Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-07 e-packet@6:00 SPECIAL MEETING cx sA,v UPDATED CITY COUNCIL 4trio R� 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: CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015 6:00 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 7th day of October, 2015, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Hall Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, 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. Agenda Review. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS/APPOINTMENTS 5. Interview Applicants for Multiple Positions 6:00 p.m.: Alvin Zachariah (Housing Authority, Personnel Board) 6:10 p.m.: Davylyn Perez (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Housing Authority, Personnel Board) 6:20 p.m.: Natalie Gore(Housing Authority,Cultural Arts Commission,Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee) 6. Interview Applicants for Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee 7:00 p.m.: Laura Stupi Previously interviewed applicants:Perez and Gore. 7. Interview Applicants for Cultural Arts Commission 7:10 p.m.: Jessica Madrid-Nickel 7:20 p.m.: Paula Hobson-Coard Previously interviewed applicant Gore. 8. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicants to the Library Board. Council may appoint two (2) applicants to respective terms expiring June 30,2018. Applicants Huddleston and Hansen. 9. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicants to the Housing Authority Commissioner Seats. Council may appoint one(1) applicant to a full term to expire March 31, 2019. Council may appoint one(1) applicant to a partial term to expire March 31, 2017. Applicants Gore, Perez and Zachariah. 10. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the Housing Authority Tenant Commissioner Position. Council may appoint one(1)applicant to a full term expiring March 31, 2017. Applicant Murillo. 11. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to the Committee. Applicants Gore, Perez and Stupi. 12. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the Personnel Board. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to a term expiring December 31, 2016. Applicants Perez and Zachariah. 13. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the Cultural Arts Commission. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to a term expiring June 13, 2016. Applicants Gore, Madrid-Nickel and Hobson-Coard. 14. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to a partial term expiring December 31, 2017. No applicants. STUDY SESSION 15. Study Session: Proposed revisions to Street Tree Ordinance 13.28 and Tree Preservation Ordinance 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (Sharon Ranals, Parks and Recreation Director). 16. Study Session: Discussion regarding modifications to Chapter 20.280, Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District. (Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner). SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 7,2015 AGENDA PAGE 2 17. Study Session: Discussion Regarding Short Term Vacation Rental Uses. (Adena Friedman, Senior Planner). LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 18. An interim Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco making findings and establishing a Moratorium on the issuance of use permits,business licenses,building permits, or any other applicable entitlements for any warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses in the transit office/R&D core(TO/RD)Sub-district of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning District. (Adena Friedman, Senior Planner) PUBLIC HEARING 19. Consideration of Planning Commission's recommendation regarding introduction of an Ordinance regarding a Zoning Text Amendment and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a pawnbroker use at 230 Miller Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core(DTC)Zoning Sub-district in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 6.92, 20.280,20.350,20.490 and 20.550 and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Case Nos.: P15-0058: ZA15-0007; UP15-0012. (Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner). ADJOURNMENT ok .4„A dryer SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 7,2015 AGENDA PAGE 3 ---------------- 0 Staff Report DATE: October 7, 2015 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Krista J. Martinelli, City Clerk SUBJECT: Board and Commission Recruiting/Appointments RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider the attached citizen applications for appointment to the open seats on the Library Board,Housing Authority,Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee ("BPAC"),Personnel Board,Cultural Arts Commission, and San to County Mosquito and Vector Control District. It is further recommended that Council move to appoint applicants to the respective available seats on these Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Pursuant to Resolution No.27-2009,the City Council holds biannual recruitments/meetings for the purpose of considering appointments to Boards and Commissions. In August 2015,due to expiration of terms and resignations, the City Clerk's Office initiated recruitment for several Boards and Commissions. The application deadline for the recruitment was Friday, September 25, 2015. SUMMARY OF OPEN SEATS Library Board—two (2)seats are eligible for reappointment. Two (2) applicants may be appointed to serve fall terms expiring June 30,2018. Library Board members Huddleston and Hansen have reapplied for their respective seats. Housing Authority Commissioner-one (1)seat is eligible for reappointment and one (1)seat is vacant due to resignation. One applicant may be appointed to serve a full term expiring March 31,2019. Commissioner Gore has reapplied for this seat. One(1) applicant may be appointed to serve a partial term expiring March 31,2017. 1 Housing Authority Tenant Commissioner-one (1)seat is eligiblefor reappointment One(1) applicant may be appointed to serve a full term expiring March 31,2017. Commissioner Murillo has reapplied for this seat. le Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee-one (1)seat is vacant due to resignation. One(1) applicant Bicycle _ pp( maybe appointed to serve on the Committee. Staff Report Subject: Board and Commission Recruitment/Appointments Page 2 Personnel Board- One (1)seat is vacant due to resignation. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to a partial term ending December 31, 2016. Cultural Arts Commission- One (1)seat is vacant due to resignation. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to a partial term ending June 13,2016. San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District—the City's seat is vacant due to resignation. Council may appoint one (1)applicant to a partial term ending December 31, 2017. SUMMARY OF MEETING TIMES, TERM LENGTHSILIMITS AND AGENCY PURPOSE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Library Board meets on the fourth Tuesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. at the Main Library. Trustees are appointed to a three(3)year term with a limit of appointment to four(4) consecutive terms. The Library Board works in conjunction with the Library Director to develop a plan of service, evaluate and advise Council and staff on the need for services and programs and adopt policies as necessary for the administration of the Library. The Housing Authority meets the second Monday of the month at 6:00 p.m. at 350 C Street. Non- Tenant Commissioners serve a four-year term. The Housing Authority's services include developing, operating and maintaining housing projects and examining affordable housing issues, including unmet housing needs of low income residents. The South San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee("BPAC")meets on the first Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Annex located at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco. There is no term limit for this Advisory Committee. The BPAC reviews and/or prioritizes grant opportunities for pedestrian and bicycling improvement opportunities,reviews ongoing designs of pedestrian/bicychng improvement projects,participates in City events,raises awareness of statewide goals to enhance communities through the use of alternate transportation modes of travel and discusses innovative projects on a global basis. The Personnel Board meets quarterly on the third Tuesday of January, April, July and October at 6:00 p.m., in the City Hall Conference Room. Commissioners are appointed to a four(4) year term with a limit of appointment to three (3) consecutive terms. The Personnel Board reviews and oversees issues relative to recruitment-related testing and to certifying lists of persons eligible for employment in the City. It also hears appeals submitted by employees in the competitive service for disciplinary action related to dismissal, demotion, salary reduction, grievance, or alleged violation of the personnel rules and certifies its findings and recommendations. Staff Report Subject: Board and Commission Recruitment/Appointments Page 3 The Cultural Arts Commission meets on the third Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m. in the Betty Weber Room of the Municipal Services Building located at 33 Arroyo Drive in South San Francisco. Commissioners are appointed to four(4) year terms and are limited to three(3) consecutive terms. The Commission encourages and promotes cultural arts activities within the community and acts as an advisory body to the City Council on matters pertaining to the arts and cultural affairs. The San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District("SMCMAD")meets on the second Wednesday of each month at the District Office in Burlingame at 7:00 p.m. Board members are appointed to four(4)year terms. The SMMAD oversees prevention of the emergence of biting adult mosquitoes by applying control to the larval stage, monitors adult mosquito populations to uncover new sites of larval development and assesses the effectiveness of control,monitors the distribution of vector- borne diseases and prevents the occurrence of these diseases among district residents, evaluates new pesticides and methods of control for mosquitoes, and increases public awareness of district services with an active educational program. APPLICATIONS RECEIVED The City Clerk's Office has confirmed the applicants listed below are electors of the City of South San Francisco. Library Board Francisca Hansen* Diane Onorato Huddleston* Housin-e Authority Commissioner Natalie Gore* Davylyn Marie Perez Alvin Zachariah Housing Authority Tenant Commissioner Melinda Murillo* BPAC Natalie Gore Davylyn Marie Perez Laura Stupi Alvin Zachariah Personnel Board Davylyn Marie Perez Alvin Zachariah Staff Report Subject: Board and Commission Recruitment/Appointments Page Cultural Arts Commission Natalie Gore Paula Claudine A. Hobson-Coard Jessica Anne Madrid-Nickle SMCMAD No applications. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Council's standard interview questions for new applicants and incumbents are attached. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of applicants, Council may entertain motion(s)to appoint applicants to fill the Trective ositions.e M' a trell ity Manager Attachments: Applications Interview Questions Ballots 10.07.15 Board and Commission Interviews Proposed Interview Questions COUNCIL'S STANDARD QUESTIONS FOR NEW APPLICANTS 1. Please share your thoughts with the Council on how you perceive the position of a Commissioner. Have you attended any meetings? 2. How would your volunteer,work and/or life experiences contribute to the Commission's work? 3. What motivates you? Consider and choose one word that best describes you and explain why. 4. Please describe your style of interacting with other people. Why should the Council consider appointing you over the other candidates? 5. Are there any areas about which you came prepared to talk that haven't been covered? Do you have any questions for us? COUNCIL'S STANDARD QUESTIONS FOR INCUMBENTS_ 1. Why are you applying for reappointment to the Commission? 2. What have you enjoyed the most during your term of service? 3. What have you enjoyed the least during your term of service? 4. Do you have any suggestions that might improve the Commission? 5. What would you like to accomplish if you were reappointed? 6. What is your record of attendance at meetings? LIBRARY BOARD 1. What is your vision for the South San Francisco Library? 2. What do you consider as the most pressing needs of the Library? 3. Do you have a South San Francisco Library Card? 10.07.15 Board and Commission Interviews Proposed Interview Questions HOUSING AUTHORITY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1. Please explain your familiarity with the property governed by the Authority. 2. What are the most significant policy concerns confronted by the Authority? BPAC SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1. What do you consider the most pressing issues facing our community as related to the needs of cyclists and pedestrians? 2. Is your experience more related to cycling or pedestrian issues? If you or a member of your family is a cyclist, does the cycling relate to recreational use, commuter use or both? 3. How often to do you ride/walk a week? Where do you ride/walk? 4. How can BPAC encourage people who live or work in South San Francisco to bike or walk to work? PERSONNEL BOARD SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1. What do you consider to be the Personnel Board's primary function in our City? 2. Have you had any experience in personnel matters, i.e., grievance, discipline, etc.? 3. What is your awareness of current public employee pension matters? 10.07.15 Board and Commission Interviews Proposed Interview Questions CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION 1. What do you consider as the most important role the Cultural Arts Commission plays in the community? 2. Please comment on the challenges facing public art education programs and how you would propose to confront such challenges. 3. What would you like to accomplish as a Cultural Arts Commissioner? 4. How would you propose to enhance promotion of the Arts in South San Francisco? 5. Do you have any suggestions regarding public art and its placement in the City? San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District 1. Please share your thoughts with the Council on how you perceive the position of a Trustee for the Mosquito Abatement District? 2. How do you feel South San Francisco's interests in Mosquito Abatement might best be addressed by the County? 3. Do you have any suggestions regarding public outreach pertaining to Mosquito Abatement programs available through the County? CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2015 VOTING BALLOT LIBRARY BOARD Appointment of two (2) applicants to full terms expiring June 30, 2018 VOTE FOR TWO Applicant Please mark Francisca Hansen* Diane Huddleston* *Denotes incumbent CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2015 VOTING BALLOT Housing Authority Commissioner Appointment of one (1) applicant to a full term expiring March 31, 2019 VOTE FOR ONE Applicant Please mark Natalie Gore* Davylyn Perez Alvin Zachariah *Denotes incumbent CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2015 VOTING BALLOT Housing Authority Commissioner Appointment of one (1) applicant to a artial term expiring March 31, 2017 VOTE FOR ONE Applicant Please mark Natalie Gore* Davylyn Perez Alvin Zachariah *Denotes incumbent on full term seat CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2015 VOTING BALLOT Housing Authority Tenant Commissioner Appointment of one (1) applicant to a full term expiring March 31, 2017 VOTE FOR ONE Applicant Please mark Melinda Murillo* *Denotes incumbent CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2015 VOTING BALLOT BPAC Appointment of one (1) applicant to the Commission VOTE FOR ONE Applicant Please mark Natalie Gore Davylyn Marie Perez Laura Stupi CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2015 VOTING BALLOT Personnel Board Appointment of one (I) applicant to a term expiring December 31, 2016 VOTE FOR ONE Applicant Please mark Davylyn Perez Alvin Zachariah CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2015 VOTING BALLOT Cultural Arts Commission Appointment of one (1) applicant to full terms expiring June 13, 2016 VOTE FOR ONE Applicant Please mark Natalie Gore Paula Claudine A. Hobson- Coard Jessica Anne Madrid-Nickle CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2015 VOTING BALLOT San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District Appointment of one (1) applicant to the Commission for a partial terra expiring December 31, 2017 Write In VOTE FOR ONE Applicant Please mark VL s Q3 I S A a Report DATE: October 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Councilmembers FROM: Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO STREET TREE ORDINANCE 13.28 AND TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE 13.30 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the information in this staff report and provide staff direction regarding revisions, if any, to the Street Tree Ordinance (13.28) and the Tree Preservation Ordinance (13.30) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION Two Chapters of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertain to trees, the Street Tree Ordinance (Chapter 13.28), introduced in 1980, revised in 1984 and 1988, and the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 13,30), adopted in 1989, with revisions adopted in 2000. Generally, Chapter 13.28 governs the maintenance and protection of street trees, or those trees in a public area along a City street. Chapter 13,30, on the other hand, provides for the protection of large and unique trees within the City, regardless of location, and establishes standards and requirements for planting and maintaining trees in new and existing developments. The primary difference is that Chapter 13.30 may apply to trees on private property while Chapter 13.28 is applicable only to trees on public property, namely along City streets, Both of these Chapters are in need of revision for the following separate, but generally overlapping, reasons: - Promote environmental stewardship and a healthy urban forest, particularly in light of climate change; - Enforce re-forestation of trees lost to removal, disease, and age; - Encourage private and public tree planting; - Stay current with best practices in urban forestry; Protect residents and property from potential harm from falling branches and trees, avoid claims, and reduce liability; Strengthen the City's ability to prevent and penalize non-permitted removal of protected trees; ILTerminate the City's responsibility for trees planted on private property; Staff Report Subject: Proposed Revisions to Tree Ordinances Date: October 7,2015 Page 2 - Implement more efficient and streamlined tree maintenance strategies, such as "block trimming" of trees by annual schedule, as opposed to by complaint, resident request, or failure; - Better define terms and clarify departmental responsibilities. In reviewing the existing ordinances, staff researched ordinances from other cities, received feedback from Parks and Recreation Commissioners and City Councilmembers, and consulted with the ABAG Risk Management consultant assigned to South San Francisco, Cathy Bigger-Smith. As a member of the ABAG Risk Management/Self-Insurance Pool, the City receives risk management consulting services on an annual basis, which includes issues related to tree maintenance. It should be noted that revision of the ordinances can be a first step to the development of a comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), which the City currently does not have. A UFMP considers public and private trees as a whole, and provides a comprehensive management road map that considers not only their biological health, but how trees improve the quality of life for the community. Elements would include a tree inventory, a strategic plan and goals for management of the urban forest as a whole, education and outreach, and technical standards for specific maintenance practices. Developing and implementing such a plan will reduce the City's liability and is strongly recommended by ABAG. Having an Urban Forest Management Plan will also enable South San Francisco to be more competitive in future tree related grant opportunities, and demonstrate commitment and leadership on the peninsula in the area of urban forest stewardship. The City will not be able to move forward with development of such a plan without first making changes to the City's tree ordinances. Development of an Urban Forest Management Plan will require additional resources, but updating the tree ordinances discussed in this is a necessary first step toward creating and implementing such a Plan. Staff is recommending revisions to both tree ordinances to update definitions of relevant terms, as well as revised personnel responsibilities based on departmental changes. For the purpose of this Study Session, a big picture view of the substantive changes to each ordinance are highlighted. With regard to the two tree ordinances, staff proposes the following amendments in pursuit of the goals listed above. Street Tree Ordinance 13.28: Section 13.28.110 Residential property owner's option This section in the existing code provides a process for a property owner to request a city- maintained street tree to be planted in the front yard setback of the property and an easement to be granted to the city for purposes of maintenance. Staff proposes that this section be removed entirely, as current trees which fall into this category carry additional risk and likelihood for high maintenance due to their proximity to public and privately owned infrastructure. Staff proposes to produce and publicize a preferred front yard setback tree list and a set of guidelines for residents who would like to plant a tree within their own setback. This could include a mechanism to provide funding for residents who may have difficulty paying for such a tree; however, moving forward, trees which residents plant in their front yard setbacks would be considered "private trees" with responsibility falling on the property owner, including liability for damage to any infrastructure the tree may cause. Staff Report Subject: Proposed Revisions to Tree Ordinances Bate: October 7,2015 Page 3 • Section 13.28.150 Paving of parkway strips Update to definition of relevant personnel and City departments. `frees are now the responsibility of Parks and Recreation, and public right-of-way paving is within the purview of Public 'Works. • Section 13.28.160 Street tree master plan Addition to the section related to development of a comprehensive citywide street tree master plan that a five-year regular pruning schedule for street trees be established. Although this stipulation would indicate a need for additional tree staff from our current staffing levels, it would create efficiencies in the long term and significantly reduce the incidence of selected trees that are pruned very often, while other trees are rarely if ever pruned. This would create an opportunity for an increase in the overall health of the city's urban forest. 'free Preservation Ordinance 13.30: • Section 13.30.020 Definitions Updates and additions to definitions of relevant terms, generally to update definitions of relevant personnel. Additionally, the definition of "Protected tree" is proposed to be substantially expanded to include a tiered system of tree protection, based on species. Several trees which are considered to be less desirable within the city or region, such as Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Black Acacia, Myoporum, Sweetgum, Mossy Privet, or Lombardy Poplar, would be protected at a larger size, 72 inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; and several species which are considered to be more desirable, such as California Bay, Oak, Cedar, California Buckeye, Catalina Ironwood, Strawberry Tree, or Mayten, would be protected at a much smaller size, with a circumference of 30 inches or more when measured at fifty-four inches above natural grade. A more specific definition of how to measure trees for circumference, per the International Society of Arborists, is also proposed, so that trees which are leaning or have multiple trunks have specific measuring standards. This will increase protection for trees which are not a standard upright tree. • Section 13.30.060 Notices and permits required for removal or pruning of protected trees Proposed changes to this section alter the language to stipulate that a separate permit be applied for by a property owner for each tree they would like to remove or prune a protected tree. Currently a single tree permit may be submitted for removal or pruning of any quantity of trees on a property. .Additional language is proposed to clarify the documents required to be included in the permit package, as substantiation of the request to remove or prune a protected tree. • Suction 13.30.070 Removal of protected trees in emergencies Proposed changes add the requirement for a property owner to file a tree permit retroactively in the event that an emergency removal is required. • Section 13.30.080 Replacement of protected trees Proposed language changes in this section pertain to the following: Subsection (a)(1) — Size requirements for replacement trees have been adjusted to reflect the fact that younger trees are known to have a higher chance for success in landscape conditions. Rather than the current requirement that three twenty-four inch box trees or two thirty-six box trees be planted, the requirement is changed to three Staff Report Subject: Proposed Revisions to Tree Ordinances Date: October 7,2015 Page 4 fifteen gallon size or two twenty four inch box trees. New language is included to require a monetary deposit to be made by the property owner for each tree which is to be planted as required replacements for removed trees. This deposit would be refunded upon proof of planting within four months by the property owner. If proof that the replacement tree has been planted is not provided within four months, the applicant's deposit will be forfeited, and the funds will be deposited into the City's tree fund. Subsection (a)(2) — This subsection addresses the removal of protected trees without a valid permit. Current language requires that any protected tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two thirty-six inch box minimum size landscape trees, but no time limit is specified. New language is proposed providing that if proof is not submitted that the replacement trees have been planted within four months, the property owner shall be liable for the cost of two thirty-six inch box trees, Subsection (a)(4) — This subsection currently provides that if replacement trees as designated in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) cannot be planted on the property, payment of twice the replacement value of the protected tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture Standards shall be made to the city. Changes to this subsection will clarify that this penalty may be levied in addition to the cost of replacement trees specified when trees are removed without a permit at the discretion of the director. Subsection (a)(5) — Update the existing language regarding payments made in violation of tree ordinances being deposited into the tree fund for tree purchase and planting, to include non-refunded deposits as proposed above, • Section 13.30.090 Decision by director on protected trees Proposed changes add language giving the Director the authority to determine if a protected tree has reached the end of its useful life, in the case that a tree proposed to be removed is not specifically diseased or unstable but is reasonably requested for removal, so that a replacement tree may be planted. Although counterintuitive, this function will strengthen the health of our urban forest and is an appropriate reason for removal and replacement in certain conditions. • Section 13.30,140 Penalty for violation Proposed language change to this section adds that the selection of the arborist who would estimate the replacement value of a tree which has been acted against in violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance be determined by the Director. This would ensure that the evaluating arborist be fair and not inclined to undervalue the tree's worth. Sections not specified in this list as having changes would remain unchanged from the current ordinances, other than minor clean-up items, CONCLUSION The proposed revisions as listed above in concept would be in the general public interest of the community, as well as in the best interests of the environmental considerations of the City, Staff Report Subject: Proposed Revisions to Tree Ordinances Date: October 7,2015 Page 5 Consequently, staff requests input from the City Council regarding (1) whether these revisions to the ordinances should be pursued or (2) whether the Parks and Recreation Department should maintain the current regulations and incorporate changes to the code within the development of a comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan for the City. Following City Council's direction, the proposed revisions will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting for review any additional recommendations, City Council may then consider the proposed revisions to the Street Tree Ordinance 13.28 and Tree Preservation Ordinance 13.30 at asubsequent regular meeting. By: Approved: Sharon Ranals M46&utrell Director of Parks and Recreation City Manager Attachment: 1. Street Tree Ordinance 13.28 and Tree Preservation Ordinance 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code 2. PowerPoint Presentation 2532063 . 1 Chapter 13.28 STREET TREES Rage 1 of 7 South San Francisco Municipal Code ._ _.- p prevviouus ext Main P f;ollaps arch Print Mo Frarrue Ch 1-13.28 STREET TREES 1.3.28.010 Short title. The ordinance codified in this chapter shall be known and cited as the"Street Tree Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco."(Ord. 815 § 1, 1980) 13. 8v 1 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter,the following terms,words, phrases, and their derivations shall have the meaning given in this section: "City" is the city of South San Francisco. "Director" is the deputy city manager/city engineer,technical and maintenance services, of the city of South San Francisco or representative.. "Official street trees"are those designated by the director and in the current official street tree list, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. "Owner of the property" is a person, as defined in this section,who owns a fee simple interest or surface easement in the property on which a street tree is planted. "Parkway strip"is an area designated or existing in the public area between the curb and edge of sidewalk on a city strect,which abuts an owners property. "Person"is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or organization of any kind. "Preservation"means acts to promote the life, growth,health, or beauty of trees, shrubs, or plants, including, but not limited to, pruning,trimming, topping, root pruning, spraying, mulching, fertilizing, cultivating, supporting, and treating for disease or injury. "Public area" is the city right-of-way between the curb or edge of pavement and the property line along a city street. The word "shall" is mandatory, and the word "may" is permissive. "Street trees"are trees in a public area along a city street. (Ord. 967 § 7, 1984; Ord. 815 § 2, 1980) 1.3.28.030 Administration. The director shall have authority to administer the provisions of this chapter regarding trees planted or growing in public areas within the city. (Ord. 815 § 3, 1980) 3.284 Street tree-1 r ry t io-n po?H ; .r__..__ .. It shall be the city's policy to utilize applicable techniques, methods, and procedures required to preserve, when feasible, all trees on city property including, but not limited to,trees which are creating damage to surface improvements or underground facilities or which are diseased, or located where construction is being considered or will occur. (Ord. 815 § 4(a), 1980) Chapter 13.28 STREET TREES Page 2 of 7 13.28.050 Street trees—Director's authori The director is authorized to determine feasibility of preserving all trees on public property or removal therefrom and upon so determining to undertake the preservation or removal. (Ord. 815 § 4(b), 1980) J.3.28.060 Street trees—Pr 's res S _qpetly owne r A property owner and/or the occupant thereof shall be responsible for the normal care, including watering, of trees, shrubs, and plants in the parkway strip abutting the property and upon any public tree easement across or through the property. (Ord. 815 § 4(c), 1980) 13.2&070 Interference with !qqn"re ctors or r L 'ntatives. No person shall interfere with or cause or permit any person to interfere with city employees,agents, contractors or representatives who .are engaged in the planting,preserving, maintaining, treating or removing of any tree or plant or related work in the city. (Ord. 815 § 4(d), 1980) 1.328.080 Plant,in re sired rer!!,oval and miaintenance of official street tree No person shall plant,trim, prune, or remove any official street tree in any public area along a city street, I without a permit from the deputy city manager/city engineer, technical and maintenance services. (Ord, 967 § 7, 1984; Ord. 815 § 5(a), 1980) 13.28-090 Removal of darna ed street trees. Street trees may be.removed by the director of parks and recreation, if the street tree is damaged or destroyed,to protect other trees, shrubs or plants from damage or injurious infection or in the interest of public safety. (Ord. 815 § 5(b), 1980) M28.100 Unauthorized pliyj tip 19s. (a) No person shall plant any tree, shrub or plant in any public property of the city or public tree easement without written permission of the director. (b) Any tree, shrub or plant, planted within any parkway or public tree easement without a written pen-nit of the director, may be removed by the director. The director shall notify the abutting property owner in writing, listing the unauthorized planted trees, shrubs or plants, ordering removal, and establishing a reasonable time of not less than fourteen days within which removal shall be accomplished, and informing the owner that upon failure to so comply therewith,the city will remove same or cause same to be removed at the owner's cost and expense, as provided in this chapter. In the event the removal is not accomplished within the specified time,which may be reasonably extended by the deputy city manager/city engineer, technical and maintenance services, the director may remove the trees, shrubs or plants at the property owner's cost and expense, which shall include but not be limited to cost of labor, equipment, materials and actual overhead expense. Upon determining the costs to be assessed,the deputy city manager/city engineer,technical and maintenance services shall by written notice inform the property owner of the cost, detailing the items of labor, equipment, materials and overhead and cost thereof and advise the owner that unless payment is made to the city within thirty days, same shall be collected as a debt in an appropriate civil action or assessed as a lien against the owner's property as provided in this chapter. (Ord. 9,67 § 7, 1984; Ord. 815 § 5(c), 1980) -2- Chapter 13.28 STREET TREES Page 3 of 7 13.28.1.10 Reside nflat o y, o near'' ogion. _p�L jjq_0: _ - — (a) Any residential property owner may request that a tree on the master tree list be planted in the front yard setback instead of the abutting parkway. The director may plant such tree provided that such property owner grants a public tree casement to the city often feet width over the front yard setback, or other dimensions acceptable to the city for tree sites and access over the front yard setback to such public tree easement site for the purpose of planting, preserving or otherwise maintaining the tree and, if necessary, removal thereof. (b) The city, acting through the director, is granted the right of access to such front yard setback solely for the purpose of planting, preserving, and, if necessary, removal of such tree. (Ord. 815 § 5(d), 1980) 13.2 8.120 Construction areas. (a) If any proposed work of construction, improvement,demolition or any other work on or adjacent to public property requires removal of a tree planted on the property,the person undertaking the work and the contractor shall apply to the director for a permit to remove the tree. The director may issue such a permit on condition that the applicant at his cost and expense replaces the tree with one of the same size and species in a location designated by the director. The director may authorize an alternate size and species.Applicant shall secure the performance of this condition by a deposit with the director sufficient to pay the cost thereof, which shall be returned to the applicant upon approved completion of the replacement. If a person performs work of construction, improvement,demolition or any other work adjacent to public property and in so doing removes without a permit a tree planted on the property, the person undertaking such work and the contractor shall replace the tree at a site designated by the director with one of the same size and species. The director may authorize an alternate size or species. The replacement of the tree shall not bar any additional remedies or penalties provided for in this chapter., (b) No person shall excavate any ditches, tunnels or trenches or install pavement within a radius of four feet from any public tree without written permission of the director. A person performing any work of excavation or construction on any street or publicly owned property shall guard and protect the tree so as to prevent injury thereof. If such person damages of injures the tree,the director shall charge said person the cost thereof or require replacement with the same size and species at a site designated by the director at said person's cost and expense, (Ord. 815 § 5(e), 1980) 13.28.130 Parkway.4eautification pqlicy. It shall be the policy of the city to maintain the beauty of its parkways. The director is authorized to establish programs to maintain the city's parkways, (Ord. 815 § 6(a), 1980) 113.2&14.0 Parkw.ay—Ides ponsibility of owner or occupant. The owner or occupant of property abutting a parkway shall be responsible for the maintenance of such parkway, including, but not limited to, periodic and regular watering and weed control. (Ord. 815 § 6(b), 1980) 13.28.1,50 Paving_qf,p- !,ir! :.step In all residential districts where parkway strips exist between sidewalk and curb,permission may be granted to the adjoining property owner by the director, with the assent of the director of public services, for paving or -3- Chapter 13.28 STREET TREES Page 4 of 7 covering all or part of the strip except for designated unpaved spaces with a minimum of two,feet by two feet to a maximum of four feet by four feet square or with an opening of thirty-six inches in diameter for the planting of a street tree. Such unpaved spaces shall be designated by the director. Where driveways are so located as to make planting impractical,the director may designate an appropriate location. The director is authorized to prepare regulations to apply to the issuance of permits for paving or covering parkway strips but not limited to- width of parkway strip; reasonableness of existing conditions or required modifications thereof to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter; number of existing or proposed trees; location of driveways, location of public utility services; proximity to commercially zoned districts. (Ord. 815 § 6(c), 1980) 13.28.160 Street tree mastery A. The director shall develop a comprehensive plan of official street trees for all streets of the city where planting areas are available and provided for trees. The plan may be revised from time to time and shall be reviewed each year. B. In accordance with the plan,the director shall proceed each year to plant trees or replace trees to the extent of such funds as may be allocated by the council for that purpose. C. Where the condition of a tree, or the unfitness of a tree, or the condition of other public improvements adjacent to a tree make replacement necessary or desirable, the director is authorized to remove such tree and replace it with one in accordance with the street tree master plan. (Ord. 815 § 7, 1980) 13.28.1.70 Maintenance of list of trees causi fic The deputy city manager/city engineer,technical and maintenance services shall maintain a list of trees which have caused damage to adjacent sidewalks,interfered with drainage flows and gutters, or interfered with traffic in adjacent streets. The director shall confer with the director of public services regarding the necessary remedial work and request for funds from the city council for the repair or replacement of the damaged sidewalks or other public properties. (Ord. 967 § 7, 1984; Ord. 815 § 8, 1980) 13.28.180 Abuse or mutilation of trees. No person shall: A. Damage, cut, carve, or injure the bark of any street tree; B. Attach any sign, wire or injurious material to any street tree; C. Cause or pen-nit any wire charged with electricity to come in contact with any street tree; or D. Allow any gaseous, liquid, or solid substance harmful to trees to come in contact with the roots, leaves, bark, or any part of any street trees; or E. Allow ivy or any other vines to cling or to climb up any part of any street tree. (Ord. 815 § 9, 1980) 13.,28.1,90 Public nuisances. -4- Chapter 13.28 STREET TREES Page 5 of 7 The following are declared to be public nuisances: A. A dead,diseased, infested or dying tree on private property so near to any street tree as to constitute a danger to street trees, or streets, or portions,thereof; B. Any tree or shrub on any private property or any shrubs in a parkway strip of a type of species which damages,destroys or otherwise interferes with any street improvements, sidewalks, curbs, approved street trees, gutters, sewers, or other public improvements including mains or service, or threatens to so damage, destroy or impair same; C. Vines or climbing plants growing into or over any street trees or any public hydrant,pole, or electrolier; D. Existence of any tree on private property within the city limits which is infested, infected, or in danger of becoming infested or infected with injurious insects,scales, fungus, or growth; E. The existence of any branches or foliage on private property which interferes with visibility on, or free use of,or access to, any portion of any street improved for vehicular or pedestrian travel; F. Hedges or dense thorny shrubs and plants on any street or parkway strip or part thereof; G. Shrubs and plants more than twelve inches in height in any parkway strip, measured above top of curb grade; H. The construction or maintenance of any type of wall or fence around or within any city right-of-way or portion thereof, unless an encroachment permit has been issued therefor by the director of public services; 1. The placing or maintenance within any city right-of-way or portion thereof, of any solid landscaping, decorative materials, or plantings, including but not limited to large rocks, driftwood or planters made of tile or concrete pipe sections,which protrude more than twelve inches above the level of the curb and sidewalk and which are continuous with the length of a parkway strip, or otherwise tend to block the free movement of pedestrians across the width of a parkway strip; J. The placing or maintenance of any type of ground cover or plant materials within two feet of the base of any tree in a parkway strip or other place along which the city has a tree planting casement; K. Concrete, asphalt,tar paper or plastic membranes or other types of impervious materials placed in a parkway strip or tree easement in such close proximity to a street tree as to impede the movement of soil, air and water which are necessary to sustain growth and development of the street tree; L. Removal from or planting, trimming or pruning an official street tree on any public area along a city street without a written permit from the director; M. Planting a tree, shrub or plant in or on public property or a public street tree easement without a written permit from the director; N. Excavating any ditches, tunnels or trenches or installation of pavement within a four-foot radius of any public tree without a written permit from the director; G. Failure, neglect or refusal to guard and protect a public tree while performing any work of excavation or construction on any street or publicly owned property; P. Failure, neglect or refusal of any owner or occupant of property abutting a parkway to maintain that portion of the parkway adjacent to the property, including but not limited to periodic and regular watering and weed control; Q. Paving or covering all or part of a parkway strip without a written permit from the director; R. Abusing or mutilating trees as set forth in Section 13.28.180; S. Failure,neglect or refusal by a property owner to repair a sidewalk adjacent to the owner's property, which was damaged by a tree on the owner's property. (Ord. 815 § 10, 1980) -5- Chapter 13.28 STREET TREES Page 6 of 7 .11. 200 Abaternent ofpublic nuisance frees maintained b city. --- Street trees maintained by the city in parkway strips which constitute a public nuisance shall be removed or trimmed as determined by the director at city expense unless otherwise provided in this chapter, (Ord. 815 § 11, 1980) 13.28.210 Abatement of _ � tey c t _. w Caine , -- (a) Upon discovery of a public nuisance as defined in Section 13.28.190, the superintendent of public works shall notify the owner of the property or any other person responsible for the nuisance that the nuisance shall be abated by the city at such person's expense unless they appear at the stated time and place to show cause why there should be no abatement. (b) The notice to appear shall be substantially in the following form: NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE YOU]ARE 1 EREBY NOTIFIED as the owner, agent, lessee or other person occupying or having control of the premises at(address), that the Superintendent of Public Works has determined pursuant to Subsection of Section 13.28.190 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code that there exists upon the abqve- referenced premises a public nuisance, specifically(description of condition constituting nuisance). A copy of Section 13.28.190 is attached. You are hereby required to abate this condition to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Public Works within days of the date of this notice or to appear at the office of the City Engineer At 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA.. at M. to show cause, if any exists,why the condition should not be abated by the City, and the expenses thereof charged to you as a personal obligation and/or made a lien upon the property.. Abatement is to be accomplished in the following manner: (description of what needs to be done to remedy situation). Superintendent of Public Works By: (c) The superintendent shall post at least one copy of the notice in a conspicuous place on the property in question. In addition, one copy of the notice shall be sent by certified mail to the owner of the property and to any other persons responsible for the nuisance. The posting and mailing shall be completed at least ten days prior to the date scheduled for a hearing. (d) After giving notice as required in subsection(c),the superintendent shall file a copy of the notice, together with an affidavit or certificate stating the time and manner in which such notice was given, in the office of the city clerk. The failure of the owner or any other responsible party to receive such notice shall not affect in any manner the validity of any proceedings pursuant to this section. -6- Chapter 13.28 STREET TREES Page 7 of 7 (c) At the time and place designated in the notice, the city engineer shall hear.any relevant evidence offered by the owner or other responsible person and may affirm, revoke or modify the superintendent's decision to abate. (f) If the superintendent's decision to abate is affirmed,the owner or other responsible person may file a written appeal to the city manager within ten days of the decision. An appeal hearing shall be scheduled within ten days of receipt of the appeal. After the appeal bearing,the city manager may affirm,revoke or modify the decision of the city engineer. The decision of the city manager shall be final, (g) The owner or responsible person shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the city in abating the nuisance. In addition, any such costs may be imposed as a lien upon the property. Costs shall be collected in the manner provided for in Sections 8.24.1 00 and 8,24.110 of this code. (h) At any time prior to abatement by the city,the owner or responsible person may abate the nuisance at their own cost provided that the abatement is accepted as satisfactory by the superintendent. (Ord. 1033 § 6, 1988.- Ord. 967 § 7, 1984; Ord. 815 § 12(h), 1980) .13.28.220 Violation—penalq. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction shall be subject to payment of a fine not to exceed the limits set forth in Section 36900 of the Government Code. (Ord. 1033 § 6, 1988; Ord. 815 § 13, 1980) View the mobile version, -7- Chapter 13.30 TREE PRESERVATION Page 1 of 5 South San Francisco Municipal Code up revious I adn Co llaps Sea rt9a Print j Fr arnes Dt1e 1A..LQ11L I,C t I,C iVL GPI i V.al„i PNh a�t�r 13. t1 TREk PRESERVATION 13„341,010 Purpp and intent. The city is endowed and forested with a variety of healthy and valuable trees which must be protected and preserved. The preservation trees is essential to the health,welfare and quality of life of the citizens of the city because these trees preserve the scenic beauty of the city, maintain ecological balance, prevent erosion of flap soil,, counteract air pollution and oxygenate the air, absorb noise, maintain climatic and microclimatic balance, help block wind, and provide shade and color. For these reasons, it is the intent of this chapter to achieve three objectives:.. (a) Provide standards and requirements for the protection of certain large trees and trees with unique characteristics; (b) Provide standards and requirements for planting and maintenance of trees for new development; and (c) Establish recommended standards for planting and maintaining trees on property that is already developed. This chapter achieves these objectives in ways that support and encourage the reasonable economic enjoyment of private property,not in ways that prevent it. (Ord. 1:271 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) 13.30.020 Definitions. "Commission”means the parks and recreation commission of the city of South Sara Francisco. "Department"means the parks, recreation and maintenance services department of the city of South San Francisco. "Director"means the director of the parks, recreation and maintenance services department of the city of South San Francisco. ".`Floor area" shall have that meaning established in Section 20.06.1 00(i). "Landscape tree"means a generally recognized ornamental tree and shall exclude fruit, citrus, or nut bearing trees. "Lot coverage"means the area of a lot covered by any building, and does not include areas covered only by pavement.. "Modification of existing development"means any interior or exterior alterations to existing buildings which may or may not require permits, and which do not constitute"new development."For example, a building permit to install a new bathroom or kitchen for an existing home is a modification of existing development. "New development"means any work upon any property in the city of South San Francisco which requires a building permit, demolition permit or other permit that will allow: (1}the construction of a new or substantially new building, or(2) demolition of an existing building or substantially all of an existing building. "Protected tree"means: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade, or Chapter 13.30 TREE PRESERVATION Page 2 of 5 (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3,) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. "Pruning"means the removal ofmore than one-third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or more than one-third of the root system. "Removal"means cutting to the ground; extraction; killing by spraying,girdling, or any other means; or pruning done without a permit or which does not conform to the provisions of a permit. "Trimming"means the removal of a portion of a tree which removes less than one-third of the crown or existing foliage of a tree, removes less than one-third of the root system, and does not kill the tree. (Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord, 1060 § 1, 1989) 1.3.30.030 Prohibitions and an fbr Rpc t trees. (a) No protected tree shall be removed, pruned, or otherwise materially altered without a permit except as provided in this section. Trimming of a protected tree is allowed without such a permit. (b) The following requirements apply to protected trees., (1) Protected trees shall be protected by a fence which is to be maintained at all times. (2) Protected trees that have been damaged or destroyed by construction shall be replaced or the city shall be reimbursed, as provided in Section 13,30.080. (3) Chemicals or other construction materials shall not be stored within the drip line of protected'trees. (4) Drains shall be provided as required by the director whenever soil fill is placed around protected trees, (5) Signs, wires or similar devices shall not be attached to protected trees. (6) If the proposed development, including any site work for the development, will encroach upon the drip line of a protected tree, special measures shall be utilized, as approved by the director or the commission,to allow the roots to obtain oxygen, water, and nutrients as needed. Any excavation, cutting, filling, or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter, if authorized at all by the director, shall be minimized and subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the director. No significant change in existing ground level shall be made within the drip line of a protected tree.No burning or use of equipment with an open flame shall occur near or within the protected perimeter. ,(7) Underground trenching for utilities shall avoid major support and absorbing tree roots of protected trees, If avoidance is impractical,tunnels shall be made below the roots. Trenches shall be consolidated to service as many units as possible. Trenching within the drip line of protected trees shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible and shall only be done under the at-site directions of a certified arborist. (8) No concrete or asphalt paving shall be placed over the root zones of oaks. (9) No compaction of the soil within the root zone of protected trees shall occur, (Ord. 1271 § 1,2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) 3.3.30.040 Prqpe!Iy owner's.�o s;p visibility to care for p rot g trees. A property owner shall be responsible for the normal care of every protected tree on the owner's property, including but not limited to watering, fertilizing and weed control. (Ord. 1,271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) 1.3.,30.1050 bUse or mutilation of protected trees. -9- Chapter 13.30 TREE PRESERVATION Page 3 of 5 No person shall damage, carve, injure or otherwise mutilate any protected tree; attach any sign, wire or injurious material to any protected tree; cause or permit any wire charged with electricity to come in contact with any protected tree; or allow any gaseous, liquid, or solid substance harmful to trees to come in contact with the roots, leaves, bark, or any part of any protected tree. (Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) 13.30.060 Notices and pt�mits reqUired for removal or_p ruining of protected trees, (a) Owners, or their authorized representative, of protected trees shall obtain a permit to remove or prune a protected tree. The application shall be on a form furnished by the department and shall state, among other things, the number and location of the tree(s)to be removed or pruned by type and the reason for removal or pruning of each. The application shall also include a photograph with correct botanical identification of the subject tree(s). When removal or pruning of a protected tree is proposed as part of or in conjunction with new development the application shall also include: (1)a site plan showing the location of buildings, structures and proposed site disturbances; (2)the location of all protected trees on the site; and (3)the protected trees on the site that would be removed or pruned. An authorized representative of the department shall make an inspection of any protected tree or site subject to this section and shall file a written report and his recommendations to the director. (b) In reviewing applications for removal or pruning of protected trees,the director shall give priority to those based on hazard or danger of disease. The director may refer any application to another department, committee, board or commission of the city for a report and recommendation, and may require the applicant to provide an arborist's report. In reviewing each application, the director shall determine: (1) The condition of the protected tree(s)with respect to disease;danger or failing; proximity to existing or proposed structures,yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the protected tree in order to construct any proposed improvernents and allow economic enjoyment of the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the protected tree on erosion; soil retention; and diversion or increased flow of surface waters; (4) The number of protected trees and trees in the neighborhood on unimproved property and the effect the removal would have on the established standard of the area and property value. "Neighborhood"means the area within a three-hundred-foot radius of the property containing the tree in question; (5) The number of trees the particular parcel can adequately support according to good arboricultural practices; (6) The effect removal of the protected tree would have on wind protection, noise and privacy; and (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a protected tree to remain or remain unpruned. (Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) 13.30.070 Removal of protected trees in emergencies. In the event that an emergency condition arises whereby immediate action is necessary because of disease, or danger to life or property, a protected tree may be removed, pruned or trimmed by order of the director or, if the director is unavailable, a responsible member of the police, fire, parks and recreation, or public works department. In such event, a report shall be made to the commission describing the conditions and necessity of such an order, (Ord, 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989') 1330.080 R placemen , " tyees7 -to- Chapter 13.30 TREE PRESERVATION Page 4 of 5 (a) Any protected trees that are removed shall be replaced as follows: (1) Replacement shall be three twenty-four-inch box size or two thirty-six-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree removed as determined below.However,the director maintains the right to dictate size and species of trees in new developments. (2) Any protected tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two thirty-six-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree so removed as determined below. (3) Replacement of a protected tree can be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. (4) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection (b)(1)or(2)of this section, as applicable, cannot be planted on the property,payment of twice the replacement value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture Standards shall be made to the city. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree purchase and planting. (Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1.060 § 1, 1989), 13.30.090 gecisiorL4y pt dirq!gL qL o rotected trees. _ p A decision shall be rendered by the director for each application for removal or replacement of a protected tree. If an application is approved, it shall include replacement conditions in accordance with Section 13.30.080. The director shall give written notification of the decision to the applicant and all property owners within one hundred feet of the property containing the tree in question, (Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) 13.30.100 Tree Le LLorements for now deve (a) Any new development in the city shall be required to plant trees as provided in this section; (b) In areas designated on the South San Francisco general plan land use diagram as low density residential, medium density residential or high density residential one landscape tree for every one thousand square feet of lot coverage; (c) In areas designated on the South San Francisco general plan land use diagram as downtown low density residential, downtown medium density residential, downtown high density residential or downtown commercial one landscape tree for every two thousand square feet of lot coverage; (d) In areas designated on the South San Francisco general plan land use diagram as community commercial,business commercial, coastal commercial, office or business and technology park one landscape tree for every two thousand square feet of floor area; (e) In areas designated on the South San Francisco general plan land use diagram as mixed industrial one landscape tree for every five thousand square feet of lot coverage; (f) In areas designated on the South San Francisco general plan land use diagram as transportation center, public, park and recreation or open space,this section provides no requirement for trees on new development; (g) The director shall determine the number of existing trees which are of an acceptable size, species and location to be counted toward the requirements of this section, (Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) 1-3,30.110 Maintenance of trees regpired for new deDto mentor The owner of property on which trees have been required to be planted pursuant to Section 13.30.100 shall be responsible for the normal care of every tree which was counted to satisfy the requirements of Section -11- Chapter 13.30 TREE PRESERVATION Page 5 of 5 13.30.200, including, but not limited to, watering, fertilizing and weed control. (Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) 13.30.13 (a) The decision of the director of parks, recreation and maintenance services as to whether any specific plant is a tree or a shrub is final and not subject to appeal. Any other decision of the director may be appealed to the parks and recreation commission by any interested person by filing a written.appeal setting forth the grounds for appeal with the commission within ten days after the determination. Hearing dates shall be set administratively.Notice of the hearing shall be given by first class mail to the appellant and the applicant at least ten days prior to the date of hearing. The decision of the parks and recreation commission is final. (b) Any decision.of the parks and recreation commission may be appealed to the city council by any interested person by filing a written appeal setting forth the grounds for appeal with the city clerk within thirty days after the determination. Hearing dates shall be set administratively.Notice of the hearing shall be given by first class mail to the appellant and the applicant at least ten days prior to the date of hearing. (Ord. 1271. § 1,2000; Ord, 1060 § 1, 1989) 13.30.140 portal f(�E violation. In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any person removing,pruning, abusing, or mutilating'a tree in violation of this ordinance shall be liable for damages equal to twice the replacement value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture Standards, Damage payments and fines collected under this chapter shall be placed in the tree planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree purchase,planting, and maintenance, (Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989) View the mobile version, -12- � � /\ \ �� J � }2 � « � � . $ 4: 4. � � : a \ # : » � . � » � . , � « � ; � � . . � . � � � ■ , \ > . 4 # 4 . �: \ � � \ � : ■ � : . ( � } . \\� 4 � � � } \. 4 . �\ � ^ j\2 � � { ( � ' . \ } � /\ � ` � : � � } � \: \� � : © «, z d \ a , § . ©a; �\ . \ Z f . § . , \ � \ } � . y ; § . y a � . ; � � \ \ . �� \ � � � ®\ � ^ ^ ~ `7 *r� � � § � � »\/� , � � § < � � � \/ \\ � 1 \ : ; . , � \ . � � � � � � ` � ` � . . � . , / � . \ \ : y \\ � \\ -l3- tl I r / U' c , r, / 'I i s f i ii �� III I III II) i I 1 I'J 1 l ?) j 1 1 F u i w, a � AM J� d VV u p IYI Y�OII�V� r � r , I , r -1S- �. ���N l m �i, �� � � ��' d � � �� � ' I ��� � io @ II � � „� ��� `N imi"" IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�� ����� E� 1111111 u �� �% � F a / ! `kph �y y✓�k �' � �^`, Ili r �� °��. /��, � o,� .� � � �, yW, / F"" 4. / ,� � m 1 .. �� �,- zr� ,.°�Ry,M ,9, -��.�� au„�, t � mr �� �ti w� � � r � � ',¢,Lr"ne .,r i i"� a 1�1� � i���� III ���� ��, i ti q II� � "�`^ � i �J �i"C I y Ili lr � �� �� 4 i � lea"i a �, '� ;i. , � �„ � �° p,,a '� � � [ �� w,�,. e .. �. �� r �'�U,'� b� �����i��/� � � � � i i �� } � , �r'����1 � ( �� t���'i1�VII / � � �?, � �, ill �� a ( i a i' I � � 6 —1r5— .j � � 9 �i% f�;1 � I�'% �, �� G ;, �; �' lulu �, r l /� i' II �, {{ Il�llj l ` r; y ���� �;l, ��'� �' �'�� — �, � !,. it �, i�� ���� j �i ie �trri� f�n� � ��ii� i m. � %r��f � 1 uvu �" r i� /�/ �,� l i ;�%y��� � �� ��i%% � ri�%��i�i/, '% t �%ii/i� � � �, r �m � � I � �� ���m��� k I` ��mm� u uVVV ....� i uu VVVV . III U, � P �Cw �umm,����,� �. ���� i� ��� ! � � ii� � A u� ip � a � �p�� � �W r, �"��" � � uY ��u� ��� YV� � r � ,� if J�r �� } � JG �� Y." ��, 11 l � J� � � � 1 I �i � �� � �.. I'✓ ��>���� �l��� �� � r f u �� 1 � � a ,, _I�_ I QII w � � J Illllou > ; 1 l / r �I II / / i mp�Y i L� �I k. I r I� I Y I I � lil h I I V II I I i e N� �uY ! ICI I�I , ^ III IIIIII�I 1 �m o �uuu r � III I i 11 %i r As- � . � I 7.i.. . �,. ..� � ., - �. I; ��iN YIIIIIIIIII � VVuuJO' �� � o IIII'°piilll � � ��. � � '� ��� ,, �� � ��� o f ��� um��. V uomu� � , iii a r � � .� k �. � �� "� V,,` �4 n �4, � 4Y' � �����, f %%f�� �i/"J j� ���/ ,. r � �« ,,, �,�J�, �,, ��/� r ,. 1 � ��f jai j' ��1 /%� � o �: � , , ���, �, J �%%l 1 � I� i��� k �rT���l trl � � � i i�,��� �. -��- . � . . . . %? . : } \ � 4 ( �: ! ! Z -20- i���/ i /%� ii i r� iJ I�"V IV muuu 'il vvuuuuuuuuvvvv �������� poll r/;< I /� iuuuuuull t F' i I e �o. fi i i IOIIIIN�uulYi i um i, ������� !mmi�h�• V k u �1 um L t �v p � r r✓ 1 —21— i �IOVIUN �i �0. I�IIIIV�u �� uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu° � Y �,. i u �, IVY Y ii f I i -22- e Ii s u uiuuuiuimuiu' � J t i h ti ym � 1 � U� i � a uuuuuuuuuuuu l U -23- P b'rr r r f r�G i i r. Vim F t I�f IIIUI ,IVVo�m- p i �u 4 ! i i r �� �uuNu�����uuuuuuuuuuuuuu� 0°°0 III u i f P uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuui �WUUUUUUUUUUUUU uuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuw, „u � NyYu6um�m ��� VI�9 � �� � � uuuuuu muuuuuuu �' � � � "YNV uuu VVVVVVV � 'VVuuuuu uuuuuuuu uuuu uu r ui uuuu°°°luV u P � -24- lUm G, fi it 00000 00'.'04 I t, n III U �tt �i ifx p S a, 'N 111 r u � �. ��. 8 i;i,'�N Cr lr Jill��,;;��llv, � +` �tip.',✓o),�r.."�� ,I i l d"f'i :.... � , —25— i V s, I uuuuuuu Ili IIIIIIIIIII� I I�����I�II I rrrrrr rrr i Illlliiill IVUii II iiiuomuuu u 'i i I Pr I ai r� r J I r i�b rid J ✓ jr� r!% � /f 7 ° -26- II I i 4 Y la N � f III f f l:rc u yip a u� .III Is G I hi t aN � I i k ICI I f r. r 6 e � � �l 1 —27— 1 ii i .h a� �e Im, 00 Q� �IIIIIIIiIV ' � r � 4 h . I v -28- Y IIII'""""°°Illlylllll lV�� .. I I I�II Illllhhu i 9P �� �� i. uVVV V V VVi a uVVV ° VVi,. � i sf e a r i I 19n r r � f —29— v %f�' ���� r i i R r, D� 1 t r / f 'r i -30- S�v�*G. Q A° Staff Report LIFOR� DATE: October 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 20.280, DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Discuss and provide further direction on the type of review authority desired for a revised Zoning Amendment that can then be updated for the City Council's review at a future public hearing. 2. Review and provide further direction regarding minor changes to regulations in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District and the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District and require City Council approval for the increased density and floor area ratio incentive program, to provide new design review authority for the City Council for new development projects in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District and the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District and amending Chapter 20.490 to acknowledge City Council review authority for conditional use permits. Overview The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) was adopted in February of 2015 as a guiding vision document for new downtown commercial and residential development. The DSASP's primary goal is to focus new density close to the SSF Caltrain Station, and offer transportation alternatives to prospective residents or workers. Accordingly, the adopted zoning in Chapter 20.280 provides the specific regulations implementing the DSASP objectives. With time to now review current and potential projects within the DSASP area, staff has identified some minor inconsistencies that should be addressed, including portions of the zoning standards for the Linden Commercial Corridor and Linden Neighborhood Commercial zoning sub-districts that were incomplete at time of DSASP adoption. Staff is now proposing revisions to make clarifications consistent with the DSASP vision and to correct the minor omissions. STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DSASP ZONING AMENDMENT DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 4 / l * 1 �f U 7a _ g' � hilt, /D//1% J y Figure 1: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning District Joint Housing Sub-Committee At the August 5, 2015 meeting, the Sub-Committee provided direction to staff to consider adjusting the design review process so that City Council approval is required for downtown projects above a to-be-determined threshold. DISCUSSION To address the request by the Joint Housing Sub-Committee, staff is proposing changes to the review authority for new high-density development projects within the DSASP area and the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (ECR/Chestnut Plan) area: 1. Any new development greater than three stories or 25 residential units within the DSASP or ECR/Chestnut Plan areas shall require Design Review by the City Council; 2. Any DSASP or ECR/Chestnut Plan project requesting approval for the increased density and floor area ratio incentive program shall be approved by the City Council; and A suggested amendment was discussed with the Planning Commission at their September 17, 2015 hearing and a number of issues were raised regarding how these changes could effectively be implemented. The following questions were discussed between staff and the Planning Commission for feedback from the City Council: 1. Is the 3-story, 25 unit criteria the correct threshold for the City Council — should it be lower or tied to square footage (25,000 SF for example)? STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DSASP ZONING AMENDMENT DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 4 2. Should City Council design review authority be extended to other specific plan areas? 3. Should further discretionary review be extended to the City Council, beyond design review authority, such as requiring a Conditional Use Permit for certain projects within the DSASP or Citywide? 4. Should Incentive Program Conditional Use Permits, required for maximum density or floor area within the DSASP or the ECR/Chestnut Plan, be reviewed by the City Council instead of the Planning Commission? As stated above, the 3-story height and 25 unit thresholds are being proposed because they would capture projects that are most likely to have significant effects on surrounding neighborhoods. Furthermore, this threshold strikes an appropriate balance to ensure that the City Council has expanded authority over impactful projects, but the additional level of review is unlikely to hamper the majority of development because most projects will fall below these thresholds. Staff is proposing that this authority apply within the DSASP and ECR/Chestnut Plan areas because these are the most likely areas where higher density development projects will be located. Another option for consideration is to identify the City Council as the appropriate authority to review Conditional Use Permits for projects seeking increased density, floor area ratio and/or height in the DSASP and ECR/Chestnut Plan areas pursuant to SSFMC section 20.280.005 and/or SSFMC section 20.270.004. Within the DSASP, the incentive program is tied to community benefit provisions; in the ECR/Chestnut Plan, the development incentives require TDM measures, off-site infrastructure improvements, and high quality or green design. Both specific plan zoning districts envision the densest projects providing community benefits and should the City Council choose to do so, the Zoning Amendment would require the City Council to approve the development scenarios. If the City Council prefers broader authority or additional discretionary review over new development, staff requests specific guidance for a revised Zoning Amendment. Further review authority could assure that new developments are consistent with the DSASP or ECR/Chestnut Plan, community priorities, and City Council preferences to ensure civic-wide benefits for existing and future residents. This additional review, however, would add review time and delay to new projects and could harm the pro-development climate of South San Francisco; few projects could be approved without City Council review if thresholds are significantly lowered. Staff has reviewed the DSASP zoning in Chapter 20.280 and is suggesting the following minor Zoning Amendments for the City Council to consider: • Allow a wider array of commercial and employment uses, including Clean Technologies, Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing, and Research and Development within the Grand Avenue Core (GAC), Linden Commercial Corridor (LCC) and Linden Neighborhood Commercial (LNC) zoning districts; and, STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DSAS P ZONING AMENDMENT DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Updating development standards related to setbacks and open space requirements for the LCC and L zoning districts. Based on Council direction, staff would revise these specific chapters of the Zoning Ordinance and include them as Draft Ordinances, which will be attached forte City Council's review at a future City Council meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Zoning Amendment at their public hearing on September 17, 2015 (see minutes—Attachment 1). There was one public comment submitted in writing by the Coalition for Community Benefits supporting the increased review. This advocacy group has consistently requested that any new development, regardless of size,provide community benefits including affordable housing and area standard wages for contractors. The letter of support is attached for the City Council's reference(Attachment 2). The Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Amendment and, as listed in the Discussion section, had a number of questions and concerns about the scope and nature of additional review authority. The Planning Commission approved of the minor changes tote DSAS P Zoning District, and recommended that the City Council revise the Municipal Code to provide the City Council with additional discretionary review authority over development projects. The exact scope of that authority was left open and the Planning Commission requested that the City Council provide further direction on the type of review authority that they prefer for new development. NEXT STEPS/RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the City Council review the options presented regarding the City Council's review authority within the DSAS P and ECR/Chestnut Plan areas and provide staff with any comments and/or direction in amending the Zoning Ordinance. k[ux By: ................ Approved:,...................... ...................q............. .................... . ... ..... Alex Greenwood 'it Director of Economic and "ity Manager Community Development Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minutes,Meeting of September 17, 2015 2. Public Comment Letter(s) 3. City Council Presentation 2530329.1 Attachment 1 Planning Commission Minutes of September 17, 2015 1 The video recording of this Regular Planning Commission meeting can be found at http://www.ssf net/1996/Planning-Commission MINUTES September 17, 2015 - E ° CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO = REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL/CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioner Faria, Martin, Nagales, and Ruiz, Vice Chairperson Khalfin, and Chairperson Wong ABSENT: Commissioner Lujan AGENDA REVIEW Item No. 1 in Presentation to discuss the Downtown Parking Study will be moved to October 1, 2015 meeting. Thank you to Patti Cabano for her years of service as the Planning Commission Clerk and welcome Justine Buenaflor as the new Clerk. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR None. PUBLIC HEARING 1. SSF Pawn Shop Relocation and Zoning Text Amendment PICCININI ELIO TR/Owner Cash Loans Inc./Applicant 230 MILLER AVE P15-0058: ZA15-0007; UP15-0012 Zoning Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow a Pawnbroker to relocate to 230 Miller Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 6.92, 20.280, 20.350, 20.490, 20.620, &20.550 and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Public Hearing Opened: 7:05 P.M. Speakers: Pedro Gonzalez Public Hearing Closed: 7:25 P.M. Commission Discussion begins 00:30:54 in video recording. Motion—Vice Chairperson Khalfin/Second—Commissioner Nagales to approve making findings and recommending City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to conditionally allow pawn broker uses in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District, make pawn broker a separate use classification, update land use regulation table Citywide, create pawn broker performance standards and recommend that the City Council approve a September 17,2015 Minutes 2 Page 1 of 2 conditional use permit for South City Pawn as well as make a recommendation that staff explore additional options to consider making pawn broker uses available. Approved by roll call vote (5-1-1). Regular Planning Commission Meeting Recess: 8:23 P.M. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Resumed: 8:28 P.M. 2. Revision to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and Design Review Authority City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant Citywide P 11-0097:ZA15-0009 Zoning Text Amendments to modify regulations in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District to allow a wider array of commercial and employment uses, update development standards for the Linden Commercial Corridor(LCC) and Linden Neighborhood Commercial (LNC)zoning districts, and provide new design authority for the City Council in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.550 and determination that the project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts and is consistent with the certified EIR. Public Hearing Opened: 8:29 P.M. Public Hearing Closed: 8:42 P.M. Commission Discussion begins 01:44:13 in video recording. Motion—Commissioner Ruiz/Second—Commissioner Faria to approve making findings and recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Municipal Code Chapter 20.280 to make minor changes to regulations to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and amending the Municipal Code to provide a threshold for City Council discretionary review of the development projects. Approved by roll call vote (5-1-1) ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS None. ITEMS FROM STAFF None. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Vice Chairperson Khalfin wanted to say thank you to the Commission and staff for their gift to welcome his new child. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wong adjourned the meeting at 9:21 P.M. Sailesh Mehra Alan Wong, Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SM/pac September 17,2015 Minutes 3 Page 2 of 2 Attachment 2 Public Comment Letter(s) 4 September 17, 2015 [VIA EMAIL] Mr. Alan N. Wong Planning Commission, it 400 Grand Ave. out San Francisco, CA 94080 Bel6n Seara Coalition for Community Benefits, Project Coordinator 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City, CA 94404 searamb@gmaii.com Re: Switching design review authority to City Council Dear Honorable Chair and Members oft Planning Commission,, We write to urge you to accept the city staff's recommendation to switch design review authority tot City Council for or downtown developments. We also would like to ask you to direct staff to create emails for each oft commissioners. Staff's recommendation will enhance the public process set up to review new downtown development. The staff recommendation to amend Chapter 20.480 oft Municipal Code to transfer design review authority from the Planning Commission tot City Council for major development projects in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District is a step in the right direction. As suggested by the staff, planning commissioners should play an advisory role just as they did during the adoption oft Downtown Specific Area Plan (Plan). Council members were at the forefront oft adoption of the Plan and, as such, they should have the responsibility to implement it. Having two public bodies review new development will provide more opportunities for dialogue among all the stakeholders involved in the approval process. Also, we are hoping that you act on our request made during 5 public comment on September 3, 2015. We requested you direct staff to create email accounts for each planning commissioner. This is a common practice around San Mateo County and the Bay Area Region. This way the public will have direct access to commissioners without having to go through staff. Please contact the coalition coordinator, Bel6n Seara, with any questions. Her it is Searamb@qmaii.com. We appreciate your attention. Sincerely, The Coalition for Community Benefits Attachment 3 Powerpoint Presentation 7 W4-1 4-J E 0 0 E 1 �I <t (v CL V L > 4-, s L s E .- 4-J � CD � O i O cn O N s CL O O cn 00 O V .� �o .� o s > cn O V 4� ._ E O 0 LA U 4-0 — Q E > LA X>1 4� LA 40= U m -0 ol M L ■ ■�. < oa LA wz u • ._ 4 s cn O O i 4-J O O •— 4-J cn O i rz = U U E rC — O a� ._ 0 v 4 4� CD u 0 0 s > � u U O 4-J J O ■— 70 I 'L 0) O oC U cn U Z IT L L 4� p — � s a� c,n > c� •— � u � � O � O O '> p N L p •— � V1 O cn OL4 > i �+ •— � O C: 11 4) CL 70 0) 0.�, r� — — � •— O W 4=J 0 Us � U � 0. O 0 u U 4-J U 0. Q i f i; Ile i u N p' o oil "�° a00000000000i +� q k " . 0 4-J ul L L - 0 •cn 0 > O •— � � 70 0 Q Lu � C: >. Q0 W 7"C1 — C: o � s LA _ •- `� s 0 •� a-J S O 'L •- s Ln 4-J .- O U �, •- •— r� U . . •- c 4-J E .- U X u LU 0 OWN= •� i E •� 0 r� O O w O � s � � 1A 0) O U >' Z) • — u 4-, • 4-(V J 4mi 4-J O ' p > 4-- O s E cz v, s 4-J s 07 r� � cn Q 4-J 4-J >� 4-J �n U O O LL) °' m loom> (v u u a� > O U O � ce U 0. V O LA muillllum.r muillllum.r muillllum. � O � �••� 4-J >1 CL o s O p c� O O a� �- s 4 4� O > O 0 u U O a--+ mmmomi O 4-' u E =4_0 E Ln 4� E c N CD ._ L p 4� O u 4-J 4-J C: M O 'i O E 4 — U E O (1) s .- •- s •- +-+ 4J 4-J� � i cz O s •- •- O 0) 70 •- U C) N CL � > s :3 4J 4-J can U C: 0 4-J 0 a--+ a-J 4- cry c� V � C: co (1) ss 4-J i V .- •- u > .- U cJ > s O O oC .— 4-J CL C: U E E u 4J LU a--+ — 4-0 E 4-J E E 0 'C: -0 0 V) 0 u ._ o U o> -C: 0- >% > 0 O E -tj cry 0 u ar. �, O Staff Report ZIP0 DATE: October 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL USES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review options regarding short-term vacation rental uses, and provide staff with comments and/or direction regarding next steps for regulations and process. BACKGROUND Short-term vacation rentals, in which hosts can make a spare room or an entire dwelling unit available to potential renters, are becoming increasingly popular. These transactions are usually made through residential hosting platform websites such as Airbnb, VRBO, Homeaway, Flipkey, or others, generally for 30 days or less. This type of lodging has become more popular, supplementing traditional transient lodging options such as hotels and bed-and-breakfasts. Many travelers use short-term vacation rentals while on business trips, for vacation, or while their home is under construction. This increase in popularity has occurred with the rise of the "sharing economy"in which people rent cars, homes, beds, or other goods directly from other individuals, generally through Internet hosting sites. Short-term vacation rentals include both hosted rentals, in which the resident, or host, is present and rents out a bedroom or a portion of the dwelling unit; and non-hosted rentals, where the renters occupy the full dwelling unit and the resident does not remain on-site. Short-term vacation rentals can also include properties that are not traditional homes. For example, Airbnb.com includes listings for houseboats and recreational vehicles that are semi-permanently attached to a set location for the duration of a reservation. While South San Francisco does not currently have the volume and interest in short-term vacation rentals that other cities have experienced recently, a cursory review indicates that there are listings for properties within the City on Airbnb.com. A recent Internet search for properties on Airbnb.com within the City indicates a total of approximately 35-45 listings (see Attachment 1). A similar search on Flipkey.com includes two listings, and there are not any listings for South San Francisco on Homeaway.com. Due to safety concerns, Internet hosting sites generally do not list exact locations of properties, but instead provide approximate locations. Since short-term vacation rentals, and the sharing economy in general, are relatively recent phenomena, South San Francisco does not currently regulate this type of use. Issues related to short-term vacation rentals include the compatibility of a commercial use in a residential area, concerns from neighbors about noise, parking, and public safety due to the frequent turnover of visitors. Another potential concern is that short-term vacation rentals could remove housing Staff Report Subject: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL STUDY SESSION Date: October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 7 stock that could otherwise be available for long-term rental or for sale, adding to the existing housing shortage in the Bay Area. Defining and establishing regulations for short-term vacation rentals would ensure that there are specific performance standards in place to provide clear direction to potential hosts and renters, and ensure that these uses are compatible with the neighborhoods where they are located. Additionally, specifically regulating these uses would establish a mechanism to require the payment of applicable taxes. Consistent with other lodging uses, taxes on short-term vacation rentals would include the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) of 10% of the gross rent paid by hotel guests, and the Conference Center Tax (CCT) which is $2.50 per occupied room per night, if short-term vacation rentals are defined and included in the Zoning Ordinance as a permitted use. State Law Currently, there is no state law in effect that addresses short-term vacation rentals; however, the state legislature has passed one related bill and was considering another. Senate Bill (SB) 761 pertains to short term vacation rentals, and was signed into law by Governor Brown on September 1st. This new law is effective January 1, 2016 and will require a hosting platform to provide a specific notice to an occupant listing a residence on the site that states, among other things, that, if the occupant is a tenant, listing the room, home, condominium, or apartment may violate the lease or contract and could result in legal action by the landlord, including possible eviction. SB 593, which has been postponed until the next legislative session, would have established reporting requirements for residential hosting platform websites (such as Airbnb); prohibit hosting platforms from offering properties that are prohibited by local law; and, require the hosting platform to collect and remit required taxes if requested by a local jurisdiction. Planninz Commission On September 3, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending the Zoning Code to establish regulations related to short-term vacation rental uses (see minutes — Attachment 4). At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 in favor of recommending establishing regulations for short-term vacation rental uses in order to give the City the ability to review and regulate these uses. Several comments/ concerns that the Planning Commission raised include the following: • Ensure that the host provides local health/ safety information for renters; • Concern that the permitting process is overly restrictive; • Ensure that the process and regulations are well-publicized to the public; • Include 6-month and 12-month reviews for the proposed regulations and permitting process, to allow a period to analyze the level of compliance with a short-term vacation rental permit process, better understand issues related with this type of land use, and develop metrics for permit review and processing time. Staff Report Subject: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL STUDY SESSION Date: October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Public Input At the September 3rd Planning Commission hearing, one member of the public spoke against these proposed regulations. The concern that was raised was the permitting process is unnecessary, and that there are people who operate short-term vacation rental uses as a means of addressing high housing costs. At the September 23rd City Council hearing, one member of the public also spoke against these proposed regulations, raising a concern about the proposed cost of the short-term vacation rental permit, which staff proposed as $150 to obtain a short-term vacation rental permit, and $50 for an annual renewal fee. Staff has received several letters from members of the public commenting on proposed regulations for short-term vacation rentals, which are attached to this staff report. Comments received include both support for and opposition to the proposed short-term vacation rental regulations, as well as an inquiry as to whether there would be an inspection process for this type of use, and the cost of implementing a permitting process. Residents in support of these regulations have also expressed concern that short-term vacation rentals should not be located in multi-family residential buildings, where neighbors may experience greater impacts due to shared common spaces (parking, lobbies, hallways) and shared walls. Residents opposed to these regulations have expressed that the permitting process and fees place an unfair burden on senior citizens wishing to supplement their retirement income by operating a short-term vacation rental use. DISCUSSION There are several primary topic areas regarding the definition and regulation of short-term vacation rental uses outlined in the discussion below: • Establishing a definition for short-term vacation rentals; • Options for regulation of short-term vacation rentals; • Creating performance standards to ensure that, if these uses are permitted, they are compatible with the neighborhoods in which they will be located and that the City has a mechanism to collect any applicable taxes and fees; and, • Enforcement of regulations. Definition Short-term vacation rental uses are currently not addressed by the Zoning Code. Staff has reviewed the existing land use classifications and has determined that the most similar type of use to a short-term vacation rental is a "Bed and Breakfast" use, which is a sub-classification of the "Lodging" commercial use classification, defined as a residential structure that is in residential use with one or more bedrooms rented for overnight lodging and where meals may be provided (South San Francisco Municipal Code(SSFMC) Section 20.620.004). While similar, a "Bed and Breakfast" is differentiated from a short-term vacation rental because it is a residential structure of which a portion (i.e. a bedroom that is available for rent) is a Staff Report Subject: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL STUDY SESSION Date: October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 7 dedicated commercial use. In contrast, a short-term vacation rental use typically reverts to a traditional residential use when the dwelling unit, or a portion of it, is not occupied by transient renters. Staff has examined the City's current zoning regulations for substantially similar uses, and other jurisdictions' regulations pertaining to short-term vacation rentals in order to recommend appropriate zoning revisions to regulate this emerging type of use. Creating a new definition for a "Short-term Vacation Rental" as a lodging use would be necessary in order to regulate, review, or establish performance standards for this type of use. Without a definition, the City is unable to address or regulate this type of use. Re-ulatory Options Staff has reviewed the regulations enacted by other jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area and the state, and has determined that there are several different options for regulating short-term vacation rentals, discussed below. A table comparing regulations and approaches across jurisdictions is attached to this staff report. 1. Allow the use by right. One approach would be to consider these uses permitted by right and subject to performance standards (discussed in the section below), but not require a permit. This is the simplest approach for the hosts, because it requires the least amount of action on their part. A downside of this approach is that it is difficult to enforce performance standards because it is difficult to assess if hosts are meeting the required standards without a permitting process to formally review proposed uses. The Cities of San Jose and San Diego currently utilize this approach. 2. Establish a permit process. Another option is to require City approval to ensure compliance, such as through a permit process. When permits are issued for a use at a property, staff review is required to ensure adherence to performance standards. A permit process provides the City with tools to enforce the use, including a record of which short- term vacation rentals are in use, their location, and contact information for a local manager for the short-term rental use. If the City wishes to establish a permit process, staff would create a new application form specific to this permit type and would update the planning permit fee schedule. Staff recommends a permit fee that is reasonable to ensure maximum participation from short- term rental hosts (suggested fee of $150). If a permit process is established, staff recommends that a permit be effective for one year from the date of issuance, and an annual renewal should be required(suggested renewal fee of$50). Many of the cities that staff reviewed have permitting processes in place, including Petaluma, St. Helena, San Luis Obispo, Auburn, Pacific Grove, Sunnyvale, and the County of Monterey. 3. Specifically prohibit. This option would include amending the Zoning Code to explicitly prohibit short-term vacation rentals. This would be the most effective approach, if the City's intent is to definitively not permit short-term vacation rental uses. Several cities Staff Report Subject: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL STUDY SESSION Date: October 7, 2015 Page 5 of 7 that staff reviewed prohibit short-term vacation rental uses, including the Cities of Brisbane, Monterey, Berkeley, and Palo Alto. Berkeley and Palo Alto are currently studying approaches to permit these uses. If the City Council chooses to permit short-term vacation rentals, either by right or through a permit process, it will be important to provide publicity and education about this type of use. Many municipalities have developed user-friendly guides to publicize and clarify the requirements for operating a short-term vacation rental. Staff recommends developing a similar guide. Staff recommends publicizing short-term vacation rental requirements via the City's website and social media, and also working with hosting websites (such as Airbnb) to publicize the program and requirements. Staff will also attempt to work with hosting websites to collect the applicable taxes of any permitted short-term vacation rental in the City. Performance Standards If the Zoning Code is amended to include short-term vacation rentals as a permitted use, including performance standards would be an effective mechanism to address potential issues that could arise from short-term vacation rentals and ensure that hosts and renters understand the regulations attached to this type of use. These standards would only be needed if the use is permitted, and would not be necessary if the use is specifically prohibited. If short-term vacation rentals are included in the Zoning Ordinance as a permitted use, the following is a list of the types of performance standards that staff recommends: A. Type of Residence. Short-term vacation rentals shall be located and operated in a single- unit dwelling, in order to avoid impacts that could occur in multi-family residential dwelling units. B. Number of Uses. Short-term vacation rental uses shall be permitted in no more than one single-unit dwelling per lot. C. Residency Requirements. Only permanent residents (owner or tenant) of the dwelling unit shall be eligible to operate a short-term vacation rental use. D. Occupancy Limits. The number of renters shall be limited to 2 persons per vacant bedroom,plus 1 additional person. E. Limit on Duration. The aggregate number of days for transient occupancy of a non- hosted short-term vacation rental shall be capped at 90 per year. There is no recommended annual cap for hosted short-term vacation rentals. F. Local Contact Information. In researching short-term vacation rentals, staff has determined that one of the most common complaints is that there is not a local manager to address questions or concerns regarding the operation. If a permit process is required, the permit holder shall be required to keep on file with the City the name, telephone number, and email address of a local contact person who shall be responsible for responding to questions or concerns regarding the operation of a short-term vacation Staff Report Subject: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL STUDY SESSION Date: October 7, 2015 Page 6 of 7 rental. This information shall be posted in a conspicuous location within the rental dwelling. The local contact person should be available 24 hours a day to accept telephone calls and respond physically to the short-term vacation rental within one hour when the unit is occupied. G. Noise. The short-term vacation rental use must comply with the adopted noise standards for the district in accordance with section 8.32.030 of the SSFMC. H. Conduct. The short-term vacation rental host must ensure that transient occupants of the short-term vacation rental do not engage in disorderly conduct, or violate code provisions or state law. L Safety. All short-term vacation rentals must comply with all applicable building laws, including, but not limited to, providing functional smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, heating, and otherwise satisfy all applicable requirements of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). This does not imply that an inspection would be required for a short-term vacation rental use, but that the host would be responsible for compliance, and that violations would be dealt with on a complaint basis. J. Health and Safety Information. Hosts shall provide local health and safety information to renters, including locations of local hospitals and clinics, as well as non-emergency police contact information. K. Commercial Activities. Any commercial use beyond a permitted short-term vacation rental is prohibited. No Special Event as defined by section 6.48.010 of the SSFMC can be conducted as part of a short-term vacation rental. L. Advertising. If the City establishes a permit process for short-term vacation rental uses, all advertising (print or digital) for a short-term vacation rental shall include the number of the permit granted for the use. M. Business License. The short-term vacation rental host shall obtain a City business license in accordance with Chapter 6.12 of the SSFMC. N. Applicable Taxes. The short-term vacation rental host shall collect and remit all applicable City taxes, including but not limited to Transient Occupancy taxes and Conference Center taxes in accordance with Chapter 4.20 of the SSFMC, as required. O. Consistency with Other Agreements. A short-term vacation rental use must be permitted by applicable Homeowners Association (HOA) bylaws; Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs); and rental agreements. Staff Report Subject: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL STUDY SESSION Date: October 7, 2015 Page 7 of 7 EnLorcement Short-term vacation rentals may present enforcement challenges. Enforcement could be addressed through an inspection process, or could occur on a complaint basis. If the City Council chooses to regulate short-term vacation rental uses, staff of work to publicize the requirements and / or permitting process for this type of use. Staff of also attempt to work with online platforms to publicize the City's requirements, in order to gain compliance. NEXT STEPS/RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the City Council review the options presented regarding short-term vacation rentals and provide staff with any comments and/or direction. : roved: Alex Greenwood /ike F 11 .�e Director of Economic and Community City Manager Development Attachments: 1. Airbnb.co m Rental Listings Graphic P. 1 2. Short-Term Vacation Rental Regulations: City Comparison Table p. 3 3. Communication Received P. 9 4. Planning Commission Meeting its p. 13 2530437.1 Attachment 1 Airbnb.com Rental Listings Graphic 1 Figure l: Airbnb.com Listings V 7 44' r �a k . Flu ��/ I@ IIh t z7v ,� iC � f�OWN w ��ti991��1 fir!" 1� r uy/„/"l% gV, fry his i,VilYr{r� JB ; , i Note: This map indicates approximate locations of Airbnb.com listings in South San Francisco. Recent Internet searches indicate approximately 35-45 listings within the City. Internet searches within a similar time period provide slightly different results; the estimate of listings is approximate, intended to provide an idea of the scale of listings in the City. 2 Attachment 2 Short-Term Vacation Rental Regulations: City Comparison Table 3 H CZ Ct O0 ' v mu � cz v C�t' . N O N CA cC �.4 � a a \ a � O � � P P� P4 C 8 rA cz O U V ,ter V cz O U s c OD C 9 0 y O O cn N N N 7 O cC a � kr) 0 o 4 H � 0 cz U O U : cC P. O L O N cc w O cz U bA y O bA O bA U R O O Ln c0 '�-' c�� '�-' c� �, n ,�. .o rl CZ Ln p a U N bA �. cUi pp cUi ' 7 U U cC s. 0 0 \ u a �" N 'C U cd"� � N O a a A U o i o v d c � rOD �°' � ' o R.w s E� sNS x � c a 5 U � N '� �•y i cz U r—I U U bA y 0 U U �' O bA U cz rA U N N � bA U CC S.i U c �. U N '� O Ln 4-i Ncz N ct w ro `cz C -ouww OM 9 a O U 6 = 3 \ \ \ 2t / � J2 73 / \ § / \ 52 » 2 k / \ \ / \2 \ w t Q $ O / / \ ouf k � ( a § Q \ / aw © / 5 2 ® c = o a 2 ` ® ) A 'G ., , e w ) t_ ° \ % E % E ° # \ ° 3 ® a / \ \ ) u 2 \ t t# \ /= t ) o t o % /7 ( \ \ 2 \P = _ \ m s � � 2 7 � \ § \ ■ � k Q \ \ # % \ � } § \ $ a g k /j O �\ § � a k / \f k k � ( a § Q t § /�\ U aw ° og ? ok5t \ 3 / o22 = � _ _ _ # t . a a \ § r ® § moo ° / E7 \ E \ @ \ \ \ � £ \ �k Q2 a Attachment 3 Communication Received 9 From: MRomero_@aol.com [mailto:MRomero_@aol,com] Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 12:11 PM To: Futrell, Mike Subject: Short-Term Vacation Rental Dear Mr. Futrell: These comments are with regard to item four on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting. I am going out of town and will be unable to attend the meeting. It will be appreciated if you would pass these along and use them for any future meeting regarding this item, when it is brought before the SSF City Council. The Zoning Text Amendments regarding Short-Term Vacation Rentals (30 days or less)will be extremely unfair to Senior Citizens who own their home, have raised their family and have extra rooms that they would like to rent on a short term basis. Some seniors rent rooms to supplement their retirement but do not wish to rent the rooms for long term use. The additional requirements and costs that the City of South San Francisco will require, as a result of these amendments, will put an unfair burden on Senior Citizens. It is fully understood if you require absentee owners and/or commercial property owners to comply with the permitting process and to pay the additional fees that will be required. However, any resident of South San Francisco who is not an absentee owner who would like to rent a room for short term use, should be designated as being exempt from these requirements. If you pass these amendments as written, it will be extremely unfair to retired senior citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Martin Romero 141 Dundee Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 10 TO CITY COUNCIL I would like to express my concern about Short-Term rentals. I live in a condo complex,which one homeowner,who by the way lives in the Philippines. She rents her condo out through AirB & B and we have had so many problems. From someone's car being broken into, loud parties, parking in spots reserved for guests, and the list goes on. We as homeowners, do not wish our home to become a hotel. If this homeowner rents her condo out through AirB & B, what if others do the same. Our home will not be a hotel. I would encourage the SSF City Council to not allow short-term rentals in condo complexes. I would appreciate your help, and your vote to not allow this in condo complexes in South San Francisco. Susie McFarland SSF Resident 11 From: Mark Johnson [mailto:reverend.markj @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:02 AM To: All Council Subject: Short-Term Vacation Rental: P07-0136: ZA15-0006 Mayor Garbarino and Council members: Mrs. Johnson and I have lived in our own home in SSF since 1980. My four sons all went to school at All Souls and SSF/El Camino. I will be unable to attend the hearing tonight considering the Planning Commission's recommendations on the above issue. I do wish to have my comment below entered into the consideration: I understand the city: may wish to create local ordinances and regulations that control the operation of such short-term rentals, also that fees, taxes, and other fiscal impositions may be made upon operators and/or tenants in the course of such control. I wish the City of South San Francisco to declare its intent as to whether or not the exercise of such controls (including the collection of monies) creates an explicit or implied warranty of habitability, to include compliance of such rental units with applicable Fire codes, Health codes, Building codes, &c., legality of various landlord actions, fiduciary behaviors (to include deposit returns and refunds),parking, and other concerns eventuating from such city activity. Such warranty may involve regular inspection of premises, a notification program involving police/fire/emergency services as well as revenue collection, and other activity I also want to point out that, should the city adopt such a course, there will be expenses required to exercise such controls. Is the city prepared to (a) fund the start-up costs of such a program, (b) ensure that the on-going costs of the program are exceeded by its revenues to the city. In addition, (c)it is not in the interest of the remaining residents of the city to fund the activity of such a program. Thank you for your attention on this matter. If you have questions,please contact me at the number below. Mark A. Johnson 585 Rocca Avenue (650) 267 0387 12 Attachment 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 13 The video recording of this Regular Planning Commission meeting can be found at,Lttp.-Ilwww.ssf.net/I996/P/anning-Commission EXCERPT - MINUTES September 3, 2015 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 4. Short-Term Vacation Rental City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant Citywide P07-0136: ZA15-0006 Zoning Text Amendments SSFMC Chapter 20.350 to introduce regulations related to Short-Term Vacation Rental uses, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.550 ("Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Map"). Public Hearing Opened: 9:56 P.M. Speakers: Luis Zoalla, Kabeer Naan Public Hearing Closed: 10:05 P.M. Commission Discussion begins 03:24:06 in video recording. Motion —Commissioner Lujan/Second —Commissioner Nagales to adopt a resolution recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Code establishing regulations related to Short-Term Vacation Rental uses with the 6-month and 12-month review. Approved by roll call vote (4-1-2) September 3,2015 Minutes 14 Page 1 of 1 Staff Report DATE: October 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MAKING FINDINGS AND ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF USE PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, BUSINESS LICENSES, OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE ENTITLEMENTS FOR ANY WAREHOUSE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING, FREIGHT FORWARDING, AND CUSTOMS BROKERING USES IN THE TRANSIT OFFICE / R&D CORE (TO/RD) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN(DSASP) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council waive reading, make findings, and by a four-fifths vote, adopt an interim ordinance that establishes a moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits, business licenses, or any other applicable entitlements for any warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses in the Transit Office / R&D Core (TO/RD) Zoning District of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). BACKGROUND Staff is recommending that a moratorium be established for any warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses in the TO / RD Zoning District of the DSASP (also referred to as the Eastern Neighborhood). This district is bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north, Gateway Boulevard to the east, South Airport Boulevard to the south, and by U.S. 101 to the west. While these uses were once permitted in this location, the vision for this area is changing, and these uses are not permitted per the recently adopted DSASP. The purpose of this moratorium is to "pause" any new uses that are not consistent with the intent of the recently adopted DSASP, and to consider the future redevelopment of this area of the City. If adopted, the moratorium will provide staff with the necessary time to comprehensively evaluate the City's land use regulations for the TO/RD District, consider the future redevelopment potential for this area, and report back with any recommended changes for Council's consideration. If a potentially incompatible land use received land use entitlements, including building permits, before the City has an opportunity to study and possibly revise its zoning ordinance, it could create conflicts among land uses, or conflicts with the City's long- term planning goals. Establishment of a warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, or customs brokering uses in the TO/RD Zoning District at this time, before the City Staff Report Subject: INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON WAREHOUSE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING, FREIGHT FORWARDING, AND CUSTOMS BROKERING USES IN THE TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE (TO/RD) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Date: October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 4 can consider revisions to its regulations, presents a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, staff recommends the adoption of the interim ordinance in order to avoid this current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, which could occur if entitlements were provided prior to the City's review of the full scope of potential impacts. DISCUSSION East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted in 1994 as part of the City's General Plan. At that time, the Eastern Neighborhood was designated as a mix of"Gateway Specific Plan Area", "Planned Industrial", and "Planned Commercial" land use categories. A wide range of commercial, industrial, and employment land uses were consistent with these categories. In particular, Policy LU-5a of the East of 101 Area Plan states that"uses allowed in the `Planned Industrial' category shall typically include non-nuisance light manufacturing, incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, printing, offices, administrative activities, research and development facilities, "big-box" retail and warehouse sales, freight forwarding, warehousing, distributing centers and facilities, customs brokerages, offices, service businesses that serve the uses described above, marinas, and shoreline-oriented recreation." Resolution 84-97 In 1997, City Council adopted Resolution 84-97 amending the East of 101 Area Plan Policy 5A to delete freight forwarding as a use consistent with the "Planned Industrial" land use designation as the City envisioned the development of biotech and research and development uses in the East of 101 area. Resolution 84-97 is attached to this staff report for reference. This resolution states that freight forwarding activities can have traffic, parking, and aesthetic conflicts with other uses in the Planned Industrial land use category, and these conflicts threaten the City's ability to attract corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and office uses. In order to protect the existing uses in the area, and ensure that they did not become non-conforming uses due to the removal of freight forwarding as a permitted use, the resolution included a provision to allow property which was used in whole or in part for freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehousing or distribution as of July 10, 1997 to continue as legal, conforming uses. The resolution also included a provision to allow businesses to expand; wholesale, warehouse and distribution uses could be converted to freight forwarding and customs brokering uses with a Conditional Use Permit until July 10, 2000. Except as provided by this resolution, new development or redevelopment proposed for or undertaken in the Planned Industrial land use category shall not include warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses. 1999 General Plan Update When the General Plan was updated in 1999, the "Planned Industrial" land use designation transitioned to "Business Commercial." Policy 3.5-I-11 of the General Plan states: Staff Report Subject: INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON WAREHOUSE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING, FREIGHT FORWARDING, AND CUSTOMS BROKERING USES IN THE TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE (TO/RD) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Date: October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 4 "Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand Avenue, or in areas designated Business Commercial." The purpose of this policy was to make the interim understanding reached by 84-97 a permanent policy measure, preventing the expansion of warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan More recently, the DSASP was adopted in February, 2015. The TO/RD Zoning District of the DSASP is envisioned as a high-intensity urban employment district that would be characterized by a walkable street pattern. This area will be well connected to the Downtown with the extension of the Caltrain station and the construction of the pedestrian / bicycle underpass. Uses permitted in this district include a range of commercial uses, offices, and employment uses including clean technologies, handicraft/custom manufacturing, and research and development uses. Warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses are not permitted uses within this district. Residential uses are not currently permitted in this area, but the City may consider the feasibility of residential uses in areas east of 101 in the near future. The proposed interim ordinance would temporarily prohibit the approval and issuance of use permits, building permits, business licenses, or any other entitlement for any warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses within the TO/RD district, while the City evaluates future land use patterns. ADOPTION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE Pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the City has the authority to immediately adopt a 45-day moratorium when the City finds there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that approval of entitlements in the interim would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Moratoriums may be extended for up to a total of two years, provided that a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare still exists, and the City follows the public notice and hearing procedures required for extensions of moratoriums. The proposed ordinance, making findings and adopting the moratorium, may only be adopted by a four-fifths vote of the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Adoption of this interim ordinance would not be considered a "project" within the meaning of section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it does not have the potential to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Rather, the ordinance would only temporarily prevent certain physical changes in the environment pending the City's consideration of possible changes to the zoning ordinance. Furthermore, this interim ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines section 15308 because it is a to Report Subject: INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON WAREHOUSE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING,FREIGHT FORWARDING, AND CUSTOMS BROKERING USES IN THE TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE (TO/RD) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Date: October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 4 regulatory action taken by the City, in accordance with Government Code section 65858, to assure maintenance and protection of the environment pending completion additional analysis related to permitted land uses in the TO/RD district. CONCLUSION To ensure that the City's land use regulations best reflect the needs of the community, and to give the City an opportunity to examine and address the future development and redevelopment of the TO / RD district, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached interim ordinance, making findings and establishes a moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits, or any other applicable entitlements for any warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses within the TO/RD district. By: LA�_� _a.......I............. Approved: Alex Greenwood 7MAike Futrell VM a Director of Economic and City Mantag Community Development Attachments: 1. Resolution ® 7 P. 1 2. Interim Ordinance p. 5 Attachment 1 Resolution 84-97 1 RESOLUTION NO. 84-97 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-97- 030 AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-97-030 AMENDING THE EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY 5a TO DELETE FREIGHT FORWARDING AS A USE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL.L.ANT) USF CATEGORY WHEREAS, the East of 101 Area Plan designates several land use categories which are intended to group similar, compatible uses; and WHEREAS, the Planned Industrial land use category is, according to the Eat of 101 Area Plan, intended to accommodate campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and offices; and WHEREAS, the Planned Industrial land use category is the only such area set aside in the City for campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and offices; and WHEREAS, warehouse, distribution, freight forwarding, customs brokerage and other related activities involving the transportation, transfer, or storage of raw materials, component parts, finished products or other commodities to or from overseas or domestic destinations(collectively known as"Freight Forwarding'), are currently permitted uses in the Planned Industrial land use category; and WHEREAS, freight forwarding activities have generated traffic, parking and aesthetic conflicts with other uses in the Planned Industrial land use category; and WHEREAS, those conflicts threaten the ability of the City to attract corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and office uses; and WHEREAS, an environmental initial study (°Initial Study") which considered the potential impacts of the proposed amendments has been processed and reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified no potentially significant environmental impacts as a result of the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and the East of 101 Area Plan EIR, Negative Declaration ND-97-030 has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(1) and made available for twenty (20) days pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091 et seq.; and 7-- 1 2 WHEREAS, on May 1, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco(the "Planning Commission")held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan amendments, and following such hearing the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration ND-97-030, and approve General Plan Amendment GP- 97-030; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Negative Declaration ND-97-030 is hereby adopted; and 2. General Plan Amendment GP-97-030 amending the East of 101 Area Plan as described in Exhibit A attached, is hereby approved. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a rp gt 1 a r meeting held on the 9th day of 'lip, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers James L. Datzman, Euqene R. Mullin, John R. Penna and Robert Yee NOES: Nnnp ABSTAIN: Mayor Joseph A. Fernekes ABSENT: None ATTEST: City Clerk AMMATNEMEC 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. 84-97 EXHIBIT A REVISED COMPROMISE AMENDMENT (Based on compromise reached with business and property owner representatives) ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO BE ADDED TO EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN (preceding the first paragraph under K2. Planned Industrial" at page 57 : The PlannedIndunvial land use c ategay in the East of 101 Area Plan includes a portion of the City which was historically developed and used for warehousing and distribution. In particular, the Cabo4 Cabot and Forbes Business Park is considered one of the most successful such developments in the Bay Area These historic uses will continue to be an important segment of the business community in the City. At the same time, the City has identified the need to plan for and accommodate the growth and expansion of other industrial, office and research and development uses. The area of the City designated in Planned Industrial land use category has the greatest potential to accommodate that future growth and expansion. In order to accommodate the future growth and expansion of industrial parks, light manufacturing, once,and research and development uses, while at the same time preserving the opportunities for existing warehouse and freight forwarding businesses to continue, new development or redevelopment in the Planned Industrial land use category will be limited to industrial parks, light marnufacturing, office uses, retail, hotels, research and development. Warehouse and distribution uses that are ancillary to or apart of a manufacturing business in the City or that include retail sales of their primary products from the wholesale and distribution facility as a part of their operations are also permitted for new development or redevelopment in the Planned Industrial land use eategoty. All property, which is used in whole or in part, for freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehousing or distribution as of July 10, 1997, may continue to be used for the use in effect as of July 10, 1997 as legal, conforming uses Any legal, conforming use may be improved expanded moalified or reconstructed in accordance with the South San Francisco Municipal Coale. In order to permit existing businesses time to plan for future expansion and change, wholesale, warehouse and distribution uses may also be converted to freight forwarding and customs brokering uses with granting of a conditional use permit until July 10, 2000. After that date, freight forwarding and customs brokering uses may continue as legal, conforming uses and they may convert to any other legal, conforming use, including wholesale, warehouse and distribution, permitted in the Planned Industrial category. Except as provided above, new development or redevelopment,proposed for or undertaken in the Planned Industrial land use category after July 10, 1997, shall not include warehouse, distribution, wholesaling,freight forwarding and customs brokering uses 4 Attachment 2 Interim Ordinance 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MAKING FINDINGS AND ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF USE PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, BUSINESS LICENSES, OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE ENTITLEMENTS FOR ANY WAREHOUSE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING, FREIGHT FORWARDING, AND CUSTOMS BROKERING USES IN THE TRANSIT OFFICE / R&D CORE (TO/RD) ZONING SUB- DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (DSASP). WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ("City") adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan in February 2015; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ("DSASP") guides future development in the portions of the City that lie within a one-half mile radius of the Caltrain station and provides the blueprint for future change and improvements in the Downtown and adjoining areas; and WHEREAS, the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district of the DSASP is envisioned as a high-intensity urban employment district, characterized by a walkable street pattern; and WHEREAS, in 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 84-97 approving General Plan Amendment GP-97-030 ("GP-97-030"), amending the East of 101 Area Plan to delete "freight forwarding" as a use consistent with the "Planned Industrial" land use designation, and WHEREAS, GP-97-030 included a provision to allow property which was used in whole or in part for freight forwarding, customs brokering, wholesale, warehousing or distribution uses as of July 10, 1997 to continue as legal, conforming uses; and WHEREAS, GP-97-030 included a provision to allow wholesale, warehouse, and distribution uses to be converted to freight forwarding and customs brokering uses with a Conditional Use Permit until July 10, 2000; and WHEREAS, except as provided by GP-97-030, new development in the"Planned Industrial" land use category shall not include warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan was updated in 1999, and the "Planned Industrial" land use designation transitioned to "Business Commercial," and the 1999 General Plan includes Policy 3.5-I-11 which prohibits the expansion of warehouse, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding and customs brokering uses in the Business Commercial land use designation; and 6 WHEREAS warehousing and distribution uses are included in the Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution land use classification in Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, wholesaling uses are included in Wholesaling and Distribution land use sub- classification in Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and freight forwarding and customs brokering uses are included in the Freight/Truck Terminal and Warehouse land use sub-classification in Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and WHEREAS warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses are prohibited in the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district in Section 20.280.003 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that issuing use permits, building permits, business licenses, or other entitlements for warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses in the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district would pose a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, since such uses could potentially conflict with the City's long-term planning goals and the future redevelopment of this sub-district; and WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XI, section 7,provides cities with the authority to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of their citizens, and zoning regulations are a permissible exercise of this authority; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to study the future land use patterns of the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district, and the need to potentially revise the City's Zoning Ordinance to reflect the future vision for this Sub-district; and WHEREAS, to protect the City's investment in its planning efforts, ensure that the City's long-term planning goals and strategies can be achieved in an effective and timely manner, and to avoid a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the City proposes adopting a moratorium on the issuance of use permits, building permits, business licenses, or other entitlements for warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses in the Transit Office/R&D Core Zoning Sub-district; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 65858 allows the City to adopt an interim ordinance that imposes a moratorium on such entitlements in order to protect and preserve the public peace, health, or welfare; and, WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources, Code, §§ 21000 et seq. ("CEQA")) based on the following: (1) This ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, because adoption of a temporary moratorium has no potential for resulting in either a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. 7 (2) This ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines as a regulatory action taken by the City pursuant to its police power and in accordance with Government Code section 65858 to assure maintenance and protection of the environment pending the evaluation and adoption of contemplated local legislation, regulation and policies. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows, adopted as an interim ordinance, under the provisions of California Government Code section 65858: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council finds that all Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Warehousing" and "distribution" uses shall include those uses that are described within the Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution land use classification in Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (b) "Wholesaling" uses shall include those uses that are described within the Wholesaling and Distribution land use sub-classification in Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (c) "Freight forwarding" and "customs brokering" uses shall include those uses that are described within the Freight/Truck Terminal and Warehouse land use sub-classification in Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (d) The Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district shall be defined as the area bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north, Gateway Boulevard to the east, South Airport Boulevard to the south, and U.S. 101 to the west. 3. Moratorium Imposed. In accordance with the authority granted the City of South San Francisco under Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution and California Government Code section 65858, from and after the date of this Ordinance, no use permit, building permit, business license, or other applicable entitlement shall be approved or issued for any warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses, in the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district, as those terms are defined in section 2, Definitions, above. 4. Exception. This Ordinance is not intended to, and shall not prevent an existing warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, or customs brokering use in the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district that has a current business license from obtaining building permits necessary to effectuate a minor modification to an existing use. As used in this Ordinance, "minor modification" shall include activities such as repairs and shall not include any expansion, change in nature of use, or establishment of a new warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering use in the Transit Office/R&D Core District. 8 5. Authority; Urgency Statement. This Ordinance is an interim ordinance, adopted as an urgency measure pursuant to Government Code section 65858 and is for the immediate and long-term preservation of the public safety, health, and welfare. The following facts support this urgency measure: The City has policies and adopted regulations that prohibit warehousing, distribution,wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses in the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district. The City desires to closely study the land use pattern and future vision for the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district, to ensure that future development in this area implements the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Development or expansion of warehousing, storage, distribution, freight forwarding, or customs brokering uses within this district may prevent the eventual redevelopment of this area in a manner that implements the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Development or expansion of these uses in the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district may be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because development or expansion of warehousing, storage, distribution, freight forwarding or customs brokering uses within this district could create impacts and compatibility issues with the desired future development in this district, preventing the implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, and that the approval or issuance of use permits, building permits, business licenses or other applicable entitlements for warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses in the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district would increase that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In order to maintain comprehensive and sound land use planning, the City seeks to study applicable Zoning Ordinance amendments, use permit requirements, and other land use entitlement requirements for uses in the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district. Allowing land use entitlements for warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding, and customs brokering uses before the City has an opportunity to review and potentially update its regulations could lead to conflicts amongst various land uses and conflicts with the City's long-term planning goals, as well as a further threat to public safety, health, and welfare. 5. Issuance of Land Use Entitlements in Violation of this Moratorium Declared Public Nuisance. The issuance of use permits, building permits, business licenses, or other applicable entitlements for warehousing, distribution, wholesaling, freight forwarding and customs brokering uses in the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district, as defined in this Ordinance, during the duration of this moratorium or any extension thereof, is declared to be a public nuisance. Violations of this Ordinance may be enforced by any applicable laws or ordinances, including but not limited to injunctions or administrative or criminal penalties, under the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 6. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). This Ordinance is not a"project" within the meaning of section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. It temporarily prevents certain physical changes in the environment pending study and potential adoption of zoning amendments or policies regulating land uses in the Transit Office/R&D Core Sub-district. Furthermore, this urgency ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines section 15308 because it is a regulatory action taken by the City, in accordance with Government Code section 65858, to assure maintenance and protection of the environment pending consideration of amendments to City's Zoning Ordinance. 9 7. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby, and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end,provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision,paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions,paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption, if adopted by at least four-fifths vote of the City Council, and shall be in effect for forty-five (45) days from and after the date of adoption, unless extended by the City Council as provided for in Government Code section 65858. Introduced and adopted as an Interim Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the 7th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Interim Ordinance this 7th day of October, 2015. Mayor 2531665.1 10 S�v�*G. Q A° Staff Report LIFOR� DATE: October 7, 2015 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PAWNBROKER TO RELOCATE TO 230 MILLER AVENUE IN THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE (DTC) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC CHAPTERS 6.92, 20.280, 20.350, 20.490, 20.620, & 20.550 AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA Case Nos.: P15-0058: ZA15-0007; UP15-0012 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Introduce an Ordinance (ZA15-0007) amending the Municipal Code to conditionally allow Pawnbroker uses in the Downtown Transit Core Zoning Sub- District, make Pawnbrokers a separate use classification, update land use regulations tables Citywide, and create Pawnbroker performance standards; and 2. Adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit(UP15-0012) request by South City Pawn to relocate to 230 Miller Avenue. BACKGROUND Existing Regulations In September, 2014, the Planning Commission and City Council considered and approved, respectively, new regulations to exclude non-banking and credit union businesses within the downtown area. The City was encouraged by neighboring jurisdiction efforts, as well as the Youth Leadership Institute (YLI), to limit predatory lending in the City. The adopted ordinance prohibited new check cashers, payday lenders, vehicle title lenders, microfinance institutions, and pawnbrokers from locating within the downtown zoning districts that are now covered under the adopted Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Zoning District. Additionally, performance standards were revised and renamed for these "Other Financial Services" in SSFMC 20.350.011 to require location on a major arterial street and limit hours of operation. At the time of adoption of the new legislation, there were four businesses in the City that operated as payday lenders or similar operations: SSF Check Cashing, J&J Check Cashing, STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Pawnbroker Uses in DSASP Zoning District DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Dolex Dollar Express and Fast Money. Three of these businesses (SSF Check Cashing, J&J Check Cashing, and Dolex Dollar Express) were located in the downtown area. Since that legislation was adopted, one check cashing business located on Linden Avenue (Dolex Dollar Express)has closed. Additionally, at the time of adoption, there were other alternative loan businesses in operation downtown, including Apoyo Financiero at 481 Grand Avenue and South City Pawn at 337 Grand Avenue. South City Pawn operates as a Pawnbroker Use, which during the 2010 zoning update, was not included in any land use regulation tables Citywide. The zoning update in 2014 attempted to capture the Pawnbroker use as a non-banking or credit union use and regulate it like a payday lender. Applicant Request David Newman, owner and operator of South City Pawn, has been continuously located within the downtown area on Grand Avenue for 46 years, since 1969. Originally, South City Pawn was located at 104 Grand Avenue; the business relocated to the 337 Grand Avenue building with approval of a Conditional Use Permit(UP04-0006)in 2004. The lease at 337 Grand Avenue will be terminated at the end of October 2015 to accommodate a planned new restaurant use. Consequently, Mr. Newman has requested that the Planning Commission and City Council consider a revision to the DSASP Zoning District to allow his business to remain in the downtown area. Zoning Amendment Considerations Mr. Newman has located a vacant building at 230 Miller Avenue that can accommodate his pawnshop operation; however, the building's zoning is Downtown Transit Core (DTC), which does not allow a Pawnbroker use. Staff has advised the applicant that if the use could not locate to one of the areas of the City that conditionally permit Pawnbrokers (Community Commercial, Business and Professional Office, Commercial Mixed Use, El Camino Mixed Use, Business Commercial, Business Technology Park, or Mixed Industrial), the applicant could apply for a Zoning Amendment to change the recently adopted regulations prohibiting Pawnbrokers in the downtown area. Mr. Newman has stated that the right-sized space in the currently approved zoning districts could not be located and that his business relies on the pedestrian traffic and activity in the downtown. Consequently, staff has reviewed the City's existing zoning regulations for the downtown area, and analyzed the differences between payday lenders and pawnbrokers to determine if it was appropriate to regulate them separately. The proposed Zoning Amendment has been drafted to differentiate between alternative loan businesses, such as payday lenders, and pawnbroker uses that are more closely regulated and provide a wide range of goods and services to the community. DISCUSSION Staff has reviewed the City's Zoning Ordinance and identified a number of sections that would need to be revised to reflect the different functions and services of a pawnbroker versus a payday lender. Land use regulations tables in several chapters, use classifications, and performance standards would need to be changed to distinguish the operation of a Pawnbroker use from a STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Pawnbroker Uses in DSASP Zoning District DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Payday lender or Vehicle Title lender. The draft Ordinance Amendment would conditionally allow Pawnbrokers in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) zoning district and create new performance standards in Chapter 20.350 for Pawnbrokers, instead of relying on the existing standards for Other Financial Services. Other Financial Services such a payday lenders, vehicle title lenders, and microfinance institutions would remain prohibited within the downtown area. These changes would cumulatively permit South City Pawn to relocate with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed revisions are included in the Draft Ordinance, which is attached for the City Council's review. Zoning Amendment Analysis The Zoning Amendment recommendation was informed by the Applicant's request but required that staff evaluate whether pawnbrokers should be a conditionally permitted use within the downtown retail and mixed-use core. Currently, the zoning bans all non-banking and credit union business from the DSASP zoning district. At the time of adoption in September 2014, the new regulations were intended to prohibit any new lending businesses, and encourage existing payday lenders and similar operations to relocate as new development spurred economic opportunity. With that said, pawnbrokers are a much more regulated industry than payday lenders and other similar operations and do offer some retail benefits. Pawnbroker uses are distinct from payday lending uses because they typically have a majority retail component. Pawns are loans made with collateral whereas payday loans are based on a future paycheck. If a pawn loan is not settled (typically, the repayment period is three months at approximately 36% APR), the collateral can be sold in the store in lieu of repayment. Accordingly, it is important that a pawnbroker has a retail outlet with adequate storage. A pawnbroker can activate the street and provide secondhand goods retail for residents or visitors, whereas payday lenders often operate out of a small storefront with minimal pedestrian benefit. By removing the Pawnbroker use from the Other Financial Services classification and creating a new set of performance standards for pawnbrokers, the City can sufficiently regulate where and how pawnbrokers locate and operate within the downtown area. Staff is recommending that any new Pawnbroker use meet the following standards: 1. Location. Pawnbrokers shall be located at least 1,000 feet from any other Pawnbroker business. 2. Queuing Area. Adequate queuing area shall be provided within the building. Queuing on the sidewalk is prohibited. 3. Security. A security plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner and the City of South San Francisco Police Department. The plan shall provide for adequate security, including a central station alarm system to the Police Department. Bars on the exterior of the windows, exterior phones and roll up doors are prohibited. 4. Hours of Operation. The business shall not open prior to 7:00 a.m. or close for business after 7:00 p.m., daily. Any alteration to these hours of operation may be granted with approval of a use permit. 5. Customer Circulation and Display. The business shall dedicate at least 25% of the gross floor area to customer circulation and the display of goods for sale to the public. STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Pawnbroker Uses in DSASP Zoning District DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 7 The display of firearms is prohibited and any firearm sales shall be an accessory use to the operation of the Pawnbroker business. 6. Compliance with Chapter 6.92. Pawnbrokers shall comply with all regulations and requirements contained in Chapter 6.92. With these performance standards, the City is able to zone for high-quality pawnbroker uses with a minimum amount of floor area dedicated to pedestrian serving retail. Within this context, staff has recommended that Pawnbrokers could be an appropriate use within the DTC zoning district, off of Grand Avenue, as shown in Figure 1 and shaded in the color brown. Figure I Downtown Transit Core Zoning District L IIIII I ��f B SEV E NTH-LANE R CA UA mums°' miifA Q m � ffiq �a f LUX AVENUE o. TAMARACK,,L'ANE 9 ap[ahurch r�C ity H al MILLER AVENUE OLITF LANE 9�P p� N�SE PG&E OgK SUBSTATION GRAND AVENUE z THIRN_LANE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD BADEN AVENUE SECOND'L'ANE � �P ,.y., The DTC is a retail serving sub-district that could be appropriate for this type of use, as compared to other DSASP zoning sub-districts, which abut lower-density residential uses. The DTC is described in the DSASP zoning as an area that"encourages active ground floor uses and high intensity development that will generate pedestrian traffic in the area. The Downtown Transit Core sub-district flanks the Grand Avenue Core sub-district which will be the epicenter of Downtown commercial uses." The DTC promotes dense multi-family housing, but the area will also be an established urban environment where retail uses are appropriate. If the City Council agrees that the DTC zoning sub-district could support a Pawnbroker use, the proposed Zoning Amendment would permit such a use with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit Request and Analysis As part of the Zoning Amendment, a Conditional Use Permit would be required to allow a Pawnbroker to locate at 230 Miller Avenue within the DTC zoning sub-district. Additionally, STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Pawnbroker Uses in DSASP Zoning District DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Chapter 6.92 of the Municipal Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for Pawnbroker/Secondhand Dealer uses and includes review by the Police Department. Working with the Police Department Planning liaison, staff has evaluated the submitted application by South City Pawn to relocate. A detailed security plan was submitted to the City (not included in the application due to privacy) that identifies entry strengthening, surveillance, and storage of sensitive items (firearms) in vaults. The Police Department has interviewed the applicant, utilized their historical knowledge of the business to establish appropriate draft Conditions of Approval, and recommended that this business could be operated safely and does not create an over-concentration of pawnbroker uses, since this would be the only business located in the vicinity and future pawnbroker uses would be unlikely due to the performance standards. South City Pawn has generally been an outstanding tenant in the downtown area, offering specialty musical equipment and fine jewelry with a high quality presentation of merchandise. The relocation of South City Pawn was not anticipated at the time the DSASP was developed; in fact, Mr. Newman expected to purchase the building last year. Although that transaction did not ultimately close, the potential displacement of South City Pawn represents an opportunity for the City to encourage appropriate retail in the downtown area, and consider a mechanism to retain a long-time business. Performance Standards Evaluation The proposed Zoning Amendment establishes performance standards for operation of a Pawnbroker use. They must be 1,000 feet from any other Pawnbroker use, adequate queuing shall be provided for inside the business, a security plan must be approved by the Police Department, operation hours are limited between 7AM and 7PM daily, and the display area for customers must be at least 25% of the gross square footage and cannot display firearms. Any firearm sales must also be an accessory use of the operation and cannot be the primary operation. The applicant meets all of these standards with their proposed operation at 230 Miller Avenue. Parking Evaluation The previous use in the approximately 4,200 SF building was Business and Professional Office, with a parking requirement of 1 space per 400 SF of floor area for the downtown use. The proposed use falls under the Banks and Financial Institutions classification and also requires 1 space per 400 SF of floor area. As such, the reuse of the site does not intensify the parking requirement, as shown in Figure 2. The site has two rear parking spaces, as well as a garage area, although some of the garage space will likely be used for storage. Figure 2 Required Parking Use Parking Requirement Total Spaces Required/Credit Office Previous use and zoning 10.5 spaces req'd/2 on-site required 1 space per 400 SF STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Pawnbroker Uses in DSASP Zoning District DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Banks and Financial I space per 400 SF 10.5 spaces req'd/2 on-site Institutions - Pawnbroker No Parking Exception Required Both the Zoning Amendment and the Conditional Use Permit require that this use does not create undue impacts on the surrounding properties. Based on staff's analysis, the operation of South City Pawn would not have a substantial impact on property values or create an adverse safety impact. Ultimately, it is at the City Council's discretion whether this type of use should be permitted in the downtown. The applicant has submitted a letter stating their value to the community, which is attached for consideration (Attachment 5). PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit at their public hearing on September 17, 2015 (see minutes - Attachment 3). There was one public comment requesting that the applicant present his business to the Old Town homeowner's association, which the applicant agreed to do at a meeting on September 23, 2015. The Planning Commission discussed the application and requested that staff evaluate any other options that could achieve relocation without a zoning amendment. The proposal before the City Council is the best approach to regulate land uses in the downtown area, however, and provides a legal foundation for managing new development. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit, as written,which is attached (Attachment 4). GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Ordinance Amendment is consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. The proposed Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City as conditioned by the Planning Commission under guidance of the Police Chief and Chief Planner; instead, the Ordinance Amendment will support long-time businesses and retail opportunities, as recommended in the General Plan's land use element and Downtown planning sub-area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The refinements, additions, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Amendment, as they relate to use classification tables within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning District and Performance Standards for Other Financial Services, are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIR adopted for the Plan or the IS/ND prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Pawnbroker Uses in DSAS P Zoning District DATE: October 7, 2015 Page 7 of 7 the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that of require additional environmental review. CONCLUSION Staff has presented the City Council with an Ordinance Amendment that would conditionally permit the relocation of an existing Pawnbroker within the downtown area, as well as revisions tote other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, as discussed. If the City Council is in support of the applicant's request, staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: I. Introduce an Ordinance (ZA15-0007) amending the Municipal Code to conditionally allow Pawnbroker uses in the Downtown Transit Core Zoning Sub-District, make Pawnbrokers a separate use classification, update land use regulations tables Citywide, and create Pawnbroker performance standards; and 2. Adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit (UP]5-0012) request by South City Pawn to relocate to 230 Miller Avenue. &I By: J 2J �>c Approved:........................ Alex bree'nwood M' e kFutrell 1 1 utl��q ity M Director of Economic and ty Manager Community Development Attachments: 1. Zoning Text Amendment 2. Entitlements Resolution a. Exhibit A—Draft Conditions of Approval 3. Planning Commission Minutes,Meeting of September 17, 2015 4® Planning Commission Resolution a. Resolution 2778-2015—Entitlements Resolution 5. Applicant Statement and Plans 6. City Council Presentation 2530327.1 Attachment 1 Draft Zoning Text Amendment 1 ORDINANCE NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.090 ("COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS"), CHAPTER 20.110 ("EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS"), CHAPTER 20.280 ("DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT"), CHAPTER 20.350 ("STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES"), AND CHAPTER 20.620 ("COMMERCIAL USE CLASSIFCATIONS") OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES TO THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT AREA TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW PAWNBROKERS IN THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE ZONING SUB-DISTRICT, TO MAKE PAWNBROKERS A SEPARATE USE CLASSIFICATION, UPDATE LAND USE REGULATIONS TABLES CITYWIDE, AND TO ADD SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PAWNBROKER USES. WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco considered and adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ("Plan") and associated Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports; and WHEREAS, as part of the Plan adoption, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning District ("Zoning District") was adopted to provide the framework for new development in the downtown area; and WHEREAS, the Zoning District prohibited all uses not consistent with the Bank and Credit Union classification within the Zoning District, and this prohibition included Alternative Loan Businesses and Pawnbroker under the Other Financial Services commercial use classification, in an effort to limit predatory lending businesses near vulnerable populations residing in the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, since the time of Plan and Zoning District adoption, an applicant has requested a revision to the Zoning District to conditionally allow pawnbrokers within certain zoning sub-districts citing the well-regulated pawnbroker industry as non-predatory compared to Alternative Loan Businesses, such as payday lenders; and WHEREAS, since pawnbrokers are a well-regulated industry distinct from Alternative Loan Businesses, regulations should be tailored to specific pawnbroker uses and pawnbrokers should be made a separate use classification in Chapter 20.620; and WHEREAS, the inclusion of the Pawnbroker commercial use classification within the Zoning District would require the addition of new performance standards in Chapter 20.350 tailored to the operation of Pawnbroker uses; and 2 WHEREAS, these changes cumulatively would permit Pawnbroker uses, to operate within the Downtown Transit Core(DTC) zoning sub-district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, adding Pawnbroker as a conditionally permitted use in the DTC would allow South City Pawn, a long-time business of the downtown area, to relocate due to displacement; and WHEREAS, South City Pawn has operated continuously in the downtown area for 46 years and provides retail and banking opportunities for residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, allowing Pawnbroker uses in the DTC district would preserve the existing City preference for only traditional Banks and Credit Unions on Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, unlike Alternative Loan Businesses such as payday lenders, vehicle title lenders, and similar operations, pawnbrokers are closely regulated by the state and federal government with strict limits on loan fees in California; and WHEREAS, the typical interest fees for a pawnbroker average 36% on an annual basis compared with up to 460%interest rates for short-term payday loans; and WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed an interest in retaining certain long-term businesses, such as South City Pawn within the downtown commercial area; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment ("Amendment") to the City's Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance"), including refinements to Chapter 20.280 for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District, Chapter 20.090 for the Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use Districts and Chapter 20.110 for the Employment Districts and modifications to both Chapter 20.620.004 for Commercial Use Classifications and Chapter 20.350 for Standards and Requirements for Specific Uses and Activities; and WHEREAS, these Amendments are consistent with the previous preparation, circulation, consideration, and adoption of the Plan EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), in which the EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Plan and associated Ordinance amendments and concluded that adoption of the Plan could have a significant effect on the environment because some of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations that evaluated the benefits of the Plan against its unavoidable impacts on January 28, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation, consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. 3 ("CEQA"), in which the IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Amendment, as they relate to use classification tables within the Zoning District, Commercial Use Classifications, and Performance Standards for Pawnbrokers, are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIR adopted for the Plan or the IS/ND prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing, solicited public comment and considered the proposed Ordinance Amendments and Conditional Use Permit request, took public testimony, and made a recommendation that the City Council adopt the Ordinance Amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS. Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings: L General Findings. 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. 2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based, includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA")) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the adopted South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group; the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed September 17, 2015 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed October 7, 2015 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2) 3. The refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Amendment, as they relate 4 to development regulations within the Plan area, Commercial Use Classifications and Performance Standards for Pawnbrokers, are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIR adopted for the Plan on January 28, 2015, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review. 4. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra. II. Zoning Map and Text Amendments Findings 1. As described in Section 11, adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amendments will include revisions to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to reflect minor changes to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District (SSFMC 20.280), the Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Districts (SSFMC 20.090) and the Employment Districts (SSFMC 20.110), and to create a separate commercial use classification for Pawnbrokers (SSFMC 20.620) and to add specific Performance Standards for Pawnbrokers (SSFMC 20.350). 2. The proposed Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan because the Ordinance Amendments will continue to reinforce many of the General Plan policies related to land use, specifically supporting retail opportunities in appropriate locations. Further the Ordinance Amendments do not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the City's overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. None of the new or revised definitions, tables, figures and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 3. The subject property, which is impacted by the Ordinance Amendments, is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed Downtown Transit Core zoning sub-districts in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the introduction of the Ordinance Amendments will allow for certain opportunities to permit Pawnbroker uses within the downtown area, but subject to performance standards to prevent an overconcentration of Pawnbrokers. 4. The proposed Ordinance Amendments are not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Ordinance Amendments would provide for sufficient development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration. More specifically, the Ordinance Amendments include regulations to conditionally permit Pawnbroker uses within the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) zoning district consistent with Chapter 6.92 regulated by the Police Department and provide revisions to Chapter 20.350 to create performance standards that reflect the unique nature of operating a Pawnbroker use. The proposed Ordinance Amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, 5 or welfare of the City or land within the City since Alternative Loan Business uses would remain prohibited and only Pawnbroker uses would be conditionally permitted in the DTC. SECTION IL AMENDMENTS. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows (with text in stt4keet4 indicating deletion and double underline indicating addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. A. Revise Chapter 20.280 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District to read as follows: 1. Revise Table 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations to allow Pawnbroker use classification in the following zoning sub-districts: Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional R Commercial Use Classifications Banks and Financial Institutions Banks and Credit Unions P MUP - P MUP MUP See Section 20.350.039 Pawnbrokers C _ _ _ - - Pawnbrokers and 6.92 Pawnbroker/ Secondhand Dealer B. Revise Chapter 20.350 Standards and Requirements for Specific Uses and Activities to read as follows: 1. Revise Section 20.350.011 Other Financial Services to remove Pawnbrokers from the Other Financial Services performance standards 20.350.011 Other Financial Services Other financial services subject to this section, which includes alternative loan businesses ftffd pa-,Y�%bt:ek shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards: A. Maximum Size. Limited to 2,500 square feet in size. B. Location. Other financial services shall be located on a major arterial or higher classification street, and at least 1,000 feet from any other financial services business. C. Queuing Area. Adequate queuing area shall be provided within the building. Queuing on the sidewalk is prohibited. D. Security. A security plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner and the City of South San Francisco Police Department. The plan shall provide for adequate 6 security, including a central station alarm system to the Police Department. Bars on the windows, exterior phones and roll up doors are prohibited. E. Hours of Operation. The business shall not open prior to 7:00 a.m. or close for business after 7:00 p.m., daily. Any alteration to these hours of operation may be granted with approval of a use permit. C. Revise Chapter 20.620 Commercial Use Classifications to read as follows 1. Revise Section 20.620.004 Commercial Use Classifications to exclude Pawnbroker uses from the definition of Other Financial Services and to create Pawnbroker as a separate Banks and Financial Institutions sub-classification: Banks and Financial Institutions. Banks and Credit Unions. Financial institutions, including federally-chartered banks, savings associations, industrial loan companies, and credit unions that provide retail banking services to individuals and businesses. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of money, and whose deposits are insured by the state or federal government and/or a state or federal sponsored entity, including credit unions. This classification specifically excludes other financial services and pawnbrokers, as defined by this section. Pawnbroker. Means every person who keeps a place of business where personal property is received and for which money is advanced_ with the right of privilege granted to the person to whom said money is advanced to reclaim such property upon repayment of said money_ together with all legal charges incident thereto. This does not include banks and credit unions, as defined by this section. Other Financial Services. Other financial services are business establishments that provide customers with some form of currency in a transaction as part of an alternative loan product. This use classification may include check cashing,payday loans, vehicle title loans, microfinance loans, or similar. This use classification specifically excludes banks and credit unions, as defined by this section. Alternative Loan Businesses. Establishments that conduct a check cashing business, and/or engage in the business of cashing checks, warrants, drafts, money orders, or other commercial enterprise defined herein. The term "check cashing business" as used herein includes a retail business owned or operated by a"check casher" as that term is defined in California Civil Code Section 1789.3 1, as amended from time to time. This classification also includes the business of deferred deposits, or"payday lending," which is defined as an establishment owned or operated by a"licensee," as that term is defined in California Financial Code Section 23001(4), as amended from time to time. Similar lending services that provide vehicle title loans or microfinance loans shall also be included in this classification. Microfinance institutions are characterized by their use of interest rates that are higher than traditional banks and credit unions and typically targeted towards low- income borrowers or borrowers with limited or no credit history. Alternative loan 7 businesses do not include state or federally chartered banks, savings associations, credit unions, or industrial loan companies. They also do not include retail sellers engaged primarily in the business of selling consumer goods, such as consumables to retail buyers, that cash checks or issue money orders incidental to their main purpose or business. said meney, tegethet:,v�,ith all legal ehat:ges ineident thet:ete. This does fiet ifielttde banks and et:edit tt ai "errs-as defified by this seetieir. D. Revise Chapter 20.350 to read as follows 1. Add a new section 20.350.039 to provide performance standards for Pawnbrokers: 20.350.039 Pawnbrokers Pawnbrokers subject to this section shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with the following standards: A. Location. Pawnbrokers shall be located at least 1.000 feet from any other Pawnbroker business. B. Queuing Area. Adequate queuing area shall be provided within the building. Queuing on the sidewalk is prohibited. C. Security. A security plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner and the City of South San Francisco Police Department. The plan shall provide for adequate security, including a central station alarm system to the Police Department. Bars on the exterior of the windows_ exterior phones and roll up doors are prohibited. D. Hours of Operation. The business shall not open prior to 7:00 a.m. or close for business after 7:00 p.m._ daily. Any alteration to these hours of operation may be granted with approval of a use permit. E. Customer Circulation and Display. The business shall dedicate at least 25% of the gross floor area to customer circulation and the display of goods for sale to the public. The display of firearms is prohibited and any firearm sales shall be an accessory use to the operation of the Pawnbroker business. F. Compliance with Chapter 6.92. Pawnbrokers shall comply with all regulations and requirements contained in Chapter 6.92. E. Revise Land Use Regulations Tables to Reflect Separate Use Classification for Pawnbrokers 1. Revise Table 20.090.002 Land Use Regulations—Commercial, Office, and Mixed- Use Districts to remove Pawnbrokers as a sub-classification of Other Financial Services: 8 Uses Permitted CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below Banks and Credit Unions P P P P See Section 20.350.039 Pawnbrokers C C C C Pawnbrokers and 6.92 Pawnbroker/ Secondhand Dealer Other Financial Services See sub-classifications below Alternative Loan MUP MUP MUP MUP See Section 20.350.011 Businesses Other Financial Services See co,401 20.350.011 b b b b aad('4apter 6.92 2. Revise Table 20.110.002 Land Use Regulations—Employment Districts to remove Pawnbrokers as a sub-classification of Other Financial Services: Uses Permitted BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below Banks and Credit Unions P P - P See Section 20.350.039 Pawnbrokers C C C Pawnbrokers and 6.92 Pawnbroker/ Secondhand Dealer Other Financial Services See sub-classifications below Alternative Loan MUP MUP - MUP See Section 20.350.011 Businesses Other Financial Services coo co,401 20.350.011 SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof 9 irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk 's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the 71' day of October, 2015. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: Krista Martinelli, City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of , 2015. Mayor 2523239.1 10 Attachment 2 Draft Entitlements Resolution Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval 11 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR SOUTH CITY PAWN TO RELOCATE TO 230 MILLER AVENUE. WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco considered and adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ("Plan") and associated Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports; and WHEREAS, as part of the Plan adoption, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning District ("Zoning District") was adopted to provide the framework for new development in the downtown area; and WHEREAS, the Zoning District prohibited all uses not consistent with the Bank and Credit Union classification within the Zoning District, and this prohibition included Alternative Loan Businesses and Pawnbrokers under the Other Financial Services commercial use classification, in an effort to limit predatory lending businesses near vulnerable populations residing in the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, since the time of Plan and Zoning District adoption, an applicant has requested a revision to the Zoning District to conditionally allow pawnbrokers within certain zoning sub-districts citing the well-regulated pawnbroker industry as non-predatory compared to Alternative Loan Businesses, such as payday lenders; and WHEREAS, since pawnbrokers are a well-regulated industry distinct from Alternative Loan Businesses, regulations should be tailored to specific Pawnbroker uses and pawnbrokers should be made a separate use classification in Chapter 20.620; and WHEREAS, the inclusion of the Pawnbroker commercial use classification within the Zoning District would require the addition of new performance standards in Chapter 20.350 tailored to the operation of Pawnbroker uses; and WHEREAS, these changes cumulatively would permit Pawnbroker uses to operate within the Downtown Transit Core(DTC) zoning sub-district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, adding Pawnbroker as a conditionally permitted use in the DTC would allow South City Pawn, a long-time business of the downtown area, to relocate due to displacement; and 12 WHEREAS, South City Pawn has operated continuously in the downtown area for 46 years and provides retail and banking opportunities for residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, allowing Pawnbroker uses in the DTC district would preserve the existing City preference for only traditional Banks and Credit Unions on Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, allowing Pawnbroker uses in the DTC district with the proposed performance standards would support appropriate retail opportunities in the downtown; and WHEREAS, unlike Alternative Loan Businesses, such as payday lenders, vehicle title lenders, and similar operations, pawnbrokers are closely regulated by the state and federal government with strict limits on loan fees in California; and WHEREAS, the typical interest fees for a pawnbroker average 36% on an annual basis compared with up to 460%interest rates for short-term payday loans; and WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed an interest in retaining certain long-term businesses such as South City Pawn within the downtown commercial area; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment ("Amendment") to the City's Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance"), including refinements to Chapter 20.280 for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District, Chapter 20.090 for the Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use Districts and Chapter 20.110 for the Employment Districts and modifications to both Chapter 20.620 for Commercial Use Classifications and Chapter 20.350 for Standards and Requirements for Specific Uses and Activities, which has been introduced by separate Ordinance; and WHEREAS, these Amendments are consistent with the previous preparation, circulation, consideration, and adoption of the Plan EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), in which the EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Plan and associated Ordinance amendments and concluded that adoption of the Plan could have a significant effect on the environment because some of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations that evaluated the benefits of the Plan against its unavoidable impacts on January 28, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation, consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), in which the IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant 13 effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS, the refinements, additions, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Amendment, as they relate to use classification tables within the Zoning District, Commercial Use Classifications, and Performance Standards for Pawnbrokers, are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIR adopted for the Plan or the IS/ND prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Ordinance Amendments and Conditional Use Permit request, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Ordinance Amendments and Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2015 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Ordinance Amendments and Conditional Use Permit request, take public testimony, introduce the Ordinance Amendments, and adopt this resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the adopted South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group; the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed September 17, 2015 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed October 7, 2015 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS L General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 14 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra. IL Conditional Use Permit Findings 1. As described in Section II and attached as Exhibit A, adoption of the Resolution makes the following findings and adoption of conditions of approval in support of a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of South City Pawn (Pawnbroker) at 230 Miller Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 6.92, 20.280, 20.350, 20.490 & 20.550, based on public testimony and materials submitted to the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, which include, but are not limited to: Application materials prepared by applicant, submitted August 20, 2015; City Council staff report dated October 7, 2015; and City Council meeting of October 7, 2015. 2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district, as proposed for amendment, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, as proposed for amendment to address the unique nature of a Pawnbroker retail operation; 3. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, specifically General Plan policies supporting retail opportunities in appropriate locations, and does not conflict with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan or any other applicable specific plan; 4. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community as the application has been evaluated by the Police Department for conformance to Municipal Code and state regulations, nor will the proposed use be detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements if the proposed new performance standards for Pawnbrokers were to be approved and adopted by the City Council and based on the compatibility of a primarily retail operation within the Downtown Station Area Plan Zoning District; 5. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district as this would be a reuse of an existing structure with no exterior changes and the use in question would be permitted if the Ordinance Amendment to modify the Commercial Use Classifications to make Pawnbrokers a separate use classification and to add new performance standards for Pawnbrokers were to be approved and adopted by the City Council, consistent with a resolution of the Planning Commission ; 15 6. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity, which are intended to be mixed-use and in support of pedestrian traffic and density, and with the performance standards for Pawnbroker uses, as proposed with the related Ordinance Amendment; 7. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints, in that the existing building on site will be reused with a compatible use; and 8. An environmental determination that the reuse of an existing building is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 15301 — Class l: Minor alterations of an existing site and structure with negligible changes has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2 ADOPTION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves a conditional use permit subject to the draft Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit A and subject to the adoption and effective date of the Ordinance Amendments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 71' day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: Krista Martinelli, City Clerk 16 EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UP15-0012 17 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P15-0058: ZA15-0007; UP15-0012 230 Miller Avenue (As recommended by Planning Commission on September 17, 2015) A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Family Residential Projects and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as otherwise amended by the following conditions of approval. 2. The business layout and operation shall substantially comply with the approved plans prepared by the applicant, and as approved by the Planning Commission in association with P15-0058, as amended by the Conditions of Approval. The final plans and operation shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner and Police Chief, as applicable. 3. The business shall be operated substantially as outlined in the project narrative provided by the applicant as part of this application. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012 ("Modification"), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief Planner for a determination. 4. Consistent with the requirements of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, ground floor window coverings shall remain open during the day to better activate the sidewalk, engage the new retail use with pedestrian traffic, and encourage users. 5. The business shall comply with the Performance Standards set forth in SSFMC Section 20.350.039. Planning Division contact: Tony Rozzi at(650) 877-8535 B) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The Owner shall, at his/her expense, replace any broken sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting the property. The City of SSF shall be the sole judge of whether any such replacement is necessary. 2. The Owner shall coordinate with the Public Works department to ensure that any proposed repair work to sidewalk, curb, and/or gutter will be satisfactory to the City, shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work in the public right of way, and shall be responsible for all applicable fees and deposits. All work related to these requirements shall be accomplished at the Owner's expense. 18 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 4 3. The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the Engineering Division's "Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals" requirements, copies of which are available from the Engineering Division. 4. Contractors must have a Class A license for any work in the street (beyond the face of curb). Contractors with a Class A license may perform any and all work associated with building permit requirements. For concrete work between the curb and the building, a Class C-8 license is sufficient. For plumbing work between the curb and the building, a Class C-36 license is sufficient. An exemption may be granted by the City if a relatively minor portion of the work is not covered by the Contractor's license. For example, if a new sewer cleanout is being installed in the sidewalk by a Contractor with a C-36 (plumbing) license, the same Contractor may remove and reform no more than one (1)panel of the sidewalk without the need for a Class C-8 (concrete)license. Engineering Division contact: Patrick Caylao, P.E. at(650) 829-6652 C) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. 2. Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building. 3. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 4. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined. 5. All storage shall be maintained at less than 6 feet high. 6. Provide occupant load signs on all levels. 7. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code. Building Department contact: Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshal at(650) 829-6645 D) Police Department requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if 19 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 4 necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. Those minimum security standards include, but aren't limited to the following: • Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours or those businesses designated by the police department as having materials being highly susceptible to theft shall lock such money and materials in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL-15. • Building shall be protected by a central station silent robbery alarm (hold up alarm) and a central station silent intrusion alarm (burglary alarm). • All exterior doors (front and back) shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Lights shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers/lenses. • Exterior roll-up overhead doors, solid overhead swinging, sliding or accordion doors shall be secured with a cylinder lock and/or padlock on the inside, when not otherwise controlled or locked by electric power operation. Masonite panels in such doors shall not exceed eight inches by twelve inches and shall be located so that they are no closer than three feet to any locking device. • Any ladder excluding fire escapes, located on the exterior of any building which could provide access to the roof shall be not less than ten feet from any accessible ground area. Ladders accessible from ground level shall be fully enclosed with sheet metal in an approved manner to a height of ten feet. This covering shall be locked against the ladder with a case hardened hasp, secured with nonremovable screws or bolts. Hinges on the cover will be provided with nonremovable pins when using pin- type hinges. If a padlock is used, it shall have a hardened shrouded steel shackle, locking at both heel and toe, and a minimum five pin tumbler operation with nonremovable key when in an unlocked position. • Doors with glass panels and doors that have glass panels adjacent to the door frame shall be secured as follows: rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like material; or the glass shall be covered with iron bars of at least one-half inch round or one by one- fourth inch flat steel material, space not more than five inches apart, secured on the inside of the glazing; or iron or steel grills of at least one-eighth inch material of two- inch mesh secured on the inside of the glazing. • Video surveillance cameras shall be installed to record all pedestrian entrance/exits, cash registers and front counters and shall be: •maintained in proper working order at all times; and •kept in continuous operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; and •have enough memory to retain the data from all cameras for a period of 30 days 20 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 4 2. No firearms shall be visible to the public and all firearm inventory shall be stored in a locked safe that has been approved by the police department. Only one firearm shall be removed from the safe at a time when allowing a customer to inspect it for purchase. 3. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 6.92 of the Municipal Code, "Pawnbrokers/Secondhand Dealer". 4. Any changes to this use permit shall be approved by the Chief Planner and the Chief of Police. Police Department Contact: Sergeant Adam Plank at(650) 877-8927 21 Attachment 3 Planning Commission Minutes, Meeting of September 17, 2015 22 The video recording of this Regular Planning Commission meeting can be found at http://www.ssf net/1996/Planning-Commission MINUTES September 17, 2015 - E ° CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO = REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL/CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioner Faria, Martin, Nagales, and Ruiz, Vice Chairperson Khalfin, and Chairperson Wong ABSENT: Commissioner Lujan AGENDA REVIEW Item No. 1 in Presentation to discuss the Downtown Parking Study will be moved to October 1, 2015 meeting. Thank you to Patti Cabano for her years of service as the Planning Commission Clerk and welcome Justine Buenaflor as the new Clerk. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR None. PUBLIC HEARING 1. SSF Pawn Shop Relocation and Zoning Text Amendment PICCININI ELIO TR/Owner Cash Loans Inc./Applicant 230 MILLER AVE P15-0058: ZA15-0007; UP15-0012 Zoning Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow a Pawnbroker to relocate to 230 Miller Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 6.92, 20.280, 20.350, 20.490, 20.620, &20.550 and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Public Hearing Opened: 7:05 P.M. Speakers: Pedro Gonzalez Public Hearing Closed: 7:25 P.M. Commission Discussion begins 00:30:54 in video recording. Motion—Vice Chairperson Khalfin/Second—Commissioner Nagales to approve making findings and recommending City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to conditionally allow pawn broker uses in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Zoning District, make pawn broker a separate use classification, update land use regulation table Citywide, create pawn broker performance standards and recommend that the City Council approve a September 17,2015 Minutes 23 Page 1 of 2 conditional use permit for South City Pawn as well as make a recommendation that staff explore additional options to consider making pawn broker uses available. Approved by roll call vote (5-1-1). Regular Planning Commission Meeting Recess: 8:23 P.M. Regular Planning Commission Meeting Resumed: 8:28 P.M. 2. Revision to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and Design Review Authority City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant Citywide P 11-0097:ZA15-0009 Zoning Text Amendments to modify regulations in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District to allow a wider array of commercial and employment uses, update development standards for the Linden Commercial Corridor(LCC) and Linden Neighborhood Commercial (LNC)zoning districts, and provide new design authority for the City Council in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.550 and determination that the project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts and is consistent with the certified EIR. Public Hearing Opened: 8:29 P.M. Public Hearing Closed: 8:42 P.M. Commission Discussion begins 01:44:13 in video recording. Motion—Commissioner Ruiz/Second—Commissioner Faria to approve making findings and recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Municipal Code Chapter 20.280 to make minor changes to regulations to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and amending the Municipal Code to provide a threshold for City Council discretionary review of the development projects. Approved by roll call vote (5-1-1) ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS None. ITEMS FROM STAFF None. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Vice Chairperson Khalfin wanted to say thank you to the Commission and staff for their gift to welcome his new child. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wong adjourned the meeting at 9:21 P.M. Sailesh Mehra Alan Wong, Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SM/pac September 17,2015 Minutes 24 Page 2 of 2 Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution Resolution 2778-2015 —Entitlements Resolution 25 RESOLUTION NO. 2778-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 20.090 ("COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS"), CHAPTER 20.110 ("EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS"), CHAPTER 20.280 ("DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT"), CHAPTER 20.350 ("STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES"), AND CHAPTER 20.620 ("COMMERCIAL USE CLASSIFCATIONS") OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES TO THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT AREA TO CONDITIONALLY ALLOW PAWNBROKERS IN THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE ZONING SUB-DISTRICT, TO MAKE PAWNBROKERS A SEPARATE USE CLASSIFICATION, UPDATE LAND USE REGULATIONS TABLES CITYWIDE, TO ADD SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PAWNBROKER USES, AND TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST. WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco considered and adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ("Plan") and associated Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports; and WHEREAS, as part of the Plan adoption, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning District ("Zoning District") was adopted to provide the framework for new development in the downtown area; and WHEREAS, the Zoning District prohibited all uses not consistent with the Bank and Credit Union classification within the Zoning District, and this prohibition included Alternative Loan Businesses and Pawnbroker under the Other Financial Services commercial use classification, in an effort to limit predatory lending businesses near vulnerable populations residing in the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, since the time of Plan and Zoning District adoption, an applicant has requested a revision to the Zoning District to conditionally allow pawnbrokers within certain zoning sub-districts citing the well-regulated pawnbroker industry as non-predatory compared to Alternative Loan Businesses, such as payday lenders; and WHEREAS, since pawnbrokers are a well-regulated industry distinct from Alternative Loan Businesses, regulations should be tailored to specific Pawnbroker uses and pawnbrokers should be made a separate use classification in Chapter 20.620; and WHEREAS, the inclusion of the Pawnbroker commercial use classification within the Zoning District would require the addition of new performance standards in Chapter 20.350 tailored to the operation of Pawnbroker uses; and 26 WHEREAS, these changes cumulatively would permit Pawnbroker uses to operate within the Downtown Transit Core(DTC) zoning sub-district with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, adding Pawnbroker as a conditionally permitted use in the DTC would allow South City Pawn, a long-time business of the downtown area, to relocate due to displacement; and WHEREAS, South City Pawn has operated continuously in the downtown area for 46 years and provides retail and banking opportunities for residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, allowing Pawnbroker uses in the DTC district would preserve the existing City preference for only traditional Banks and Credit Unions on Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, unlike Alternative Loan Businesses, such as payday lenders, vehicle title lenders, and similar operations, pawnbrokers are closely regulated by the state and federal government with strict limits on loan fees in California; and WHEREAS, the typical interest fees for a pawnbroker average 36% on an annual basis compared with up to 460%interest rates for short-term payday loans; and WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed an interest in retaining certain long-term businesses such as South City Pawn within the downtown commercial area; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment ("Amendment") to the City's Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance"), including refinements to Chapter 20.280 for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District, Chapter 20.090 for the Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use Districts and Chapter 20.110 for the Employment Districts and modifications to both Chapter 20.620 for Commercial Use Classifications and Chapter 20.350 for Standards and Requirements for Specific Uses and Activities; and WHEREAS, these Amendments are consistent with the previous preparation, circulation, consideration, and adoption of the Plan EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), in which the EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Plan and associated Ordinance amendments and concluded that adoption of the Plan could have a significant effect on the environment because some of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations that evaluated the benefits of the Plan against its unavoidable impacts on January 28, 2015; and 27 WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation, circulation, consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), in which the IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance could not have a significant effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS, the refinements, additions, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Amendment, as they relate to use classification tables within the Zoning District, Commercial Use Classifications, and Performance Standards for Pawnbrokers, are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the EIR adopted for the Plan or the IS/ND prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Ordinance Amendments and Conditional Use Permit request, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Ordinance Amendments and Conditional Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the adopted South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group; the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed September 17, 2015 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS L General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 28 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the proposed Zoning Text Amendments (Exhibit A) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra. IL Zoning Text Amendment Findings 1. As described in Section II and attached as Exhibit A, adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amendments will include revisions to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to reflect minor changes to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District (SSFMC 20.280) the Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Districts (SSFMC 20.090) and the Employment Districts (SSFMC 20.110), and to create a separate commercial use classification for Pawnbrokers (SSFMC 20.620) and to add specific Performance Standards for Pawnbrokers (SSFMC 20.350). 2. The proposed Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan because the Ordinance Amendments will continue to reinforce many of the General Plan policies related to land use, specifically supporting retail opportunities in appropriate locations. Further the Ordinance Amendments do not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the City's overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. None of the new or revised definitions, tables, figures and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 3. The subject property, which is impacted by the Ordinance Amendments, is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed Downtown Transit Core zoning sub-district in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the introduction of the Ordinance Amendments will allow for certain opportunities to permit Pawnbroker uses within the downtown area, but subject to performance standards to prevent an overconcentration of Pawnbrokers. 4. The proposed Ordinance Amendments are not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Ordinance Amendments would provide for sufficient development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration. More specifically, the Ordinance Amendments include regulations to conditionally permit Pawnbroker uses within the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) zoning district consistent with Chapter 6.92 regulated by the Police Department and provide revisions to Chapter 20.350 to create performance standards that reflect the unique nature of operating a Pawnbroker use. The proposed Ordinance Amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City since Alternative Loan Business uses would remain prohibited and only Pawnbroker uses would be conditionally permitted in the DTC. 29 III. Conditional Use Permit Findings 1. As described in Section III and attached as Exhibit B, adoption of the Resolution makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council for conditions of approval in support of a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of South City Pawn (Pawnbroker) at 230 Miller Avenue in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 6.92, 20.280, 20.350, 20.490 & 20.550, based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Application materials prepared by applicant, submitted August 20, 2015; Planning Commission staff report dated September 17, 2015; and Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 2015. 2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district, as proposed for amendment, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, as proposed for amendment to address the unique nature of a Pawnbroker retail operation; 3. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, specifically General Plan policies supporting retail opportunities in appropriate locations, and does not conflict with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan or any other applicable specific plan; 4. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community as the application has been evaluated by the Police Department for conformance to Municipal Code and state regulations, nor will the proposed use be detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements if the proposed new performance standards for Pawnbrokers were to be approved and adopted by the City Council and based on the compatibility of a primarily retail operation within the Downtown Station Area Plan Zoning District; 5. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district as this would be a reuse of an existing structure with no exterior changes and the use in question would be permitted if the Zoning Amendment to modify the Commercial Use Classifications to make Pawnbrokers a separate use classification and to add the new performance standards for Pawnbrokers were to be approved and adopted by the City Council, consistent with a resolution of the Planning Commission ; 6. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity, which are intended to be mixed-use and in support of pedestrian traffic and density, and with 30 the performance standards for Pawnbroker uses, as proposed with the related Ordinance Amendment; 7. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints, in that the existing building on site will be reused with a compatible use; and 8. An environmental determination that the reuse of an existing building is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the provisions of Section 15301 —Class 1: Minor alterations of an existing site and structure with negligible changes has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the South San Francisco City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 20.280, 20.090, 20.110, 20.620 and 20.350, attached as Exhibit A, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve a resolution approving a conditional use permit subject to the draft Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a special meeting held on the 171' day of September, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Chairperson Wong, Vice Chairperson Khalfin, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner Nagales, Commissioner Ruiz NOES: Commissioner Martin ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Commissioner Luian Attest: Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission 31 Attachment 5 Applicant Statement and Plans 32 Honorable members of the Planning Commission. My name is David Newman and my family has owned and operated Cash Loan, Inc., known as South City Pawn, here on Grand Ave since 1969. What began as a small 800' storefront on the 100 block of Grand Ave has grown into a 4000 square foot retail location currently located at 337 Grand Ave. Unfortunately, the current owner has decided to put another restaurant on Grand Ave and we have been forced to relocate. While looking for a new home for our family business we have encountered a situation that has made relocating within South City very difficult and I'm here this evening to ask for your help in rectifying the situation. In 2014, our City leaders made changes to the zoning plan to make way for our future growth. Not realizing we might be forced to relocate some day we all assumed that 337 Grand would be South City Pawn's home today and long into the future. Zoning changes were made to protect our downtown, but the unforeseen results of those changes are why I'm here this evening. As you are all aware, real estate is at a premium here in town, and retail space able to accommodate our growing department store operation is even more difficult to find. When we were finally able to locate space that could accommodate our business we discovered that in protecting the downtown corridor the zoning changes made in 2014 did not allow for existing "Other Financial Services" businesses to relocate within the district. We're asking for your help in rectifying this by making the necessary changes to the zoning ordinance. While I recognize that restricting certain businesses from the downtown corridor has merit I do not believe the intent of the City Council was to force our business out of town. I'm asking for your help by recommending to Council that a change be made to the new ordinance so that our 46 year old company may continue to provide our services to the community at the new home we've secured at 230 Miller Ave. During the change to Title 20, Pawnbrokers were listed as businesses which "might put financially vulnerable residents at risk with very high interest rates" and "could trap users in a cycle of debt that could contribute to increased rates of poverty in the city".This is a false premise as it applies to pawn shops. Pawnbroking is among the most heavily regulated industries in our state. Our interest rates are among the lowest in the country and are regulated by the State Legislature. We currently write 4 month loans that average 4% interest per month and is renewable upon payment of the interest at the end of each loan period. Unlike other secondary lenders mentioned in the ordinance, our Customers face no negative mark on their credit record should they choose to default on a loan; which only a small percentage actually do (15% in this economy, even lower in good years). Unlike many other financial institutions, a pawn shop's average loan is under$300, and for those needing short term money to help make it between paydays there is no other safe place to borrow. If it wasn't for the availability of these small short term loans many people would find themselves unable to pay their bills. Our database contains the names of almost 5500 local residents that rely on us for their short term monetary needs. Unlike mainstream banks we don't judge our clients based on their income or credit 33 score. A customer brings in an item of value (almost 80%of which is jewelry) and they are able to borrow based solely on the value of the item. Last year our company wrote approximately 14,000 loans, of which 83% (11,600)were paid off on time. Our average customer is between 18-45, married and with children in the home. Living in the Bay Area is expensive and most of our customers have good jobs that pay a fair wage, but due to circumstances they often fall short between paydays. In this area, our clients make up a diverse ethnic mix and many customers use part of the income to supplement their family's income "back home". Of the 14,000 loans we wrote last year, only 8 items were suspected of being stolen property, and of those, 4 were inter-family(civil) issues. In addition to our loan business, South City Pawn is also a retail store that prides itself in providing residents and visitors to our town a unique shopping experience.We offer a wide range of both new and previously owned merchandise and are jewelry and watch specialists. Whether shopping for a musical instrument, consumer electronics or fine jewelry, South City Pawn is known for value pricing and outstanding customer service. My family's roots go deep in this city; my grandfather as well as myself have been active members of the Chamber of Commerce (I'm a past board member) as well as the old Downtown Merchants Association. Additionally we have always been strong supporters of the area schools, churches and youth groups. Whether it be donations of band instruments, computers, tools or items to be used for auctions/raffles to raise money, we've always enjoyed the opportunity to contribute to our residents needs as they arise. Our business operates Monday through Friday, 10am until 5:30pm and Saturdays from 10am until 4pm. We are proud of what we do and would welcome an opportunity to give any of you so interested the grand tour any time. I do have to warn you that our store is also home to 3 very loving German Shepherd dogs, 2 of which have been our official greeters since they were pups, and who think the only reason people walk in is to visit them, so be prepared to take home a few stray dog hairs when you do come by. We love this city and wish to remain part of the downtown corridor for a long time. Please consider my request favorably. 34 I i c G i f 141 mill &fir 35 sq n i I ii 1 35 Latin C_raun�c, n SiaYd YtGrw'w hJu+,srorr�kc+itr 1/4 ,f;kf"4v'BC c,�aakp U9tiaa^e 1,,035 scg ft !I dr I nde7;�Y„nsitccP�s�lza �� rdP•W-Gan40cstas f3"aaaatlr�'tl.:� �akk Wall lose, ;srt W ktl ease __._. 36 MILLER STREET ROOF 'AdINC3-6W- j WINDO W 445 sq ft BATHR O ,✓ f 8 ` � LtC7C�R� BATHROOM a� DOOR 7,-=.,_._.. 4".76 sq ft �WIND C7W I WINDow i �VV1NGCJW..� TAMARACK LANE ........-......_.. 37 X x co on MMM co GO 41 -N NJ x 4� X. x co Bathroom 41 kon ............ .................— ..........- 38 4EX18 41D 8 48XI£i 413X1&1 mmmmm I I' 36X21 46X24 4SX24 36X24 36X24 36XI2 528 36X1.2 48X24 16X24 na €xi 36x3 64 sq ft.N :SGa;%,6 .r= 36xi8 36x3F1 BATHROOM 39 r; IM ,. IVIIIIIIIIII �� owA kv fj i u „ i' / A vti i rJr��Q a isr�nw!n ^r r'�w✓n�uunrm y � � Q i �' ,r / / 1 � ti f r ul� r I Illy�' if Ills VI WJ � � q � ro�uu IIII�I ifuui�oomoumpuuuu�Yr'i(���" bell " 1 / 6 1 1 r 11 I s, l f i f r � /f%j jai ,, ISO, 0104 If r r r II 0 � � 011 r" n i s' f / /f r, i r u 1 r r" I a of r "V of➢INSw rr Y%S��PJi�n» r t I II „f �j�' oIV ' f N1�, I: t y ;� � ➢u�N� 1 �� rinmm,�iai�n�uYNIW�iVr��r '; � � , "� u�muu�ul!N�V1Jio�a('IUm�WyO!N�fPld>ViuusiuwWNWW�4ll�iu��u��i�tt, I(fi( � �!�'!�1N"t4iu9��10�Uf01J61�uiu�gm�i111DNN�6IwwaVr/ j r � G Ui �u� mV �;wui��RUrt�i��VNiuw�iw��rt�m��M�yioiu�^r. � � i Y l� �JUryiyilNlNlh ��N1YkYWM'�uur � � �9J usvi r'vmremuei �/ NldlffffNyy�W% � �'�� �" i��iWluVfmi0VVp1JD1YlYd�7yN � Y' ,��� 1NaiWwiVV i r l 1 Vii; m I i IY�N'J'MI f�i t Y �i i - � (r i I � "ffl�rrfT/ moll I IBM �'� 'VlYdtll4�A, i�'Pillq��q I' Attachment 6 Powerpoint Presentation 45 IVY, it guano= 4—J ommoom Ol (D rn r*4 u 1JJJJJJ�JJJJJ�� ��1���1��11�f1 f 4--0 W W v ■� � � � / ITV � O � f 4 s LA cn 11; IT 4-J L L 4-J O W O ■ O pin �I� ItiJ .. 4-J L — cn � �_ u ■ O ._ cn — Q Q ■_ >C 0. O 0. W .- Q 4-J , .mlll��lllw. .mlll��lllw. .mlll��lllw. ��; ,✓�� r7�f� �tlJC W •Q i O r� 4-J LA cn — � V v, Q 4=d O LL cn E O z � Q N p 4--j a. •— Q Q cu CD C) CD x c� 4-J 4 c� V ' 4� •— .0 (1) . 4� 4 i 07 0 0 0 4� Q oC 4-J u oC -0 oC 4-J^^ .- 4-1 10 70 1 -0 � � a) U O 0 � 4mod -0 C E •— O Q ICU i i 0 `~ .— m 2 0. Q) C� Q Ln u 't NINO rz o 4--1 C) E M a. O O w s E ._ CZ "111111110 14—O (v O rZ — •— >% u QE M CD IN mom= CL –0 O O O Cy z U Z ..��mullllllllum��.r ..��mullllllllum��.r ..��mullllllllum��.r ..��mullllllllum��.r ..��mullllllllum��.r ..��mullllllllum��. I � � per.Syr- �A„1— ^�^vv,,, U� II Af, , �IIr J o IL J� m r IV err � ��V� �`"� �z,�u�✓m"L�, �p v, ff � P, w roil ul,r ,,"mac m'„... r, fil IpIII^ wf ` l JIwW •' �I” IWII�1114iN" ;Ilmw�. � �(„ ' �N7o, v • f�rvr W w tlll I,. I II�u mfimIN"r�IVm�I u, w Imp m.lwl r+mw" vr wv II �oU�41 ddaw° _ �I 1I� mo�l�,• ,L.., �I� 4h IL r wY f 4mod � ,r uru te'^ Ym rIa w I ia u r t '16 uu� llpli�lh Sul uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumr JR011 poor 000 �.".In °w Ira"... Iylwlw�ml 4141VIV�1 �uumurw aru �uar; "" wiv vw �� .w�lIllllyl �� Ire Iw �frca a �n � InrraRmm�lml duuuWlWimlm�urr� I� +�V1NII rrrr r�^m r� � ��� '�"A'�mw «�rrrrr� lVl uliarl ,r ' uuuu 1 � uool r Ayul � Idl�,r� ° � Illw`wwrYUl � a my ���i l^� -• w.,�� !r l .,,, �'��ml r?Yrr .....a.' re�uwli�����a� �r,�, � w wl��„m„y rva�ld vti�.m a III�Iv Mimi . "rp WIC/G ,I �Amlll I iINY4� 'w8o'IY� /k�l � � e A 'L» 'HIV II lyl III, . ii Y Ij7��l "JA ��� III �IW III ���o, �E ............................ ....... ... ........... low lAm d 6 onrwr�r, a �azx�I p"�!vek� �r, Iilllllip7 +."lu ,�i,�i,✓ii,,,,i r.��xvv�iii.r�!Fal vciiiir,,,,mac. ,,, �,�v.�iii� s✓✓iiiiiiiia, � m�»iii, viii.r�iii,, ��� ����� �����w „ oIH m •I u w " „rrrr�a V°'dJ'.r Ilu ,n W w�" ii�„�i '�,rrrrrt ;�„Imo'��,.„"i"i"i"i"i"i �� I�rrrrrrrr m � , aarMI w w ;ii", w m��o I�iuil iiir i i Iw,m�ml i ir.In a� »firu w �I �II = r,w y 10 m' Nu Ir�ul W ua � ll II m�. ��������� I..JI II Ki III 1 41 III i0/////l//l%/l/%a'1/ ll Ir �• . I IRr�������� ��u�m wm�M Iw �tr rr rrr � v7n1»»»»»»» IN mom= u r ' I uW „ uuuuuuuur' u�mrzuuuu111°1»,,,"u »iii m lu oiiamuuum, iP -IvA�•I �m��lu,aw".w°''�wIl'w ��w,WrYrW r>r✓Iwug�l u lv^I. vd�` � a a 'nn mm �u l . u"uII"I .jN In rrrrr �. �Ir pk my ,IOm ii iii ............ .rrrrrrr„r„r„a 1. u�” rul IWRU uu � ml r y , fr m /" w �MM J.................. I ””" 1,� m�� W �e . . am,..,.. . .. m �� . _ �... _. ----------- ph` F u� 5 u� ell , w- ..._....... w4 r moo. m .ii�.�m .�..i,...a .. ......... .. ......._. .... ........, " " LL im mom CZ LA iW V a� '- 0. 11. O O M o Ln a� CL 4-J '- O O O 4-J O ..��mu�llllllum���.t ..��mu�llllllum���.t ..��mu�llllllum���. - w w-o V O s r �•- •- s ._ — -E (1) v) (t (1) O 4J � cn � � � � 4J -�e - cz ■— u C o u U c� O c� U C: - emu � �' � � 0 � � � Vag +-+ N � u C: E -- 4 j E > =3 0 Jc: 1w a) 4-J Ln (1) cz0p 0 00 j 4- + rz C: 4-J a-J •cc: � c� iiJi � � •— T) O 4J 0 •— � 0 - � - inn � p cC: 0 E E 0 c� 4-J E (v 0 -1-� E 0 cz 0 0 -0 � � OHO 0 � p � s � Q � cn � •- - USE - u QZ � O —