orders, or other commercial paper serving the same
purpose. This classification also includes the business of deferred deposits, whereby the check
casher refrains from depositing a personal check written by a customer until a specific date
pursuant to a written agreement as provided in Civil Code 1789.33. Check Cashing Businesses
do not include State or federally chartered banks, savings associations, credit unions, or
industrial loan companies. They also do not include retail sellers engaged primarily in the
business of selling consumer goods, such as consumables to retail buyers, that cash checks or
issue money order incidental to their main purpose or business.
Check Cashing Businesses Performance Standards
SSF Municipal Code 20.350.011
Check cashing businesses shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the
following standards:
A. Maximum Size. Limited to 2,500 square feet in size.
B. Location. Check cashing businesses shall be located on an arterial or higher classification
street, and at least 1,000 square feet from any other check cashing business.
C. Queuing Area. Adequate queuing area shall be provided within the building. Queuing on
the sidewalk is prohibited.
D. Security. A security plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner
and the City of South San Francisco Police Department. The plan shall provide for adequate
security, including a central station alarm system to the Police Department. Bars on the windows
are prohibited. (Ord. 1432 § 2, 2010)
-24-
["cOny OF LSOtiTHJ
! SIIN ---pr f\.lCI~(·''''~ I ... r',. r r-,: \ '4 "h .... U ---"--"'"--"-
[
-BANKS AND -FIf"ANCIALINSTITUTION' S
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDfVlENT
.----,-,----.---------~-,,-L City Cour~Hear ing -_~~8, 20 ~._ .. _____ _'
Overview
• Background on Payday Lending
• Current Regulations
• Proposed Revisions
• Benefits to the Proposed Amen dmen ts
-26-
10/3/2014
1
Current Regulations
• Performance standards include:
-Max 2,500 SF size
-Location on an arterial street
-1,000 ft distance from any other use
-Sidewalk queuing & window bars prohibited
-Security plan must be approved by Police
Proposed Revisions
• New definitions to better capture the array
of "alternative financial" uses
• Revised performance standards to limit
overconcentration and safety concerns
• Revised land use tables and permitted
uses Citywide
-30-
10
10/3/2014
5
Benefits to the Amendments
• Payday lending and other alternative loan
businesses are regulated together
• Revised standards address safety concerns
• Zoning eliminates these businesses in the
revitalizing downtown area
• Protects the City's low-income or vulnerable
populations
General Plan Consistency
15
II Consistent with the City's overall vision for
community development, economic vitality,
and protection of the downtown area as a
center for c~mmercial activity
16
-33-
10/3/2014
8
CEQA
• The Zon ing Amendments are minor in
nature and would not change or increase
those effects reviewed as part of the 2010
Zoning Ordinance ISIND
Recommendation
• That the City Council adopt an Ordinance
amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding
regulations related to Banks and Fi.nancial
I nstitution uses
17
18
-34-
10/3/2014
9
Staff Report
Subject: P07-0136: ZA14-0004 -Zoning Code Amendments ~ Public Parking Uses
Date: October 8, 2014
Page 4 of5
Criteria for Zoning Amendments
As required by Zoning Ordinance Section 20.550.008 "Criteria for Zoning Amendments", in order
to amend the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council must find that the zoning amendment meets the
required criteria. Staff believes the proposed zoning amendment would conform to the required
criteria for the reasons identified below:
A. The proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan because the
Zoning Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies related to maintaining a
balanced land use program and is consistent with the City's overall vision for the proper
location of public parking uses. None of the reyised land uses will conflict with or impede
achieyement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the
General Plan.
B. The Zoning Amendment to allow Public Parking use sub-classification within Employment-
related Zoning Districts would not affect any particular subject property. The zoning
districts where such uses are permitted are generally suitable in terms of access, size of
parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by
the Planning Commission and City Council because the proposed use is consistent with
General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to maintaining a balanced land use
program.
C. The proposed change would not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone
because the proposed Zoning Amendment allows public parking uses into appropriate
employment-related zoning districts.
Planning Commission Review
On September 4, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
amendments pertaining to public parking uses in Employment-related Zoning Districts. The
Planning Commission had questions related to the circumstances when the City might establish a
public parking use in the employment-related districts. There are currently no specific plans to
create a public parking use in these districts. However, an example would be a public parking use
established to provide additional parking for a larger area, such as the proposed public park within
the Oyster Point Marina. No members of the public spoke on the item, and the Commission was
supportive of the proposed revisions and recommended, by a vote of 7 -0, that the City Council
adopt the ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City's Zoning Ordinance
Update consultant prepared and circulated an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Zoning
Ordinance Update, and in July of2010 Council adopted the Initial Study/Negative Declaration. The
proposed changes and clarifications discussed in this staff report in regards to public parking uses in
Employment-related Zoning Districts do not require any revisions to the environment review or
Initial Study/Negative Declaration that was completed for the City-wide zoning ordinance update.
The proposed changes are minor in nature, in that they make slight changes to the permitted land
uses for certain parcels within the City, the process for approval of other certain types of land uses,
and expressly incorporate existing general plan policies. Given the minor nature of the changes, the
changes will not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
Staff Report
Subject: P07-0136: ZA14-0004 -Zoning Code Amendments -Public Parking Uses
Date: October 8, 2014
Page 5 of5
severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance Update. Therefore,
no further environmental review is required at this time.
CONCLUSION
The changes proposed for the proper location of the Public Parking use sub-classification WIll
properly substantiate where such uses should be located within the City. At this time, staff
recommends that Council conduct a public hearing, introduce an Ordinance making modifications
to the South San Francisco Zoning Code, related to public parking uses in Employment-related
Zoning Districts, and waive further reading.
By: bth~.-
Alex Greenwood
Director of Economic and
Community Development
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
MFIPO/AG/JRlbg
2335158.1
BY:£~~ uu ,/Mike Futrel /
City Manager
ORDINANCE NO. __ _
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE, RELATED TO
PUBLIC PARKING USES IN EMPLOYMENT -RELATED
ZONING DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
adopted a comprehensive update to the City's zoning ordinance, which repealed the then-existing
Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and replaced it with an entirely new Title
that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and reformatted many then-
existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated provisions, and codified entirely
new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and development standards; and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010, the City has identified
areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction, including
revisions to the City's Chapter regulating public parking uses in Employment-related Zoning
Districts, as further set forth in the Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial StudylNegative Declaration ("IS/ND") in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
("CEQA"), which ISIND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the
environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed
established thresholds of significance; and,
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Ordinance,
as they relate to public parking uses in Employment-related Zoning Districts, are minor in nature,
the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed
and analyzed in the ISIND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, andlor corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council ofthe City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
-1-
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA")) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted' as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on September 4, 2014; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on October 8,
2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco. 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because the Zoning Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies related to maintaining a
balanced land use program and is consistent with the City's overall vision for the proper location
of public parking uses. None of the new or revised definitions and land uses will conflict with or
impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the
General Plan.
2. The Zoning Amendment to allow the Public Parking use sub-classification within
the Employment-related Zoning Districts would not affect any particular subject property. The
zoning districts where such uses are pennitted are generally suitable in tenns of access, size of
parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the
Planning Commission and City Council because the proposed uses are consistent with General
Plan policies, specifically those policies related to maintaining a balanced land use program.
3. The proposed change would not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent
zone because the proposed Zoning Amendment will allow public parking uses into appropriate
Employment-related zoning districts.
-2-
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in dQ.nhl~" under1i.n~ indicating addition). Sections and
subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in
full force and effect.
A. Use Tables
(1) Amend Table 20.110.002 "Land Use Regulations -Employment Districts", to identify
the zoning districts where the uses will be pennitted, pennitted subject to a use pennit (minor or
conditional), or not pennitted, as follows":
Use Classification I Be BTP Fe MI Additional ReJ?;ulations
Commercial Uses (cont'd)
Parking Services ISee sub-classifications below
Commercial Parking IMUP MUP P(8) C
Public Parkinf! I P P P. p
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of. this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
-3-
Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held the 8th day of
October, 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve th e foregoing
Ordinance this __ day of , 2014.
Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor
2281717.1
-4-
('r--~ .~'J ' i '1 /., ......
'-_ < ' .• ~ •• 1. . , .', -.....
• J .~ -•• ,
S,OUTH ; SAN FRANCl seQ
I
Ut
I
Zoning Code Amendments
Pu blic Parking Uses in
Employment~related
Zoning Districts
City Council Meeting
October 8, 20 14
• C\ •
Ado pted Zon ing Text Amendments
City Council adopte d Zoning Code amendments o n July 7,
2014 creating a n ew u se classification and sub-
classificat i ons re late d to public and commercia l parking
Parking Services. Surface lots and structures offering
parking to the public with or without a fee when such use is
not considered Accessory Parking to another activity or use .
Commercial Parking. Privately owned or operated surface
lots and structures offering parking to the public with or
without a fee. Commercial Parking facilities provide
parking that is not considered Accessory Parking to a
specific use.
Public Parking. City owned and operated surface lots and
structures offering parking to the public with or without
a fee .
Planning Div. 10/2/2014 2
-c
aJ
V)
o
C-
O
L. c...
+ ....,
t:
Q)
1....
!r..
::s
U
I
Cl
C --~
Ls
n1 c...
u __
--~ -....., .0 .tf)
:l --
c...O
'<t ,...
o
N --N --o ,...
Planning Com mission Review
• September 4, 2014
-No members of public commented
-Planning .Commission comments
*Clarificatio n regarding circumstances where th e
City might es tablish a public parking use in the
~ employment-related districts
-Planning Commission unanimously recommend ed
approval of proposed Zoning Amendment
Planning Division 10/2/2014 7
I
~
N
I
Recommend ation
City Council introduce an Ordinance making
modifications t o the Zoning Code regarding
public parking uses in Employment-related
ZOl1ing District s, and waive further reading.
Planning Division 10/2/2014 8