HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-13 e-packet
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
RICHARD A. GARBARINO
Mayor
MARK ADDIEGO
Vice Mayor
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Councilwoman
PRADEEP GUPTA
Councilman
LIZA NORMANDY
Councilwoman
FRANK RISSO
City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI
City Clerk
MIKE FUTRELL
City Manager
STEVEN T. MATTAS
City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open
session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates,
then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of
City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2015
AGENDA PAGE 2
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
PRESENTATIONS
Elder Abuse Awareness Proclamation presented by Mayor Garbarino.
Proclamation recognizing Emergency Medical Services Week, 05/17/15 - 05/23/15 accepted
by EMS Captain Walls.
Proclamation recognizing National Public Works Week, 05/17/15 - 05/23/15 accepted by
Brian McMinn, Public Works Director.
Asian American Heritage Month Proclamation presented by Councilwoman Normandy.
Presentation of the 2015 Growing Smarter Together Award to the Economic and
Community Development Department. (Councilmember Gupta).
Presentation on upcoming City of South San Francisco Town Hall Meetings. (Leslie
Arroyo, Communications Director)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card
located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda
Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking
action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred
to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more
comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address
(optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for
your cooperation.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion approving the Minutes of meetings of April 22, 2015.
2. Motion confirming payment registers for May 13, 2015.
3. Motion to waive reading and adopt an Ordinance making modifications to the South San
Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.360 (Signs) to revise regulations and permitting for
Signs Citywide in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.550. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner).
4. Motion to accept the South Airport Boulevard Storm Pump Station Upgrade (Project No.
sd1301) as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. (Total construction
cost $129,089.27). (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer).
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2015
AGENDA PAGE 3
5. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Turbo Data Systems,
Inc. for Parking Citation Processing and adjudication services, for a five (5) year term
expiring June 30, 2020. (Jeff Azzopardi, Chief of Police and Richard Lee, Finance
Director).
6. Resolution awarding the construction contract to Anderson Pacific, of Santa Clara,
California for the Pump Station No. 4 Jib Crane Repair Project (Project No. ss1505) in an
amount not to exceed $82,750. (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer).
7. Resolution authorizing a joint application by the City of South San Francisco and the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) for Transportation Investment General
Economic Recovery Round 7 (TIGER VII) grant funding for the South San Francisco
Caltrain Station Access and Improvement Project. (Brian McMinn, Public Works Director).
8. Resolution awarding the construction contract to State Roofing Systems, Inc. of San
Leandro, California, for the Fire Station 62 Roof Replacement Project (Project No. pf1503)
in an amount not to exceed $142,685 and amending the 2014-2015 Capital Improvement
Program to appropriate an additional $60,000 from General Fund reserves to Project No.
pf1503. (Robert Hahn, Senior Civil Engineer).
9. Resolution authorizing the appropriation of up to $20,000 in Police Seizure Funds to be used
as reward for information that leads to the capture and persecution of those responsible for
homicides in South San Francisco. (Jeff Azzopardi, Chief of Police).
10. Resolution amending the Consultant Services Agreement with Deborah Glasser, LLC, in an
amount of $40,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $120,000 for continued labor
negotiation services for the City’s bargaining units, and authorizing the City Manager to
sign the Amendment on behalf of the City. (LaTanya Bellow, Human Resources Director).
11. Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding for the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees Unit, Local 829 dated July 1, 2014 through June
30, 2017. (LaTanya Bellow, Human Resources Director).
12. Resolution approving the Compensation Plan for the Public Safety Managers Unit, dated
July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. (LaTanya Bellow, Human Resources Director).
13. Resolution Approving the Compensation Plan for the Executive Management Unit dated
July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. (LaTanya Bellow, Human Resources Director).
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
14. Resolution authorizing the execution of a Purchase Agreement with CXT, Inc. of Spokane,
Washington, for the purchase and installation of a pre-manufactured restroom for Oyster
Point Marina Restroom Project (Project No. pf1505) in an amount not to exceed
$243,714.73. (Patrick Caylao, Associate Civil Engineer).
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 2015
AGENDA PAGE 4
15. Study Session: California water conservation requirements and impact on South San
Francisco. (Mike Futrell, City Manager).
PUBLIC HEARING
16. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of use permit and design review to allow the
substitution of a legally established nonconforming use (auto repair) with another
nonconforming use (service station convenience market) within an existing service station at
221 Airport Blvd in the Downtown Core (DC) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC
Chapter 20.280, 20.320, 20.330, 20.350, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490. (Billy Gross, Senior
Planner).
CONTINUED FROM THE REGULAR MEETING ON APRIL 8, 2015.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
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
SIGNAGE CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
("City") 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 20 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 ("Zoning Ordinance"); 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 20.360 regulating signs in order to provide added flexibility to
accommodate signs that may not otherwise be allowed and other minor modifications; 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, and/or corrections to the Zoning Ordinance
as they relate to signage 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:
-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 February 19, 2015; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on March 11,2015
which was continued to April 8, 2015; 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 A venue,
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 they strengthen and promote economic development objectives related to business
identification. The proposed text amendments related to the regulation of signs 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 related to Signs wound not affect any
particular subject property. The proposed standards would generally be suitable in terms of
architectural compatibility, consistency with area character, legibility, readability, finish and
visibility, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City
Council because appropriate performance standards for signs have been included and would be
applied to projects on a case-by-case basis to minimize visual impacts.
3. The proposed zoning amendments related to Signs would not result in any change
of zoning districts and therefore would not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows. Sections and subsections that are not amended by this-Ordinance are
not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A. Amend Section 20.360.002(B) to add real estate sales and rentals signs to the list of
signs exempt from requiring a permit, as follows:
-2 -
B. Exempt Signs. The following on-premises signs are exempt from the permit
requirements of this chapter, and they do not count toward the total sign area limit
for a site, provided that they conform to the specified standards:
1. Bulletin Boards. One bulletin board not exceeding 20 square feet in area or
five feet above existing grade, for a public, or quasi-public agency,
community facility or institution, if located on the premises of the institution.
2. Flags. Flags may be erected and located in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Location. Flagpoles shall not be located within any required yard
setbacks.
b. Height. Flagpole heights shall be limited to 30 feet.
c. Number. No more than two flags per lot in residential districts, no more
than three flags per lot in all other districts.
d. Size. Maximum flag size is 24 square feet in residential districts, 35
square feet in all other districts.
3. Information Sign. Information signs not more than four square feet in sign
area. Information signs include wall or window signs that identify the name
and occupation of an occupant in a non-residential building or provide
information to patrons of an enterprise such as credit cards accepted, menus,
redemption stamps or directories and signs incorporated into displays,
machinery or equipment by a manufacturer, distributor or vendor and
identifying or advertising only the product or service dispensed by the
machine or equipment, such as signs customarily fixed to automated teller
machines (ATMs), gasoline pumps, vending machines.
4. Memorial Signs. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings or date of
building erection, when cut into any masonry surface.
5. Official Government Signs, Plaques, and Legal Notices. Official notices
issued by a court, public body or office and posted in the performance of a
public duty; notices posted by a utility or other quasi-public agent in the
performance of a public duty or by any person given due legal notice;
historical markers erected by a governmental body; or other signs required or
authorized by law.
6. Traffic, Directional, Informational, and Warning Signs. On-site traffic,
directional, informational or warning signs required or authorized by a public
utility, common carrier, or public agency and not exceeding one square foot in
area erected for the convenience of the public, such as signs identifying
restrooms, public telephones, walkways and similar features or facilities or
indicating danger and aids to service or safety. (Ord. 1445 § 2, 2011; Ord.
1432 § 2, 2010)
7. Real Estate Sales and Rental Signs. A sign, no larger than 24 square feet, that
is attached or affixed to a property or premises in a semi-permanent manner
offering property or premises for sale or lease. Temporary A-frame signs
advertising open houses are not included in this subsection.
-3-
K. Signs Creating Traffic Hazards. Signs that simulate in color, size or design any traffic
control sign, signal or device, or that make use of words, symbols or characters in a manner that
interferes with, misleads or confuses pedestrian or vehicular traffic. No sign, light or advertising
structure shall be located in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, or in such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision, at any location where, by reason
of the position, shape, color or movement may interfere with, obstruct the view of, or be
confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device.
L. Signs on Public Property. No person shall paint, mark, or write on, or post or otherwise
affix any handbill or sign to or upon any sidewalk, crosswalk, curb, curbstone, street lamp post,
hydrant, tree, shrub, tree stake or guard, post, railroad crossing, electric light or power or
telephone or telegraph pole, or wire appurtenance thereof, or upon any fixture of the fire alarm or
police communications system, or upon any lighting system, public bridge, public building or
wall, drinking fountain, street sign, or traffic sign or any other public place, except:
1. Signs or handbills posted by a public officer or public employee in the performance of a
public duty;
2. Legal notices that are authorized by law;
3. Messages placed on transit shelters sponsored or contracted by the applicable transit
agency pursuant to a contract with the transit agency and with its consent; and
4. Signs, banners, or similar authorized by the City Manager to be posted by a public or non-
profit agency within the Downtown area for special events.
M. Vehicle Display Signs. Vehicle display signs as defined in Subsection 20.360.015(JJ)
("Vehicle Display Signs"), except the following:
1. Vehicle for sale signs in locations where the sale of vehicles is permitted;
2. Any vehicle which displays advertising or business identification of its owner, so long as
such vehicle is engaged in the usual business of regular work, or personal use, of the owner and
not used merely, mainly, or primarily to display advertising;
3. Buses; or
4. Taxicabs.
c. Revise Section 20.360.006 "General Standards" as follows:
20.360.006 General Standards
This section establishes general physical standards and requirements. More detailed
standards applicable to specific zoning districts are in Section 20.360.007 ("Sign Standards for
Residential Uses and Districts") and Section 20.360.008 ("Sign Standards for Non-Residential
Districts"). In addition to these general standards, all signs shall conform to all applicable the
specifications and standards of the Uniform Sign Code, National Electric Code, and California
Building Code.
A. Materials. Signs shall be made of sturdy, durable materials. Paper, cardboard and
other materials subject to rapid deterioration shall be limited to temporary signs
displayed for no more than 90 days.
-5-
B. Clearance from Utilities. Signs and their supporting structures shall maintain
clearance from and not interfere with electrical conductors, communications
equipment or lines, surface and underground facilities and conduits for water, sewage,
gas, electricity and communications equipment or lines. Signs shall not be placed in
public utility easements unless express written pennission from the affected public
utility is obtained. Signs shall maintain clearance from energized electric power lines
as prescribed by the California Public Utilities Code, the regulations of the California
Public Utilities Commission, and the orders of the California Division of Industrial
Safety, as now in force and as hereafter amended.
C. Intersection and Driveway Visibility. Notwithstanding other provisions of this
section, signs and related structures must comply with Section 20.300.017 ("Visibility
at Intersections and Driveways").
D. Illumination. llluminated channel letters and neon signs are allowed. However,
internaiIy illuminated signs and bare bulbs are prohibited. Lighting fixtures used to
illuminate an outdoor sign shall be mounted on the top of the sign structure, unless
approved with a Minor Use Pennit, and shall be shielded according to the following
table. All sign illumination shall adhere to the perfonnance standards for lighting and
glare in Section 20.300.010 ("Performance Standards").
Table 20.360.006
Requirements for Shielding and Filtering
FiAotureLamp Tvpe 8hielding Required Filtering RequiJ'ed
Low Pressure Sodium (I) None None
High Pressure Sodium Ful~ None
Metal Halide Fully Yes (4)
Fluorescent Fully (5) Yes (2)
Quartz(3) , Fully None
Incandescent greater than lOOW Fully None
Incandescent IOOW or less None None
Mercury Vapor Not pennitted
Fossil Fuel None INone
Glass Tubes filled with Neon, Argon, or Krypton None None
Other Sources As approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This is the preferred light source to minimize undesirable light into the night sky affecting astronomical observations.
Warm white natural lamps are preferred to minimize detrimental effects.
For the purposes of this article, quartz lamps shall not be considered an incandescent light source.
Most glass, acrylic, or translucent enclosures satisfy these filter requirements.
Outdoor signs constructed of translucent materials and wholly illuminated from within do not require shielding.
E. Substitution of Sign Message. The owner of a pennitted sign may substitute a non-
commercial message for a commercial message or a commercial message for a non-
commercial message.
F. Awning and Canopy Signs. Awning and canopy signs may be attached to or painted
on the vertical edges of awnings, canopies, arcades, or similar features or structures
Awning and canopy signs are also subject to the specific zoning district standards in
Section 20.360.007 ("Sign Standards for Residential Uses and Districts") and Section
20.360.008 ("Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts") and the following
standards:
1. Sign Height. Maximum of 25 feet.
-6-
to the lot exists, the maximum sign area permitted will be divided among the
number of entryways and signs requested.
3. Residential Districts and Subdivisions. For subdivisions and other residential
area entry signs, the maximum sign area permitted is 20 square feet. Signs shall
be mounted on a fence, wall or other similar entry feature. If more than one
entrance exists, the sign area permitted will be divided between the number of
entryways and signs requested.
4. Sign Base. The sign base is to be located within a planter box or planting area,
the design and location of which is to be approved by the Chief Planner.
5. Area Not Counted. The area ofthe sign shall not count towards the permissible
sign area of the individual lot.
O. Changeable Copy.
1. Changeable copy shall cover no more than 25 percent of the total sign area,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
2. Automatic changeable copy in which copy can be changed or altered by electric,
electro-mechanical, electronic, or any other artificial energy means is
prohibited. except for Automobile Service Station fuel pricing displays or signs
granted a Type C sign permit pursuant to the Special Circumstances Section
20.360.011.
3. Changeable copy signs shall not contain animation, rolling or running letters or
message, flashing lights or displays as part of the display.
P . Temporary Signs. Any temporary sign, banner, balloon, pennant, valance or
advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard or
other light materials, with or without frames for any event of limited duration
including, but not limited to, entertainment, sporting events, elections, construction
and sales of goods, may be erected and located in accordance with the following
standards:
1. Maximum Total Temporary Sign Area.
a. Residential. Six square feet, no portion of which may be higher than seven
feet above existing grade.
b. Nonresidential. 24 square feet, no portion of which may be higher than 10
feet above existing grade.
2. Distance between Signs. Minimum two feet.
3. Time Limits. Temporary signs shall be removed within 30 days after they are
placed, erected or installed, or 15 calendar days after the conclusion of the event
to which they relate occurs, whichever is later. The Chief Planner may, for good
reason, grant an extension of up to 45 days based on the sign owner's written
application. In no case shall a temporary sign remain in place for more than 90
days or be allowed more than twice per year.
-10 -
D. Revise Table 20.360.008 "Sign Standards for Non-Residential Districts" as follows:
Table 20.360.008
Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning Distric~ Sign AI 'ea AlJowed Total.Ma,imum Pennitted Sign Muimum Number .Maumum Sign
(Frontage) (sq. ft. per 1 lineal Sign Area (sq. ft.) Types ofSign~ AI 'ea per Sign
ft. of buiJding (sq. ft.)
froilta2e)
Downtown 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy nia 60
Marquee 1 per site 1 per linear ft . of
building frontaAe
Projecting I per building or 16; 8 under a
tenant ~ace canopy or awning 6
Shingle I per building or 6
tenant space
Wall I per building or 25
tenant space
Window nla 15% of window
space, up to 30% of
window space ",jth
MUP approval
Monument I per site 25
Commercial, Office 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy na 100
and Mixed Use
Marquee 1 per site 1.5 per linear ft. of
buildin~ fronta~e
Projecting I per building or 16; 8 under a
tenant space canopy or awning 6
Zoning Districts Sign Area AJIowoo Total Mnimum Permitted Sign Mnimum Number .Maximum Sign
(Frontage) (!;q . ft. pel lHnear Sign Area (sq. ft.) Type~ ofSign~ Al'ea pel' Sign
ft. of building (sq. ft.)
fl'onta2e)
Shingle I per building or 6
tenant space
Wall I per building or 100
tenant space
Window nla 15% of window
space, up to 30% of
window space with
MUP approval
Monument 1 ~site 60
High-Rise Building 2 per building with 1 per linear ft. of
Identification at least 4 stories building frontage
Employment 1.5 300 Awning and Canopy nla 100
Marquee 1 per site 1.5 per linear ft. of
buildin~ fronta~e
Projecting 1 per building or 16; 8 under a
tenant space canopy or awni~ 6
Shingle I per building or 6
tenant space
WaH 1 per building or 100
tenant~ace
Monument 1 per site 60
High-Rise Building 2 per building with I per linear ft. of
Identification at least 4 stories buildin~ frontage
PQP 1 70 Wall 1 per building or 25
tenant space
Monument I per site 60
-11-
E. Amend Section 20.360.009 "Permits Required; Review Process" as follows:
20.360.009 Permits Required; Review Process
A. Sign Permit Type. The physical classification of signs and the review criteria are as
follows:
1. Type A. Temporary and permanent signs that are used by individual business
establishment and have a maximum freestanding height of six feet or less and
have a maximum surface area of 25 square feet or less.
2. Type B. Signs that are used by individual or multi-tenant businesses and have a
freestanding height of more than six feet and less than 10 feet and have a
maximum surface area of more than 25 square feet and less than 100 square
feet.
3. Type C Signs that are used by individual or multitenant businesses and have a
freestanding height of 10 feet or more, and less than 20 feet and have a
maximum surface area of 100 square feet or more and less than 300 square feet.
Special Circumstance signs are also subject to Type C sign permits.
4. Master Sign Program. See Section 20.360.010 ("Master Sign Program").
B. Authority. The Chief Planner shall review and approve all Type A and Type B sign
applications. The Planning Commission shall review and approve all Type C, Master
Sign Program and Special Circumstances sign applications.
C. Design Review Required. All signs 25 square feet or more in size are subject to the
design review provisions of Chapter 20.480 ("Design Review").
F. Amend Chapter 20.360 to add new Section 20.360.011 "Special Circumstances" as
follows, and renumber existing Sections 20.360.011 through 20.360.014 accordingly.
20.360.011 Special Circumstances
A. Purpose. Unusual site conditions, locations, particular unique signing requirements,
or other design factors may warrant types, heights, and sizes of signs not otherwise
permitted by the regulations ofthis chapter. Such signs, including but not limited to
the following, shall require a type "c" permit and shall be processed in accordance
with Section 20.360.009.
1. Roof signs which extend above the highest point on the roof or of the type not
allowed by Section 20.360.006.Q Temporary Signs.
2. Any individual sign, or combination of all signs on anyone property, which
exceeds the height or area limitations prescribed in this chapter.
3. Signs in the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zone District which are of a classic
design style, consistent with those designed and erected in the 1940s and 1950s.
4. Signs in the Airport/South Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 corridor areas
which have special sign needs due to the regional nature of the use, the traveler-
oriented nature of the use, or other special requirements.
5. Employee-oriented signs for multibuilding campus-like facilities in the east of
101 area, of which at least four hundred thousand total square feet of
-12 -
development is occupied by a single tenant. Signs approved pursuant to this
subsection shall:
a. Be architecturally integrated with the buildings to which they are attached;
b. Be oriented toward the interior of the campus and not a public area,
including public rights-of-way and public open space;
c. Hide from view or disguise any separate structure or apparatus required to
attach the signs to buildings; and
d. Only contain copy that is directly associated with the entity fo r which the
sign pennit is issued.
B. Review Authority. All Special Circumstances signs are subject to review and
approval of the Review Authority for the project with which the signs are associated,
but at a minimum require approval by the Planning Commission as set forth in
Section 20.360.009. A Special Circumstances sign may be submitted as part of the
Use Permit application for the project.
C. Required Findings. In order to approve a Special Circumstances sign, the Review
Authority must find that all of the following are met, in addition to other applicable
regulations in this section.
1. The proposed signs are compatible in style and character w ith any building to
which the signs are to be attached, any surrounding structures and any adjoining
signage on the site.
2. Special circumstances exist that warrant consideration for exceeding the
prescribed standards.
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 I\,. 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.
* * * * * * *
-13 -
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 8th day of April, 2015.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the 13 th day of May, 2015 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 13 th day of May, 2015.
Mayor
2401407.1
-14 -
Staff Report
DATE: May 13,2015
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Jeff Azzopardi, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF UP TO $20,000 OF POLICE
ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS FOR A MONETARY REWARD FOR
INFORMATION THAT LEADS TO THE CAPTURE AND PROSECUTION
OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR COLD CASE HOMICIDES
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Police
Department to offer up to $20,000 per occurrence in monetary reward from Police Asset Seizure
Funds for information that leads to the capture and prosecution of those responsible for cold case
homicides in South San Francisco.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The South San Francisco Police Department has sixteen unsolved homicides dating back to 1976. With the
volume of new cases increasing, current detectives struggle to investigate the older unsolved cases. In 2013 ,
the South San Francisco Police Department formed a Cold Case Task Force with the purpose of re-
examining these cases in an effort to solve them, bring justice to the families of the victims, and deliver
justice to the perpetrators. The Cold Case Task Force is comprised of retired investigators from the South
San Francisco Police Department; each of who has an average of thirty years of investigative
experience. The investigators volunteer their time and use a team approach to comb through old cases in
search of any leads that can be worked or determine if modern scientific techniques can provide a better
analysis of old evidence.
One powerful tool in solving cold cases is the offer of a monetary reward. Monetary rewards are only
awarded if the information given to the Police Department leads to the capture and persecution of those
responsible for homicide. The inducement of money can help convince those familiar with the case that have
details that could help solve it , but for one reason or another have kept their silence. The attitude of someone
with key knowledge of the case might have changed over the years and a reward could be the deciding factor
in cooperating with investigators.
Allowing the Police Department to offer up to a $20,000 reward using Police Asset Seizure Funds may be
enough incentive to help break an unsolved case that brings closure to a victim's family. The award amount
is not designated for a specific unsolved case and it could be used to solve more than one case . The Police
Asset Seizure Funds are funds that the Police Department collects as a result of collaboration with Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) on apprehending smuggled drugs and cash. The Police Department works with
Staff Report
Subject: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING UP $20,000 OF POLICE ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS TO
BE USED FOR MONETARY REWARD FOR INFORMATION THAT LEADS TO THE
CAPTURE AND PROSECUTION OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR COLD CASE
HOMICIDES
Page 2 of2
the Finance Department to segregate those funds, as they can only be used for specific purposes authorized
in DEA regulations.
FISCAL IMP ACT
The funding for any monetary reward would come from Police Asset Seizure Funds. There would be no
impact to the General Fund.
CONCLUSION
Adopting the attached resolution and authorizing the Police Department staff to offer a monetary reward up
to $20,000 per occurrence for information that leads to the capture and prosecution of those responsible for
cold case homicides could provide a sufficient incentive for those with knowledge of the cold case to come
forward with information.
Prepared by: a% 1\t:--:-
J e Azzopardi
Chief of Police
Attachment: Resolution
jl
2438441.1
Approved by: ~ J!t:!i
~i e utrell /
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF UP TO
$20,000 OF POLICE ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS FOR A
MONETARY REWARD FOR INFORMATION THAT
LEADS TO THE CAPTURE AND PROSECUTION OF
THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR COLD CASE HOMICIDES
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Police Department has a Cold
Case Task Force to investigate older unsolved homicide cases, and
WHEREAS , there are presently 16 unsolved homicides m South San
Francisco, dating back to 1976, and
WHEREAS, staff recommends offering reward money that leads to the
capture and prosecution of those responsible for unsolved crimes, as it would serve a
public purpose and provide benefits the community; and
WHEREAS, the reward money will be paid from available Police Seizure
Funds , which is an authorized expense of the Police Asset Seizure Funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco that the City Council hereby appropriates and authorizes the
South San Francisco Police Department to offer up to $20,000 from Police Asset
Seizure Funds for information that leads to capture and prosecution of those
responsible for unsolved homicides.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco authorizes the Finance Department to establish a Budget consistent with the
information contained in the staff report, with $20 ,000 in funding appropriated per
occurrence from Police Asset Seizure Funds.
* * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held
on the 13th day of May , 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: -------------------City Clerk
2438442.1
Staff Report
DATE: May 13, 2015
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT
AND DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGALLY
ESTABLISHED NONCONFORMING USE (AUTO REPAIR) WITH ANOTHER
NONCONFORMING USE (SERVICE STATION CONVENIENCE MARKET)
WITHIN AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 221 AIRPORT BLVD IN THE
GRAND AVENUE CORE (“GAC”) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SSFMC CHAPTERS 20.280, 20.320, 20.330. 20.350, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490.
Address: 221 Airport Blvd (APN 012-319-020)
Owner: Russell Skrable
Applicant: Zareh Samurkashian
Case No.: P14-0078: UP14-0007 & DR14-0046
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution
upholding the Planning Commission decision to deny application P14-0078 (UP14-0007 & DR14-
0046), and deny the appeal, based on the City Council Findings of Denial.
BACKGROUND
(A complete discussion of the proposed Project as well as the Planning Commission meeting is
contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes dated January 15,
2015.)
Project Description/Application
On September 19, 2014, Zareh Samurkashian (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a use permit
and design review for 221 Airport Blvd, the site of the 76 gas station, to allow the following:
Allow the substitution of the legally established nonconforming auto repair use with another
nonconforming use, a service station convenience market of approximately 700 square feet.
Allow the expansion of the service station to install a new underground diesel tank to provide
diesel fueling, with no increase in the total number of fueling stations on the site.
Exterior modifications including an updated façade along both the Airport Blvd and Grand Ave
frontages and the addition of new landscape areas throughout the project site.
Planning Commission – January 15, 2015 Meeting
On January 15, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the Applicant’s
request for a use permit. The Commission indicated some support for the Project’s proposed exterior
Staff Report
Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal
Page 2 of 6
modifications. However, because the proposed use was not permitted within the zoning district, the
Planning Commission was not able to make the specific findings required in the City’s nonconforming use
regulations (SSFMC § 20.320.005.C) to allow the substitution of one nonconforming use with another
nonconforming use. Accordingly, the Planning Commission denied the Use Permit by a vote of 4-2.
Specifically, the Planning Commission found that the following findings could not be made in the
affirmative:
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The proposed new use would not preclude or interfere with implementation of the General Plan
or any applicable adopted specific, area, or community plan.
The proposed new use will not result in an average daily trip increase of more than five percent
of the current use based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, or the
unique operational characteristics.
The proposed new use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or be detrimental or injurious to
property and improvements of adjacent properties, the surrounding area, or the neighborhood
because of noise, odors, dust, glare, vibrations, or other effects.
Appeal
On January 29, 2015, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was submitted by the Applicant.
The appeal was on the overall denial of the Planning Commission and did not specify bases for the
appeal; a copy of the appeal letter is attached to this staff report.
DISCUSSION
As part of the appeal hearing, the City’s Zoning Ordinance gives the City Council the authority to:
Uphold the decision.
Deny the decision.
Remand the decision back to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing.
Since the submittal of the appeal, changes in the regulatory setting for the subject site have taken place.
Following is a summary of these changes and their impacts on the planning application.
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Adoption
The subject property’s zoning under the Zoning Ordinance regulations in effect at the time of the
Planning Commission meeting was Downtown Core (“DC”). Under this zoning, all Automobile/Vehicle
Sales and Services use classifications, including Service Stations and Repair uses, were not permitted
uses within the DC zone district.
In January and February of 2015, the City Council adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
(“DSASP”), as well as amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, adding Chapter 20.280 “Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan District” to implement the policies and goals in the DSASP. The DSASP
covers properties within 0.5 miles of the City’s Caltrain Station, which includes the subject property.
The DSASP includes the following principles:
Staff Report
Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal
Page 3 of 6
Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco as a citywide destination that is economically vital,
diverse, active, and that encompasses a variety of uses.
Promote new residential, mixed-use and employment uses so as to add a “critical mass” of
business patrons and residents to the Downtown, while maintaining a scale and character that is
complementary.
Focus increases in residential and mixed-use densities within ¼ mile of the Caltrain Station and
in areas proximate to Grand Avenue to increase patronage of Caltrain as well as Grand Avenue
businesses.
Require pedestrian-oriented ground level retail and service uses on Grand Avenue.
In general, the DSASP envisions a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use Downtown with a variety of higher
density residential types and densities. It also envisions a revitalization of Downtown by planning for
the redevelopment of underutilized land resources within the area.
As part of the adoption of the DSASP, the subject property’s zoning was changed to Grand Avenue Core
(“GAC”). The GAC district is intended to be the main street of the Downtown, providing a nearly
continuous retail frontage with high density residential above. In keeping with the overall vision of the
DSASP, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services use classifications are not permitted uses within the
entire DSASP area. Therefore, the existing use at the subject property remains a legal nonconforming
use.
The existing nonconforming uses on the site are allowed to continue, provided that there is no expansion
of the nonconforming use (SSFMC § 20.320.006). One non-conforming use may be substituted for
another non-conforming use subject to a Use Permit if certain specific findings can be made in the
affirmative, including that the substituted non-conforming use is consistent with the General Plan.
(SSFMC § 20.320.005C.)
As stated above, in addition to any other findings required for a Use Permit, approval of a
nonconforming use substitution also requires that additional specific findings be made. Following is a
listing of specific findings to allow substitution of a nonconforming use and staff’s analysis related to
the proposed project’s nonconformance with each specific finding. These findings have been updated
based on the adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan:
The proposed new use would not preclude or interfere with implementation of the General Plan
or any applicable adopted specific, area, or community plan;
The proposed project, including the expansion of the convenience market and the expansion of
the gasoline service to include diesel fueling, is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. The
City’s General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Grand Avenue Core, and the subject
site is also located within the Downtown Planning Subarea, which includes guiding policies
promoting Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being and its presence as the city’s center,
encouraging development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center, and
calls for infill development, intensification and reuse of currently underused sites. The
Downtown Planning Subarea policies also state that the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
should be used as a guide for General Plan policies for the Downtown Station Area. The
Staff Report
Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal
Page 4 of 6
existing service station use on the site consists of primarily vehicular circulation and parking
areas, with a small building footprint, resulting in a vehicle-oriented, under-utilized site, not in
keeping with the City’s goals for the Downtown. The subject site is a strategic location that
serves as a gateway to the Downtown, located directly across Airport Blvd from the planned
Caltrain Plaza, which would lead to the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to the
extended Caltrain platform.
The proposed expansion of the convenience market as a replacement of the service bays will
result in an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic to the site, while the installation of a new
underground diesel fuel storage tank would constitute an expansion of the existing
nonconforming service station.
Each of the proposed improvements constitutes an investment that will tend to prolong the
nonconforming use of the site, thereby impeding the implementation of the General Plan and
Downtown Station Area Specific Plans goals to develop the Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly
mixed-use activity center.
The proposed new use will not depress the value of nearby properties or create conditions that
would impede their redevelopment or use in compliance with the General Plan;
The proposed improvements to the building and site, including the substitution of the auto repair
use with the convenience market and the new underground diesel storage tank will impede the
implementation of the General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan by prolonging the
nonconforming use of a site that is a strategic location within the overall vision to develop the
Downtown as a vibrant pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center.
The proposed new use will be no less compatible with the purposes of the district and
surrounding uses that comply with the requirements of this Ordinance than the nonconforming
use it replaces;
The City’s Zoning District for the site is Grand Avenue Core, which is intended to be the “main
street” of the Downtown, providing a nearly continuous retail frontage with high density
residential above. Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services use classifications are not permitted
uses within the Grand Avenue Core district. The proposed replacement of the service bays with
a convenience market will result in an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic to the site,
while the installation of a new underground diesel fuel storage tank would constitute an
expansion of the existing nonconforming service station. Both improvements will result in a use
that will be less compatible with the purposes of the district and surrounding uses by increasing
vehicular traffic to the site, resulting in a use that is less compatible with the purposed of the
district to develop Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center.
The proposed new use will not result in an average daily trip increase of more than five percent
of the current use based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, or the
unique operational characteristics;
Staff Report
Subject: 221 Airport Blvd - Appeal
Page 5 of 6
The existing use has approximately 240 square feet of retail area and 840 square feet of auto
service area in a building with a total size of approximately 1,200 square feet. Customers to the
site are predominately there to purchase gasoline, not for the convenience market. According to
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, a Gasoline/Service
Station with Convenience Market is defined as a place where the primary business is the fueling
of motor vehicles, with ancillary facilities for servicing and repairing motor vehicles. The
average trip generation rates for a Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market are as
follows:
Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate – 163 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average AM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 10.56 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average PM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 13.57 trips per vehicle fueling position
The proposed use would increase the retail area to approximately 750 square feet, with no auto
service area. In this scenario, customers to the site might not predominately be there to
purchase gasoline. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, defines Convenience Market with
Gasoline Pumps as places where the primary business is the selling of convenience items, not the
fueling of motor vehicles. The average trip generation rates for a Convenience Market with
Gasoline Pumps are as follows:
Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate – 543 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average AM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 17.03 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average PM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 19.98 trips per vehicle fueling position
For all comparable trip generation rates, the proposed use increases the rates by more than five
percent.
The proposed new use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or be detrimental or injurious to
property and improvements of adjacent properties, the surrounding area, or the neighborhood
because of noise, odors, dust, glare, vibrations, or other effects; and
The proposed new use has the potential to be detrimental to the surrounding properties and
improvements by expanding a use that will result in additional vehicular traffic to the site, in
opposition to improvements intended to encourage the development of Downtown as a
pedestrian-oriented mixed-use activity center.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project would result in aesthetic improvements to the existing site, but the proposal to
substitute the existing Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair use with an expanded Convenience
Market use and expanded service station with the installation of a new underground diesel fuel storage
tank will impede implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan, will result in increased vehicular traffic to the project site, and consequently
will result in a use that is less compatible with the purposes of the Grand Avenue Core district, as
described above and in the attached Planning Commission staff report. Therefore, it is recommended
that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission
Attachment 1
Resolution, including draft City Council Findings of Denial
1
RESOLUTION NO._________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION P14-0078, INCLUDING USE PERMIT UP14-
0007, TO ALLOW THE SUBSTITUION OF A LEGALLY
ESTABLISHED NONCONFORMING USE (AUTO REPAIR)
WITH ANOTHER NONCONFORMING USE (SERVICE
STATION CONVENIENCE MARKET) WITHIN AN
EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 221 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD IN THE GRAND AVENUE CORE ZONING
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Zareh Samurkashian (“Applicant”), submitted an application requesting
approval of a Use Permit (UP14-0007)and Design Review (DR14-0046) to allow the substitution
of a legally established nonconforming use (Auto Repair) with another nonconforming use
(Service Station Convenience Market), to expand the existing nonconforming Service Station with
the installation of an underground diesel fuel storage tank to provide diesel fueling, and to allow
miscellaneous exterior modifications at 221 Airport Boulevard (“Project”); and,
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, the South San Francisco Planning Commission
(“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing and denied Use Permit UP14-0007 based on
findings; and,
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2015, George Corey, on behalf of the Applicant (collectively
“Apellants”), submitted a timely letter of appeal challenging the Planning Commission’s action;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), 14 California
Code of Regulations §15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves; and,
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, General Plan EIR and South El Camino
Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project
applications; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission’s meeting held on January 15, 2015, and Planning Commission
2
deliberations; and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City
Council’s duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2015 which was continued to May 13, 2015, and
City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code
§21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as
follows:
1. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. 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 the Director of Economic and Community
Development, Alex Greenwood.
2. Use Permit
1. The City’s General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Grand Avenue Core
(“GAC”), which envisions Grand Avenue remaining as the historic retail center of the City, and
encouraging new mixed-use development of underutilized properties. The Project is inconsistent
with the City’s General Plan and the Downtown Sub-Area Plan for the following reasons:
i. The General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element (Chapter 3) identifies the
subject site as within the Downtown Sub-Area. Planning Sub-Area Element Policy 3.1-
G-1 [Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its presence as the city’s
center], Policy 3.1-G-2 [Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly
mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal
services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types
and densities], Policy 3.1-G-3 [Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of
currently underutilized sites] and Policy 3.1-G-5 [Use the South San Francisco Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan as a guide for General Plan policies for the Downtown Station
Area] target Grand Avenue as pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center, and call for
infill development, intensification and reuse of currently underused sites. The existing
service station use on the site consists of primarily vehicular circulation and parking areas,
with a small building footprint, resulting in a vehicle-oriented, under-utilized site, not in
keeping with the City’s goals for the downtown. The subject site is a strategic location that
serves as a gateway to the downtown, located directly across Airport Blvd from the
planned Caltrain Plaza, which would lead to the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle
undercrossing to the extended Caltrain platform. The proposed expansion of the
convenience market as a replacement of the service bays will result in an increase in the
amount of vehicular traffic to the site, while the installation of a new underground diesel
3
fuel storage tank would constitute an expansion of the existing nonconforming service
station. Each of the proposed improvements constitutes an investment that will tend to
prolong the nonconforming use of the site, thereby impeding the implementation of the
General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plans goals to develop the Downtown
as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center, and is therefore not consistent with the
General Plan.
2. The proposed improvements to the building and site, including the substitution of
the auto repair use with the convenience market and the new underground diesel storage tank, will
impede the implementation of the General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan by
prolonging the nonconforming use of a site that is a strategic location within the overall vision to
develop the Downtown as a vibrant pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center.
3. The proposed new use will be less compatible with the purposes of the Grand
Avenue Core Zoning District, which is intended to be the “main street” of the Downtown,
providing a nearly continuous retail frontage with high density residential above.
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services use classifications are not permitted uses within the Grand
Avenue Core district. The proposed expansion of the convenience market as a replacement of the
service bays will result in an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic to the site, while the
installation of a new underground diesel fuel storage tank would constitute an expansion of the
existing nonconforming service station. Both improvements will result in a use that will be less
compatible with the purposes of the district and surrounding uses by increasing vehicular traffic to
the site, resulting in a use that is less compatible with the purposed of the district to develop
Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center.
4. The proposed new use will result in an average daily trip increase of more than five
percent of the current use based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates.
The existing use has approximately 240 square feet of retail area and 840 square feet of auto
service area in a building with a total size of approximately 1,200 square feet. Customers to the
site are predominately there to purchase gasoline, not for the convenience market. According to
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, a Gasoline/Service
Station with Convenience Market is defined as a place where the primary business is the fueling
of motor vehicles, with ancillary facilities for servicing and repairing motor vehicles. The average
trip generation rates for a Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market are as follows:
Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate – 163 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average AM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 10.56 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average PM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 13.57 trips per vehicle fueling position
The proposed use would increase the retail area to approximately 750 square feet, with no auto
service area. In this scenario, customers to the site might not predominately be there to purchase
gasoline. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, defines Convenience Market with Gasoline
4
Pumps as places where the primary business is the selling of convenience items, not the fueling of
motor vehicles. The average trip generation rates for a Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
are as follows:
Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate – 543 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average AM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 17.03 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average PM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 19.98 trips per vehicle fueling position
For all comparable trip generation rates, the proposed use increases the rates by more than five
percent, greater than the maximum percentage allowed.
5. The proposed new use has the potential to be detrimental or injurious to property
and improvements of adjacent properties, the surrounding area, or the neighborhood because of
noise, odors, dust, glare, vibrations, or other effects, by expanding a use that will result in
additional vehicular traffic to the site, in opposition to improvements intended to encourage the
development of downtown as a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use activity center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and denies the appeal,
upholds the Planning Commission’s decision, and denies Planning Application P14-0078,
including Use Permit UP14-0007.
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 City Council of the City of South
San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 13th day of May, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
City Clerk
5
Attachment 2
Appeal Letter
6
7
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Documents
a. Staff Report of January 15, 2015
b. Minutes of January 15, 2015
c. Minutes of October 18, 2001
8
Planning Commission
Staff Report
DATE: January 15, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 221 Airport Blvd – Nonconforming Substitution
Use Permit and Design Review to allow the substitution of a legally established
nonconforming use (auto repair) with another nonconforming use (service station
convenience market) within an existing service station at 221 Airport Blvd in the
Downtown Core (“DC”) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.100,
20.320, 20.330. 20.350, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490.
Address: 221 Airport Blvd (APN 012-319-020)
Owner: Russell Skrable
Applicant: Zareh Samurkashian
Case No.: P14-0078: UP14-0007 & DR14-0046
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny UP14-0007 based on the attached draft
findings.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The existing service station at 221 Airport Blvd was originally constructed in 1962. As currently
configured, the service station building contains an office/retail area (approx. 350sf) and a two bay
automobile repair area (approx. 840sf). The proposal would remove the service bays and replace with
an expanded convenience market use. The existing fueling stations currently provide unleaded fuel
only. The proposed project would also include a new underground diesel tank to provide diesel
fueling. There would be no increase in the total number of fueling stations on the site. Proposed
exterior modifications include an updated façade along both the Airport Blvd and Grand Ave frontages
and the addition of new landscape areas throughout the project site.
Gasoline service stations are not permitted in the DC Downtown Core District, so any modification of
such use is subject to review under the provisions of the Nonconforming Use Chapter of the Zoning
Ordinance.
A similar application was submitted for this Property in 2001 (UP-91-889/Mod 1). At that time, the
property was zoned Downtown Commercial (“D-C”), and gasoline service stations were allowed under
the Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time, subject to approval of a use permit. However, the General
Plan in effect in 2001, which had recently been adopted in 1999, contained the following goals for the
Downtown:
3.1-G-1 Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its presence as the
city’s center.
9
Staff Report
Subject: 221 Airport Blvd – Substitution of Nonconforming Use
Date: January 15, 2015
Page 2 of 6
3.1-G-2 Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity
center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal services,
government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types
and densities.
3.1-G-3 Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized
sites.
Based on General Plan goals, the Planning Commission found that the project was not consistent with
the General Plan, and therefore the Use Permit Modification application was denied by the Planning
Commission at the October 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the staff report and
Planning Commission minutes from that meeting are attached (Attachment 3).
ZONING CONSISTENCY
Subsequently, the City updated its Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to incorporate the 1999 General Plan.
The subject property’s zoning was changed to Downtown Core (“DC”), one of five specific Downtown
zoning districts. Per Zoning Ordinance Section 20.100.001, the stated purposes of the Downtown
districts are to:
Promote and maintain Downtown’s historic role as the City’s center by developing a
pedestrian-friendly mixed-use core surrounded by a variety of residential types and densities
consistent with the policies of the General Plan;
Improve the quality and mix of retail uses in Downtown to make the area attractive to residents,
businesses, and visitors;
Expand housing choices in the Downtown while protecting and enhancing the character and
liveability of the Downtown residential neighborhoods;
Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underused sites consistent
with the General Plan;
Establish design standards to ensure that the scale and design of new development and
alterations to existing structures maintains the Downtown’s traditional development pattern;
and,
Provide sites for public and semi-public land uses such as parks, libraries, and religious
assembly uses that will serve City residents and will complement surrounding residential
development.
The DC district includes an additional purpose statement, with the intention to “maintain the
pedestrian-oriented environment in the heart of South San Francisco’s Downtown with a focus on
ground-level commercial uses and pedestrian-oriented development that encourages pedestrian
activity.” Based on this purpose statement, all Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services use
classifications, including Service Stations and Repair uses, are no longer permitted uses within the DC
zone district. Therefore, the existing use is considered a legal nonconforming use.
10
Staff Report
Subject: 221 Airport Blvd – Substitution of Nonconforming Use
Date: January 15, 2015
Page 3 of 6
Nonconforming uses are allowed to continue, provided that there is no expansion of that
nonconforming use. (SSFMC § 20.320.006.) One non-conforming use may be substituted for another
non-conforming use only if certain findings can be made, including that the substituted non-
conforming use is consistent with the General Plan. (SSFMC § 20.320.005C.) Further, subject to the
nonconforming use provisions in Zoning Ordinance Section 20.320.005, the Chief Planner may allow
substitution of a nonconforming use with another nonconforming use, subject to approval of a Minor
Use Permit. Per Section 20.490.003.A.2, the Chief Planner may refer any application for a Minor Use
Permit that may involve significant land use policy decisions to the Planning Commission for a
decision rather than acting on it herself. Because the City has been considering land use issues related
to the downtown as part of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan process, the proposed
substitution of a nonconforming use within the downtown is a more significant land use policy
decision, and therefore the application is being processed as a Conditional Use Permit.
As stated above, in addition to any other findings required for a Use Permit, approval of a
nonconforming use substitution also requires that additional specific findings be made. Following is a
listing of specific findings to allow substitution of a nonconforming use and staff’s analysis related to
the proposed project’s nonconformance with each specific finding:
The proposed new use would not preclude or interfere with implementation of the General Plan
or any applicable adopted specific, area, or community plan;
The proposed project, including the expansion of the convenience market and the expansion of
the gasoline service to include diesel fueling, is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. The
City’s General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Downtown Commercial, and the
subject site is also located within the Downtown Planning Subarea, which includes guiding
policies promoting Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being and its presence as the city’s
center, encouraging development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity
center, and calls for infill development, intensification and reuse of currently underused sites.
The existing service station use on the site consists of primarily vehicular circulation and
parking areas, with a small building footprint, resulting in a vehicle-oriented, under-utilized
site, not in keeping with the City’s goals for the downtown. The subject site is a strategic
location that serves as a gateway to the downtown, located directly across Airport Blvd from
the planned Caltrain Plaza, which would lead to the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle
undercrossing to the extended Caltrain platform.
The proposed expansion of the convenience market as a replacement of the service bays will
result in an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic to the site, while the installation of a
new underground diesel fuel storage tank would constitute an expansion of the existing
nonconforming service station. Each of the proposed improvements constitutes an investment
that will tend to prolong the nonconforming use of the site, thereby impeding the
implementation of the General Plan’s goals to develop the Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly
mixed-use activity center.
The proposed new use will not depress the value of nearby properties or create conditions that
would impede their redevelopment or use in compliance with the General Plan;
11
Staff Report
Subject: 221 Airport Blvd – Substitution of Nonconforming Use
Date: January 15, 2015
Page 4 of 6
The proposed improvements to the building and site, including the façade improvements, new
underground diesel storage tank, and additional landscape area, will impede the
implementation of the General Plan by prolonging the nonconforming use of a site that is a
strategic location within the overall vision to develop the Downtown as a vibrant pedestrian-
friendly mixed-use activity center.
The proposed new use will be no less compatible with the purposes of the district and
surrounding uses that comply with the requirements of this Ordinance than the nonconforming
use it replaces;
The proposed expansion of the convenience market as a replacement of the service bays will
result in an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic to the site, while the installation of a
new underground diesel fuel storage tank would constitute an expansion of the existing
nonconforming service station. Both improvements will result in a use that will be less
compatible with the purposes of the district and surrounding uses by increasing vehicular
traffic to the site, resulting in a use that is less compatible with the purposed of the district to
develop Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center.
The proposed new use will not result in an average daily trip increase of more than five percent
of the current use based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, or the
unique operational characteristics;
The existing use has approximately 240 square feet of retail area and 840 square feet of auto
service area in a building with a total size of approximately 1,200 square feet. Customers to
the site are predominately there to purchase gasoline, not for the convenience market.
According to Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, a
Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market is defined as a place where the primary
business is the fueling of motor vehicles, with ancillary facilities for servicing and repairing
motor vehicles. The average trip generation rates for a Gasoline/Service Station with
Convenience Market are as follows:
Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate – 163 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average AM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 10.56 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average PM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 13.57 trips per vehicle fueling position
The proposed use would increase the retail area to approximately 750 square feet, with no auto
service area. In this scenario, customers to the site might not predominately be there to
purchase gasoline. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, defines Convenience Market with
Gasoline Pumps as places where the primary business is the selling of convenience items, not
the fueling of motor vehicles. The average trip generation rates for a Convenience Market with
Gasoline Pumps are as follows:
Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate – 543 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average AM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 17.03 trips per vehicle fueling position
Average PM Peak Hour Generation Rate – 19.98 trips per vehicle fueling position
12
Staff Report
Subject: 221 Airport Blvd – Substitution of Nonconforming Use
Date: January 15, 2015
Page 5 of 6
For all comparable trip generation rates, the proposed use increases the rates by more than
five percent.
The proposed new use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or be detrimental or injurious to
property and improvements of adjacent properties, the surrounding area, or the neighborhood
because of noise, odors, dust, glare, vibrations, or other effects; and
The proposed new use has the potential to be detrimental to the surrounding properties and
improvements by expanding a use that will result in additional vehicular traffic to the site, in
opposition to improvements intended to encourage the development of downtown as a
pedestrian-oriented mixed-use activity center.
It should be noted that at a Special Planning Commission meeting held on January 8, 2015, the
Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (DSASP), which includes a new DSASP District. The DSASP includes goals and
policies that will further strengthen the vision to develop the Downtown in a more pedestrian friendly
manner; within this new specific plan area, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service uses would not be
considered a permitted use in any sub-district.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project would result in aesthetic improvements to the existing site. However, the
proposals to substitute the existing Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair use with an expanded
Convenience Market use and to expand the service station with the installation of a new underground
diesel fuel storage tank will impede implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan, will
result in increased vehicular traffic to the site project, and consequently will result in a use that is less
compatible with the purposes of the Downtown Commercial district. Therefore, staff recommends that
the Planning Commission deny the subject application. However, should the Planning Commission
desire to approve the subject Use Permit, staff would recommend the item be continued to February 5,
2015 for development of appropriate findings and conditions.
By:
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Proposed Draft Findings of Denial
2. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition – Trip Generation Rate Data for “Convenience Market
with Gasoline Pumps” and “Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market”
3. Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2001
4. Project Narrative
5. Project Plans
2385497.1
13
January 15, 2015 Minutes Page 1 of 4
MINUTES
January 15, 2015
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENT: Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner
Khalfin, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Zemke
ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Chief Planner Kalkin, Senior Planner Gross, Assistant City Attorney Rosenberg,
Administrative Assistant Cabano, Safety Inspector Carney and Sergeant Plank
AGENDA REVIEW NONE
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of December 4, 2014.
Motion--Commissioner Khalfin/Second--Commissioner Giusti to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved
by unanimous roll call vote (6-0).
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Russell Skrable/Owner
Zareh Samurkashian/Applicant
221 AIRPORT BLVD
P14-0078: UP14-0007 & DR14-0046
Use Permit and Design Review to allow the substitution of a legally established nonconforming use (auto
repair) with another nonconforming use (service station convenience market) within an existing service
station at 221 Airport Blvd in the Downtown Core (DC) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC
Chapters 20.100, 20.320, 20.330, 20.350, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490 and determination that the project is
categorically exempt from CEQA.
Use Permit and Design Review to allow the substitution of a legally established nonconforming use (auto repair)
with another nonconforming use (service station convenience market) within an existing service station at 221
Airport Blvd in the Downtown Core (DC) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.100, 20.320,
20.330. 20.350, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490 and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
Chairperson Martin opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Senior Planner Gross presented
the existing legal non-conforming use on the site, and discussed the process to allow a non-conforming use to be
substituted with another non-conforming use if specific findings can be made. This substitution process is
typically considered through a Minor Use Permit process, however, because the City was considering land use
issues related to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and this is considered an important land use
policy decision, the application is being considered through the Conditional Use Permit process. Staff is of the
belief that the required findings cannot be made to allow for the substitution, and therefore is recommending
ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS
14
January 15, 2015 Minutes Page 2 of 4
denial of the use permit as it would impede implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan
and would result in a use less compatible with the purposes of the Downtown Commercial District. He further
advised that should the Commission decide to approve the application, staff would recommend that the hearing
be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow staff time to develop appropriate findings and
conditions of approval.
George Corey, lawyer representing the applicant, explained that his client will continue the gas station use on the
site because there is a 20 year lease. He further stated that they would like to make the property look better but
if the application is denied no improvements will be made to the property.
Mike Nilmeyer, project architect, explained the improvements proposed to the current site, including providing
better pedestrian access, improving the appearance of the landscaping and the building, adding a convenience
market, improving the fueling pumps and adding a diesel tank.
Jennifer McGuire, associate lawyer representing the applicant, spoke on the benefits of allowing diesel fueling on
the site.
There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Commissions comments/questions:
Commission appreciates the lessee desire to continue the business and the aesthetic improvements, but
the proposed project will increase traffic and it is not in keeping with the pedestrian movement anticipated
with the new Downtown Plan.
Commission asked what limitations the owner has as far as improvements. Senior Planner Gross stated
that the applicant could maintain and repair the existing building and could improve the landscaping as
the gas station continues to operate.
Commission stated that even though the mini market would improve the quality of the property by
removing the repair shop, the additional traffic due to the larger area and the addition of the diesel tank
impedes the Downtown Plan's vision to make this a pedestrian friendly corner and the gateway to the
Downtown. It is not consistent with the General Plan.
Commission inquired whether a portion of the proposal could be accepted. Mr. Corey responded that the
only alternative they would be willing to support would be allowing the nonconforming substitution of the
repair use with the convenience market and denying the installation of the diesel tank. He further stated
that Mr. Samurkashian wouldn't want to improve the whole site without receiving the benefit of the mini-
mart. Chief Planner Kalkin pointed out to the Commission that a number of improvements shown,
particularly landscaping along the streetscape, are within the public right-of-way, and therefore could be
undertaken by the City at its discretion.
Commission asked what the differences were in the application proposal from 2001 and the current one.
Chief Planner Kalkin responded that the installation of the diesel tank was not included in the 2001
application, and that the zoning district for the property was revised in 2010. Chief Planner
Kalkin clarified that the City's primary concern is that allowing additional capital improvements into the
property will result in the non-conforming use staying longer than it otherwise would.
Commission stated that the purpose of the zoning laws is to promote an orderly growth within the City.
Commission encouraged the applicant to maintain and invest in the property and hopes there may be
another plan that would satisfy some of the applicant’s and the City's goals.
Motion--Commissioner Zemke/Second--Commissioner Giusti to deny UP14-0007 based on the attached
Findings. Denial approved by roll call vote (4-2).
15
Motion Te2lia / Second Honan to continue the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS
2. Phillip & Wendy Wan-owner/applicant
123-127 Arroyo Drive
PM-OI-063
Recommend Continuance to November 15,2001)
Continued
Tentative Parcel Map allowing a division of an existing 18,109 square foot parcel into two parcels with parcel
areas of 9,022 square feet and 9,115 square feet and Design Review allowing the remodel of an existing
single family dwelling and a new single family dwelling, situated at 127 Arroyo Drive (APN 010-370-220),
situated in the Single Family Dwelling (R-1-E) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Title 19 and
Chapter 20.85.
Motion Te2lia / Second Honan to continue the iteIn. Approved by unanimous voice vote.
3. Union 76/Vladimir Dubinsky-owner/applicant
221 Airport Blvd.
UP-91-889/MODl
Denied
Modification of Use Permit to replace auto repair bays with a convenience store at an existing gasoline
service station at 221 Airport Boulevard.
Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report and noted that staff was recommending denial of the use permit
modification.
Lenny and Vladimir Dubinsky, co-owners of22l Airport Boulevard, gave a brief history of how they have
upgraded the site with parking and brighter lights. He asked that the Commission review the application, as it will
improve the exterior to Inake it aesthetically pleasing. This upgrade will enhance the entryway to the City.
Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Teglia and Commissioner Ochsenhirt noted that the applicant's desire to improve the site is a good
one but were concerned with approving the modification due to traffic ingress and egress conflicts. It also
conflicts with what the goals set for the site in the Charrette.
Motion Te2lia to uphold staff s recommendation for denial of the modification. The motion died for lack of a
second.
Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Honan noted that the applicant should be allowed to improve the site.
They also pointed out that the Charrette was a vision that was put into place 1999 and three years later there have
not been any changes. If the City has a vision they should use eminent domain to reach the purpose of the
Charrette.
Jeffrey Jajae, 115 Grand Avenue, spoke against the permit. His was concerned with the traffic being increased
with a larger gas station.
Mr. Lenny Dubinsky stated that his business will not generate more traffic.
S:\Minutes\til1alized\2001 \1O-1S-01 RPC.doc Page 2 of 5
Approved onJw1e 20, 200216
Chairperson Pro-Tern ROlTIerO pointed out that the revisions should have been subm.itted when the pumps were
being changed. He noted that the City does have a goal and the entire area should be upgraded. He stated that he
also agrees with Staff s recommendation.
Motion Te2:lia/ Second Sim to deny UP-91-889/MOD 1 based on the Findings of Denial. Approved by majority
roll call vote.
Ayes: Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Teglia, and Vice Chairperson Romero
Noes: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Honan
Abstain: None
Absent: Commissioner Sim and Chairperson Meloni
4. Alexandria Tech Center, Trammell Crow-owner
Arrow Sign Co.-applicant
335 Oyster Pt. Blvd.
SC-99-088/MOD1
Approved
Modification of a Type C Sign Permit allowing a revision to the master sign program for the Alexandria Tech
Center consisting of the relocation of a facade sign frOlTI the north to the south building elevation, situated at
335 Oyster Point Boulevard, in the Planned fudustrial Zoning District (P-I) in accordance with SSFMC
Chapter 20.76 and 20.86.
Staff report presented by Senior Planner Carlson.
Thomas Woodson, Arrow Sign Conlpany, presented the proposal to the Commission.
Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed.
Motion Ochsenhirt / Second Honan to approve SC-99-088/MOD 1. Approved by unanimous voice vote.
5. Sprint PCS/The Alaris Group/Kelly Pepper-applicant
Dennis Georgopoulos-owner
301 Allerton Ave.
UP-01-044
Use Permit allowing a wireless communication facility, consisting of three roof mounted panel antennas on a
20 foot tall pole and five roof mounted equipment cabinets within a screen enclosure, situated at 301 Allerton
Avenue (APN 015-050-670), in the Planned fudustrial Zoning District (P-I) in accordance with SSFMC
Chapter 20.105.
Staff Report presented by Senior Planner Carlson.
Kelley Pepper, Sprint PCS, noted that they are proposing 3 antennas that would have a screen enclosure. They
responded to all DRB comments and also comply with FCC standards.
Commissioner Teglia and Ms. Pepper discussed the height of the antenna, stealthing, and relocating to another
site. Ms. Pepper noted that some of the sites that met radio frequency needs were not interested in leasing to
Sprint.
Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed.
S:\Minutes\linalized\2001 \10-18-01 RPC.doc Page 3 of 5
Approved onJune 20, 200217
Attachment 4
Project Narrative
18
19
20
Attachment 5
Project Plans dated August 12, 2014
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Attachment 6
Powerpoint Presentation
30
City Council Meeting
May 13, 2015
5/7/2015 1 Planning Division
31
5/7/2015 2 Planning Div.
32
5/7/2015 Planning Division 3
Proposed Site Plan
33
5/7/2015 Planning Division 4
Existing Street View
34
5/7/2015 Planning Division 5
Project Rendering
35
5/7/2015 Planning Division 6
Zoning Consistency
Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zoning District
•Purpose – Main Street of Downtown, providing nearly
continuous retail frontage with high density
residential above
•Section 20.280 does not permit any
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services uses,
including Service Stations and Repair uses, within
entire DSASP area
•Existing use is legal nonconforming, Section
20.320.005 allows substitution of nonconforming
use subject to Use Permit approval
36
5/7/2015 Planning Division 7
Zoning Consistency
Substitution of Nonconforming Use
Required Findings
•Would not preclude or interfere with implementation
of the General Plan
•Will not create conditions that would impede their
redevelopment or use in compliance with the General
Plan
•Will be no less compatible with the purposes of the
district than the nonconforming use it replaces
•Will not increase average daily trips by more than 5%
•Will not be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements to adjacent properties
37
5/7/2015 Planning Division 8
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Designation “Grand Avenue Core”
3.1-G-1 Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being,
and its presence as the city’s center.
3.1-G-2 Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-
friendly mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-oriented
uses, business and personal services, government and
professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types
and densities.
3.1-G-3 Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse
of currently underutilized sites.
3.1-G-5 Use the South San Francisco DSASP as a guide for
General Plan policies for the Downtown Station Area.
38
5/7/2015 Planning Division 9
Planning Commission
Planning Commission reviewed on January 15,
2015
Found that required findings could not be made in
the affirmative
Denied the Use Permit by a vote of 4-2
39
5/7/2015 Planning Division 10
Recommendation
That the City Council conduct a public hearing
and adopt a Resolution to uphold the Planning
Commission decision to deny Planning
Application P14-0078, including Use Permit
UP14-0007, and deny the appeal, based on
the attached City Council Findings of Denial.
40