Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-25 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 6:30 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 25th day of September, 2002, at 6:30 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Interview applicants for Library Board 5. Discussion and appointments to Library Board 6. Closed Session: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, conference with Labor Negotiator Bower on Public Safety Managers, International Association of Firefighters and Police Association 7. Adjournment ' ~'~ff Clerk AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM SEPEMBER 25, 2002 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency 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 for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. In the event that them are more than six persons desiring to speak, the Chair may reduce the amount of time per speaker to three (3) minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. EUGENE R. MULLIN Chairman PEDRO GONZALEZ Vice Chair RAYMOND L. GREEN Boardmember BEVERLY BONALANZA FORD Investment Officer MICHAEL A. WILSON Executive Director JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT tS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of the September 11, 2002 regular meeting 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of September 25, 2002 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 PAGE 2 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 7:30 P.M. 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 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: 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 no__At 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 for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. In the event that there are more than six persons desiring to speak, the Mayor may reduce the amount of time per speaker to three (3) minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. 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. PEDRO GONZALEZ Mayor Pro Tem EUGENE R. MULLIN Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RAYMOND L. GREEN Councilman KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman BEVERLY BONALANZA FORD City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Annual Beautification Awards - presented by Beautification Committee member Saundra Nichols · Proclamation - Domestic Violence Prevention Month, October 2002; recipient: Sue Walsh, Center for Domestic Violence · BART Construction Update- South San Francisco Liaison Nia Crowder AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Community Forum · Subcommittee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the minutes of the September 11, 2002 special meeting and September 11, 2002 regular meeting 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of September 25, 2002 o Motion to adopt an ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 11, to establish preferential parking areas near the South San Francisco BART station Resolution awarding construction contract to BRH-Garver, Inc. for the Junipero Serra Boulevard Storm Drain Repair Project in the amount of $159,013 o Resolution of Intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), and City of South San Francisco, to provide Section 21362.3 (3% ~ 50 Full Formula) for Local Safety Members Acknowledgement of proclamations issued: Constitution Week, September 17-23, 2002; Breast Cancer Awareness Month, October 2002 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of resolution authorizing submittal of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the Community Development Block Grant Program to the Department of Housing and Urban Development REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 AGENDA PAGE 2 o Consideration of mitigated negative declaration for the South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Master Sewer Facility Fee Study and Sewer Facility Impact Fee for the East of 101 area - Motion to continue to October 23, 2002 Consideration of text amendment to modify Footnote "q" of Table 20.71.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for reductions in the required rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the R-1 Zoning District to not less than 10 feet subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 AGENDA PAGE 3 StaffReport DATE: September 25, 2002 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance adding Chapter 70 to Title 11 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code Related to Preferential Parking Areas. RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Ordinance adding Chapter 70 to Title 11 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code Related to Preferential Parking Areas. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is now ready for adoption. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 70 TO TITLE 11 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PREFERENTIAL PARKING AREAS (Introduced 09-17-02 - Vote 5-0) By: ~ /~? H Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney -- Michael A. Wilson, City Manager Enclosure: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 70 TO TITLE 11 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PREFERENTIAL PARKING AREAS WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Title 11 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code should be amended to include Chapter 70 to provide for preferential parking areas with the first such area to include property near the South San Francisco BART Station; and, WI-IEREAS, the City Council has determined that the possibility of overflow parking from the South San Francisco BART Station may negatively impact neighborhoods near the BART Station; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by Vehicle Code section 22507(a), the City Council has determined that a Preferential Parking Plan containing permits for the residents in the areas, combined with parking enforcement efforts will protect the residents and prevent the surrounding streets from serving as a BART commuter parking area; and, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for Preferential Permit Parking Areas to ensure that residents in the area surrounding the BART station have sufficient parking near their homes. Chapter 70 is hereby added to Title 11 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 11.70: PREFERENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM. CHAPTER 11.70.010: DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth in this section. "Address" means and includes any residential or business address. Each dwelling unit within an apartment building that is distinguished by an apartment number and each office within an office building that is distinguished by a suite number shall be considered an address. 202704-1 1 Co Eo Go Ho Jo "Business" means an enterprise or establishment used for the purpose of conducting business located in the designated preferential permit parking area. "Preferential permit parking area," and "permit parking area," means any street upon which the City Engineer and Police Chief impose parking limitations pursuant to the authority granted by this chapter. "Fourteen (14) day visitor parking permit" means a parking permit issued pursuant to this chapter, which when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt the motor vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter for a period of fourteen (14) days, beginning upon the date indicated upon the face of said permit. "Motor vehicle" means and includes automobile, truck, motorcycle or other motor driven form of transportation less than ten thousand (10,000) pounds gross weight. "One-day visitor parking permit" means a parking permit issued pursuant to this chapter which when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt the motor vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter or an ordinance or resolution enacted pursuant to authority granted herein, for the date indicated upon the face of said permit. "Preferential Parking Permit" means a permit issued under this chapter which, when displayed upon a motor vehicle, as described herein, shall exempt said motor vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. "Person" means and includes, but shall not be limited to, individuals, corporations, businesses, partnerships, hospitals and churches. "Residence" means a legal residential address and shall exclude business addresses. "Resident" means any person eighteen (18) years of age or older whose legal residential or business address is in the designated preferential permit parking area. 202704-1 2 "Visitor" means an individual who calls upon a resident in the designated preferential permit parking area with specific intent to spend time in or about that resident's residence but excluding persons visiting a home occupation or business." CHAPTER 11.70.020: ACTIONS AUTHORIZED THROUGH DISPLAY OF VALID PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMIT A motor vehicle on which is displayed a valid preferential parking permit, as provided for herein, shall be permitted to stand or be parked in the preferential permit parking area for which the permit has been issued without being limited by time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. Any motor vehicle, which does not display an authorized permit for the area and is not otherwise exempt, shall be subject to the preferential permit parking regulations and penalties in effect for such area. This chapter shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner that will abridge or alter regulations established by authority other than this chapter. This chapter shall not exempt the preferential permit parking holder from other traffic controls and regulations existing in the designated preferential permit parking area. Do This chapter shall not permit the preferential permit parking holder to leave standing his or her vehicle for more than seventy-two (72) hours. CHAPTER 11.70.030: DESIGNATION OF A PREFERENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA. The City Engineer and the Chief of Police may propose establishment of a preferential permit parking area in an area within the City of South San Francisco upon a showing that a significant daytime parking problem does or will exist. In proposing a preferential permit parking area, the City Engineer and Chief of Police may: 1. Undertake or cause to be undertaken such surveys or studies deemed necessary; 2. Cause to be drafted a resolution approving a specific preferential permit parking area. The resolution would establish a preferential permit parking area based upon studies, including any regulations and time restrictions determined by the City Engineer and the Chief of Police to be reasonable and necessary in such area. 202704-1 3 The City Council may approve, reject, or modify the resolution establishing a residential permit parking area." CHAPTER 11.70.040: MODIFICATION AFTER DESIGNATION OF A PREFERENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM. The procedures set forth in Section 11.70.030 may also be used to modify or terminate an existing preferential permit parking area. CHAPTER 11.70.050: ISSUANCE OF PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMITS. Preferential parking permits shall be issued by the South San Francisco Police Department in accordance with requirements set forth in this chapter. Each such permit shall be designed to state or reflect thereon the identification of the particular preferential permit parking area. No more than one preferential parking permit shall be issued to each motor vehicle owned or leased for which application is made. Bo The South San Francisco Police Department shall issue preferential parking permits with a date of issuance. One preferential parking permit may be issued for each vehicle owned, leased, or under the continuing custody of any person who can demonstrate that they are currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued. A preferential parking permit may be issued to a resident (or an employee of a business) located along a commercial street that has been determined by the City Engineer and the Chief of Police to be significantly impacted by the implementation of residential permit parking on adjacent residential streets. The City Engineer and the Chief of Police will determine which commercial streets qualify and the appropriate boundaries. Any resident or employee subject to this section will be allowed to obtain one permit for each motor vehicle they own, lease, or have under their continuing custody, but in no event shall there be more than 2 permits issued for any address. Residents or employees whose address is located in a building that was required by the City to provide on-site parking shall not be allowed to obtain a permit pursuant to this section. Renewal of Business Parking Permits issued pursuant to 11.70.050(D). Permits issued to employees of business must be renewed annually at the time of business license renewal and are non-transferable 202704-1 4 No vehicles may be parked on a street within a preferential parking permit area for more than three (3) hours unless a valid preferential parking permit or visitor permit is displayed on the vehicle in accordance with this Chapter. The City of South San Francisco Police Department is authorized to implement rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, governing the issuance and display of preferential parking permits. Ho Any person to whom a preferential parking permit has been issued pursuant to this section shall be deemed a preferential parking permit holder. CHAPTER 11.70.060: VISITOR PERMIT. mo The Police Department may, under specified circumstances, issue visitor-parking permits in accordance with this section. A visitor- parking permit shall be displayed on any vehicle parked for mom than three hours in a preferential parking permit area. A visitor- parking permit shall be of limited duration but shall otherwise grant to the holder all the rights and privileges of a regular preferential parking permit. Visitor parking permits may be issued to grant parking privileges for a maximum of fourteen days depending on the purpose for which the visitor-parking permit is requested. In reviewing an application for a visitor-parking permit, the Chief of Police shall consider, at a minimum, the following criteria: (1) Purpose for which the permit is sought; (2) Duration of visit; (3) Number of visitor-parking permits held by the applicant; and, (4) Availability of off-street parking in the surrounding area. A visitor parking permit shall clearly display the date upon which it becomes effective, the license number of the motor vehicle for which it applies, the name of the resident, and shall designate the particular preferential permit parking area for which it applies. Co A one-day visitor parking permit shall, during the date indicated upon the face of said permit, exempt the applicable vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. A two (2) to fourteen (14) day visitor parking permit shall, for the period applicable, commencing upon the date indicated upon the face of said permit, exempt the applicable vehicle from parking time restrictions established pursuant to this chapter. 202704-1 5 The Chief of Police is authorized to implement rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, concerning the issuance and display of visitor parking permits to permit holders. An eligible applicant for a visitor parking permit shall be any person eligible to obtain a preferential parking permit pursuant to criteria set forth in Section 11.70.050, but no more than five visitor parking permits per address shall be in effect at any one time. CHAPTER 11.70.070: POSTING OF PREFERENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA. Upon the adoption by the City Council of a resolution designating a preferential permit parking area, and subsequent to purchase of the required minimum number of parking permits, the City Engineer and the Chief of Police shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in the area, indicating prominently thereon the time limitation, period of the day for its application, and conditions under which preferential permit parking shall be exempt therefrom. CHAPTER 11.70.040: VIOLATION, PENALTY/REVOCATION OF PERMIT. It is unlawful and shall constitute a violation of this chapter for any person to park a motor vehicle, without a current preferential parking permit properly displayed, at a curb within a preferential permit parking area for a period of time exceeding the time limitation established for that preferential permit parking area. Motor vehicles identified as used by disabled persons meeting the requirements of Section 22511.5 of the California Vehicle Code shall be exempt from this subsection. Violations of this Chapter shall be punished as an infraction. The fine for said violation shall be initially set at thirty-five dollar ($35.00) and may be adjusted upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police shall base the recommendation on a survey of fines imposed in comparable permit parking areas in neighboring jurisdictions. Specific violations include the following: Parking of any motor vehicle that does not contain a lawfully issued preferential parking permit or that is not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this Chapter in a preferential permit parking area for a period of time that exceeds the authorized time that a motor vehicle may park in a preferential permit parking area. 202704-1 6 Using or displaying an improper, unauthorized or false preferential parking permit in order to evade time limitations on parking applicable in a preferential parking permit area. Co The Chief of Police may revoke any permit that is issued where the Chief determines that the person requesting the permit has falsely represented that he/she is eligible for a parking permit or who has furnished false information as part of his/her application. 3. 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. 4. SEVERABILITY In the event, any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. 202704-1 7 Introduced and at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the day of 2002, by the following vote: Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of __ 2002: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of ,2002. Mayor 202704-1 8 StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 25, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN REPAIR ENGINEERING FII.E SD-01-1 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract to BRH-Garver, Inc., in the amount of $137,975.00 for the repair of six (6) storm drains along Junipero Serra Boulevard and one sewer line at the Produce Terminal and appropriate $20,000.00 from the Sewer Enterprise Fund to complete the work. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project will repair the existing storm drain piping, which consists of corrugated metal pipe, cast iron pipe and reinforced concrete pipe. The existing corrugated metal pipe is badly rusted out and the reinforced concrete pipe is cracked. Failure to repair these storm drains could result in collapse of the roadway above the storm drains. The cast iron sewer pipe at the Produce Terminal is rusted and has water infiltration from the surrounding soil. Request for Proposals (RFP) to repair the storm drains and sewer pipe were received on September 18, 2002. The proposal from BRH-Garver, Inc., was chosen based on a combination of cost, method of repair, durability and maintenance considerations. Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of BRH-Garver, Inc., and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to BRH-Garver, Inc., in the amount of $137,975.00. The following is a breakdown of the project budget: Construction Contingencies (8%) Construction Inspection/Administration $137,975.00 $ 11,038.00 $ 10,000.00 Total $159,013.00 Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Junipero Serra Boulevard Storm Drain Repair September 25, 2002 Page: 2 of 2 Construction is expected to start in the middle of October 2002 and be completed by the end of November 2002. FUNDING: Partial funding for this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51 - 13231-4210-9918) in the amount of $200,000.00 ($120,152.22 is required plus administration and possible contingencies). An appropriation of $20,000.00 is required from the Sewer Fund (71-14320-4210) to fund the sewer repair. By: Joh~~ Director ~Vlichael ,~. WilsoXn City Manager ATTACHMENT: Resolution RTH/JG/ed GAPROJECTS\SD-01-1 Junipero Serra Blvd. Storm Drain RepairXawardstaffreport.doc RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIl,, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CAI JFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF SIX (6) STORM DRAINS ALONGJUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD AND ONE SEWER LINE AT THE PRODUCE TERMINAL TO BRH-GARVER, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $137,975 WHEREAS, the City desires to award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, BRH-Garver in an amount not to exceed $137,975 for the repair of six storm drains along Junipero Serra Boulevard and one Sewer Line at the Produce Terminal; and WHEREAS, partial funding for this project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program budget in the amount of $200,000 ($120,152.22 is required plus administration and possible contingencies); and WHEREAS, an appropriation of $20,000 is required from the Sewer Fund to fund the sewer repair. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the repair of six storm drains along Junipero Serra Boulevard and one sewer line at the Produce Terminal to BRH-Garver, Inc., in the amount of $137,975. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held on the __ day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk F:~file cabinet\Current Reso'sX9-17storm.drain.res.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 25, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer A. Bower, Director of Human Resources Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), and the City Council, City of South San Francisco, to Provide Section 21362.3 (3 % @ 50 Full Formula) for Local Safety Members. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to amend the PERS Contract to provide for 3 % at age 50 full retirement formula for local police members and local fire members. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION During negotiations with all three of the public safety bargaining units (Police Association, Firefighters' Association [IAFF], and Public Safety Managers) each unit proposed enhancements to the City's retirement system. With approval from Council, the City's plan was to modify its PERS contract to provide 3% at age 50 retirement formula with an implementation date anticipated to occur in late 2002. The City has completed its negotiations and has received all the necessary valuations and documents from PERS. The process from PERS requires that the City adhere to strict timelines. The timelines are as follows: 9/25/02 Adoption of Resolution of Intention. 10/23/02 Adoption of Final Ordinance. 11/21/02 Effective Date of Ordinance. 11/22/02 Effective Date of CalPERS Amendment to Contract. COSTS Government Code Section 7507 requires that the future annual costs of the proposed contract amendment be made public prior to the adoption of the final ordinance. The City's Normal Cost for this enhanced 3% at age 50 full retirement formula benefits for Fire safety is 5.102% and for Police safety it is 4.723%. The City's actual actuarial rate for Fire Safety Members beginning at implementation of this enhancement will be 13.443%. The City's actuarial Staff Report Subject: Resolution to Amend PERS Contract Page 2 rate for Police Safety Members beginning at implementation of this enhancement will be 14.915%. Both annual actuarial rates are higher than what was provided to the City by PERS in April 2000 when the original actuarial study was done. These adjustments are due to the negative changes in PERS' investment portfolio. For the Local Fire Safety Plan, the cost information is below: 1. Change in the Present Value of Benefits $6,286,387 2. Change in the Accrued Liability $5,248,804 3. Change in Normal Rate 5.102% 4. Change in the City's actual rate. 13.443% For the Local Police Safety Plan, the cost information is below: 1. Change in the Present Value of Benefits $6,434,940 2. Change in the Unfunded Accrued Liability $6,157,731 3. Change in Normal Rate 4.7263% 4. Change in the City's actual rate. 14.915% The first year rates of 13.443% and 14.915% are projected by PERS to rise to 33.9% for Fire and 36.3% for Police by 2007-08. These rates may increase after PERS adjusts for the portfolio losses they incurred in 2001-02, which will be factored in for the next fiscal year. By: ~eI~uAi}laBn° ~:~ ourc es Appr°ved:-f~ch~c h~~ City Manager Attachment: Exhibit A: Resolution Exhibit B: Form CON-12, Certification of Governing Body's Action Exhibit C: Form CON-12A Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 7507 JAB-09/19/02 F:~ile Cabinet\City Council~PERS ModificationsX3 at 50~ERS Resolution.doc RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law; and WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract; and WHEREAS, the following is a statement of the proposed change: To provide Section 21362.2 (3% @ 50 Full Formula) for local safety members. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the contract between the City of South San Francisco and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, hereby attached as Exhibit A. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held on the day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk F:\file cabinet\Current Reso's\9-17pers.res.doc CalPERS EXHIBIT California Public Employees' Retirement System AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between ~he Board of Administration California Public Employees' Refiremem System and the Ci~j Council City of South S~n Francisco The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective September 1, 1945, and witnessed September 12, 1945, and as amended effective September 1, 1949, December 1, 1953, January 1, 1960, January 1, 1963, February 1, 1967, January 1, 1968, January 1, 1969, November 1, 1973, April 19, 1974, January 21, 1977, November 11, 1977, December 19, 1980, August 23, 1985, January 23, 1987, December 22, 1989, January 1, 1992, October 9, 1993, April 23, 1994, June 13, 1996 and May 11, 2001 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: Paragraphs 1 through 12 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective May 11, 2001, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 12 inclusive: All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members and age 60 for local safety members. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after September 1, 1945 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: PERSONS WHO ARE COMPENSATED ON AN HOURLY BASIS WHO ARE EMPLOYED JANUARY 1, 1963 OR AFTER. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law subject to the 'reduction provided therein for Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Modified and Full). The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362.2 of said Retirement Law (3% at age 50 Full). Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following, optional provisions: ao Section 21571 (Basic Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members only. b. Section 21222.1 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1970). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980. c. Sections 21624 and 21626 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance). do Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1976. e. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation). Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only. g. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave). Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on November 11, 1977. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 10. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. Co A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 11. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effe,~ on the BOARD OF ADMINISTRATI~:~X~'' PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' R~:~:::EMENT SYSTEM BY ~,,C',~K~c:3~' KENNETH W..~.ION, CHIEF ACTUARIAE~,,~"MPLOYER SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC?BMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM __ day of .~ , CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FL4~NCISCO PRESIDING OFFI.~ Witness D a~,.,~. Attest: Clerk AMENDMENT ER# 0093 PERS-CON-702A (Rev. 8\02) CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Actuarial and Employer Services Division Public Agency Contract Services P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 (916) 326-3420 CERTIFICATION OF GOVERNING BODY'S ACTION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the of the (governing body) on (date) (public agency) Clerk/Secretary Title PERS-CON-12 (rev. 1196) CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Actuarial and Employer Services Division Public Agency Contract Services P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 (916) 326-3420 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7507 i hereby certify that in accordance with Section 7507 of the Government Code the future annual costs as, determined by the System Actuary and/or the increase in retirement benefit(s) have been made public at a public meeting of the of the (governing body) on (date) Resolution / Ordinance. (public agency) which is at least two weeks prior to the adoption of the Clerk/Secretary Title Date PERS-CON-12A (rev. 1/96) CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Actuarial and Employer Services Division PUblic Agency Contract Services (916) 326-3420 SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS 3% @ 50 Formula (Section 21362.2) Local Safety Members SERVICE RETIREMENT To be eligible for service retirement, a member must be at least age 50 and have five years of CalPERS credited service. If provided by the employer's contract, mandatory retirement age for local safety members is age 60. The monthly retirement allowance is determined by age at retirement, years of service credit and final compensation. The basic benefit is 3% of final compensation for each year of credited service upon retirement at age 50. The allowance is limited to 90% of final compensation. Final compensation is the average monthly pay rate during the last consecutive 36 months of employment, or 12 months if provided by the employer's contract, unless the member designates a different period of 36 or 12 consecutive months when the average pay rate was higher. Certain items of special compensation earned dudng your final compensation period will be included in your final compensation, in accordance with Board regulations. DISABILITY RETIREMENT Members permanently incapacitated from performing their duties are eligible for disability retirement provided they have at least five years of service credit. The monthly retirement allowance is.1.8% of final compensation for each year of service. The maximum percentage for members who have between 10.000 and 18.518 years of service credit is one-third of their final compensation. If the member is eligible for service retirement the member will receive the highest allowance payable, service or disability. If provided by the employer's contract, the benefit would be a minimum of 30% of final compensation for the first five years of service credit, plus 1% for each additional year of service to a maximum benefit of 50% of final compensation. INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT Members permanently incapacitated from performing their duties as a result of a job-related injury or illness may receive 50% of their final compensation (or more by additional contract provisions).. The industrial disability retirement allowance for members who entered membership in a safety category after January 1, 1980, cannot exceed the amount that would be payable for a service retirement if employment had continued to age 55. This limit may not apply if the member was disabled because of a direct violent act upon their person or as a result of hazardous and dangerous duty required for the position. If the member is eligible for service retirement, the service retirement allowance is payable if greater than the industrial disability retirement allowance. PRE-RETIREMENT DEATH BENEFITS Basic Death Benefit: This benefit is a refund of the member's contributions plus interest' and up to six months' pay (one month's salary rate for each year of current service to a maximum of six months). PERS-CON-52 (rev. 1/02) 1957 Survivor Benefit: An eligible beneficiary may elect to receive either the Basic Death Benefit or the 1957 Survivor Benefit. The 1957 Survivor Benefit provides a monthly allowance equal to one- half of the highest service retirement allowance the member would have received had he/she retired on the date of death. The 1957 Survivor Benefit is payable to the surviving spouse until death or to eligible unmarried children until age 18. 1959 Survivor Benefit: (If provided by the employer's contract and the member is not covered under social security.) A surviving spouse and eligible children may receive a monthly allowance as determine by the level of coverage. This benefit is payable in addition to the Basic Death Benefit or 1957 Survivor Benefit. Children are eligible if under age 22 and unmarried. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit: (If provided by the employer's contract.) The spouse of a deceased member, who was eligible to retire for service at the time of death, may to elect to reoeive the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit in lieu of the lump sum Basic Death Benefit. The benefit is a monthly allowance equal to the amount the member would have received if he/she had retired for service on the date of death and elected Optional Settlement 2, the highest monthly allowance a member can leave a spouse. Special Death Benefit: A surviving spouse or eligible children may receive a monthly allowance equal to one-half of the final compensation. If the cause of death is due to external violence or physical force while on the job, and there are eligible surviving children in addition to a spouse, the allowance may be increased to a maximum of 75%. COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS The cost of living allowance increases are limited to a maximum of 2% compounded annually unless the employer's contract provides a 3, 4, or 5% increase. DEATH AFTER RETIREMENT The lump sum death benefit is $500 (or $600, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 if provided by the employer's contract) regardless of the retirement plan chosen by the member at the time of retirement. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT Members who have separated from employment may elect to leave their contributions on deposit or request a refund of contributions and interest. Those who leave their contributions on deposit may apply at a later date for a monthly retirement allowance if the minimum service and age requirements are met. Members who request a refund of their contributions terminate their membership and are not eligible for any future benefits unless they return to CalPERS membership. EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS Local safety members covered by the 3% (!~ 50 formula contribute 9% of reportable earnings, Those covered under a modified formula (coordinated with Social Security) do not contribute on the first $133.33 earned. The employer also contributes toward the cost of the benefits. The amount contributed by the employer for current service retirement benefits generally exceeds the cost to the employee. In addition, the employer bears the entire cost of prior service benefits (the period of time before the employer provided retirement coverage under CalPERS). All employer contribution rates are subject to adjustment by the CalPERS Board of Administration. PERS-CON-52 (rev, 1/02) DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 25, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Economic and Community Development RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE 2001-2002 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1) Hold a public hearing on the 2001-2002 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), and 2) Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute all required documents for submittal to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. BACKGROUND: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires communities receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to submit a year-end Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The report describes the City's housing and community development accomplishments during the 2001-2002 Fiscal Year, and includes a financial summary of CDBG expenditures. Prior to submitting the report, the City must give the public an opportunity to review the CAPER and give testimony at a public hearing. A federally required Notice was published in the San Mateo Times on September 7, 2002 regarding the City Council's Public Heating. CAPER reports are due to HUD 60 days after the completion of jurisdiction's fiscal year. In fiscal year 2001-2002, a total of $764,000 in CDBG funding was available from the City's Entitilement amount, plus an additional $243,140 from program income, for a total fund availability of $1,007,140, for a broad range of community development activities. The CDBG program is the primary funding source for many community services the City provides including housing rehabilitation, commercial faqade improvements, childcare, adult day care, emergency food assistance, homeless services, and tutoring. On April 22, 1998, the City Council authorized the submittal of the City's five-year Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development for fiscal years 1998-2002. The Consolidated Plan identified the housing and non-housing priorities the City would address during 1998-2002. In April 2001 the City Council authorized submittal of the One-Year Action Plan for 2001-2002. The 2001- 2002 CAPER describes the City's accomplishments and compares them to the goals set in the 2001- 2002 One Year Plan. Attached as Exhibit A is a summary of the CAPER report. STAFF REPORT TO: SUBJECT: DATE: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submittal of the 2001-2002 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) September 25, 2002 Page 2 CAPER FINANCIAL REPORTING MECHANISM: In addition to the activity summary report, the CAPER provides a comprehensive accounting of all CDBG funds allocated, expended, encumbered, or reprogrammed during the fiscal year. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has developed special computer software that allows the tracking of multi-year activities and expenditures for accurate financial monitoring of individual CDBG projects and programs. The Finance and Housing and Community Development Department use the new software system to request regular reimbursements from the U.S. Treasury for CDBG activities. CONCLUSION: The CAPER has been available for public review in the Office of Economic and Community Development since September 11, 2001, when the public comment period began. Any comments received during the comment period or at the public hearing will be forwarded to HUD upon submittal of the report on September 30, 2001, a federally mandated deadline. Economic and Community Development Approved: Michael ,~. Wilson City Manager MAW:MVD:NF:AFS Attachment: Resolution Exhibit A - CAPER Summary Report RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITI'AL OF THE 2001- 2002 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires communities receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to submit a year-end Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER); and, WHEREAS, in fiscal year 2001-2002, a total of $764,000 in CDBG funding was available from the City's Entitlement amount, plus an additional $243,140 from program income, for a total fund availability of $1,007,140, for a broad range of community development activities; and WHEREAS, the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) has been available for public review in the office of Economic and Community Development, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue since September 11, 2002. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manger to execute all required documents for submittal to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held on the __ day of ., 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: \kMULDER\VGATTRELLkfile cabinet\Current Reso's\9-17CAPER.res.doc ATTEST: City Clerk City of South San Francisco Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report Executive Summary 2001- 2002 Housing Activities A. Priority: Increase the supply of decent, affordable housing through the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing housing units. 1. Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation The City sponsors a variety of housing rehabilitation programs to assist residents maintain their homes in good condition. They are thc Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, the Code Enforcement Voucher Program, and the House Helpers Program through North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC). The Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program assists low- and moderate-income homeowners with housing repairs by providing low interest loans. During 2001-2002 the City assisted two households with housing rehabilitation loans. The City administers a Code Enforcement Voucher Program that makes grants available to low- income homeowners in the downtown central area and citywide. The Voucher program is a grant subprogram of the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program and is used to help residents correct emergency code violations. Currently there are two types of Vouchers available: Emergency Code Violation Vouchers and Debris Box Vouchers. During 2001-2002 the City issued four Emergency Code Vouchers and 45 Debris Box Vouchers. The City funded NPNSC to implement the House Helpers Program, which provides minor home repairs for low-income homeowners in the downtown target area and citywide. In 2001-2002, NPNSC assisted 48 families. Of these 42 were senior heads of household. 2. Rental Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation The Rental Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program purchases blighted or substandard homes in the community (or in specially designated target areas), rehabilitates the homes, and converts them into affordable rental housing. The program is available citywide and funded by CDBG, HOME and Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-Aside. The City leverages the federal funds with Redevelopment Agency Housing funds. The City made substantial efforts to purchase buildings in the Willow Gardens neighborhood project area but was not able to do so due to market conditions. However the City did provide Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition with $40,000 in CDBG and $50,000 in RDA funds to rehabilitate 12 units currently owned there. City of South San Francisco 2001-2002 CAPER Executive Summary, Page i In 2001-2002 the City also negotiated with several property owners to purchase housing in or near the downtown. City efforts included negotiating with owners and conducing property appraisals. While efforts to purchase property during 2001-2002 were not successful, the City does expects several acquisitions to move forward during 2002-2003. And finally, in September 2001 four low-income families moved into the City's housing units at 339-341 Commercial Avenue property. In March 2002 a new family from Shelter Network's Bridges program for homeless families also moved into the City's rental property at 109 Longford Avenue. The previous homeless family living there successfully graduated from the program and moved into regular rental housing in January 2002. B. Priority: Increase the supply of affordable rental housing by constructing new rental units. 1. Mission/Chestnut In 1998-99 the City negotiated a purchase option for the vacant site located at Old Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue. Under contract with the Redevelopment Agency, BRIDGE Housing Corporation, a nonprofit housing developer, is in the process of developing 40 units of affordable senior housing. Work is progressing smoothly and BRIDGE expects to complete construction by December 2002 with occupancy occurring shortly thereafter. In addition to the City's Redevelopment funds, Bridge has secured a $4.5 million HUD Section 202 grant for the project. 2. First Time Homebuyer Program The City spent a substantial amount of time during 2001-2002 developing policies and program to benefit first time homebuyers as well as renters. During 2001-2002 the City Council approved a first time homebuyer program for the City of South San Francisco. Preparations are underway to administer the program and the City will begin making first time homebuyer loans during 2002-2003. To fund this program the City has allocated $191,043 in CDBG and $250,000 in RDA to fund the program. Under the leadership of the Mayor and City Council, the City passed a housing inclusionary ordinance in 2001-2002. Housing developers are required to make 20 percent of all new units developed affordable to low- and moderate-income families. Eight percent (8%) of units must be affordable to families at or below 80 percent median income and 12 percent must be affordable to families at or below 120 percent median income. Immediately after passing the ordinance, the City successfully negotiated the creation of 3 affordable rental units in a new project being developed at 90 Oak in the City. Finally, the City worked with the County of San Mateo, various other cities on the peninsula, financial institutions and lenders, and other interested parties to develop a uniform County-wide first time homebuyer program. The Consortium also prepared loan documents for the uniform program. In an effort to maintain and increase intergovernmental collaboration, the City of South San Francisco has modeled it's first time homebuyer to adhere to the standards developed by the Consortium will use its loans documents. City of South San Francisco 2001-2002 CAPER Executive Summary, Page ii C. Priority: Provide service-enriched shelter and transitional housing for homeless people and families. Funding for Homeless Assistance Programs Thc City fimded several agencies and homeless shelters providing housing and services for Homeless people. This included Shelter Network who received $14,000 in Redevelopment Agency funds for the Family Crossroads Shelter and $10,000 for the Maple Street Shelter. These transitional housing facilities are available to homeless families and individuals in the City of South San Francisco. During 2001-2002, seven (7) South San Francisco families stayed at Family Crossroads and 13 individuals stayed at the Maple Street Shelter. The City also provided $7,000 to the North County Homeless Shelter for operations. The North County Emergency Shelter is located in South San Francisco and provides 90 beds for homeless men and women. Other homeless shelters and service providers the City funded included: $8,000 to the Center for Domestic Violence Prevention for providing shelter to battered women and their children, and $25,000 to the Human Investment Project (I-I2). NPNSC's social service program also helped homeless individuals and families find temporary and permanent housing. D. Priority: Provide housing opportunities for the disabled Funding for Housing Accessibility Programs The City provided $13,000 in CDBG funds to the Center for the Independence of the Disabled to complete housing modifications for disabled residents, enabling residents to remain in their homes in a safe and accessible manner. The program is available citywide to low-income residents. CID served 33 disabled residents during 2001-2002. NPNSC's House Helpers Program also provided housing accessibility modifications for disabled residents. Non-Housing Community Development Activities Priority: Core public service activities to improve the quality of life for City residents and provide minimal levels of prevention assistance to keep families at risk from becoming homeless. Social Services. The City funded 13 programs to provide crucial social services to the community. These included pre-school and after school childcare for 371 children, adult day care for 53 seniors, general social services for 586 residents, counseling and advocacy for 169 battered women and children, counseling and other assistance for 62 disabled people, tutoring to adults through project read for 31 individuals, new clothing for 104 very low-income youth, and weekly grocery bag deliveries to 244 senior and disabled households. The City's nonprofit agencies have leveraged their small CDBG grants of $2,000 to $20,000 to maximize the services they offer South San Francisco residents. They have enriched the lives of many low-income residents through the services they provide. City of South San Francisco 2001-2002 CAPER Executive Summary, Page iii B. Priority: Rehabilitation assistance for non-housing activities including institutional, commercial, and historic structures. 1. Commercial Facade Improvement Program The Commercial Facade Improvement Program provides financial and technical assistance to property owners undertaking structural and facade improvements to their buildings. These improvements help owners increase the use of their commercial buildings and improve the appearance of the downtown. The program is available in the Historic Downtown district and is funded through CDBG and leveraged by the owners' funds. In 2001-2002, the City allocated $175,000 for the Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Program. The following projects were completed or underway during the 2001-2002 fiscal year: · Flow Building, 381-385 Grand Avenue, $10,000 grant, $45,000 CDBG loan, $100,000 RDA loan · Tepa Meat Market, 801 Linden Avenue, $8,664 loan · Mi Pueblo Taqueria, 319 Baden, $3,000 grant · West Coast Supplies, 369-371 Grand Avenue, $1,402 loan · Crimpers Bizzare, 312-314 Linden Avenue, $8,000 grant · Discoteca Santos, 309 Baden, $1,075 grant. 2. Other Rehabilitation Projects The City also provided funding to address the rehabilitation needs of public and private community buildings serving South San Francisco residents. Rehabilitation projects completed during 2001-2002 includes · Making the bathrooms accessible for disable people and creating privacy for caseworkers at North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center · Installing an emergency fire exit door at a South San Francisco Unified School District portable classroom for kindergarten students. Lead Based Paint Abatement Through this program the City identifies potential lead-based paint hazards in housing rehabilitation projects. In 2001-2002, the City continued to work with the County of San Mateo and other jurisdictions in the county to implement the new federal lead-based paint regulations for housing. Actions included offering training to contractors, performing outreach, and cooperating and sharing information with other entitlement jurisdictions. Fair Housing Activities (Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing) In 2001-2002 the City supported numerous activities to ensure fair housing in the City of South San Francisco. Programs included funding Project Sentinel and La Raza Centro Legal to conduct fair housing education and advocacy. In 2001-2002, Project Sentinel assisted twelve (12) South San Francisco households facing housing discrimination and handled 96 telephone calls requesting fair housing information. La Raza Centro Legal provided legal representation, counseling, and information and referral for 210 households. City of South San Francisco 2001-2002 CAPER Executive Summary, Page iv 2001 - 2002 CAPER Summary of Accomplishments I. Housing Activities A. Priority: Increase the supply of decent, affordable housing through the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing housing units. Program Activity 2001-2002 Objectives 2001-2002 Accomplishments To Date 5-year CP Accomplishments Owner-Occupied Rehabilit~0on City-Sponsored Housing Assist low- and moderate-income homeowners Provided CDBG rehabilitation loans funds in the Provided 9 rehabilitation Rehabilitation Loan with housing repairs in the Neighborhood Strategy amount of $13,564 for the rehabilitation of 2 loans to low-income Program Area and citywide. Three to five (3-5) very low- affordable units, homeowners. Completed income households will be assisted with low rehabilitation of Commercial interest and/or deferred loans of up to $25,000. Avenue project. Most households will be very low-income, elderly, and female heads-of-household. Voucher Program Provide grants to low-income homeowners in the Provided $21,822 in CDBG vouchers to assist a Provided 113 vouchers downtown central area and citywide for total of 49 low-income households correct code (grants) to low-income emergency repairs, violations. The City issued 4 emergency code homeowners. Emergency Code Provide homeowners grants of up to $2,500 to 12 violation vouchers and 45 debris box vouchers. Violation Vouchers low-income residents to clear up code violations in theft homes. Debris Box Help 10 low- and moderate-income residents in Vouchers the CDBG target area remove accumulated debris and yard waste from their properties. Minor Home Repair Provide free, minor home repairs to 50 very low- Provided free, minor home repairs to the homes of Over the past four years (House Helpers) income homeowners in the Neighborhood Strategy 48 households. NPNSC has provided free, North Peninsula Area and citywide. The majority of households minor home repairs for 210 Neighborhood Services assisted will be large families with small children, households. disabled residents and elderly, and female heads- Center (NPNSC) of-household. A. Priority: Increase the supply of decent, affordable housing through the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing housing units - continued. Program Activity 200122002 ObJectives I 2001.2002 AccOmplishments To Date 5-year CP Accomplishments Rental Acquisition and Rehabilitation The City has acquired and Willow Gardens Five-year objective is to acquire and rehabilitate Due to market conditions the City was not able to - 64 units at Willow Gardens to convert into purchase any units during 2001-2002. The City, rehabilitated 3 four-plex affordable rental units. The goal for the year was however, did provide Mid-Peninsula Housing building (12 units total) in to purchase 1-3 buildings as they were put up for Coalition with $40,000 in CDBG and $50,000 in the Willow Gardens RDA funds to rehabilitate 12 units currently owned Neighborhood. sale. there. - Neighborhood concept design and Supplemental EIR complete. - Willow Gardens neighborhood added to the E1 Camino Redevelopment Project Area. Downtown Affordable Establish housing fund to provide affordable rental The City negotiated with several property owners No accomplishments to date. Housing Program housing through thc acquisition and rehabilitation to purchase housing in or near the downtown. of dilapidated housing stock. Goal during fiscal While efforts to purchase property during 2001- year 01-02 is to purchase and rehabilitate an 2002 were not successful, the City does expects unoccupied Single Room Occupancy Hotel or a 4- several acquisitions to move forward during 2002- 6 unit apartment building in or near the downtown. 2003. 339-341 Commercial No action listed for 2001-2002. Four low-income families moved into the Purchased 2 duplexes (4 Commercial Avenue apartments in September units total), relocated eligible Avenue 2001. The City continues to manage this tenants, completed Icad-paint affordable housing project, hazard reduction, completed rehabilitation, and occupied units with low-income families. 109 Longford Avenue No action listed for 2001-2002 New family from Shelter Network's Bridges Purchased blighted home and Program for homeless families moved into the completed rehabilitation. unit. The family consists of a single mother with Two families from Shelter two children. Network's Bridges program - Previous occupant family successfully moved for homeless have occupied into regnlar rental hon.qing, the housing unit. B. Priority: Increase the supply of affordable rental housing by constructing new rental units. Program Activi~ 2001.2002ObjectiVes 2001.2002 ACComplishments To Date 5-year cp Accomplishments New Rental Housing Construction Chestnut Creek Construction of 40 new affordable rental Project is under construction and on schedule. - Signed a cooperation (Mission/Chestnut) apartment units for seniors. Project scheduled to be BRDIGE expects to complete construction in the agreement with BRIDGE completed by Fall 2002. Fall and occupancy to occur at the end of the year. Housing Corporation for the development of senior housing. - Conducted Phase I & II of the environmental analysis. - Completed construction drawings. - Received $4.5 million HUD Section 202 Grant. First-time Homebuyer Develop program guidelines for a new first- - The City Council approved a first time homebuyer - City adopted a first time Loan Program time homebuyer loan program. The goal for program for the City of South San Francisco. homebuyer program. 2001-2002 was to place 3-5 First time Preparations are under way to administer the - City adopted a 20% homebuyer first time homebuyer loans, program and the City will begin making loans inclnsionary housing during 2001-2002. ordinance - Allocated $191,043 in CDBG and $250,000 in - City has negotiated for 8 RDA to fund the project, inclusionary housing units. - Adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring that 20% of units be affordable to low- and moderate-income families. - Negotiated for 3 inclusionary housing units at 90 Oak. C. Priority: Provide service-enriched shelter and transitional housing for homeless people and families. 2001-2002 Accomplishments To Date 5-year CP Program Activity 2001-2002 Objectives ~ Accomplishments Shelter Network - Providc transitional housing to 20 homeless Provided transitional housing to a total of 21 Over thc past four years, Family Crossroads and families at Family Crossroads and 10 individuals households. Seven (7) families received housing Shelter Network has Maple Street at the Maple Street shelter, at Family Crossroads and 13 individuals received provided transitional housing housing at the Maple Street shelter, to 132 South San Francisco clients North County Homeless Provide continued support to the North County Provided $7,000 in Redevelopment Agency Contributed to the Shelter Homeless Shelter located in South San Francisco. funding for continued shelter operation, constmction of and operation of an emergency winter shelter in South San Francisco that houses up to 90 homeless people. Daybreak Shelter for Provide transitional shelter for 3 homeless youth. Project cancelled. In its first year with City funding, the Day Break Homeless Youth Shelter for Homeless Youth assisted 2 youth. Center for Domestic Provide shelter and services to 5 battered women Provided shelter and services to 9 women and To date, the Center for Violence Prevention and their families, children. Domestic Violence Prevention has provided transitional housing to 4 43 South San Francisco battered women and children. Human Investment Provide shared housing referrals to 80 households. Provided referrals to 93 households looking for HIP has provided referrals to Project shared housing. 351 households seeking shared housing. D. Priority: Provide housing opportunities for elderly and disabled people Activity 2001,2002 0bje~i-~es ' 2001,2002 Accomplishments To Date 5-year - Accomplishments Center for Independence Provide housing accessibility modifications to thc Provided accessibility modifications to thc homes In four years CID has of thc Disabled (CID) homes of 30 people with disabilities, of 33 households, provided housing accessibility modifications to Housing Accessibility the homes of 117 disabled Program and elderly people. Minor Home Repair (See Housing Activities - Priority A: Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation) (House Helpers) North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center (NPNSC) II. Non-Housing Community Development Activities A. Priority: Provide core public service activities to improve the quality of life for low-income residents and provide preventive assistance to families at risk of becoming homeless. Program Activity 2001~2002 Objectives 2001-2002 Accomplishments To Date 5-year CP · ' ' Accomplishments Childcare Child Care Provide emergency childcare for up to 10 chikhen Provided childcare for 5 children for extended Over the past four years Coordinating Council from families in crisis, periods of time. CCCC has provided extended childcare for 22 low-income families. City-Sponsored Child Provide fee assistance to 15-30 families for Provided childcare fee assistance to 18 families. To date the City's program has provided childcare fee Care childcare, assistance to 84 families. Friends to Parents Provide affordable childcare to 64 children Provided childcare for 189 children. Friends to Parents has provided childcare for 480 children SSFUSD - Children's Provide activities for 100 children. Center provided childcare for 159 children and The SSFUSD Children's CDBG funds were used for field trips and Center leveraged City funds Center supplies, to provide childcare for 365 households. Senior Services · ' City-Sponsored Adult Provide day care to 50 seniors. Provided day care to 53 seniors. In three years, the C~ty s program has provided day Day Care care for 246 frail and elderly residents. General Social Services North Peninsula Provide social services for 450 households (1,200 Provided social services to 586 clients. Provided social services to Neighborhood people) with immediate needs. 3,366 clients. Services Center (NPNSC) A. Priority: Provide core public service activities to improve the quality of life for low-income residents and provide preventive assistance to families at risk of becoming homeless - continued. ~ Program ACtivity : 2001-2002 Obje~dves 2001,2002ACComPlishmerits To Date 5-year CP ~ Accomplishments Battered Women's Services Center for Domestic (See Housing Activities - Priority C: Shelter and Transitional Housing for the Homeless) Violence Prevention Sor Juana Ines - Provide emergency services such as counseling Assisted 169 women and children with emergency In four years, Sor Juana Ines Abused Women and shelter to 150 battered women and their services, has provided shelter and emergency services to 649 Advocacy children, battered women and their children. Disabled Services C.I.D. - Social Provide counseling and assistance to 50 disabled Counseled and assisted 62 disabled people. CID has provided counseling and assistance to 261 Services people, disabled residents. Tutoring Reading Project READ Train volunteer tutors to provide free tutoring in Tutored 31 adults in reading, hasIn fourtrainedYearStutorsProjeCtandREAD reading to 50 adults, provided tutoring to 139 adults Food Assistance Second Harvest - Provide 280 households of seniors and disabled Provided 244 senior and disabled households with Over the past four years Food Bank Brown residents with food. food on a monthly basis. Second Harvest has provided - 925 senior and disabled Bag households with food. Youth Services John's Closet Provide new clothing to 106 schoolchildren. Provided new clothing to 104 children. John's Closet has provided clothing to 674 children North Peninsula Provide parenting skills to monolingual Spanish- Provided parenting skills and services to 103 clients.Over the past three years Family Alternatives speaking parents; will assist 20 monohngual Family Alternatives has (NPFA) Spanish-speaking households (70 parents and provided parenting skills to children). 348 monolingual Spanish- speaking clients. Boys & Girls Club See Priority B: Rehabilitation assistance for non-housing structures Day Break Shelter for See Housing Activities, Priority C: Shelter and Transitional Housing for the Homeless Homeless Youth Health Services ELLIPSE Peninsula Provide in-home support services to up to 10 Served 9 households with HIV/AIDS. ELLIPSE has provided support services to 42 clients Aids Program households with HIV/AIDS. with HIV/AIDS. B. Priority: Rehabilitation assistance for non-housing structures including public, commercial, and historic buildings. Program Activi~ 2001-2002 Objectives ~ 2001-2002 Accomplishments To Date 5-year CP · Accomplishments Commercial Facade Provide financial and technical assistance to City completed three facade improvements, one City completed 16 facade Improvement Program property owners undertaking structural and facade awning installation, and two sign installations, improvements, 2 awning improvements. These improvements help owners benefiting a total of six businesses, installation, and 8 sign increase the use of their commercial buildings and improvements, benefiting a improve the appearance of the Historic Downtown total of 25 businesses. district. Boys & Girls Club Provide funding to renovate the restroom at the On hold due to BART construction. Postponed. Boys & Girls Club. Community Path Provide funds to remodel center to provide access The remodel project allowed Community Path to Remodel ht~proved services (formerly Poplar Re- for the disabled. The center will provide services better serve 67 disabled children and adults from for 67 South San Francisco Care Center) for 37 disabled children and adults. South San Francisco. The City's funds were used residents. Rehabilitation to install new windows North Peninsula Remodel NPNSC's office at 600 Linden Avenue Remodeled the Agency's offices to create Remodeled Community Neighborhood Services to provide wheelchair accessibility to the bathroom accessible bathrooms for disabled people and Agency's office for Center Office Remodel and privacy to case managers working with social privacy for case managers. See Section II-A- accessibility and client service clients. General social services for beneficiary data. services. Family Service Agency Make renovations to the playground at the Leo On hold. Postponed. Playground Renovation Ryan Development Center to provide appropriate outdoor equipment and accessibility for disabled persons. South San Francisco Install an emergency fire exit door to a portable Installed emergency fire exit door to a portable Installed emergency fire exit Unified School District classroom so that the School District can expand classroom, door to a portable classroom. its kindergarten preparedness program_ III. Lead-Based Paint Abatement Program Activity ~ 2001~2002 Objectives 2001,2002 A~complishments To Date 5-year CP ~ Accomplishments Lead-Based Paint Incorporate new federal regulations into abatement Continue to collaborate with the County of San Screened projects for lead- Abatement Program procedures to reduce lead-based paint hazards in Mateo and other jurisdictions in the county to based paint hazards and rehabilitation projects. Collaborate with the implement new federal lead-based paint performed necessary risk County of San Mateo and other county regulations for housing. Actions included offering reduction. Cooperated and jurisdictions to coordinate educational, training to contractors, performing outreach, and coordinated with the County cooperating and sharing information with other of San Mateo and other entitlement jurisdictions, jurisdictions to prepared and implemented a lead-based paint Transition Plan to meet new federal regulations. IV. Fair Housing - Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing prOgram Activity 2001-2002ObjeCtives 2001~2002 Accomplishments To Dnte 5-year CP Accomplishments · Over the past two years Project Sentinel Provide fair housing counseling and advocacy Provided case management for 12 households and casework for 12 households and respond to 140 responded to 96 phone inquiries. Project Sentinel has provided case management for 48 telephone inquiries from residents requesting fair households and responded to housing information. 462 phone inquiries. La Raza Centro Legal Provide 200 households with services including Provided legal advice, information and counseling La Raza Centro Legal has information and referral, legal advice and to 210 households, provided legal advice, information and counseling counseling, and legal representation, to 770 people. Fair Housing Brochure No action planned. Brochure availability continues Prepared and distributed fair housing brochures to City residents. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 Consideration of mitigated negative declaration for the South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, Master Sewer Facility Fee Study and Sewer Facility Impact Fee for the East of 101 area - Motion to continue to October 23, 2002 Staff Report DATE: September 25, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: Text Amendment to modify Footnote "q" of Table 20.71.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for reductions in the required rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the R-1 Zoning District to not less than 10 feet subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Applicant: City of South San Francisco Case No. P02-0072 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive reading and introduce the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20.71 entitled "Front, Rear and Side Yard Regulations," Table 20.71.030, Footnote "Q." BACKGROUND: A resident of South San Francisco owning a single family dwelling on a substandard reverse comer lot applied for a variance to build an addition within the required rear setback. In order to be able to build the proposed addition, the applicant had to provide a second legal parking space on the lot. There were two options available to satisfy this parking requirement: 1) either build a detached garage in the rear yard; or 2) convert existing living area into new garage space, and build a second story addition. However, the applicant did not wish to do either of these. The Planning Commission and City Council both denied the variance request on the basis that neither body could make the findings required by the Municipal Code for the granting of a variance. The applicant has now applied to amend the zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in the required rear yard setback on substandard reverse comer lots in the R-1 zone from 15 feet to 10 feet. DISCUSSION: A complete discussion of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff reports dated August 1, 2002 and September 5, 2002. The minutes from these meetings have also been attached to this report. City Council Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: P02-0072 September 25, 2002 Page 2 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: In July 2002, the applicant applied for a Zoning Ordinance amendment to reduce the required rear yard setback on substandard reverse comer lots from 15 feet to 10 feet. Staff had initially recommended denial based on its position that allowing such a reduction in open yard space would conflict with the policies of the General Plan which call for the preservation of private open space on all lots in the City's single-family residential neighborhoods. Upon hearing the item, the Planning Commission suggested that a rear yard setback of less than 15 feet be allowed only subject to the approval of a minor use permit. This would ensure that any neighbors immediately adjacent to the property would have the chance to object to such a request on a case-by-case basis. The Commission, focusing particularly on the applicant's situation, desired to promote additional flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance to address unique individual circumstances. In this case, the Commission preferred an alternative that would not necessitate construction of a detached garage in the rear yard of the applicant's property, thereby preserving more open space between her house and the homes on the neighboring parcels. The Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendment process to implement its suggestion. Staff presented the amendment to the Commission at its regular meeting of September 5, 2002. At that meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to forward the amendment to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Staff recommends approval of this amendment because it allows consideration of the setback reductions on a case-by-case basis rather than an automatic citywide entitlement. Under specific circumstances, it can result in better aesthetics and more usable open space. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendment would give owners of substandard reverse comer lots greater opportunity to expand their homes without having to do significant remodeling of existing floor plans and/or spend prohibitive amounts of money building second story additions. Furthermore, the General Plan calls for maintaining usable outdoor open space on all lots in single-family residential districts. In its decision, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with this goal of the General Plan. For these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council waive reading and introduce the attached ordinance amending Footnote (q) of Table 20.71.030 to allow for rear yard setbacks on substandard reverse comer lots to be reduced to no less than 10 feet subject to approval ora minor use permit. conomic and Community gl.Lv, glopment City Manager City Council Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: P02-0072 September 25, 2002 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance Planning Commission Resolution No. 2621 with attached Exhibit Minutes of the September 5, 2002 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 5, 2002 Minutes of the August 1, 2002 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 1, 2002 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.71 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on September 5, 2002, recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance that allows for reductions in the rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District to no less than 10 feet subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, allowing this reduction in the rear yard setback subject to approval of a minor use permit is consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the Land Use Element of the General Plan requires all lots in areas designated as Low Density Residential to contain as much usable private outdoor yard space as possible. This amendment would result in a minimal loss of existing open yard space on all of the approximately 220 substandard reverse comer lots citywide, while the alternative currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance to build a detached garage or carport in the rear yard would actually consume more usable yard space. Therefore, this amendment is in accordance with the policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 15305 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA as it only involves minor changes to the City's land use limitations, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: 1. Chapter 20.71, Table 21.71.030, Footnote (q) of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Table 20.71.030 Note (q): On substandard reverse comer lots in the R-1 zone district, the minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen feet, but may be reduced to no less than 10 feet subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit. 2. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2621 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.71 "FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REGULATIONS", TABLE 20.71.030, FOOTNOTE "Q". WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has submitted a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as follows: Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 20.71 "Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations," Table 21.71.030, Footnote "Q" to allow for reductions in the rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District to no less than 10 feet subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit, as further described in Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heating on September 5, 2002; and, WHEREAS, as required by the "Amendment Procedures" (SSFMC Section 20.87), and in support of the amendment to the zoning ordinance of Chapter 20.71 entitled "Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations," and based on public testimony and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 5, 2002, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan which requires residential neighborhoods to contain private outdoor open space on each lot to the maximum extent feasible; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15305(a) of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review as it only involves minor changes to the City's land use limitations, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on evidence in the record, including the staff reports and oral and written comments received at the duly notice public hearing of the Planning Commission on September 5, 2002, by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco that it is hereby recommended that the City Council: Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 20.71 "Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations", Table 21.71.030, Footnote "Q", to allow for reductions in the rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District to no less than 10 feet subject to approval ora Minor Use Permit as indicated in Exhibit A. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of September, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner D'Angelo and Commissioner Teglia Sec~dt~;y ~6 [he Plannir~6mmission S:\StaffReportsX2002\ DRAFT SR\09-05-02 PCLP02-0072 Resolution.doc CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE September 5, 2002 City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide P02-0072 and Categorical Exemption Class 5 Section 15305(a) Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Text Amendment to modify Footnote "q" of Table 20.71.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a reduction of the required rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the R-1 Zoning District to not less than 10 feet subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Associate Planner Kowalski gave staff report. Commissioner Meloni asked how the 220 substandard lots are distributed in the City. Chief Planner Sparks answered that there tend to be more, older residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Meloni commended staff for a job well done. Motion Meloni/Second Honan to approve Unanimous voice vote Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: September 5, 2002 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Text Amendment to modify Footnote "q" of Table 20.71.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for reductions in the required rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Corner Lots in the R-I Zoning District to not less than 10 feet subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Applicant: City of South San Francisco' Case No.: P02-0072 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a request to amend Footnote "q" of Table 20.71.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for reductions in the rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Corner Lots in the (R-l) Zoning District to no less than 10 feet subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit. DISCUSSION: Section 20.71 of the Zoning Ordinance currently requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet on all substandard reverse comer lots. Since most of these lots are substandard in terms of lot size, the majority of the houses on them tend to be smaller homes with small garages. In order for owners of these types of lots to build a house larger than 1,800 square feet and/or with more than 3 bedrooms, a second legal parking space must be provided on the site. In many cases, this second parking space can only be built legally as a detached garage or by converting existing living area into new garage area, since the current setback requirements often do not leave adequate room for expanding existing garages. Converting existing living area into new garage area and building a second story over top typically costs significantly more than building single- story additions onto a house. Building a detached garage that meets the required setbacks for an accessory structure would consume much of the usable rear yard space on lots that in most cases already have smaller than average yards. If approved, this amendment would prevent owners of these types of lots from having to resort to either of these alternatives. There are currently an estimated 220 substandard reverse comer lots throughout the City. The proposed amendment would give owners of these lots an additional five feet in which to add onto their homes in the rear yard, subject to approval of a minor use permit. This process would require neighborhood notification and a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator. As with Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P02-0072 September 5, 2002 Page 2 of 4 any other minor use permit, Section 20.89.080 would allow for appeals to be made to the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment reads as follows, with new text to be added shown as double-underlined: Table 20.71.030 (q) On substandard reverse comer lots in the R-1 zone district, the minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen feet, but may be reduced to no less than 10 feet sub. iect to the approval of a Minor Use Permit. This amendment would prevent owners of substandard reverse comer lots from having to resort to building detached garages that would consume much of their usable rear yard space. It would also prevent them from having to spend excessive amounts of money building a second story addition. But perhaps most importantly, it would give the neighbors who stand to be the most directly impacted by this amendment a chance to object to any additions within 15 feet of the rear property line on a case-by-case basis. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires all lots in areas designated as Low Density Residential to contain private outdoor open space. This amendment would result in a minimal loss of existing open yard space on approximately 220 lots citywide, while the alternative currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance to build a detached garage in the rear yard could potentially consume more usable rear yard space. Therefore this amendment will comply with the policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 15305(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review since it qualifies as a minor alteration in the City's land use limitations. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance would give owners of substandard reverse comer lots greater opportunity to expand their homes without having to do significant remodels and/or second story additions. Since these lots are typically smaller than newer, standard comer lots, many of the homes on them have little or no room to expand because they are already built very close to the required setbacks. Currently the only way owners of substandard reverse comer S:\Staff Reportsk2002\ DRAFT SR\09-05-02 PCLP02-0072.doc Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P02-0072 September 5, 2002 Page 3 of 4 lots can add onto their homes while still meeting the required setbacks is by converting existing living area into additional garage space and building a second-story addition, or building a detached garage in the rear yard. The former option can be cost-prohibitive for many homeowners, while the latter can result in a significant reduction in usable rear yard area on lots that frequently already have smaller than average yards. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council amend Footnote (q) of Table 20.71.030 to allow for rear yard setbacks on substandard reverse comer lots to be reduced to no less than 10 feet subject to approval a minor use permit. Stephefi Kowalski, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Resolution with attached Exhibits Draft Ordinance to the City Council S:\StaffReports~2002\ DRAFT SR\09-05-02 PC~P02-0072.doc RESOLUTION NO. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIJ_, ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.71 "FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REGULATIONS", TABLE 20.71.030, FOOTNOTE "Q". WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has submitted a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as follows: Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 20.71 "Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations," Table 21.71.030, Footnote "Q" to allow for reductions in the rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District to no less than 10 feet subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit, as further described in Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 5, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the above described amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will ensure internal consistency in the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, as required by the "Amendment Procedures" (SSFMC Section 20.87), the following finding is made in support of the amendment to the zoning ordinance of Chapter 20.71 entitled "Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations," based on public testimony and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 5, 2002, that the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan which requires residential neighborhoods to contain private outdoor open space on each lot to the maximum extent feasible; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15305(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review as it only involves minor changes to the City's land use limitations, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on all the evidence in the record, including the staff reports and oral and written comments received at the duly notice public hearing of the Planning Commission on September 5, 2002, by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco that it is hereby recommended that the City Council: Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 20.71 "Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations", Table 21.71.030, Footnote "Q", to allow for reductions in the rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District to no less than 10 feet subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit as indicated in Exhibit A. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of September, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:. ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission S:\StaffReponsk2002\ DRAFT SR\09-05-02 PCkP02-0072 Resolution.doc EXHIBIT A Modifications to Chapter 20.71, Table 20.71.030 "Front, Rear, and Side Yard Regulations" Footnote (q) September 5, 2002 Modify the existing wording of Footnote (q) of Table 20.71.030 as follows: The Zoning Ordinance currently contains the following text: Chapter 20.71, Footnote (q) of Table 20.71.030: (q) On substandard reverse comer lots in the R-1 zone district, the minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen feet. The prot~osed text revisions are shown as underlined: Chapter 20.71, Footnote (q) of Table 20.71.030: (q) On substandard reverse comer lots in the R-1 zone district, the minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen feet, but may be reduced to no less than 10 feet subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit. IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.71 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO FRONT, REAR, AND SIDE YARD REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on September 5, 2002, recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance that allows for reductions in the rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Corner Lots in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District to no less than 10 feet subject to approval ora Minor Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, allowing this reduction in the rear yard setback subject to approval of a minor use permit is consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the Land Use Element of the General Plan requires all lots in areas designated as Low Density Residential to contain as much usable private outdoor yard space as possible. This amendment would result in a minimal loss of existing open yard space on all of the approximately 220 substandard reverse corner lots citywide, while the alternative currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance to build a detached garage or carport in the rear yard would actually consume more usable yard space. Therefore, this amendment is in accordance with the policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 15305 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA as it only involves minor changes to the City's land use limitations, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: 1. Chapter 20.71, Table 21.71.030, Footnote (q) of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Table 20.71.030 Note (q): On substandard reverse corner lots in the R-1 zone district, the minimum rear yard setback shall be fifteen feet, but may be reduced to no less than 10 feet subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit. 2. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. 3. SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the __ day of ., 2002. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of ., 2002. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE August 1, 2002 Renee Yates-applicant Citywide P02-0043 Continued Off-Calendar Proposed Text Amendment to modify Footnote "q" of Table 20.71.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 10-foot rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Comer Lots in the Single-Family Residential (R-I) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Associate Planner Kowalski gave staff report. Commissioner Teglia asked how many reverse comer lots there are in this town. He stated that it is completely legal to build a separate structure garage on property line. Chief Planner Sparks responded that there are 220 and noted that we are not just talking about reversed comer lots but substandard reverse corner lots. Attorney Marc Seidenfeld speaking for Yates: explicated the letter sent to Associate Planner Kowalski. Commissioner Teglia There is a problem with provision in allowing a separate garage. We shouldn't encourage that. Is there some way to accomplish this and prohibit building right on the line and to use the minor use permit process? Chief Planner Sparks Staff has never encouraged the use of the accessory structure provision for this applicant. They can deal with this in the zoning code update. Recommending that we stay with the code. Commissioner Teglia if we were inclined to grant this request is there a way to do this without opening up the entire zoning ordinance, perhaps by using the minor use permit process? Chief Planner Sparks It would require a different amendment to the zoning code. We should have thought of this as a possible alternative. Minor Use Permits are appealable to this body and neighbors are notified. Commissioner Meloni concerned with detached garages becoming habitable spaces and not in favor of changing the zoning code. Commissioner Sim Concerned with accessory structures build right to the line, we need to review this matter in the future. Assistant City Attorney Johnson Either approach to allow the attached garage requires a amendment to the Zoning Code to reduce the required setback, and to allow the applicant to apply for a Minor Use Permit likewise requires an amendment to the Zoning Code because presently the Zoning Code doesn't allow for this sort of deviation. If the Commission approves the Minor Use Permit Modification then that would go to the City Council. Two weeks later it would be adopted and wouldn't be affective until 30 days after that. So we are still looking at lengthy time line. Attorney Marc Seidenfeld encourages the Commission to pass this amendment and stated that the applicant is willing to wait for the process. Commissioner Teglia asked if they could make a motion tonight to adopt this with modifications. Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated that this couldn't be adopted as an ordinance or recommend adoption until the CEQA documentation is complete. However, Commission could direct staff to prepare an ordinance with the language you suggested and bring it back to the Commission for a recommendation. Recess 8:35 P.M. Back 8:42 P.M. Chief Planner Sparks suggest continuing application off calendar. The applicant has agreed to that. The Planning Commission has the authority to initiate amendments to the Zoning Code. He suggest to direction to staff to proceed as Commissioner Teglia recommended. Will bring it back as quickly as possible. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt commended the applicants for their diligence. Assistant City Attorney Johnson The ordinance should read (in part) to read reduce the required rear-yard setback to no less than 10 feet upon approval of a Minor Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 20.89. The required setback would remain in affect as 15 feet. Motion Teglia to direct staff to accomplish what the City Attorney just read for the record/Second Honan Continued Off-Calendar by unanimous voice vote Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: August 1, 2002 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to modify Footnote "q" of Table 20.71.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 10-foot rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Corner Lots in the Single-Family Residential (R-I) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.87. Applicant: Renee Yates Case No. P02-0043 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council deny a request to amend Footnote "q" of Table 20.71.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the rear yard setback on Substandard Reverse Corner Lots in the Single-Family Residential (R-I) Zoning District. BACKGROUND: In February 2002, ihe applicant applied for a variance to build a garage addition onto her single- family residence within the required rear yard setback on a substandard reverse comer lot. The Planning Commission acknowledged that the findings required for a variance could not be made and denied the application on that ground. The applicant then aPpealed the decision to the City Council in April 2002. In its review of the application, the Council agreed with the decision of the Planning Commission and subsequently denied the variance. Now the applicant is applying for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would reduce the required rear yard setbacks for substandard reverse comer lots in the Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zoning District to 10 feet, thereby enabling her to build the garage addition she originally proposed as part of her variance application. DISCUSSION: In 1993, the Planning Commission and City Council approved Zoning Amendment ZA-93-84 to establish a unique setback requirement for substandard reverse comer lotsI [SSFMC Table 20.71.030 footnote (q)]. Copies of those staff reports are attached for your reference. This ~ A reverse comer lot is a comer lot, the rear of which abuts the side of another lot, whether across a lane or not [SSFMC Section 20.06.160(I)]. Such a lot is substandard if it does not meet the standard minimum lot size requirements for the zone district (typically 60' wide by 100 ' deep). Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P02-0043 Yates Text Amendment August 1, 2002 Page 2 of 4 amendment established a 15-foot rear yard setback on substandard reverse comer lots rather than the standard twenty-foot setback required on all other R-1 and R-2 lots, amounting to a 25% reduction in usable rear yard space. The Planning Commission and City Council approved this amendment based on the findings that it had the potential to increase off-street parking opportunities, it maintained sufficient usable rear yard area, and it provided property owners with additional incentives to upgrade their properties. Additionally, the 15-foot setback was agreed upon because it was consistent with another rear yard exception provided for in the Zoning Ordinance that allows, in cases where a property has an existing rear yard setback less than twenty feet, new additions to match the existing nonconforming setback so long as it is a minimum of 15 fi2. Applicant's Request The applicant is requesting that the rear yard setback be reduced an additional 5 feet to a minimum of 10 feet, which would enable her to complete the additions she proposed when she applied for a variance earlier this year. The proposed amendment would read as follows, with existing text to be removed shown as struck out and new text to be added shown as double- underlined: Table 20.71.030 (q) On substandard reverse comer lots in the R-1 zone district, the minimum rear yard setback shall be fiftee,a ten feet. In her letter, the applicant argues that the proposal would allow property owners such as her to preserve more usable rear yard space than a detached garage or Carport in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would. In her case, the only ways the applicant can add an additional bedroom onto her house would be to provide a detached garage or carport in the rear yard, or significantly amend her desired floor plan to expand the garage while still meeting the required 15-foot rear yard setback. The applicant is unwilling to do a significant redesign, and is opposed to the idea of a detached structure in her rear yard, as she believes that it would be an eyesore out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Staff feels that allowing an additional reduction in the required yard would be detrimental to single-family neighborhoods in that valuable open space between homes would be significantly 2 Footnote "P" of Table 20.71.030 allows for non-conforming rear yard setbacks in the R-1 zone to be reduced to 15 feet, the same distance that is currently allowed for reverse substandard comer lots S:\StaffReports~2002\ DRAFT SR\08-01-02 PCkP02-0043 Yates.doc Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P02-0043 Yates Text Amendment August 1, 2002 Page 3 of 4 reduced. The City has already accommodated owners of substandard reverse comer lots by approving the 25% reduction in the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet in 1993. Additionally, in all recently approved Planned Unit Developments, where there is flexibility to modify various development standards so long as they meet the intent of the underlying zone district requirements, the City has consistently held that a minimum 15 foot deep rear yard should be required in order to a provide for a reasonable level of usable outdoor space. Usable rear yard space is a valued commodity that helps to create livable neighborhoods. Additional reductions could have a detrimental impact on the character of the various single-family neighborhoods throughout the City since there are estimated to be in excess of 200 substandard reverse comer lots in the community. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward the item to the City Council with a recommendation for denial. General Plan Compliance A key principle in the General Plan is conservation of the existing land use character of the City's residential neighborhoods, which is reflected as a policy statement in each of the residential sub-areas described in the Plan. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed text amendment has the potential to adversely impact the character of the existing neighborhoods since it would result in significantly less open space between homes on substandard reverse comer lots and their neighbors, as well as a reduction in private usable open space on the individual sites well below the standard of all other single family lots. Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(4) of the California Environmental' Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects that are either rejected or disapproved by a public agency are exempt from CEQA. Consequently, staff has not prepared an initial study. However, should the Commission desire to recommend approval of the proposed amendment, staff would need to prepare an environmental document pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. CONCLUSION: In 1993, the Planning Commission and City Council approved an amendment to reduce the required rear yard setback on substandard reverse comer lots by 25%, from 20 feet to 15 feet, primarily to allow one-car garages to be expanded so that residents could add additional bedrooms onto their homes. The proposed amendment would allow rear yards to be reduced even further, to as little as 10 feet, which is believed to be too small a space for a usable rear yard and potentially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods. Since all other lots in standard single-family residential zones are required to maintain a minimum 20-foot rear yard setback, a S :\Staff Reports~2002\ DRAFT SR\08-01-02 PC~02-0043 Yates.doc Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: P02-0043 Yates Text Amendment August 1, 2002 Page 4 of 4 reduction of 10 feet for substandard reverse corner lots appears excessive and counter to the City's desire to maintain a consistent development pattern and level of amenities within established neighborhoods. The City, through both the Zoning Code and through implementation of the PUD process, has in several instances allowed a reduction in rear yard setbacks to not less than 15 feet, establishing this depth as necessary for "usable" rear yard space in single-family neighborhoods. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council deny the subject zoning text amendment. However, should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval of the amendment it is recommended that the Commission refer the matter back to staff with direction to prepare appropriate environmental documentation and revised findings. Stephe"n Kowalski, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution Letter, Exhibits, and Petition from Applicant (6 pages) Letter from Applicant's Attorney (3 pages) City Council staff report on ZA-93-84, dated October 13, 1993 Planning Commission staff report on ZA-93-84, dated September 16, 1993 CSDocuments and SettingsXskowalski~Desktop\Stevez~P02-0043 Yates.doc RESOLUTION NO. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIKE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMM]~NDING THAT THE CITY cOuNCIL DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND FOOTNOTE (Q) OF TABLE 20.71.030 IN TITLE 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, an application was filed by Renee Yates requesting that the City amend the Zoning Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as follows: Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Note (q) of Table 20.71.030 to reduce the required rear yard setback on substandard reverse comer lots as further described in Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 20, 2002; and, wHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the above-described amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would conflict with the goals prescribed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan which call for the preservation of the current character of the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on all the evidence in the record, including the staff repons and oral and written comments received at the duly notice public hearing of the Planning Commission on June 20, 2002, by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco that it is hereby recommended that the City Council: Reject the proposed amendment to Footnote (q) of Table 20.71.030 and keep the required setback for substandard reverse comer lots at fifteen feet. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 20t~ day of June, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT' ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission S :\Staff Reportsk2002\ DRAFT SR\06-20-02 PCkRear Yard Reso.doc May 14, 2002 RECEIVED HAY ! 2002 PLANNING St ephen Kowalski Assoc, Planner .315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 711 So. San Francisco, Calif. 94083 Dear Mr. Kowalski: Per your request, I am writing to delineate reasons for the requested code change for Substandard Reverse Corner Lots. A brief statement was submitted with the code change application. In checking your website, there is no in- formmtion on the eifferent types of lots, size etc., available for So. San Francisco. I have be informed, however, that SUbstandard Reverse Corner Lots 'are small in number and logic would confirm that. Ail tax paying property ov~ers of Substandard Reverse Corner Lots should be able to enjoy the benefits of ti~e much needed off street parking, especially those living closer to BART. As I have repeatedly stated' in past correspondence, the only option being made available to us is an outdated code under the guise of an accessory which would allow an illfunctioning eyesore of a detached garage which would also take away from useable yard space with a 0-5 ft. setback from the fence. The other illfunctioning Option is a country shanty looking carport. Both do not conform to'the neighborhood and both devalue the neighborhood as well as the property itself making it less desirable. Tax paying property owners should be allowed to expapd to a full two car garage where feasible and enjoy the bene- fits of such. Two car garages already exist in great abundance and three car garages are on the rise as well. If an outdated code allows an illfunctioning eyesore of a detached garage and/or shanty carport then there should be no logical or rational reason not to amend or update or change the code to allow for a full two car attached garage. The attached garage also allows a 10 foot setback which is more than a detaChed garage, and more useable yard space is left so as not to have to remove trees, shrubs, and other plantings, thus also assisting in a positive environmental i~pact. To incur construction expenses to enlarge a less than one car garage to a larger one car garage makes no sense. As it stands now I am also very close to $2000.00 being spent on application, paper work and hearing fees to the City of So. San Francisco. This does not include my time and my architect fees and we are now pushing 2~ years since I first started to attempt this project. For the good of Ail Substandard Reverse Corner Lot owners, I am hoping that this simple and logical request for a code change i.e., to reduce a 15 ft. setback to a 10 ft. rear .~etback, does 'not fall on a blind eye and a deaf ear. Thank you for your time. S in c er ely, ~ Miss Renee' Yates~ Msy 20, 2002 To whom it may concern; I am the owner of the residence at 3 Emerald Ct. located in Sunshine Gardens. The house is built on a "Reverse Corner" lot which is also "Substandard" regarding the areE. of the lot. A standard lot is 6,000 sq. ft. My "Reverse Corner" lot is 4,501 sq. ft., making it 1499 sq. ft. less than the standard. I purchased my hcme with plans to retire here and make it available for an aged parent, thus the need to keep it Ranch style and limiting the kind of addition. I have previously submitted plans for a small addition at the back of the house and also to expand my existing one car attached garage to an attached two car garage. After submitting my plans, I was informed that my proposed garage expansion would e~.tend 5 ft. into the required 15 ft. setback from my rear fence. ~ne total area of my structure will be 1,407 sq. ft., 393 sq. ft. less than the maximum 1,800 sq. ft. allowed for living space. I w-as given the option of a carport or a detached garage with a 0-5 ft. setback, thus leaving me with little or no rear yard. Allowing me to expand a small gsrage to make a larger one car garage does not make any sense and does not help the parking situation. The proposed expansion would take up only 5 ft. of the required 15 ft. setback, leaving a reasonable setback of 10 ft. The building of a detached garage, besides being illogical and illfunctioning, devalues the property and neighborhood making it less desirable. On street parking: 1. In the last few years street parking space has been greatly diminished because of the increasing number of cars, etc. in the area. 2. Most residents in the area have 2 or 3 cars. 3. Small one car garages with a washer, drier, furnace, %~ter heater and some storage have little if any room for the average car, that is why people are parking in the street. 4. When the So. San Francisco Bart station goes into operation, traffic congestion will increase as well as the number of cars on our streets from those using the Bart facility and the Plaza, not to mention the other buildings in the ct~mplex. The street parking will be an even greater problem for those of us close tc Bart. There will also be those who would rather ~-alk the few blocks from our residential areas to Bart than pay for the PrOPosed parking fees. 5~ Where feasible, some additional off street parking is, and would be appreciated by those of us who have property space for garage expansions, etc. 6. An adjustment to the existing setback requirement for Reverse Corner Substandard lots would definitely assist in some increase in much needed off street parking. 7. Existing codes for other cities on the peninsula allow for owners to encroach into the rear setback. Enclosed is an example from San Jose. South San Francisco apparently does not allow for any deviation from their code. 8. MyI project also conforms to the "Ranch Style" neighborhood and 5 ft. further into the rear yard would not make me stand out. Signatures were submitted from some but nct all of the neighbors in full agreement of my project. 9. As I have stated in past correspondence, we should all be working together to improve and update our neighborhoods/con~unity. Amending the code to allow more off street parking where feasible does just that as well as increasing the value and desirability of the properties in the neighborhood. The future is definitely 2 and even 3 car garages where feasible. Sincerely, Miss Renee' Yates ~ Enc. 1 copy of San Jose setback code ] letter dated May 14, 2002 o .0~/17/02 FRI 21:49 FAX GEOrgE I)A ~ 001 I-]ous~ ~ttachcd ~ara~e 30% Mm. 25 25 ~ache~ 4.080 Reduced Setb_ack~: In the single-f~-nily r~sidenrial dis~c~, for a ~siOence wi~ ~ atuched~ / ~ge, ~e ~ ~tb~ of ~ ~or lot c~ ~ ~uced to 20 feet For a comer loL ~e re~ setb~k ~ ~ '~ ~ ~du~d ~o 5 f~t w~. ~y ~mon of ~e b~S wi~ 20 f~t of ~e m~ pm~ ~s a~ ~ x,~ not exznd m ~ut of ~e b~g ~tb~k of 1o~ m ~e ~ ~d wh~ such ~on of ~e bufld~g O~s } ~ot ~cupy mo~ ~ 30% of ~e ~ 20 feet of ~e co~ lot ~or R-I md R-l:~-6, ~ ~nt.~t~k~ ~ ~ ~du~d ~om 25 f~, ~a 23 f~t ~veway. ~e 21.~.060.). ' ~ ~ ',. .... o '0~/17/02 FRI 2i:$0 FAX 65086~ ~ GEORGE DAYEH ~ ~002 - ~t ~ ~~ce h~ nume~o~ ~idenfi~ ~ck ~q~cmen~ ~at ~ ~me c~e~ ~ difficult unders~d ~d apply. For cl~ and consis~ncy of ~m~on ~e difficult ~ of set~aCl tcqu~emen~ have been ~p~c~y desc~be~ (see attached diagr~s). To facilitate an understanding of the ~tt~ched setback diagrams, the following ~nswers the most ofte; questioned setback situations: 1) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES W1TITl' ATTACHED GARAGES.: For new residences wilt', ~t~ched g:~r~ges, the loud required front and tear yard setback distance in the R-l, R-1;B-6~ R-I:B-8. and R.I:B-I Districts is a5 feet. 2) 3) 4) O The re~ setbaqk c~m be reduced to 20 feet for single.family residences which :have the requ/refl front setback. The front setback can be reduced to as little ~ 20 feet for ~ and Rd :B-6 lots approved sifter March lO, 1958, if the minLmum driveway length is 23 feet, provided the rc~ setback is proportionally increased for a total front/rear setback of 45 feet. o For an ~ of one-story, or an enclosed patio, in the R-1, R-1 :B-6, and R-1 :B-$ Districts; the rear setback can be reduced to 15 feet, as long as the addition occupies no more than 50% of the area between the setback otherwise required and ~e 15 feet setback line. (o For single-f~xnily residenc~ with attached garages on comer lots, the rear setback can be f feet of the comet lo_~h ~ddition. no Oor~on of a'bm-i~ml/w~trai20 feet oI the mar :property ~ hTne .caJl p?oject-Oeyor~d the setback I~ne o~ ~~o~ the rear. WfereZbrner lot&, ~....~art l~aek'to back. the .p_9_~on nfl{he building wi,hln 20 feet adhere to the otherwise require~_c, nmt~Clt~.k. ' . · RES ed garages in any single- family or R-2 District. the lront ~nd rem setbac~ for the residence shall be the required setback stated in the Zoning Ordinance. The detached g~'age ~md zll other accessory structures shall be ,set back 60 feet from the front property line. Comer Lou) In all single-family anti R-2 Districts, the side comer setback for detached gexages and accessory buildings shall be 25 feet. _BLOCK AV3ERAGE FRQNT SETBACK: An average street setback may be used for the R-l, R- l:B-6, R-I:B-8, R-2, R-3-A, R-3-F, R-4, C, C-L, and C-1 Zoning Districts, if 40% of those lots have average front setback~ not varying mom than 6 feel. ~FRQ. NT SL-I~ACK MEASUREME~: For streets with monolithic or marginal sidewa3k$, where the curb, gutter and aidewalk is one piece, thc front setback iz usually meaaured l~rom a point 3 feel from the inside face of the sidewalk. Where there is landscaping between the sidewalk and curb, the property line is usually 6" behind the ~idewalk. We the undersigned agree with the proposed project addition for 3 Emerald Ct., So. San Francisco, owner Renee' Yates and agree that the variance should be granted. The project conforms to the neighborhood and already exists in the Sunshine Gardens area. 12. ].3. ]4. 15. 16. 17. 18. ].9. 20. 21. MARC SEIDENfELD ATTORNEY AT LAW 520 S. EL CAMINO RF-AL, SUITe 660 SAN MAT£O, CALIFORNIA 94402 (650) 343-8~70 July 23; 20'02 CEIvED JUL 2 2002 Mr. Stephen Kowalski Associate Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Case No. P02-0043 Renee Yates Dear Mr. Kowalski: Pursuant to our recent conversation, these are matters that Ms. Yates would like the Commissioners to consider when the above referenced proposal comes before them on August 1, 2002. It would be appreciated if you would distribute copies of this letter to the Commissioners. 1. The present zoning ordinance generally does not allow construction within 15 feet of the rear lot line on substandard reverse corner lots. But at the same time it allows construction of detached (accessory) structures within five feet of the rear lot line on such lots. 2. The proposed amendment before the Commission will decrease the size of the setback required on these lots from 15 feet to 10 feet from the rear lot line. This will help the stated goal of the Planning Staff of preserving open space by discouraging building of new detached structures immediately adjacent to neighboring lots. 3. In this case Ms. Yates has been encouraged to amend her plans and build a detached garage five feet from her neighbor's property, instead of building a garage, attached to the existing structure, even though that would be ten feet from her neighbor's property. This would not only lessen the space between the two homes but it would also take up most of the rear yard and force her to remove trees from the property. 4. The Staff report on this matter does not address the large and obvious inconsistency in the Staff's position. The Staff says that it is against the present proposal because it would decrease usable rear yard space by allowing people to build within 10 feet of the rear lot line, but at the same time, the present ordinance allows (and thus encourages) people to build detached structures within 5 feet of the rear lot line. The Staff expresses no opposition to that. Mr. Stephen Kowalski July 23, 2002 Page 2 5. If Ms. Yates followed the suggestion of the Planning Staff to alter her plans and build a detached garage five feet from the lot line, it would defeat the Staff's stated goal of preserving usable rear yard space and preserving open space because the building of a detached garage in this case would obliterate the yard completely. 6~ If this amendment is adopted, however, the construction would be attached tc the .existing. home, it. would stop 10. feet from the neighboring lot and no trees would have to be removed. There would be much more open space between her home and the neighbor's home and the existing "rear" yard would .be preserved. 7. It is difficult to imagine that any neighbor would prefer a detached structure to be build close to or next to his or her property line, as the ordinance now allows, instead of having any structure a further distance from the lot line. 8. The ordinance as it presently stands therefore does a disservice to the stated goal of preserving open space between homes. "Usable rear yard space is a valued commodity~that helps to create livable neighborhoods" according to the Planning Commission Staff Report on this matter. But the report does not mention what is quite obvious if you go out and look at this site - what.the Staff calls the rear yard is in fact a side yard. The rear yard on this house i-s, as the word "rear" implies, behind the house, and not to the right side as you face the house from the street. 9. The proposed amendment would affect a very small number of lots approximately 220 lots, citywide, according to the Staff's report on the 1993 amendment. 10. The proposed amendment is a matter of equity. Right now, conforming lots can build up to 5 feet from the rear lot line, but owners of the few substandard reverse corner lots in the City can only build up to 15 feet from their rear lot lines. 11. It is difficult to think of a valid reason for such a distinction. Substandard reverse corner lots already suffer from being smaller than other lots, from being allowed less buildable space and from other disabilities. Passage of this amendment would rationalize the zoning ordinance. 12. The real problem here is the City's definition of what is a "rear" lot line. The present zoning code now defines the narrow dimension of the lot facing the street as the front of the house, regardless of the actual orientation of the house on the lot. The Mr. Stephen Kowalski July 23, 2002 Page 3 result is that in a situation such as Ms. Yates', what is actually her side lot line (which is obvious to anyone who actually looks at the property) is considered by the City to be a rear lot line. 13. According to the Staff, the City is considering an update to its zoning code. One of the changes being considered in the proposed update is to define the front of the lot based on the orientation of the house, instead of the way it is done now. 14. The present definition differs significantly from that used in other cities on the Peninsula. For instance, both San Bruno and Colma define the front of the lot based on the actual orientation of the house, not on some arbitrary definition based on the shape of the lot. Thank you for your assistance in.this matter. Very truly yours, Marc Seidenfeld MS/md cc: Ms. Yates DATE: October 13, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council lnlerim Director of Economic and Community Development Zoning Text Amendment and environmental determination of same 1o modify SSFMC Section 20.06:1600) to include a definition for "reverse corner lots" and SSFMC Section 20.71.030 to reduce the deplh of lhe required rear yard setback on substandard reverse corner lots from 20 feet to 15 feet in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zone Districts; Robert and Julie Strupeni, Applicants; Zoning Amendment ZA-93-84 and Negative Declaration No. 755. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing, approve Negative Declaration No. '755, waive reading and introduce the ordinance. BACKGROUND This application is for an ordinance to amend the Zoning .Code to include a definition for "reverse corner lots" and to creale a new 15 foot minimum rear yard setback for substandard~ reverse corner lots in the R-I Single Family Zone District. A summary of the existing conditions relating to this amendment is available in the attached Planning Commission staff report. lA substandard lot is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as: "A lot (1) which is situated in any zoning district whose area or 1ol width does nol meet minimum requirements for such zoning district; and (2) which was shown as a separate lot or parcel on a subdivision map filed in the office of the county recorder of the county of San Mateo prior to January 8, 1948; and (3) which has never since January 8, 1948 been of one record ownership with adjoining land sufficient togelher with said lot or parcel to creale a standard building site". Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: ZA-93-84 and Neg. Dec. No. 755 October 13, 1993 Page 2 Planning Commission Decision - The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment on Seplember 16, 1993 and recommended adoption of the ordinance with the provision that the amendment be limited only 1o substandard reverse corner lots. This ]imitation was imposed because the Commission agreed that the setback restrictions on substandard lots warranled a relaxing of the 20 foot rear yard setback. There were no public comments at lhe Commission hearing. DISCUSSION Proposed Amendments - The proposed amended seclions are as follows: Add the definition of "reverse corner lot": "20.06.160(i)(5) Reverse Corner. A corner lot, the rear of which abuts lhe side of another lot, whether across a lane or not." Reduce the depth of the rear yard setback for substandard "reverse corner lots": "Table 20.71.030(q) On substandard reverse corner lots in the R-I Zone District, · '. lhe minimum rear yard setback shall be 15 feet." Arguments For and Against lhe Proposed Amendment - Arguments for and against the proposed amendment are detailed in the attached Planning Commission staff report. In summary, the proposed amendment is beneficial to the City and its residents because it potentially increases off-street parking, maintains residential densities, preserves useable rear yard area, and provides property owners with additional incentives to upgrade their properties. On the negative side, the amendment will allow increased massing along the building frontage and a reduction in the usable rear yard area. However, the existing zoning codes permit accessory structures in lhe rear yard and therefore, existing densities and building massing will not be increased overall. Survey of Peninsula Cities - The Planning Division surveyed 10 peninsula cities and the county to determine what their rear yard setback requirements were and if minor encroachments were permitted (attached). The majority of jurisdictions surveyed have a comparable 15 foot rear yard setback or they allow for encroachments into the rear yard under certain conditions. Therefore, the proposed 15 foot setback does not seem unusual compared to oilier cities on the peninsula. Instead, it would be allowing additional flexibility similar to that allowed in adjacent cities. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: ZA-93-84 and Neg. Dec. No. 755 October 13, 1993 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVlEW A Negative Declaration (No. 755) was completed for this amendment and it was found that no significant impacts will result from this proposal. No increase in densities or building size will occur and existing codes allow for residential additions of the same size and intensity. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY This amendment is consistent w/Ih the Single-Family land use policies in lhe General Plan which state the City's desire to preserve low density neighborhoods and Io provide incentives to encourage room additions and improvements to existing single-family residences. In addilion, it conforms with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance Development Standards, to provide adequate parking for residential uses and maintain useable rear yard areas. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES The City Council has two other options/alternatives available with regard to this amendment, in addition lo following the Planning Commission's recommendation: 1) Require lhe second-slory of lhe dwelling 1o maintain a 20 foot rear yard setback. This would allow for an expanded garage or room addition on the ground level but would reduce the height impact on adjoining property owners by maintaining the 20 foot selback for the second floor. However, ibis would reslrict the development potential on substandard reverse corner lots. 2) Expand lhe proposal to include all reverse corner lots. The original proposal encompassed all reverse corner lots. However, as stated before, the Planning Commission agreed that the setback restrictions warranted a relaxing of the 20 foot rear yard setback on substandard lots but not on conforming lots. This is because a standard corner lot has a minimum 60 foot width which allows for additional rear and side yard open areas. The typical substandard reverse corner lot is 50 feet wide which after accounting for the required setbacks, leaves a limited amount of developable area 'and open space. Slaff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: ZA-93-84 and Neg. Dec. No. '755 October 13, 1993 Page 4 CONCLUSION This zone lexl amendmen! is consislent with the General Plan and the new slandards in this proposal will allow for increased off-street parking, mainlain residential densities, preserve useable rear yard area, and provide property owners with additional incentives to upgrade their properties. The City Council needs lo weigh the benefits of this amendmentagainsllheimpacts. Slaffsupportslhisamendmen!because of the benefits lhat would be provided to the residential dislricts and to lhe property owners. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 755 and adopt Zoning Amendment ZA-93-84. Steve Solomon Interim Director of Economic and Community Development Approved: Edward G. Wohlenberg City Manager ATTA Ct-'] M ENTS: Resolution Ordinance Negative Declaration No. '755 Minutes of September 16, 1993 Planning Commission September 16, 1993 Planning Commission Staff Report .£SOLUTION NO. 2455 pL~",rNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANIXqNG COMMISSION ADD1NG SECTIONS 20.06.1600)(5) and Table 20.'71.030(q) OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, on September 16, 1993 the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing to consider ZA-93-84; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: (1) The Zoning Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan Single-Family land use policies in the General Plan which state the City's desire to preserve low density neighborhoods and to provide incentives to encourage room additions and improvements to existing single-family residences; (2) The Zoning Amendment is consistent with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance's Residential Parking and Development Standards. The amendment will allow property owners the ability to expand existing nonconforming parking and will maintain useable rear yard areas; (3) Negative Declaration No. '755 was prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, as amended; (4) The Zoning Amendment will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the South San Francisco Planning Commission that it is hereby recommended that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. '755 and adopt ZA-93-84 (Exhibit A) based on the above mentioned findings. 1 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 thel6th day of Sept. ,1993, by the following vote: ' AYES: Vice-Chairman Mantegani, Commissioners DeZordo, Lucchesi and Zellmer. NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: Chairman Warren and Commissioner Padreddii Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco EXHIBIT A Definition of "reverse corner~lot": "20.06.1600)(5) Reverse Corner. A corner lot, the rear of which abuts the side of another lot, whelher across a lane or not." Encroachment into rear yard setback for "reverse corner lots": "Table 20.?1.030(q) On substandard reverse corner lots in the R-I Zone District, the minimum rear yard setback shall be 15 feet." ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 20.06.160(i) (5) AND ADDING NOTE (q) TO TABLE 20.71.030 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REVERSE CORNER LOTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION l. Subsection (5) Added to Section 20.06.160(~) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Section 20.06.160(i) (5) of the soUth San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby added to read: "Section 20.06.160(i) (5) Reverse Corner. A corner lot, the rear of which abuts the side of another lot, whether across a lane or not." SECTION 2: Table 20.71.030 Note (q) Added. Note (q) is hereby added to Table 20.71.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows: "(q) On substandard reverse corner lots in the R-1 zone district, the minimum rear yard set back shall be fifteen feet" SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 11. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, for at least fifteen (15) days, in the Enterprise-Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced at a meeting of the city council of the City of South San Francisco, held the of , 1993. day Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the day of , 1993, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of 1993. Mayor DATE: September 16, 1993 TO: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Zoning Text Amendment and environmental determination of same 1o modify SSFMC Section 20.06.1600) to include a definition fo~' "reverse corner lots" and SSFMC Section 20.71.030 to allow a five (5) foot encroachment into the required rear yard setback for building additions on reverse corner lots in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zone Districts; Robert and Julie Strupeni, Applicants; Zoning Amendment ZA-93-84'and Negative Declaration No. '/55. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. '/55 and adopt Zoning Amendment ZA- 93-84. BACKGROUN~D This application is for an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code to include a definition for "reverse corner lots" and Io create a new 15 foot minimum rear yard setback standard for these reverse corner lots in the R-1 Single Family Zone District. Existing Conditions - A majority of the single-family subdivisions in South San Francisco were built in the 40's, 50's and early 60's. Many of these homes are located on substandard lots and maintain nonconforming single-car garages with regard to the current zoning standards. In particular, many cornet lots do not meet the minimum 60 foot width requirement. The focus of this Zoning Amendment is on the approximately 220 reverse corner lots in the R-1 Single Family Zone District. Reverse corner lots are corner lots whose rear yard abuts the side yard of an adjacent parcel (See attached Figure 1). Typically, these lots have garages and front entryways facing the side yard not the front. Due to the setback restrictions on corner lots, the amount of land available for residential additions is limited. In addition, the design of these homes tends to limit the amount of useable rear yard area on the parcel. The applicants, Robert and Julie Strupeni own a home on a reverse cornet lot. They are proposing this zone text amendment in order to expand their existing two car garage Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: ZA-93-84 and Neg. Dec. No. '755 September 16, 1993 Page 2 and add a second story. Their original proposal for the improvements required a variance for lhe rear yard setback, however, staff could not support the application because the strict application of the zoning ordinance did not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by olher properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification (the current code allows a second story addition over the existing home and a new two-car detached garage can be constructed in the rear yard). The Strupeni's wanted 1o preserve as much useable rear yard as possible yet expand their garage. This ]ed lo the suggestion of a Zone Text Amendment to create a standard specifically for corner lots that would allow for some type of encroachment into the rear yard setback. DISCUSSION Proposed Ainendments - The applicant is proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a definition for reverse corner lots and to insert a specific development standard in the R-1 Single Family Zone District which reduces the required rear yard setback for reverse corner lots from 20 to 15 feet. The proposed amended sections are as follows: Add the definition of "reverse corner lot": "20.06.160(i)(5) Reverse Corner. A corner lot, the rear of which abuts the side of another lot, whether across a lane or not." Reduce the depth of the rear yard setback for "reverse corner lots": "Table 20.71.030(q) On reverse corner lots in the R-1 Zone District, the minimum rear yard setback shall be 15 feet." Arguments to Support Proposed Amendment - Listed below are five arguments in support of the proposed amendment: The current development standards (Table 20.71.030(p) contains allowances to encroach into the required twenty foot rear yard setback. This section states that in the case where a property has an existing rear yard setback less than twenty feet, new extensions and additions may conform to the existing setback, provided that in no case shall such extension or addition be located closer than fifteen feet to the rear lot line. As such, the Zoning Ordinance is already providing an allowance to encroach up to five feet into the rear yard setback. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: ZA-93-84 and Neg. Dec. No. 755 September 16, 1993 Page 3 · The amendment will not increase the allowable lot coverage requirement of 50% nor increase the maximum allowable floor area. Densities will not increase nor will building mass. · The required setbacks on substandard corner lots generally leave less than 40% of the lot buildable (not including accessory structures). For example, a 50 by 100 foot corner lot (a common corner lot size in the older neighborhoods), contains setback restrictions lotaling 3,250 sq.ft, or 65% of the lot compared to 55% on a standard interior lot. This amendment will allow reverse corner lots the ability to use 40% of the lot, a percentage similar to current conforming corner lots. · This amendment will allow for the expansion of an existing one car garage into a two car garage in the case where a dwelling has a garage along the side of the corner lot. These garages are usually set back 20 to 25 feet from the rear property line and therefore cannot be expanded without encroaching into the current rear yard setback or remodeling a portion of the house adjacent to the garage. The current Zoning Ordinance allows a detached garage in the rear yard, however, this would typically eliminate the remaining usable rear yard area and result in the partial demolition of the existing garage. Therefore, this amendment would allow for garage expansions which would provide additional off-street parking and preserve a usable rear yard area of 15 feet in depth. · This amendment may allow for the legalization of expanded garages or additions on corner lots that had previously been approved through the building permit process but are now nonconforming. These arguments benefit the City and its ~esidents by increasing off-street parking, maintaining residential densities, preserving useable rear yard area, and providing property owners with additional incentives to upgrade their properties. Arguments Against the Proposed Amendment - The basic arguments against the proposed amendment are as follows: The amendment will allow for an additional five feet of building frontage along the street on reverse corner lots. This could be perceived as creating additional building massing. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: ZA-93-84 and Neg. Dec. No. 755 September 16, 1993 Page 4 · The required rear yard area will be allowed to be reduced by five feet thus reducing the useable rear yard area. The Zoning Ordinance currently permits accessory structures in the rear yard and on corner lots, this would increase the massing along the building frontage. In addition, the current lot coverage and building floor area requirements will not be increased and lherefore existing densities and building massing will not be increased overall. The development polential is more limited on substandard corner lots (under 60 feet in width) and the Planning Commission may want to consider limiting this amendment to substandard corner lots only. Surwey of Peninsula Cities - The Planning Division surveyed 10 peninsula cities and the county to determine what their rear yard setback requirements were and if minor encroachments were permitted (results of survey are altached). A summary of the results is as follows: · Four jurisdictions require a 20 foot setback and require a variance to encroach into that setback. · Three have a minimum rear yard setback of 10 to 15 feet and require a variance to encroach. · The remaining three allow for encroachments into the rear yard setback based on certain conditions such as the size and shape of the lot or percentage of useable rear yard area. The results of the survey show that the majority of jurisdictions surveyed have a comparable 15 foot rear yard setback or they allow for encroachments into the rear yard under certain conditions. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not be creating a precedent setting standard, lnstead, it would be allowing additional flexibility similar to that allowed in adjacent cities. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration (No. '755) was compleled for this amendment and it was found that no significant impacts will resull from this proposal. No increase in densities or building size will occur and existing codes allow for residential additions of the same size and intensity. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: ZA-93-84 and Neg. Dec. No. '755 September 16, 1993 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY This amendment is consistent with the Single-Family land use policies in the General Plan which state the City's desire to preserve low density neighborhoods and to provide incentives to encourage room additions and improvements to existing single-family residences. In addition, it conforms with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance Development Standards, to provide adequate parking for residential uses and maintain useable rear yard areas. CONCLUSION. " This zone text amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the new standards in this proposal will allow for increased off-street parking, maintain residential densities, preserve useable rear yard area, and provide property owners with additional incentives to upgrade their properties. The Planning Commission needs to weigh the benefits of this amendment against the impacts. Staff supports lhis amendment because of the benefits that would be provided to the residential districts and to the property owners. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 755 and adopt Zoning Amendment ZA-93-84. Steve Padovan Assistant Planner ATTACHMENT.S: Resolution Negative Declaration No. 755 Figure 1 Letter from Applicant Phone Survey of Peninsula Cities