12.240.070 Post-decision procedures.
The decision of the community development director or designee may be appealed to the planning commission as set forth in Chapter 12.78. Any person may submit an appeal, which shall be filed within ten days following the date the decision was made. An appeal shall be submitted in writing on an official city application form together with all required application fees. (Ord. 1825 § 2, 2014)
SECTION 111. Section 12.250.040 (Application Requirements) of Chapter 12.250 (Density Bonus) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
230 of 304
196
2 1
5 9
12.250.040 Application requirements.
An application for a density bonus, incentive, waiver, or parking reduction shall be submitted with the first application for approval of a housing development and shall be processed concurrently with all other applications required for the housing development. The applicant shall be informed whether the application is complete consistent with provisions and timelines of Government Code Section 65943. At the time the application is determined to be complete under Government Code Section 65943, the city will provide the applicant with a determination regarding the amount of density bonus and the parking reduction for which the housing development is eligible and whether adequate information has been submitted for the city to make a determination on incentives and waivers. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the city and, in addition to any information required for other applications, shall include the following information:
A. A description of the proposed housing development and a site plan, elevations, sections, and floor plans, with the total number and location of all dwelling units, average unit size, unit mix by bedroom size, affordable units (including average unit size and unit mix by bedroom size), and density bonus units proposed.
B. Base Density Study. For projects proposed in districts that do not have a maximum density, the The housing development sponsor shall submit plans for a base density housing development that demonstrates a code compliant project on the project site without modification of the Zoning Code. Such plans shall include similar detail to the plans submitted for the proposed housing development, including site plan including parking, elevations, floor plans, total unit count, average unit size, and unit mix. The base density study shall demonstrate that the maximum allowable gross residential density for the base project is not limited by site constraints.
C. A density bonus report that shall include the following minimum information:
1. Base Density Housing Development and Proposed Housing Development Comparison.
Demonstrate whether the average unit size and unit mix is comparable between the base density housing development and the proposed housing development.
2. Requested Density Bonus.
a. The zoning and General Plan land use designations, maximum allowable gross residential density, assessor’s parcel number(s) of the project site, and a description of any density bonus, incentive, waiver, or parking reduction requested. b. Summary table showing the maximum number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning and General Plan excluding any density bonus units, proposed affordable units by income level, proposed bonus percentage, number of density bonus units proposed, total number of dwelling units proposed on the site, and resulting density in units per acre. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed units will satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(b) and identify whether the applicant is requesting a bonus under subparagraph (A), (B), (C) (D), (E), (F), or (G) of Government Code Section 65915(b)(1).
231 of 304
197
2 1
5 9
c. Proposed rents and sale prices demonstrating that any proposed lower and moderate- income units will satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(c) for the selected category under Section 65915(b)(1).
d. Documentation demonstrating that the project is meeting the replacement housing requirements of Government Code Section 65915(c)(3), including submittal of the following information:
i. A description of all dwelling units existing or demolished on the site, by bedroom size, in the five-year period preceding the date of submittal of the application and identification of any units rented in the five-year period. If dwelling units on the site are currently rented, income and household size of all residents of currently occupied units, if known. If any dwelling units on the site were rented in the five-year period but are not currently rented or were demolished, the income and household size of residents occupying dwelling units when the site contained the maximum number of dwelling units, if known.
ii. Description of any recorded covenant, ordinance, or law applicable to the site that restricted rents to levels affordable to very low- or lower-income households in the five-year period preceding the date of submittal of the application. iii. Description of any dwelling units on the site subject to rent or price control through a federal, state, local, or other public entity’s exercise of the police power local in the five-year period preceding the date of submittal.
e. If a density bonus is requested for a land donation, the location of the land to be dedicated, proof of site control, and reasonable documentation that each of the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(g) can be met.
3. Requested Incentive(s). In the event an application proposes incentives for a housing development pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, the density bonus report shall include the following minimum information for each incentive requested, shown on a site plan if appropriate:
a. The city’s usual development standard and the requested development standard or other regulatory incentive, and the applicant’s eligibility under Government Code Section 65915(d) for the number of incentives or concessions requested. b. Except where mixed-use zoning is proposed as an incentive, reasonable documentation to show that any requested incentive will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents, including submittal of a financial analysis or report showing that the requested incentive will result in actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. However, no further documentation is required for the following incentives, if consistent with applicable design guidelines:
i. Reduced setbacks or buffers;
ii. Increased maximum lot coverage; and
iii. Location of land proposed for land donation within one-half mile of the project, so long as the applicant demonstrates to the city’s satisfaction that building the requisite number of
232 of 304
198
2 1
5 9
affordable units on site is infeasible and there is an identified source of funding for the very low- income units.
c. If approval of mixed-use zoning is proposed, reasonable documentation that nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development, that the nonresidential land uses are compatible with the housing development and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located, and that mixed use zoning will provide for affordable housing costs or rents.
4. Requested Waiver(s). In the event an application proposes waivers of development standards for a housing development pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, the density bonus report shall include the following minimum information for each waiver requested:
a. A table showing the city’s required development standards and the requested development standards as depicted on the required site plans and elevations for all locations where a waiver is requested.
b. Reasonable documentation to demonstrate that each development standard for which a waiver is requested would physically preclude the construction of the housing development with the requested density bonus or with the incentives permitted by Government Code Section 65915. Reasonable documentation consists of at least a site plan and elevations of the proposed project with the development standards required by the zoning ordinance overlaid on the site plan and elevations, demonstrating the physical limitations that preclude the density, concessions, and incentives requested.
5. Requested Parking Reduction. In the event an application proposes a parking reduction for a housing development pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(p), a table showing parking required by the zoning regulations, parking proposed under Section 65915(p), and reasonable documentation that the project meets all the requirements for that parking reduction contained in Section 65915(p).
6. Child Care Facility. If a density bonus or incentive is requested for a childcare facility in a housing development, reasonable documentation that all of the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(h) can be met.
7. Condominium Conversion. If a density bonus or incentive is requested for a condominium conversion, reasonable documentation that all of the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915.5 can be met.
8. Commercial Development Bonus. If a commercial development bonus is requested for a commercial development, the application shall include the proposed partnered housing agreement and the proposed commercial development bonus, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915.7, and reasonable documentation that each of the standards included in Government Code Section 65915.7 has been met.
9. Fee. Payment of any fee in an amount set by resolution of the city council for staff time necessary to determine compliance of the density bonus report with State Density Bonus Law.
10. Additional Information. The community and economic development director is authorized to develop, publish and from time to time update or amend permit application
233 of 304
199
2 1
5 9
requirements, forms, checklists, guidelines, informational handouts and other related materials that the director finds necessary, appropriate or useful for processing any application under State Density Bonus Law. All such requirements and materials must be in written form. Any changes shall be posted on the city’s website within thirty days of the change. (Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)
SECTION 112. Section 12.250.070 (Review Procedures) of Chapter 12.205 (Density Bonus) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
12.250.070 Review procedures.
All requests for density bonuses, incentives, parking reductions, waivers, or commercial development bonuses shall be considered and acted upon by the approval body with authority to approve the development within the timelines prescribed by Government Code Sections 65950 et seq., with right of appeal as set forth in Chapter 12.78. to the city council.
A. Eligibility for Density Bonus, Incentive(s), Parking Reduction, and/or Waiver(s). To ensure that an application for a housing development conforms with the provisions of State Density Bonus Law, the staff report presented to the decision-making body shall state whether the application conforms to the following requirements of state law:
1. The housing development provides the affordable units or senior housing required by State Density Bonus Law to be eligible for the density bonus and any incentives, parking reduction, or waivers requested, including the replacement of units rented or formerly rented to low and very low-income households as required by Government Code Section 65915(c)(3).
2. Any requested incentive will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents; except that, if a mixed-use development is requested, the application must instead meet all of the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(k)(2).
3. The development standards for which a waiver is requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by Government Code Section 65915.
4. The housing development is eligible for any requested parking reductions under Government Code Section 65915(p).
5. If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, all of the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(g) have been met.
6. If the density bonus or incentive is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care facility, all of the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(h) have been met.
7. If the density bonus or incentive is based all or in part on the inclusion of affordable units as part of a condominium conversion, all of the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915.5 have been met.
B. If a commercial development bonus is requested for a commercial development, the decision-making body shall make a finding that the development complies with all of the
234 of 304
200
2 1
5 9
requirements of Government Code Section 65915.7, that the city has approved the partnered housing agreement, and that the commercial development bonus has been mutually agreed upon by the city and the commercial developer.
C. The decision-making body shall grant an incentive requested by the applicant unless it makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
1. The proposed incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety code, or for affordable rents, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code; or
2. The proposed incentive would be contrary to state or federal law; or
3. The proposed incentive would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. For the purpose of this subsection, “specific adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the housing development was deemed complete.
D. The decision-making body shall grant the waiver of development standards requested by the applicant unless it makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
1. The development standards proposed to be waived will not have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the permitted density or with the requested incentives, and, as a consequence, grant of the waiver would be contrary to state law; or
2. The proposed waiver would be otherwise contrary to state or federal law; or
3. The proposed waiver would have an adverse impact on any real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or
4. The proposed waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. For the purpose of this subsection, “specific adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the housing development was deemed complete.
E. If any density bonus, incentive, parking reduction, waiver, or commercial development bonus is approved pursuant to this chapter, the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement or senior housing agreement with the city pursuant to Chapter 12.230. (Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)
235 of 304
201
2 1
5 9
SECTION 113. Paragraph A of Section 12.260.100 (Appeals) of Chapter 12.260 (Development Impact Fees) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
A. If a developer believes that one or more of the fees applied to his or her project have been calculated incorrectly by the city, a developer he or she may apply to the city manager for an adjustment to those fees.
SECTION 114. Section 12.260.110 (Regulations) of Chapter 12.260 (Development Impact Fees) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
12.260.110 Regulations.
The city manager may promulgate such interpretive regulations for the application of this chapter as the city manager he or she finds necessary or useful. (Ord. 1933 § 3, 2022; Ord. 1869 § 3, 2019)
SECTION 115. Paragraph A of Section 12.265.100 (Appeals) of Chapter 12.265 (Bayhill Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
A. If a developer believes that the city incorrectly calculated the fee applied to such developer’s project or that the fee is not reasonably related to the impact of the developer’s project on the Bayhill specific plan area facilities, the developer may appeal apply to the city manager for an adjustment to the fee.
SECTION 116. Section 12.270.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 12.270 (Short-Term Residential Rentals) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
12.270.020 Definitions.
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated.
“Advertising platform” means an advertising platform means through which a property owner may offer a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, for short-term rental. An advertising platform includes, but is not limited to, an internet-based platform that allows a property owner to advertise and potentially arrange for short-term residential rental of the dwelling unit, or portion thereof, through a publicly searchable website.
“For-profit commercial uses” means uses that are operated for profit or for hire within a dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, corporate events, subject to final determination by the community and economic development director, or designee. “Multiple-family dwelling unit” means a building or portion thereof, used and designed as residence for three or more families living independently of each other and doing their own
236 of 304
202
2 1
5 9
cooking in said building, including apartment houses, apartment hotels and flats, but not including automobile courts or boardinghouses. This includes both rental units and condominium units.
“Operate” means the operation of a short-term residential rental, and includes the acts of establishing, offering, maintaining or listing for a short-term rental with an advertising platform. “Short-term residential rental” means the transient occupancy use of entire dwelling unit or a portion (such an individual bedroom or equivalent sleeping room as defined by the California Building Code) of a dwelling unit to a guest for a rental period of less than thirty consecutive calendar days.
“Single-family dwelling unit” means a building designed for, or used to house, not more than one family, including all necessary employees of such family. “Two-family or duplex dwelling unit” means a building containing not more than two kitchens designed and/or used to house not more than two families, living independently of each other, including all necessary employees of each such family. (Ord. 1884 § 3, 2020) SECTION 117. Paragraph A of Section 12.270.030 (Administration) of Chapter
12.270 (Short-Term Residential Rentals) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
A. Director of Community and Economic Development. The community development director or their designee is responsible for administering this chapter and establishing rules and regulations for this purpose. As part of the administration of this chapter, the director or designee may:
1. Interpret the provisions of this chapter;
2. Establish reasonable rules and regulations, which may include, without limitation, regular hours for appointments with applicants, as the director deems necessary or appropriate to organize, document and manage the application intake process;
3. Develop, publish and from time to time update or amend permit application requirements, forms, checklists, guidelines, informational handouts and other related materials that the director finds necessary, appropriate or useful for processing any application governed under this chapter;
4. Collect, as a requirement of the submittal of any application, any fee established by this chapter;
5. Establish deadlines for submission of information related to an application, and extend or shorten deadlines where appropriate and consistent with state and federal laws and regulations;
6. Issue any notices of incompleteness, requests for information, or conduct or commission such studies as may be required to determine whether a permit should be issued;
237 of 304
203
2 1
5 9
7. Subject to appeal as provided herein, determine whether to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny an application; and
8. Take such other steps as may be required to timely act upon applications for permitting of short-term residential rental uses including issuing written decisions and entering into agreements to mutually extend the time for action on an application. (Ord. 1884 § 3, 2020) SECTION 118. Paragraph C of Section 12.270.040 of Chapter 12.270 (Short-Term Residential Rentals) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
C. Accessory Dwelling Units. An existing accessory dwelling unit legally permitted and constructed prior to the effective date of this section (September 25, 2020), where the primary single-family dwelling unit is owner occupied may be utilized for short-term residential rental use subject to an annual usage limit of no more than one hundred twenty calendar days per calendar year. Accessory dwelling units permitted after September 25, 2020 shall not be used as a short-term rental. This unit must exist at the time of the enaction of the ordinance codified in this chapter and shall not be subject to an existing deed restriction prohibiting a short-term residential rental use.
This use is permitted in any zoning district in which a dwelling unit is otherwise permitted or is an existing legal nonconforming use. This use subject to the requirements of this section, including compliance with the operating standards, registration, transient occupancy tax payments, business license and tax requirements, and recordkeeping obligations. Except as provided for in this section, all other short-term residential rental uses shall be prohibited. Short- term residential rental uses are prohibited in vehicles, trailers, tents, tree houses, yurts, storage sheds or garages. (Ord. 1884 § 3, 2020)
SECTION 119. Paragraph A of Section 12.270.070 (Permit Requirements and Required Operational Standards) of Chapter 12.270 (Short-Term Residential Rentals) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
A. Permit Required. Any short-term residential rental use must apply for and obtain a short- term residential rental zoning permit issued by the city community and economic development department.
SECTION 120. Paragraph B of Section 12.270.070 (Permit Requirements and Required Operational Standards) of Chapter 12.270 (Short-Term Residential Rentals) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
B. Inspections Required. An inspection Inspection by a city building inspector and the city fire marshal or designee is required before issuance of the short-term residential rental zoning permit. Inspections are also required for bi-annual renewals.
238 of 304
204
2 1
5 9
SECTION 121. Paragraph E of Section 12.270.070 (Permit Requirements and Required Operational Standards) of Chapter 12.270 (Short-Term Residential Rentals) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
E. Local Contact Information. The permittee shall keep on file with the city community and economic development department, police department, and fire department the name, address, telephone number, and email address of a local contact person who remains responsible for responding any questions or concerns regarding the operation of a short-term residential rental.
This information shall also be posted in a conspicuous location within and directly outside (in a location visible to the public) of the rental unit. The local contact person shall be available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week during the term of any non-hosted stays to accept any complaints. The local contact person is required to respond within sixty minutes to complaints and be fully authorized to take remedial action to resolve such complaints.
SECTION 122. Section 12.270.090 (Appeals) of Chapter 12.270 (Short-Term Residential Rentals) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
12.270.090 Appeals.
A. Appeals of Approvals of Short-Term Residential Rental Zoning Permit. An approval of a short-term residential rental zoning permit issued by the director or designee Decisions by the community development director pursuant to this chapter may be appealed in writing to the city manager, which may decide de novo, and whose written decision may be appealed in writing to the city council, which will be the final decision of the city.
B. Appeals of Denials or Revocations of Short-Term Residential Rental Zoning Permit. A denial or revocation of a short-term residential rental zoning permit rendered by the director or designee pursuant to this chapter may be appealed in writing to the city manager, which may decide de novo, and whose written decision may be appealed in writing to the city council, which will be the final decision of the city.
BC. Timing. Any appeal shall be conducted so that a timely written decision may be issued in accordance with applicable law. All appeals must be filed within ten business days of the written decision of the director or designee, unless the director or designee extends the time therefor. An extension may not be granted when the extension would result in approval of the application by operation of law.
CD. All appeals shall state the basis for the appeal and provide supporting documentation if appropriate. Appeals shall be conducted informally, and the rules of evidence will not apply. (Ord. 1884 § 3, 2020)
SECTION 123. Chapter 12.280 (Mixed-Use Zoning Districts) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 12.280 MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS
12.280.010 Purpose of zoning district.
239 of 304
205
2 1
5 9
A. Central Business District (CBD). The CBD zoning district supports a vibrant downtown core that is an exciting destination for residents, workers, and visitors. The CBD zoning district preserves and enhances the main street urban fabric and character of San Mateo Avenue with targeted enhancement of existing commercial uses, additional residential units, and streetscape improvements that create an inviting pedestrian environment. The CBD zoning district implements the Central Business District land use designation in the General Plan and Transit Corridors Plan.
B. TOD-Station Office (TOD-S). The TOD-S zoning district accommodates high-intensity residential, office, and retail development within the vicinity of the new Caltrain station. New development within the TOD-S zoning district will be a focal point of new activity that is integrated with the Caltrain station, Downtown San Bruno, and surrounding areas. The TOD zoning district supports a dynamic, active environment with a mixture of employment, residential, and retail uses that support a pedestrian-friendly environment. The TOD-S zoning district implements the transit-oriented development land use designation in the General Plan and the Station Area land use designation in the Transit Corridors Plan.
C. Medium Density Mixed-Use (TOD-1). The TOD-1 zoning district allows for a mixture of pedestrian-oriented land uses along San Bruno’s transit corridors. New development within the TOD-1 zoning district will support pedestrian activity, transportation alternatives, and a unique sense of place within San Bruno. High density housing will increase residents’ access to transit and support adjacent resident-serving retail and services. Streetscape improvements, upgraded storefront, and human-scaled building design will create a welcoming identity and inviting environment for pedestrians. The TOD-1 zoning district implements the Transit Oriented Development land use designation in the General Plan and the San Bruno Avenue and Huntington Avenue designations in the Transit Corridors Plan.
D. High Density Mixed-Use (TOD-2). The TOD-2 zoning district allows for high intensity residential and commercial land uses along San Bruno’s primary transit corridors. New development within the TOD-2 zoning district will support a vibrant mixed-use corridor that supports increased transit use and supports nearby stores and services. Building in the TOD-2 zoning district will encourage increased pedestrian activity and a high quality design environment. The TOD-2 zoning district implements the Transit-Oriented Development land use designation in the General Plan and the El Camino Real designation in the Transit Corridors Plan.
E. Multi Use—Residential Focus (MX-R). The MX-R zoning district allows for multifamily housing and a variety of residentially focused uses along El Camino Real south of Crystal Springs Road. The MX-R zoning district supports a vibrant residential corridor with related, supportive residential and employment uses, but retail uses only conditionally allowed. This will allow for concentrating retail in existing retail areas. The MX-R zoning district implements the Multi-Use—Residential Focus land use designation in the General Plan.
F. Civic Center (CC). The CC zoning district allows for a high intensity integrated civic center along El Camino Real. The CC zoning district applies to the area occupied by the San Bruno City Hall, Public Library, and Fire and Police Stations. The CC zoning district allows development intensities that support transit use and increased pedestrian activity and promote a high-quality design environment. The P/QP-CC zoning district implements the Public/Quasi- Public land use designation in the General Plan and the Civic Center land use designation in the Transit Corridors Plan. (Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)
240 of 304
206
2 1
5 9
12.280.020 Permitted uses.
Table 12.280-1 identifies land uses permitted in the mixed-use zoning districts. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows:
“P” designates permitted land uses
“C” designates Use Permit required as set forth in Chapter 12.112 “-” designates land uses that are not allowed
A. Unlisted Uses. The land uses below are defined in Chapter 12.80, Definitions, of the San Bruno Zoning Ordinance. If a specific land use or activity is not defined, the director shall assign the land use or activity to a use type that is substantially similar in character. Use types not listed in the table or not substantially similar to the uses below are prohibited unless the community and economic development director make a written determination that an unlisted proposed use is substantially equivalent to a permitted or conditionally listed use and is permitted if all of the following findings can be made.
1. The use is no greater in density or intensity than other permitted uses in the applicable zoning district;
2. The use is compatible with permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the applicable zoning district;
3. The use will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district and any applicable adopted specific plan;
4. The use is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and any applicable adopted specific plan;
5. The use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
When the community and economic development director determines that a proposed use is equivalent to a permitted or conditionally permitted listed use, the proposed use shall be treated in the same manner as the listed use with respect to development standards, permits required (including the need for a conditional use permit or any other planning entitlement), and all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Conditional Land Uses. Those land uses specified as conditionally permitted uses in this chapter may be permitted subject to approval of a use permit pursuant to Chapter 12.122. by the planning commission or city council.
C. Existing Nonconforming Uses.
1. Where a use is classified as a “conditional use” under this chapter and legally exists as a permitted use at the date of the adoption of this chapter, it shall be considered a legal nonconforming use subject to Chapter 12.92. , without further action of the planning commission or the city council.
241 of 304
207
2 1
5 9
2. Exemptions. Permitted single-family residential uses made legal nonconforming by adoption of the ordinance codified in this title shall be exempt from the prohibition on expansion of the legal nonconforming use set forth in Section 12.92.020(B)(2).
Table 12.280-1: Permitted Land Uses in Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Land Uses CBD TOD-
S
TOD-
1 TOD-
2 CC MX-R
Residential Uses
Duplex Homes, Mobile Home Parks,
Single-Family Homes
- - - - - -
Boardinghouse C [1] C C C - C
Live/Work C P P P - P
Multifamily Homes P [1] P P P P
Residential Care Facilities, Small P [1] P P P - P
Residential Care Facilities, Large P [1] P P P - P
Accessory Dwelling Units P P P P - P
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Cemeteries - - - - - -
Colleges and Universities; Schools; and
Trade and Vocational Schools
C [2] C C C - -
Community Facilities, Public C C - C C C
Community Facilities, Private C C - C - C
Community Garden P P P P P P
Day Care Center C P P P - P
Emergency Shelters - P [7] P [7] P [7] - -
Home Day Care, Small P [1] P P P - P
Home Day Care, Large P [1] P P P - P
Hospitals - C C C - -
Nursing and Convalescent Homes - C C C - -
Parks and Recreational Facilities
(Public)
PC P PC PC P PC
Parks and Recreational Facilities
(Private)
C C C C C C
Places of Worship C C C C - C
Public Safety Facilities - - - - P -
Public Maintenance Facilities - - - - - -
Social Services and Charitable
Institutions
C C C C - -
Commercial Uses
Adult Businesses (12.84.040) - - - C [5] - -
Amusement Game Centers (12.84.060) C C C C - C
Banks & Other Financial P P P P - P
Bars, Nightclubs and Lounges C p C [5] C [5] C [5] - C [5]
242 of 304
208
2 1
5 9
Land Uses CBD TOD-
S
TOD-
1 TOD-
2 CC MX-R
Business Services P [2] P P P - P
Cannabis Retailer - - C [4] C [4] - C [4]
Cardroom (12.84.050) C [5] - - C [5,
6]
- C [5, 6]
Check Cashing Establishments - - - C - -
Commercial Recreation and
Entertainment
C C C C - C
Drive-Through Facilities - - - C [5] - C [5]
Firearm Dealers - - - - - -
Gas and Service Stations - - - C
Health and Exercise Clubs C C C C - C
Hotels and Motels C P P P - P
Office P [2] P P P P P
Outdoor Dining P P P P - P
Personal Services, Downtown Focus P P P P - P
Personal Services, Instructional Focus C C P P - P
Personal Services, General - C P P - P
Personal Storage - - - - - -
Pet Boarding Overnight - - C C - -
Pet Day Care Facility C C P P - -
Research and Development P [2] P P P - P
Retail Sales and Services P [3] P P P - C
Restaurants P [3] P P P - P
Vehicle Sales and Rental - - - C - -
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance - - - - - -
Industrial Uses
Construction, Maintenance, and Repair
Services; Heavy Equipment Sales and
Rental; Lumberyards; Manufacturing
and Processing (Light and General);
Warehousing, Wholesaling, and
Distribution
- - - - - -
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Alternative Energy Structures C C C C C C
Ground Transportation Provider - - - - - -
Parking Lots, Commercial - - - - - -
Parking Structures, Commercial C C C C - C
Recycling Collection Facilities - C C C - C
Recycling Processing Facilities - - - - - -
Transportation Terminals - P - - - -
Utilities, Major C C C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P P P
243 of 304
209
2 1
5 9
Notes:
[1] Permitted on upper floors; permitted on ground floor only if located along a side street without frontage along San Mateo Avenue.
[2] Permitted on upper floors only.
[3] Permitted on ground floors only.
[4] Subject to obtaining the necessary permits pursuant to Chapters 4.70 and 12.300. [5] Requires planning commission action.
[6] Only permitted along El Camino Real and San Mateo Avenue. [7] Pursuant to performance standards as set forth in Section 12.96.205.E. (Ord. 1937 § 3, 2023; Ord. 1930 § 5, 2022; Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)
12.280.030 Development standards.
A. An architectural review permit shall be required for any project as set forth in Chapter
12.108.
BA. Building Form and Placement. Table 12.280-2 identifies building form and placement standards in the Mixed-use zoning districts. Letters A, B, C, and D in the table refer to Figure
12.280-1.
Table 12.280-2 Mixed-Use Zoning District Standards
CBD TOD-S TOD -1 TOD-2 CC MX-R
Height (A)
Minimum
Height None None / 60
feet [1] None
Maximum
Height [2] 55 feet 65 feet / 90
feet [1] 65 feet 70 feet 70 feet 50 feet
Minimum
Stories None None / 4
stories [1] None
Maximum
Stories 4 5 stories / 7
stories [1] 5 5 5 3
Maximum FAR
Parcels less
than 20,000
sq. ft.
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Parcels
20,000 sq.
ft. or greater
None
Residential: 3.0
Nonresidential:
0.6 Residential
Density None 40.0 dwelling
units per acre [3]
244 of 304
210
2 1
5 9
CBD TOD-S TOD -1 TOD-2 CC MX-R
Setbacks
Front (B) Minimum 10
feet [4] 5 feet minimum, 10 feet average [5, 6] 15 feet [5] 5 feet minimum,
10 feet average
[5, 6]
Street Side 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet
Interior
Side None
Rear (C) None
Rear if
Adjacent to
R-1 or R-2
District [7]
10 feet
Minimum Stepbacks (D)
Facing
Corridor
Street [8]
15 feet above
4th story
15 feet above
4th story
15 feet above
4th story
Adjacent to
R-1 or R-2
District
15 feet above
3rd story 15 feet above
3rd story
15 feet
above 3rd
story 15 feet above
3rd story
15 feet above
3rd story
None
Minimum
Required
Open
Space
40 sq. ft. of private or common open space per residential unit [9] Notes:
[1] East of San Mateo Ave/West of San Mateo Avenue. [2] A 10-foot increase in building heights may be permitted with planning commission approval for use of dormers, cupolas and similar architectural features with an architectural review permit.
[3] Projects that undertake public right-of-way streetscape improvements in accordance with criteria established by the city are eligible for a discretionary bonus of up to 8.0 units per acre. [4] In the CBD, the 10-foot setback is measured from edge of curb, and the combined width of the sidewalk and setback must equal at least 10 feet. Development projects that provide a combined 15-foot setback measured from edge of curb including the width of the sidewalk and setback may request a 25% reduction in the required amount of open space at the discretion of the decision-making body.
[5] Front setback must be pedestrian-oriented and contain semi-public amenities such as courtyards or outdoor seating areas.
[6] The average front setback shall equal the square footage resulting from multiplying the required average setback of the zone by the averageable width. The averageable width shall be the length of the property frontage. Residential ground-floor entry stoops may project into the setback area but must be set back at least 2 feet from the back of sidewalk. Window bays, balconies, and another architectural features may project into the average setback by 4 feet.
245 of 304
211
2 1
5 9
[7] Adjacent means directly abutting, having a boundary or property line(s) in common or bordering directly, or contiguous to. For the purposes of this chapter, if the subject property is adjacent to a right-of-way, but a parcel with R-1 or R-2 zoning exists directly across the right-of- way at a 90 degree angle to the subject property line, it shall be considered adjacent to the R-1 or R-2 Districts despite the intervening right-of-way.
[8] Corridor Streets include San Mateo Avenue, El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue, and Huntington Avenue.
[9] A combination of private and common outdoor open space may be provided assuming that a minimum of 40 square feet total open space is provided per unit. Private outdoor space shall not be less than 6 feet in any dimension and may be provided in the form of a porch, balcony, deck, patio, or fenced yards. Common outdoor space shall be located behind or within buildings as courtyards, and/or screened from street view by plant materials, elevation changes, and/or other techniques as appropriate.
Figure 12.280-1 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Standards
(Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)
12.280.040 Ground-floor building transparency.
A. The ground-floor street-facing building walls of nonresidential uses shall provide transparent windows or doors with views into the building for a minimum of sixty-five percent of the building frontage located between two and one-half and seven feet above the sidewalk (see Figure 12.280-2). Ninety percent of the transparent windows or doors area shall remain clear to allow views into the building.
B. Exceptions to this transparency requirement may be allowed if the community and economic development director finds that:
1. The proposed use has unique operational characteristics which preclude building openings, such as for a cinema or theatre; and
246 of 304
212
2 1
5 9
2. Street-facing building walls will exhibit architectural relief and detail and will be enhanced with landscaping in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level.
Figure 12.280-2 Ground-Floor Building Transparency
(Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)
12.280.050 Supplemental development standards.
The following standards apply to development projects in all mixed-use zoning districts.
These standards are illustrated in Figure 12.280-3 (Development Standards). Additionally, development projects within the Transit Corridors Plan shall demonstrate compliance with applicable design guidelines and standards contained in the Transit Corridors Plan.
A. Building Orientation. Buildings shall be oriented towards a public street with the primary entrance to the site or building directly accessible from an adjacent public sidewalk.
B. Building Articulation. Building articulation is required and may include:
1. Doors, windows, and other building openings;
2. Building projections or recesses, doorway and window trim, and other details that provide architectural articulation and design interest;
3. Varying wall planes, heights or contrasting materials and colors; and
4. Awnings, canopies, or arcades to reinforce the pedestrian scale and provide shade and cover from the elements.
C. Ground-Floor Minimum Height. Any ground floor associated with a nonresidential use shall have a minimum height of fifteen feet
247 of 304
213
2 1
5 9
D. Building Materials and Colors.
1. Materials and colors shall be consistent with the desired contemporary architectural style.
2. Exterior building materials shall be steel, brick precast concrete, cut stone, exterior plaster or other quality, durable materials approved by the city as part of the project review.
3. Durable and highly resistant building base materials, such as precast concrete, brick, stone masonry, and commercial grade ceramic, shall be selected to withstand pedestrian traffic.
4. Materials and colors shall be used at intersecting planes to enhance key components of the building’s façade.
E. Storefront Width. The maximum building/storefront width in the CBD shall be twenty- five feet and one hundred feet in all other mixed-use districts. Larger buildings shall be broken down into a pedestrian scale rhythm with individual building bay widths of twenty-five to fifty feet.
F. Pedestrian Emphasis. Site design and building placement shall promote pedestrian access and walkability between buildings, sidewalks, public places, transit stops, and similar features and improvements.
Figure 12.280-3 Supplemental Development Standards
G. Parking Location and Buffers.
1. Surface parking shall be located to the rear or side of buildings. Surface parking may not be located between a building and a street-facing property line abutting a principal street.
2. Parking partially underground may match the setbacks of the main structure. The maximum height of a parking podium visible from a principal street is five feet from finished grade.
248 of 304
214
2 1
5 9
3. There is no setback requirement for parking located completely underground; however, underground parking shall be designed to accommodate installation of all private utilities on private property and dedicate public utility easements, as needed, for proposed utilities needed to serve the property. Any proposed temporary or permanent encroachments into the public right-of-way or adjacent private properties shall be reviewed by the appropriate individuals or review bodies.
4. Surface parking adjacent to any street-facing property line shall be screened along the public right-of-way with a decorative wall, hedge, trellis, and/or landscaping at least three feet in height, unless the community and economic development director determines that a lower height is necessitated to ensure pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety.
5. A landscaped buffer at least three feet in width and six feet in height shall be provided for any surface parking lot abutting a residential zoning district.
6. On-site loading areas shall be located to the side and rear of buildings and shall be sufficiently screened from the public right-of-way, as determined by the community development director. (Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)
12.280.060 Pre-application process.
For residential projects in TCP areas that are adjacent to existing low-density residential properties or for sites that are twenty thousand square feet or larger, a pre-application is encouraged required.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the pre-submittal process is to notify neighbors of the proposed project, receive public input, and receive initial feedback regarding the proposed project from staff, an outside design consultant, and the architectural review committee.
B. Process. A community outreach meeting is encouraged with a pre-application. The pre- application process includes an architectural review committee study session and community outreach meeting.
C. Application. Application requirements and further detail on process shall be set forth on a form prepared by the city. The fee shall be set forth in on the city’s Master Fee Schedule, as adopted city council resolution. (Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)
SECTION 124. Section 12.290.040 of Chapter 12.290 (Bayhill Specific Plan Districts) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
12.290.040 Land use regulations.
Table 12.290-1 prescribes the land use regulations for the four Bayhill zoning districts. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as shown in the table as follows:.
“P” designates permitted land uses
249 of 304
215
2 1
5 9
“C” designates a use permit is required as set forth in Chapter 12.112 “-“ designates land uses that are not allowed
A. The use types are defined in Chapter 12.80, Definitions. If a specific land use or activity is not defined, the community and economic development director shall assign the land use or activity to a use type that is substantially similar in character. Use types not listed in the table or not substantially similar to the uses below are prohibited unless the community and economic development director make a written determination that an unlisted proposed use is equivalent to a permitted or conditionally listed use and is either permitted or conditionally permitted if all of the following findings can be made.
1. The use is no greater in density or intensity than other uses in the applicable zoning district;
2. The use is compatible with permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the applicable zoning district;
3. The use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district and Bayhill Specific Plan;
4. The use is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and Bayhill Specific Plan;
5. The use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
B. When the community and economic development director determines that a proposed use is equivalent to a permitted or conditionally permitted listed use, the proposed use shall be treated in the same manner as the listed use with respect to development standards, permits required (including the need for a conditional use permit or any other planning entitlement), and all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance.
C. Conditional Land Uses.
1. Those land uses specified as conditionally permitted uses in the Bayhill Specific Plan may be permitted subject to approval of a use permit in accordance with Chapter 12.112.
2. Where a use is classified as a “conditional use” under the Bayhill Specific Plan and exists as a permitted use at the effective date of this chapter, it shall be considered a legal and conforming use, without further approval.
250 of 304
216
2 1
5 9
Table 12.290-1: Permitted Land Uses—BayHill Zoning Districts
P DESIGNATES PERMITTED LAND USES
C DESIGNATES CONDITIONAL LAND USES
- DESIGNATES LAND USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED
AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS OR FOR MAJOR FAÇADE MODIFICATIONS TO ANY EXISTING BUILDINGS, AS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 12.108.
Districts
Land Uses Bayhill Regional
Office
Bayhill
Neighborhood
Commercial
Bayhill Residential
Overlay
Bayhill Mixed Use
Overlay
Residential
Duplex Homes,
Mobile Home
Parks, Single-
Family Homes
- - - -
Boarding House - - C C
Live/Work - - P P
Multifamily
Homes - - P P
Residential Care
Facilities, Large - - C C
Residential Care
Facilities, Small - - P P
Accessory
Dwelling Units - - P P
Public/Quasi-Public
Cemeteries - - - -
Colleges and
Universities;
Schools; Trade
and Vocational
Schools
C C C C
Community
Facilities,
Private
- - C -
Community
Facilities, Public - - C -
Day Care Center P P P P
Emergency
Shelters - - - -
Home Day Care,
Small and Large - - P P
Hospitals - - - -
Nursing and
Convalescent
Homes
- - - -
Parks and
Recreational
Facilities
P P P P
Places of
Worship - C - C
251 of 304
217
2 1
5 9
Table 12.290-1: Permitted Land Uses—BayHill Zoning Districts
P DESIGNATES PERMITTED LAND USES
C DESIGNATES CONDITIONAL LAND USES
- DESIGNATES LAND USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED
AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS OR FOR MAJOR FAÇADE MODIFICATIONS TO ANY EXISTING BUILDINGS, AS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 12.108.
Districts
Land Uses Bayhill Regional
Office
Bayhill
Neighborhood
Commercial
Bayhill Residential
Overlay
Bayhill Mixed Use
Overlay
Public Safety
Facilities P - P -
Public
Maintenance
Facilities
- - - -
Social Services
and Charitable
Institutions
- C - C
Commercial
Adult
Businesses - - - -
Banks and Other
Financials P [1] P P [1] P
Bars, Nightclubs
and Lounges - C [5] - C [5]
Business
Services P [1] P P [1] P
Check Cashing
Establishments - - - -
Commercial
Recreation and
Entertainment
- C - C
Drive-Through
Facilities - - - -
Firearm Dealers - - - -
Health and
Exercise Clubs P [1] P/C [2] P [1] P/C [2]
Hotels and
Motels C C C C
Office P P [4] P P [4]
Personal
Services P [1] P P [1] P
Personal Storage - - - -
Pet Boarding
Overnight - C - C
Pet Day Care
Facility C [1] C C [1] C
Research and
Development P - P -
Restaurants P [1] P [3] P [1] P [3]
Outdoor Dining P [1] P P [1] P
252 of 304
218
2 1
5 9
Table 12.290-1: Permitted Land Uses—BayHill Zoning Districts
P DESIGNATES PERMITTED LAND USES
C DESIGNATES CONDITIONAL LAND USES
- DESIGNATES LAND USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED
AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS OR FOR MAJOR FAÇADE MODIFICATIONS TO ANY EXISTING BUILDINGS, AS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 12.108.
Districts
Land Uses Bayhill Regional
Office
Bayhill
Neighborhood
Commercial
Bayhill Residential
Overlay
Bayhill Mixed Use
Overlay
Retail Sales and
Services P [1] P P [1] P
Vehicle Sales
and Rental - - - -
Vehicle Service
Stations - - -
Vehicle Repair
and
Maintenance
- - - -
Industrial Uses
(Construction,
Maintenance
and Repair
services; Heavy
Equipment Sales
and Rental;
Lumberyards;
Manufacturing
and Processing
(Light and
General);
Warehousing,
Wholesaling,
and
Distribution)
- - - -
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Alternative
Energy
Structures
C C C C
Ground
Transportation
Provider
- - - -
Parking Lots,
Commercial - - - -
Parking
Structures,
Commercial
- - - -
Recycling
Collection
Facilities
- C - C
Recycling
Processing
Facilities
- - - -
253 of 304
219
2 1
5 9
Table 12.290-1: Permitted Land Uses—BayHill Zoning Districts
P DESIGNATES PERMITTED LAND USES
C DESIGNATES CONDITIONAL LAND USES
- DESIGNATES LAND USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED
AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS OR FOR MAJOR FAÇADE MODIFICATIONS TO ANY EXISTING BUILDINGS, AS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 12.108.
Districts
Land Uses Bayhill Regional
Office
Bayhill
Neighborhood
Commercial
Bayhill Residential
Overlay
Bayhill Mixed Use
Overlay
Transportation
Terminals P P P P
Utilities, Major C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P
Notes:
[1] Permitted only as an ancillary use to the main office use. [2] Health and exercise clubs less than or equal to 15,000 square feet in total area are permitted. Health and exercise clubs greater than 15,000 square feet in total area require a conditional use permit.
[3] Restaurant uses are allowed by right in the Bayhill Shopping Center. The total combined area for all restaurant uses shall be limited to no more than 30,000 gross square feet. [4] Office uses are allowed by right in the Bayhill Shopping Center. The total combined area for all office uses shall be limited to no more than 30,000 gross square feet. [5] Requires planning commission action.
(Ord. 1903 § 3, 2021)
SECTION 125. Paragraph G of Section 12.290.050 (Allocation of New Development and Transfer of Development) of Chapter 12.290 (Bayhill Specific Plan Districts) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
G. Transfer of Development—Properties with Common Ownership. When the transferring and receiving properties are under common ownership, up to twenty percent of the maximum permitted square footage of a designated Bayhill Regional Office parcel as listed in Bayhill Specific Plan Table 2-2 may be approved by the community and economic development director for transfer to another designated Bayhill Regional Office parcel based on all of the following findings:
1. The total amount of development resulting on the receiving parcel does not exceed 2.0 FAR;
254 of 304
220
2 1
5 9
2. The transfer produces a public benefit, such as increasing the amount of publicly accessible open space or making the construction of housing more feasible on the donating parcel;
3. The additional development on the receiving parcel is consistent with all applicable Bayhill Specific Plan standards and policies; and
4. The owner of both the transferring and the receiving properties are the same.
SECTION 126. Section 12.290.080 of Chapter 12.290 (Bayhill Specific Plan Districts) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
12.290.080 Architectural review permit.
An architectural review permit shall be required for any new construction buildings or for major façade modifications to any existing buildings, as required in Chapter 12.108. (Ord. 1903 § 3, 2021)
SECTION 127. Section 12.300.020 of Chapter 12.300 (Commercial Cannabis Operations) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
12.300.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless otherwise specified:
“Cannabis” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. “Cannabis” also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis. “Cannabis” does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. For the purpose of this division, “cannabis” does not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. “Cannabis distribution facility” means a business that is authorized to engage in the distribution of cannabis and cannabis products without having a cannabis retailer component. “Cannabis operator” means an interested person who has obtained a commercial cannabis operator permit and has a commercial cannabis operation. “Cannabis products” has the same meaning as in Section 11018.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
“Cannabis retailer” means any establishment which engages in the retail sale of cannabis for adult-use purposes.
255 of 304
221
2 1
5 9
“City manager” means the city manager and/or designee.
“Commercial cannabis activity” includes the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery, or sale of cannabis and cannabis products.
“Commercial cannabis operation” means a cannabis retailer or cannabis distribution facility. “Commercial cannabis operator permit” means a permit issued by the city of San Bruno pursuant to this chapter to a commercial cannabis operation. “Conditional use permit” means a zoning approval issued by the city council pursuant to the zoning code to a commercial cannabis operation.
“Day care center” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 1596.76 of the Health and Safety Code.
“Director” means the director of community and economic development. “Distribution” means the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between state licensed cannabis businesses.
“Hazardous materials” include any hazardous substance regulated by any federal, state, or local laws or regulations intended to protect human health or the environment from exposure to such substances.
“Interested persons” means any of the following:
1. Any individual that has an aggregate ownership interest, other than a security interest, lien, or encumbrance, of twenty percent or more in the commercial cannabis operation;
2. Partners, officers, directors, and stockholders of every corporation, limited liability company, or general or limited partnership that owns at least twenty percent of the commercial cannabis operation or that is one of the partners in the commercial cannabis operation;
3. The chief executive officer of a nonprofit or other entity, or a member of the board of directors of a nonprofit; and
4. A manager or an individual who will be participating in the direction, control, or management of the commercial cannabis operation.
“Juvenile” means any natural person who is under the age of eighteen years. “Manager” means a person or persons with responsibility for the establishment, registration, supervision, or oversight of the operation of a commercial cannabis operation, including, but not limited to, a person who performs the functions of a board member, director, officer, owner, operating officer, or manager of the commercial cannabis operation.
256 of 304
222
2 1
5 9
“MAUCRSA” means the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, codified in Business and Professions Code Section 26000 et seq., as the same may be amended from time to time.
“Park” means a playground or recreational area specifically designed to be used by children which has play equipment installed, including public grounds designed for athletic activities such as baseball, softball, soccer, or basketball or any similar facility located on a public or private school grounds, or on city, county, or state parks. Park does not include small “pocket parks,” such as Posy Park.
“Public library” means a building or room operated by a government entity containing collections of books, periodicals, and sometimes films and recorded music for people to read, borrow, or refer to. A public library may also provide digital or computer resources. “School” means any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, (whether public, private, or charter, including pre-school, transitional kindergarten, and K-12). “Sensitive uses” mean a day care center, public library, park, school or youth center, as defined herein.
“Staff” means a person other than a manager who works or provides services on the site of a commercial cannabis operation, whether as an employee, contractor, or volunteer. “Youth center” has the same meaning as Section 11353.1 of the Health and Safety Code that includes the following:
1. A public or private facility that is primarily used to host recreation or social activities for minors, including, but not limited to:
a. Private youth membership organizations or clubs; b. Social service teenage club facilities;
c. Video arcades where ten or more video games or game machines or devices are operated, and where minors are legally permitted to conduct business; or d. Similar amusement park facilities.
The public or private facility must be used for youth activities at least sixty percent of the time in a calendar year.
2. A youth center shall not include any private martial arts, yoga, ballet, music, art studio or similar studio of this nature nor shall it include any private gym, athletic training facility, pizza parlor, dentist’s office, doctor’s office primarily serving children or a location which is primarily utilized as an administrative office or facility for youth programs or organizations. (Ord. 1930 § 2, 2022)
257 of 304
223
2 1
5 9
SECTION 128. Paragraph A of Section 12.300.040 (Permits and Approvals Required) of Chapter 12.88 (Commercial Cannabis Operations) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) is amended to read as follows:
A. Conditional Use Permit. Every property for which a commercial cannabis operation is proposed to be established, maintained, operated, or conducted in the city shall obtain a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 12.112 and 12.300.060.
SECTION 129. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act under Sections 15301(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5), in that it is not a project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 130. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable.
SECTION 131. Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a summary thereof to be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least five (5) days prior to the meeting at which the proposed ordinance is to be adopted and shall post a certified copy of the proposed ordinance in the office of the City Clerk, and within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, shall cause a summary of it to be published, including the vote for and against the same, and shall post a certified copy of the adopted ordinance in the office of the City Clerk, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933.
_______________________________
ATTEST: Rico E. Medina, Mayor ______________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney
---oOo---
I, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ____ was introduced at a regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council on _________, 2024, and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on _________, 2024, by the following vote:
258 of 304
224
2 1
5 9
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_______________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
259 of 304
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: April 9, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Lee, P.E., Public Works Director
Robert Wood, Public Works Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Contract with Smelly Mels Plumbing, Inc. to Provide Sewer Spot Repair Services in an Annual Amount Not to Exceed $600,000 For the First Year, and Four Additional Option Years at $600,000 Each, for a Total Amount of $3,000,000 for a Total Five-Year Term
BACKGROUND:
The City owns, operates and maintains approximately 85 miles of sewer mains and related manholes. Like many cities the size of San Bruno, the City contracts with a private company for annual spot maintenance and emergency repair services. Spot repair services include repair and replacement of sewer mains; repair and installation of manholes; and emergency response as needed. The City requires the contractor be available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and have a facility within twenty miles of the City of San Bruno.
Public Works operates two programs to address repairs and maintenance of the City’s wastewater system. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) manages the replacement of longer sections of sewer mains and the rehabilitation of pump stations based on priorities outlined in the Sewer Master Plan. The CIP is complemented by an annual operating program that manages a program for preventative maintenance, cleaning, inspection, and repair of failed sewer infrastructure. The City crews have the equipment and resources to complete smaller repairs, but when a repair is large, complex, or when there is insufficient staffing capacity, the City uses outside contractors with heavy equipment and experience with larger repair projects.
DISCUSSION:
The Public Works Department has been utilizing an outside contractor for both planned and emergency spot repairs for several years. This resource, along with scheduled video inspections and cleaning of the sewer system, and using City crews to complete smaller repairs, has led to record low Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). In 2008, the City had 54 annual SSOs. Over the last three years the City has averaged 1.7 SSOs per year (2021-2023); with no (0) SSOs in 2023, and no (0) SSOs through March 2024.
The project was advertised and posted with various Bay Area plan holder’s list providers and on the City’s website on October 11, 2023. A total of three (3) bids were received and opened on 260 of 304
Item 6f.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
November 8, 2023 as follows:
No. Contractor Bid Amount
1 Smelly Mels Plumbing, Inc. $ 2,791,750
2 West Valley Construction Company, Inc. 2,911,050
3 C2R Engineering, Inc. 3,926,750
The above bid amounts reflect the combined annual repair costs of five separate terms with identical work quantities.
After a thorough review of all bid proposals for responsiveness, compliance with bid specifications, and reference checks, staff recommends awarding the contract to Smelly Mels Plumbing, Inc. of South San Francisco, California. Smelly Mels Plumbing submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid and has completed sewer installation and undergrounding work for public agencies, and commercial and residential properties along the San Francisco Peninsula. Recent municipal projects included work for the cities of Los Altos Hills, Millbrae, Pacifica, and South San Francisco.
This contract is for a one-year term with the option to annually renew for a total possible term of five years and can be terminated by the City at any time. The project will operate on a time and materials basis based on a rate schedule provided by the contractor.
The City’s last sewer spot repair maintenance contract expired February 11, 2024. Interim coverage has been provided by the last approved contractor on an individual, emergency repair basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The first year contract amount of $600,000 reflects the approved Wastewater Operating Budget allocation for annual sewer system spot repairs. There are sufficient funds in the Wastewater Fund for this annual program. Future option term amounts will be reviewed and determined during the annual budget process.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and as such is exempt from further environmental consideration per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a five-year contract with Smelly Mels Plumbing, Inc. to provide sewer spot repair services in an annual amount not to exceed $600,000 for the first year, and four additional option years at $600,000 each, for a total amount of $3,000,000 for a total five-year term.
ALTERNATIVES:
.
1. Reject the lowest bid and direct staff to re-evaluate the bids based on alternative selection criteria recommended by the City Council.
261 of 304
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
262 of 304
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - ___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH SMELLY MELS PLUMBING, INC.
TO PROVIDE SEWER SPOT REPAIR SERVICES IN AN
ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $600,000 FOR THE FIRST YEAR, AND FOUR ADDITIONAL OPTION YEARS AT $600,000 EACH,
FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $3,000,000 FOR A TOTAL FIVE-YEAR TERM WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno desires to utilize the services of a well-qualified contractor to assist with performing planned and emergency spot repairs for the City’s sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, services include, but not limited to repair and replacement of sewer mains; repair and installation of manholes; and emergency response as needed. The Contractor must also be available 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, with a facility within 20 miles of the City of San Bruno; and
WHEREAS, the City advertised this project on October 11, 2023 and three bids were received and opened on November 8, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City selected Smelly Mels Plumbing, Inc. of South San Francisco, California, which submitted the lowest responsive and responsible proposal; and following a review of their references, including experience completing similar projects for the cities of Lost Altos Hills, Millbrae, Pacifica, and South San Francisco, along with many commercial and residential properties, and
WHEREAS, the first year contract amount of $600,000 reflects the approved Wastewater Operating Budget allocation for annual sewer system spot repairs. There are sufficient funds in the Wastewater Fund for this annual program. Future option term amounts will be reviewed and determined during the annual budget process.; and WHEREAS, the as-needed contract has the option to be renewed annually for a total possible term of five (5) years and can be terminated by the City at any time; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a five-year contract with Smelly Mels Plumbing, Inc. to provide sewer spot repair services in an annual amount not to exceed $600,000 for the first year, and four additional option years at $600,000 each, for a total amount of $3,000,000 for a total five-year term.
263 of 304
ATTACHMENT 1
2 ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2024 - ______ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on April 9, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
264 of 304
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: April 9, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Hae Won Ritchie, P.E., City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Harry Yip, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Establish 20 Feet of an On-Street Accessible Parking Blue Zone Curb on Linden Avenue for San Bruno Library
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Public Works Department received a request from the San Bruno Library to install new blue painting on the curb located on Linden Avenue adjacent to the San Bruno Library. An on-street accessible parking space, more commonly referred to as a ”blue zone curb," indicates an on-street parking space that is restricted for only use by drivers with a valid disabled parking placard from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Linden Avenue is a 28-foot wide roadway with two-way travel, a speed limit of 25 MPH and one-hour parking from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on both sides of the road. The San Bruno Library is bordered by Linden Avenue and Allen Elementary School to the west, San Bruno City Hall to the south, Angus Avenue West to the north, and El Camino Real to the east. There is currently about 100-feet of red curb followed by about 30-feet of yellow curb south of the Angus Avenue West and Linden Avenue intersection on the east side of Linden Avenue. There is an existing blue curb on Angus Avenue West near north entrance of the library but persons parking in this space are required to travel uphill to Linden Avenue to access the accessible south entrance of the library.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed 20 feet of an On-Street Accessible Parking blue zone curb would begin at the end of the existing yellow curb near the library as shown in Figure 1. The blue zone would be effective 24 hours a day. Figure 2 shows the access path between the proposed blue curb and one of the library entrances. The proposed blue zone curb on Linden Avenue between 570 Linden Avenue and 701 Angus Avenue West was evaluated under the special parking restriction policies developed by the TSPC in December 2009 and approved by the City Council on July 27, 2010. The following outlines the blue zone curb criteria and staff’s analysis:
Criteria 1. Is there no on-site ability to provide handicapped parking? The library has no dedicated off-street parking for patron use. There is on-street parking near the library available for patrons. Installation of the proposed blue curb on Linden Avenue would allow a patron with a disabled person parking placard or plate to access the library more conveniently through an accessible path. Therefore, this criterion is met. 265 of 304
Item 6g.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
7 8
5 Criteria 2. Is the existing on-street parking heavily occupied? A site visit was performed to determine if the current on-street parking is heavily parked and if a blue zone curb was installed at this location would negatively impact the parking situation. Staff observed that the majority of patrons park in a non-City affiliated private parking lot across the street from the library and that there was adequate on-street parking except for during school drop-off and pick-up times for the adjacent school. Library staff has reached out to the San Bruno Park Elementary School District, and they had no concerns with the additional blue curb.
The installation of 20-feet of blue zone curb would not create a significant hardship on the street parking supply.
Figure 1: Proposed Blue Zone Curb
As both criteria are met, staff finds that the proposed establishment of 20-feet blue zone would have minimal impact on the surrounding streets. Additionally, the blue curb would allow a library patron with disabled parking placard access the library more conveniently. 
266 of 304
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
7 8
5 
This item was also presented to the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee on March 6, 2024 who concurred with staff’s recommendation. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve the establishment of this 20-feet blue curb zone.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact from adoption of the resolution. The implementation of the curb painting is approximately $500. These actions would be funded with the existing budget within FY 2023-24 in the Capital Improvements Program Project 60020 – Traffic Safety and Parking Committee Studies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the modification of parking restrictions is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 1 exemption for existing facilities, which include existing highways, streets, and sidewalks, and alterations thereto (California Code of Regulations 15301 (c)).
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution to Establish of 20 feet of an On-Street Accessible Parking Blue Zone on Linden Avenue for the San Bruno Library.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to find another location for the blue zone curb
2. Do not approve the addition of a blue zone curb.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
267 of 304
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO ESTABLISHING A 20-
FOOT ON-STREET ACCESSIBLE PARKING BLUE CURB ON LINDEN AVENUE FOR THE SAN BRUNO LIBRARY; AND FINDING SUCH ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title VII, Section 7.12.030 of the San Bruno Municipal Code grants the City Traffic Engineer the duty and responsibility for placing and maintaining traffic control devices he or she deems necessary to guide or warn traffic based on engineering principles and investigations;
WHEREAS, installation of an accessible parking blue zone curb on Linden Avenue would allow a patron with disabled person parking placard or plate to access the San Bruno Library more conveniently through an accessible path;
WHEREAS, a site visit was performed and determined that the installation of 20-feet of blue zone curb would not create a significant hardship on the street; and WHEREAS, this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the modification of parking restrictions is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 1 exemption for existing facilities, which include existing highways, streets, and sidewalks, and alterations thereto (California Code of Regulations 15301 (c))..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby: (i) establishes a 20-foot on-street accessible parking blue zone curb on Linden Avenue immediate south of the yellow curb as shown in Exhibit A.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby determines this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c).
---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2024 - ______ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on April 9, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
268 of 304
ATTACHMENT 1
2 2
3 0
9 Exhibit A: Proposed 20-feet of Blue Curb on Linden Ave San Bruno
Library
Existing Yellow Curb
Proposed 20-feet
of Blue Curb
269 of 304
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: April 9, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Sandeep Krishnamurthy, Director
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Authorize the City Manager to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Acquisition of San Bruno CityNet Services
BACKGROUND:
San Bruno CityNet Services has operated as an Enterprise of the City of San Bruno since 1971.
While originally experiencing overall financial success, over the past decade, the CityNet Enterprise fund has accumulated a deficit of $21.2 million. The Enterprise has also experienced technological obsolescence during the past decade with significant investment required to bring the Enterprise’s technology and operations up to current industry standards and attract subscribers to a level where the Enterprise generates a material amount to benefit the City’s General Fund.
In February 2024, the San Bruno City Council adopted its strategic initiatives, including “Stabilize CityNet’s fiscal sustainability.” During the 2023-24 fiscal year, Staff commenced a process to explore options to present to the Council for consideration. A key element of this aggregation process has been to assess marketplace interest in the potential acquisition of CityNet Services by an interested third party.
DISCUSSION:
On April 12, 2023, the San Bruno City Council received a presentation from San Bruno CityNet Services proposing a plan for the continued fiber upgrade of the 78.2% of the Enterprise’s hybrid fiber coaxial cables. The proposed plan requested an initial $3 million to upgrade one phase of the proposed upgrade project which at the time was priced at a total of $20.2 million, for the upgrade of the Enterprise. The Council turned down the request to fund the upgrade plan and directed Staff to return with more information and another plan for the future of the Enterprise.
Staff accordingly commenced assembling options for the future of the Enterprise. One of the options is to sell the Enterprise to a third party. As a preliminary move to explore third party interest in such an acquisition, Staff issued a Request for Expression of Interest (RFI) on December 20, 2023. Third party interest has been expressed in the potential acquisition of the Enterprise.
Responses by third parties to the City’s RFI were designed to be non-binding expressions of interest in potentially acquiring the assets and operations of the Enterprise and not subject to 270 of 304
Item 6h.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
due diligence of the Enterprise by interested parties. The City’s emphasis in issuance of the RFI was to gauge marketplace interest in a potential acquisition of the Enterprise. Responses to the proposed RFP, while still non-binding, allow for due diligence of the Enterprise and require a proposed acquisition price. Responses to the proposed RFP, should any meet the approval the Council, will pave the way to an exclusive binding agreement between the City and a potential acquirer.
San Bruno CityNet currently serves about 6,000 households in San Bruno. While the market environment is competitive for the services offered by the Enterprise and competing providers are available, Staff has identified continued availability of internet access through the Enterprise’s infrastructure to the population of San Bruno to be an important factor in the issuance of the RFP which implies a qualified successor entity to replace San Bruno CityNet Services.
As the next step in this process Staff is proposing the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) from third parties to acquire the operations of San Bruno CityNet Services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Adoption of a Resolution to Authorize the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the acquisition of San Bruno CityNet Services.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct Staff not to pursue the issuance of the RFP
2. Pursue other plans for the future of San Bruno CityNet Services ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Proposed RFP
271 of 304
2 3
2 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A REQUST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF SAN BRUNO CITYNET SERVICES
WHEREAS, The City of San Bruno owns and operates San Bruno CityNet Services (CityNet).
CityNet delivers internet, television (TV) and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Telephony services to its subscribers in San Bruno; and
WHEREAS, CityNet has accrued a deficit of $21.2 million owed to the City’s General Fund and requires investment to upgrade its technology and operations; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined to consider all available options for the future of San Bruno CityNet Services; and
WHEREAS, one of the available options for the Council’s considerations for the future of San Bruno CityNet Services is to request proposals from qualified third parties for the acquisition of San Bruno CityNet Services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Bruno City Council authorizes the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the potential acquisition of San Bruno CityNet Services.
-oOo-
I, Lupita Huerta, City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Bruno this 09th day of April 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________________ NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________________ ATTEST:
_________________________________
Lupita Huerta
City Clerk
272 of 304
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Acquisition of San Bruno CityNet Services
RFP Issued: April 10, 2024
Proposals Due: May 31, 2024
273 of 304
ATTACHMENT 2
2 | P a g e
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................3 II. Description of the Government and the Enterprise.............................................................3 III. Proposed Acquisition Offer ...................................................................................................3 IV. Explicitly Excluded Assets………………………………………………………………………… 5 V. Enterprise Due Diligence Inspection ....................................................................................5 VI. Proposal Submittal Requirements ........................................................................................5 VII. Evaluation of Responses to RFP………………………………………………………………….6 VII. Proposed Schedule ................................................................................................................6 VIII. Questions ................................................................................................................................7 IX. Confidentiality of Proposals ..................................................................................................7 X. Attachment A………………………………………………………………………………………. ..9
274 of 304
3 | P a g e
I. Introduction
The City of San Bruno (the “City”) is requesting proposals (RFP) from qualified firms to acquire the operations of San Bruno City Services (the “Enterprise”).
This RFP does not commit the City to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and presentation of submittals or to select any interested firms who respond.
II. Description of the Government and the Enterprise
The City of San Bruno, an ethnically and culturally diverse city, maintains a small-town atmosphere within a large metropolitan area. The City is approximately 5.5 square miles in size and has a population of roughly 43,000 residents. It is uniquely located on the San Francisco Peninsula in San Mateo County, about twelve miles south of San Francisco.
Located along Highway 101 and Interstate 280, accessible by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain and the San Mateo Transit (SamTrans) bus system, San Bruno is a transit hub for the bay area. Adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport, the City has easy accessibility to the vast cultural, educational, and recreational opportunities within the San Francisco Bay Area.
The CityNet Enterprise (“CityNet”) was established in 1971 by the City and has gone through several comprehensive upgrades to keep up with the development of the industry. CityNet delivers a full suite of video, data and voice services to over 7,000 residential and business customers in San Bruno on a cable plant consisting of over 89 miles of fiber and coaxial cable. The Enterprise has upgraded 17% of its plant to fiber to the home and is undertaking limited fiber to the home rollouts in select City neighborhoods. Additionally, CityNet manages San Bruno Cable Channel 1, the City’s governmental access channel.
While CityNet is a fully operational entity serving the San Bruno Community, shifting industry realities have led the Enterprise to build a fiscal deficit of over $20 million with the City of San Bruno’s General Fund. With prudent fiscal management of the City’s taxpayer funded finances as a goal, the City of San Bruno is currently engaged in the potential divestment of San Bruno CityNet Services through this RFP. This follows the City of San Bruno’s issuance of a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFI) in the acquisition of the Enterprise from qualified firms.
275 of 304
4 | P a g e
III. Proposed Acquisition Offer:
With the approval of the San Bruno City Council, San Bruno CityNet Services is offered for acquisition on an “as is” basis, including the following assets:
1. Cable Television franchise for the City of San Bruno, CA.
2. An FCC accredited Internet Service Provider, Cable TV and VoIP provider operation with over 6,000 service homes in the City of San Bruno, California.
3. 30 Gigabits of assignable IP circuit capacity assembled from three separate IP circuits. Peak IP load is currently at 23 Gigabits.
4. Residential and business internet distribution with speeds up to 300/10 Mbps in non-fiber areas and up to 1 Gigabit symmetric service in fiber upgraded areas of San Bruno.
5. 750 MHz Cable TV system with remote Arris Digital Addressable Controller servicing about 5,400 consumer grade Set Top Boxes (STBs).
6. CableLabs DOCSIS 3.0 Operating System.
7. 89 miles of Hybrid Fiber Coaxial (HFC) and fiber optic cables passing every address in San Bruno. The HFC plant extends over 73 miles with the remaining 16 miles upgraded to fiber optic cables.
8. Cable plant laid out with 93% aerial carriage and 7% underground conduits.
9. Drops to 9,287 residential and business dwellings. Includes 1,624 fiber drops.
10. Fiber passings mostly to three large condominium complexes (2,564 passings) and 560 single family residences.
11.2,625 electric poles leased with assignable tenancy, subject to acceptance of such transfer by pole owner.
12.2,465 electronic taps including 920 passive taps and 1,545 active interdiction taps.
13.Rack mounted Cable Television downlink and distribution, advertising insertion and internet routing equipment.
276 of 304
5 | P a g e
14.Assignable local distribution rights for suite of 250 Television channels in High Definition and Standard Definition currently serving 2,000 cable TV subscribers.
15.Embedded Multimedia Terminal Adapter (EMTA) based VoIP telephone system with 1,000 service homes. Includes assignable agreement with provider of wholesale Telephony Services.
16.Assignable Streaming TV product agreement with a current active base of 325 subscribers.
17.Calix fiber headend electronics with 1,624 deployed Optical Network Terminals.
18.Calix residential Wi-Fi deployed to 924 subscribers.
19. Assignable billing engine license from Great Lakes Data Systems, Inc.
20. Proforma Financials: Available as an attachment to this document.
IV. Explicitly Excluded Assets
All real estate connected with the Operations of San Bruno CityNet Services.
V. Enterprise Due Diligence Inspection
Due diligence of the Enterprise can be undertaken for a period of six weeks post publication of the RFP on the City’s website. Arrangements for a site visit of no greater than two days by any interested party and other due diligence activities deemed necessary to develop a response to the RFP may be coordinated with the City of San Bruno contact listed in this document.
VI. Proposal Submittal Requirements
Non-binding expressions of interest to engage with the City of San Bruno in order to acquire the operations and operational assets of San Bruno CityNet Services should include the following information organized in the order provided in this section.
1. Title Page
Title page showing the RFI’s subject, the firm’s name, address and phone number of a contact person, and the date of the expression of interest.
277 of 304
6 | P a g e
2. Table of Contents
3. Experience, Qualifications and Post Acquisition Plan Please provide a summary of your company’s experience in operating an ISP or Cable TV operation as well as interest in acquisition of San Bruno CityNet Services
4. Proposed acquisition price and other relevant transaction details VII. Evaluation of Responses to RFP
1. Oral Presentation. During the evaluation process, the City may, at its discretion, request anyone, all, or no firms to make oral presentations.
2. Right to Select or Reject. The City reserves the right to move forward with the proposal which it determines will best serve the need of the needs of the City, or to reject any or all expressions of interest submitted, and to request additional information on all Responses to this RFP.
VIII. Proposed Schedule
The following schedule has been established for the RFP process. The City of San Bruno reserves the right, however, to modify this schedule at any time:
Date Task
04/10/2024 Issuance of RFP
05/17/2024 Deadline to Submit Questions &
Conduct Due Diligence
05/31/2024 Responses to RFP Due to City
06/01/2024 – 06/30/2024 City to review Responses to RFP Selection of Proposal As Decided By San Bruno City Council
278 of 304
7 | P a g e
IX. Questions
Questions regarding the information contained in the RFP document must be submitted in writing, by US mail or email or addressed to:
Attention: Sandeep Krishnamurthy,
Director, San Bruno CityNet Services
398, El Camino Real,
San Bruno, CA 94066
[email protected]
Ph. (650) 616-3106
All questions must be received by 05/17/2024. Questions will be responded to in writing.
Written summaries of all questions and answers will be available to all interested parties.
Anonymity of the source of specific written questions will be maintained in the written responses. A clarification addendum will be issued, if necessary.
Telephone requests for information or inquiries will be allowed only if the nature of the request or inquiry does not lend itself to formulation into a written question. Verbal inquiries, however, are discouraged and calling parties may be requested to submit written questions in lieu of receiving a verbal response. The intent behind this requirement is to ensure that all interested parties have available to them the same information and no inconsistent, incomplete or misinformation is communicated to any team.
X. Confidentiality of Information
California Government Code Sections 6250et seq. (the “California Public Records Act” or the “Act”) defines a public record as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public business. The Act provides that public records shall be disclosed upon written request and that any citizen has a right to inspect any public record unless the document is exempted from disclosure. The City of San Bruno, which is part of the County of San Mateo, is subject to the California Public Records Act.
Be advised that any contract that eventually arises from this RFP is a public record in its entirety upon the expiry of the proposed schedule in Section VII. Also, all information submitted in response to this RFP is itself a public record without exception. Submission of any materials in response to this RFP constitutes a waiver by the submitting party of any claim that the information is protected from disclosure. By submitting materials,(1) you are consenting to release of such materials by the City of San Bruno if requested under the Public Records Act without further notice to you and (2) you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of San Bruno for release of such information.
279 of 304
8 | P a g e
If the City of San Bruno receives a request for any portion of a document submitted in response to this RFP, the City will not assert any privileges that may exist on behalf of the person or entity submitting the proposal, and the City reserves the right to disclose the requested materials without notice to the party who originally submitted the requested material. To the extent consistent with the Public Records Act and applicable case law interpreting those provisions, the City of San Bruno and/or its officers, agents, and employees retain discretion to release or withhold any information submitted in response to this RFI.
Submission of an Response to this RFP constitutes a complete waiver of any claims whatsoever against the City of San Bruno and/or its officers, agents, or employees that the City has violated a proposer's right to privacy, disclosed trade secrets, or caused any damage by allowing the Response to be inspected.
Attachments
•Attachment A: San Bruno CityNet Services Proforma Financial Information References
•City of San Bruno General Plan (available on the City Website) •City of San Bruno Municipal Code (available on the City Website)
280 of 304
9 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
San Bruno CityNet Services
PROFORMA FINANCIALS
2022-23 2021-22 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19
($ millions)
Revenue 8.267 8.566 9.017 9.304 9.739
Salaries 2.268 2.203 2.643 2.504 2.386
Cost of Goods and Services 4.598 5.105 5.281 5.683 6.546 Gross Margin 1.401 1.258 1.093 1.117 0.807
Franchise Tax 0.222 0.272 0.319 0.307 0.341
Government Expenses* 2.031 1.789 1.271 1.433 1.342
Net Margin (0.85) (0.80) (0.50) (0.62) (0.88)
*- Government Expenses include Pension Payments and City Allocations
281 of 304
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: April 9, 2024
TO: H
onorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FR
OM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPA
RED BY: Peter Gilli, Community Development Director
Michael Laughlin, Planning and Housing Manager
Michael Smith, Senior Planner
SUBJ
ECT: Hold Public Hearing to 1) Consider Adoption of a Resolution Making Draft Findings and Declaring an Intent to consider Overriding the San Mateo City/ County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) Determination of Inconsistency with respect to the Proposed General Plan and Navy Site Specific Plan Amendments and Rezoning of 1101, 1150, and 1151 El Camino Real and 1292 Huntington Avenue and 2) Authorize the City Manager to Submit the Resolution to the Airport Land Use Commission and the State of California Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics and Schedule a Public Hearing Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676
BACKGROUND:
Overview
On January 23, 2023, the City Council adopted the Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element, which included an override of the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) determination of inconsistency. As outlined in the resolution, t he override was necessary because:
1. The grow
th models developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) assumed high-density housing around major transit stations, such as the San Bruno BART station. Those models were the basis for ABAG’s assignment of San Bruno’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 3,165 units.
2. The lands
near the San Bruno BART Station are defined as incompatible for housing by the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP) due to noise from airport operations.
3. Ac
hieving the State mandated RHNA is not realistically possible without allowing housing on the sites near the San Bruno BART station as ABAG modeled, and t he adopted Housing Element has four sites that allow up to 1,099 units within the lands that the SFO ALUCP consider incompatible, and noise impacts can be mitigated through construction materials and techniques.
When
City Council adopted the override in 2023, there was an understanding that another override would be necessary when the City amends the General Plan land use designations and Navy Site 282 of 304
Item 7a.
283 of 304
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
Specific Plan (“Plan Amendments”) and changes to the zoning (“Rezoning”) for those four sites to allow housing. A dditional overrides may be required by the ALUC when housing projects come forward on those sites. This agenda item is the first step in the override process for the Plan Amendments to the Rezoning necessary to implement the adopted Housing Element to fulfill State mandates.
Airport Land Use Committee, Commission and Review of City Land Use Plans The A
irport Land Use Commission is an advisory committee created by the Public Utilities Code (PUC) to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses near airports. Portions of the City are located within the planning area defined in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (“SFO ALUCP”). This land use regulatory plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) for San Mateo County, in its capacity as the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) on November 8, 2012. The SFO ALUCP provides land use policies, height limits, and recommendations for development in the area surrounding San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) to ensure that development in the areas surrounding the airport are compatible with airport operations.
P
ublic Utilities Code Section 21676(b) requires the City to submit land use and zoning amendments and development projects to the ALUC for a consistency determination. On September 9, 2022, the City submitted the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (“Housing Element Update”) to C/CAG for an ALUC land use consistency determination with the SFO ALUCP. The Housing Element included four housing sites that were within the 70dB CNEL noise contour where the SFO ALUCP considers housing an incompatible use. C/CAG found the Housing Element was inconsistent due to these sites being in the specific noise contour.
The f
our sites requiring Plan Amendments and Rezoning are summarized in Table 1:
T
able 1: Housing Element Sites Requiring ALUCP Override
#
Site Address Acres Units Current Use or Owner GP Land Use Amendment Zoning Amendment
1 1150 El
Camino Real
11.28 850 Alexandria Real Estate
Equities
Regional Commercial =>
Transit-Oriented Development
Amend P-D zoning to allow
housing. P-D already allows 85
feet height
2 1292
Huntington Ave.
1.42 200 Alexandria Real Estate
Equities
Regional Commercial =>
Transit-Oriented Development
TOD-1 to P-D zoning allowing
housing and increase allowed
height from 65 to 85 feet
3 1151 El
Camino Real
0.60 60 San Bruno Pet Hospital Neighborhood Commercial => Transit-Oriented Development
C-N (35 feet) to TOD (50 feet)
4 1101 El
Camino Real
0.40 40 Dental Office High-Density Residential =>
Transit-Oriented Development
(Navy Specific Plan)
Amend P-D to allow greater
residential density. P-D
already allows housing up to
70 feet.
284 of 304
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
The Airport Land Use Committee of C/CAG reviewed the Plan Amendments and Rezoning application for consistency with the SFO ALUCP at its February 22, 2024 meeting, and made a recommendation to the C/CAG Board of Directors, that the C/CAG Board, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission, find San Bruno’s proposed Plan Amendments and Rezonings to be inconsistent with the noise compatibility policies of the SFO ALUCP, due to the location of the sites within the airport noise contours.
On M
arch 14, 2024, the C/CAG Board (acting as the ALUC) formally determined the proposed Plan Amendments and Rezoning for the four sites to be inconsistent with the noise compatibility policies of the SFO ALUCP, because the sites would add housing within the 70dB CNEL noise contour (see Attachment 3).
DI
SCUSSION:
SFO ALUCP Consistency Evaluation
Thr
ee airport/land use compatibility factors are addressed in the SFO ALUCP that relate to San Bruno’s proposed Rezonings. These include policies for: (a) noise compatibility, (b) safety compatibility, and (c) airspace compatibility. The ALUC determined the Rezonings were inconsistent with the noise compatibility policies only, so only that policy will be discussed here.
N
oise Compatibility
A
ttachment 2 shows the proposed housing opportunity sites in relation to the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 65, 70, and 75 decibel (dB) aircraft noise exposure contours for SFO. All of the sites lie within the CNEL 70 dB aircraft noise contour, while site 4 is partially located within this contour. As outlined in SFO ALUCP Table IV-1 - Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria, with a limited exception, residential land use is deemed “not compatible” in the CNEL 70-75 dB noise exposure contour range. (The exception applies to existing lots of record zoned for residential use as of the effective date of the SFO ALUCP (November 8, 2012), which does not apply to the subject proposal.) Therefore, the proposed Plan Amendments and Rezoning are inconsistent with the SFO ALUCP noise policies. This is the same inconsistency identified for the adopted Housing Element.
O
verride Process
The City Council may choose to override the ALUC’s determination. The public hearing process for an override is a two-step process, which is established in Public Utilities Code Section 21676. The local agency override process requires two City Council meetings, and a two-thirds affirmative vote:
1. C
ity Council Meeting No. 1 (a Public Hearing): The first step in the process is for the City Council to adopt a resolution making draft findings and declaring an intent to override the ALUC’s determination of inconsistency with the policies of the SFO ALUCP regarding the proposed Rezonings, and to provide notice, in accordance with Sections 21676(b) of the California Public Utilities Code, to the ALUC and the State of California Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics. This must occur at least 45 days prior to the decision by the City Council to override the inconsistency determination, as the agencies have a 30-day comment period. 285 of 304
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
2. City Council Meeting No. 2: The second step in the process is that, not less than 45 days after notification has been sent to the ALUC and Division of Aeronautics, the City Council will consider adoption of a resolution, which requires a two-thirds affirmative vote, to override the ALUC’s determination of inconsistency with the policies of the SFO ALUCP, and make specific findings that the Plan Amendments and Rezoning are consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as set forth in PUC Section 21670. In the context of the Plan Amendments and Rezoning, it is envisioned that the City Council will consider the override at the same meeting at which it will consider re-adopting the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element and the associated Plan Amendments and Rezoning.
I
f the City Council overrides an Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board) decision disapproving a proposed land use action as inconsistent with the ALUCP, then the proposed land use action may proceed, subject to local agency review and permitting processes, as if it had been found consistent with this ALUCP by the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board), then the airport (SFO) shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency’s decision to override the commission’s action or recommendation. consider all comments received, including from the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics.
I
mplications of a Local Agency Override Action
There are two key outcomes of a local agency override of an Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board) decision disapproving a proposed land use action as inconsistent with the ALUCP:
• The pr
oposed land use action may proceed, subject to local agency review and per
mitting processes, as if it had been found consistent with this ALUCP by the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board).
• I
f a city or county overrides a decision of the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board) relating to a publicly owned airport that is not operated by that city or county, the agenc
y operating the airport “shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency’s decision to override the commission’s action or recommendation”.
F
ISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
E
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
P
ursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines Section 15162, The Housing Element Sites Inventory sites requiring Plan Amendments and Rezonings were considered with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and associated housing sites would not result in a significant effect upon the environment because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be incorporated as part of the implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
286 of 304
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:
1. A
dopt a Resolution Making Draft Findings and Declaring an Intent to consider Overriding the San Mateo City / County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) Determination of Inconsistency with respect to the Proposed General Plan and Navy Site Specific Plan Amendments and Rezonings of 1101, 1150, and 1151 El Camino Real and 1292 H
untington Avenue.
2. A
uthorize the City Manager to Submit the Resolution the Airport Land Use Commission and the S
tate of California Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics, and Schedule a P
ublic Hearing Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676.
A
LTERNATIVES:
1. The
City Council can continue this item for more consideration, which will delay t he i
mplementation of the Housing Element; or
2. The City Council may decide not to override the ALUC’s determination of inconsistency. That will result in the Housing Element Sites Inventory being out of compliance, delay the certification of the Housing Element, and require the City to identify additional sites and perform environmental review.
AT
TACHMENTS:
1. Res
olution
2. SFO ALUCP Exhibits
3. ALUC Resolution
4. Let
ter from SFO dated February 12, 2024
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
287 of 304
1 1
3 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024- ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO MAKING
DRAFT FINDINGS AND DECLARING AN INTENT TO CONSIDER OVERRIDING SAN
MATEO CITY / COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (C/CAG) AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S (ALUC) DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL AND NAVY SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REZONING OF 1101, 1150 AND 1151 EL CAMINO REAL AND 1292 HUNTINGTON AVENUE AND PROVIDE NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE STATE
PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE TO THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S DIVISION OF
AERONAUTICS REGARDING SUCH FINDINGS AND INTENT TO CONSIDER AN
OVERRIDE
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65580 et seq. (Housing Element Law) requires that every city prepare and periodically update the housing element of its general plan; every city is mandated to include statutory requirements in the housing element; and every city is required to submit a draft of its housing element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for review and comment as to whether the City’s draft 2023-2031 Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, the City worked with its consultants, the community, Planning Commission and City Council to prepare its 2023-2031 Housing Element Update as required by Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) imposed on the City by the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) included 3,165 housing units, which is a substantial increase in the number of affordable housing opportunities required in comparison to the 5th Cycle RHNA allocation of 1,155 units.
As a result, the City was required to identify all available sites Citywide as potential housing opportunities, including some in proximity to the San Francisco International Airport; and
WHEREAS, the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element has identified a shortfall of 847 housing units, therefore, the City must identify new sites with development potential to accommodate the shortfall; and
WHEREAS, to address the shortfall, the City proposes to rezone and amend associated plans for four sites as potential future housing sites (“Project”). The four sites are the Shops at Tanforan (1150 El Camino Real and 1292 Huntington Ave.), the San Bruno Pet Hospital (1151 El Camino Real), and the dental office (1101 El Camino Real) (collectively, the “Properties”); and
WHEREAS, all the sites proposed for rezoning and the amendment of associated plans are located within Airport Influence Area B of the San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”), the area subject to formal C/CAG Airport Land Use 288 of 304
ATTACHMENT 1
2 1
3 1
Commission (“ALUC”) review, and within the 70 -75 decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) contour where housing is not a compatible use, with limited exceptions; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City referred the Project to the ALUC to review consistency with the Comprehensive Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (“SFO ALUCP”); and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2024, the ALUC, acting pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670, determined that the proposed rezonings are inconsistent with the noise compatibility policies of the SFO ALUCP; and
WHEREAS, as a final review authority under Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City Council may, after a public hearing, override the ALUC determination by a two-thirds vote, if the City makes specific findings that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes of the Public Utilities Code Section 21670 regarding the protection of public health, safety and welfare in the areas surrounding airports and by providing the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (“Division”) with notice of the City’s intent to consider overruling the ALUC determination along with supportive findings at least 45 days prior to the City’s action to overrule the ALUC; and
WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Code provides that the ALUC and the Division shall respond to the notifications of the findings of the proposed override within 30 days of receiving the proposed resolution and findings; and
WHEREAS, in the event that the ALUC or Division’s comments are not available within this timeframe, the City may act without them; and WHEREAS, the comments by the ALUC and Division are advisory to the City under State law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council shall include comments from the ALUC and the Division in the final record of any final decision to overrule the ALUC, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the draft findings attached as Exhibit A to this resolution do not constitute the final findings of the City in regards to the Project’s consistency with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and such draft findings may be revised, amended, and/or supplemented as part of any final decision to override the ALUC’s determination; and
WHEREAS, should the City Council adopt this resolution making the draft findings and declaring an intent to consider overruling the ALUC determination that the rezonings and plan amendments are inconsistent with respect to the noise policies of the SFO ALUCP and directing staff to transmit the required notice to the ALUC and the Division, a public hearing will be required for the City Council to make a final decision regarding whether to override the ALUC inconsistency determination.
289 of 304
3 1
3 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Bruno hereby takes the following actions:
1. Makes the draft findings attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein; and
2. Declares an intent to consider overruling the Airport Land Use Commission’s determination that the proposed rezoning of the properties is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport with respect to noise policies; and
3. Directs staff to provide notice in accordance with Sections 21676(b) and 21676.5(a) of the State Public Utilities Code to the Airport Land Use Commission and the State of California Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics at least 45 days prior to the scheduled public hearing date for consideration of the proposed override decision by the City Council; and
4. Directs staff to take all other actions necessary to effectuate the purpose and intent of this resolution; and
5. The City Council finds that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines Section 15162, The Housing Element Sites Inventory sites requiring plan amendments and rezonings were considered with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and associated housing sites would not result in a significant effect upon the environment because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be incorporated as part of the implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
-o0o-
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024 - __ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on April 9, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
290 of 304
4 1
3 1
Exhibit A: Draft Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The first purpose of Section 21670 is to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this State, and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of California airport noise standards and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. The second purpose of Section 21670 is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.
3. With respect to noise policies, SFO ALUCP Policy NP-1 Noise Compatibility Zones identifies the noise compatibility zones for the purposes of the ALUCP. As depicted in the City of San Bruno’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, four housing sites, the Shops at Tanforan (1150 El Camino Real and 1292 Huntington Ave.); the San Bruno Pet Hospital (1151 El Camino Real); and the dental office (1101 El Camino Real) (collectively, the “Properties”) lie within the Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”) 70-75 decibel (“dBA”) noise exposure contour range where housing development would be incompatible per SFO ALUCP Table IV, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria.
4. Pursuant to SFO ALUCP, Table IV-1, residential land uses are conditionally compatible in the CNEL 65-70 dBA noise exposure contour range and are acceptable if sound insulation is provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dBA or lower and if an avigation easement is granted to the City and County of San Francisco as operator of SFO.
5. Any housing project on these properties shall incorporate noise control measures and construction standards that will lessen noise impacts to residents as follows:
a. Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed acoustical analyses shall be completed as part of the final design for the proposed residential structures. The project shall incorporate construction methods, sound attenuation features, and sound reducing barriers that reduce noise impacts in accordance with Section 21670, State Building Code, and General Plan requirements to meet the interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL.
Sound control treatments shall include mechanical ventilation for all units so that windows can be kept closed at the resident’s discretion to control noise, and special building construction techniques (such as sound-rated windows and building façade treatments) for all units.
b. The project shall include real estate disclosures in residential leases, disclosing the presence of an airport within two miles of the property, per Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code.
c. The property owners shall grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed building or structure.
291 of 304
5 1
3 1
d. The project shall include an indemnification agreement with the City of San Bruno prior to issuance of building permits, ensuring that liability related to noise is assumed by the project.
6. Approval of the proposed rezonings and plan amendments as described above is consistent with the noise standards of the SFO ALUCP as it would provide for orderly development adjacent to the airport and promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards and prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems because the proposed Project provides much needed housing near transit on underutilized sites, while also utilizing advanced construction techniques to minimize any noise impacts to residents, and helping the City satisfy its large RHNA allocation and respond to the housing crisis facing the region and the State.
292 of 304
/gid00052/gid00064/gid00077/gid00001/gid00035/gid00081/gid00084/gid00077/gid00078/gid00001/gid00037/gid00081/gid00064/gid00069/gid00083/gid00001/gid00019/gid00017/gid00019/gid00020/gid00014/gid00001/gid00019/gid00017/gid00020/gid00018 /gid00041/gid00078/gid00084/gid00082/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00038/gid00075/gid00068/gid00076/gid00068/gid00077/gid00083/gid00001/gid00054/gid00079/gid00067/gid00064/gid00083/gid00068/gid00001/gid00052/gid00084/gid00072/gid00083/gid00064/gid00065/gid00075/gid00068/gid00001/gid00052/gid00072/gid00083/gid00068/gid00082 /gid00036/gid00047/gid00038/gid00045/gid00001/gid00024/gid00017/gid00001/gid00067/gid00035 /gid00036/gid00047/gid00038/gid00045/gid00001/gid00024/gid00017/gid00001/gid00067/gid00035 /gid00036/gid00047/gid00038/gid00045/gid00001/gid00024/gid00017/gid00001/gid00067/gid00035 /gid00036/gid00047/gid00038/gid00045/gid00001/gid00024/gid00017/gid00001/gid00067/gid00035 /gid00036/gid00047/gid00038/gid00045/gid00001/gid00023
/gid00022/gid00001/gid00067/gid00035
/gid00036/gid00047/gid00038/gid00045/gid00001/gid00023/gid00022/gid00001/gid00067/gid00035 /gid00036/gid00047/gid00038/gid00045/gid00001/gid00023/gid00022/gid00001/gid00067/gid00035 /gid00036/gid00047/gid00038/gid00045/gid00001/gid00023/gid00022 /gid00001/gid00067/gid00035
1 2
3 4
Site No. APN Address
Existing
General Plan
Land Use
Proposed
General Plan
Land Use
Existing
Zoning Proposed Zoning
1 014316330 1150 El Camino Real Regional
Commercial
Transit-
Oriented
Development
P-D P-D
2 014311060 1292 Huntington Ave.
Transit-
Oriented
Development
Transit-
Oriented
Development
TOD-1 TOD-1
3 020013100 1151 El Camino Real Neighborhood
Commercial
Transit-
Oriented
Development
C-N TOD-2
020213200
020013170
P-D4 1101 El Camino Real High-Density
Residential
Transit-
Oriented
Development
P-D
293 of 304
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION 24-11
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, ACTING AS THE SAN MATEO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND
USE COMMISSION, DETERMINING THAT PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS RELATED TO FOUR POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE SAN BRUNO DRAFT 2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT SITUATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE TANFORAN SHOPPING CENTER IN
SAN BRUNO ARE INCONSISTENT WITH NOISE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONS OF SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.
RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), in its capacity as the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, that, WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) a local agency General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and/or any affected specific plan must be consistent with the applicable airport/land use criteria in the relevant adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and
WHEREAS, in November 2022, the City of San Bruno referred its Draft 2023-2032 Housing Element Update to the C/CAG, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), for a determination of consistency with the relevant airport/land use compatibility criteria in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP); and WHEREAS, due to inclusion of housing opportunity sites within the CNEL 70 dB noise contour, in conflict with SFO ALUCP noise compatibility policies, the ALUC adopted Resolution 22-96, determining the Draft Housing Element to be incompatible with the SFO ALUCP; and WHEREAS, San Bruno has now proposed amendments to change the general plan and zoning designations on four sites located within or adjacent to the Tanforan Shopping Center to accommodate the number of housing units identified in the draft Housing Element, and has referred the proposal to the ALUC for a determination of consistency with the SFO ALUCP; and WHEREAS, three airport/land use compatibility factors are addressed in the SFO ALUCP that relate to the proposed general plan housing element amendment. These include policies for: (a) noise compatibility, (b) safety compatibility, and (c) airspace compatibility, as discussed below:
a. Noise Compatibility - The four sites identified in the proposed amendments for redesignation/rezoning to allow for residential use lie wholly within the CNEL 70 dB aircraft noise contour. As outlined in SFO ALUCP Table IV-1 - Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria, with a limited exception, residential land use is deemed “not compatible” in the CNEL 70-75 dB noise exposure contour range. [The exception applies to existing lots of record zoned for residential use as of the effective date of the SFO ALUCP (November 8, 2012), which does not apply to the subject proposal.] In addition, SFO ALUCP Policy NP-4.4 states: “The rezoning of land for residential use within the CNEL 70 dB contour shall be considered incompatible and inconsistent with this ALUCP.”
The proposed amendments are therefore incompatible and inconsistent with the SFO ALUCP noise compatibility policies.
294 of 304
ATTACHMENT 3
b. Safety Compatibility - The SFO ALUCP includes safety zones and related land use compatibility policies and criteria. Sites 1 and 2, are located within Safety Zone 4 (Outer Approach / Departure Zone) and Sites 3 and 4 are not located within a Safety Zone. Per SFO ALUCP Table IV-2, Safety Compatibility Criteria, housing is a compatible use in Safety Zone
4. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with the SFO ALUCP safety policies c. Airspace Compatibility - The SFO ALUCP airspace policies establish maximum heights for the compatibility of new structures, the need for compliance with federal regulations requiring notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of certain proposed construction or alterations of structures, and address other incompatible site characteristics, especially as they pertain to building materials or features that reflect and create bright lights or glare or which may attract wildlife (ex. large flocks of birds), which can pose serious safety hazard to pilots and aircraft.
The elevations of the critical aeronautical surfaces at the subject development sites range from approximately 125 to 145 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Utilizing SFO’s online airspace tool it appears the allowable heights on the sites would not exceed the critical aeronautical surfaces. Additionally, per SFO ALUCP Exhibit IV-11, development projects on any of these sites would require the filing of Form 7460-1 with the FAA and subsequent issuance of a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. Also, since San Bruno has not yet brought its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance into consistency with the SFO ALUCP, in accordance with SFO ALUCP Policy GP-10.1, the city is required to submit all proposed development and land use policy actions that affect property within AIA B to the ALUC for a consistency determination before issuing any permits, which will ensure that future projects will comply with applicable Airspace Protection policies.
WHEREAS, at its February 22, 2024 meeting, based on the factors listed above, the Airport Land Use Committee recommended that the C/CAG Board of Directors, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission, determine that the proposed amendments be found inconsistent with the noise compatibility policies of the SFO ALUCP; and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County, acting as the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, that the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments related to four potential housing sites identified in the San Bruno Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element, situated within or adjacent to the Tanforan Shopping Center in San Bruno, are inconsistent with Noise Compatibility Policies of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024.
Davina Hurt, Chair
295 of 304
February 12, 2024
Susy Kalkin TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
ALUC Staff [email protected]
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County 555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, California 94063
Subject: San Francisco International Airport’s Objection to the City of San Bruno’s Proposed Zoning Amendment (2023-2031 Housing Element Update)
Dear Susy:
Thank you for the opportunity for San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) to comment on the City of San Bruno’s (City) proposed zoning amendment, which would allow residential uses on specific development sites where residential uses are currently not permitted. We appreciate this opportunity to coordinate with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in evaluating the proposed rezoning.
As the Airport stated in a letter sent to the City on September 30, 2022, regarding the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, the proposal to allow residential uses on the subject development sites is deeply concerning due to their fundamental and unmitigable incompatibility with the noise compatibility policies of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP). The Airport remains opposed to the development of high-density residential uses on the subject development sites.
The proposed rezoning would implement the goals, policies, and programs of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, which is currently undergoing review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. As described in the City’s application for the proposed rezoning and as shown in the table below, the City’s General Plan land use designations, zoning controls, and height limits would be amended to allow residential uses on the following development sites:
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Site Address Existing Land
Use
Existing GP
Land Use
Designation
Proposed GP
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning and
Height Limit
Proposed
Zoning and
Height Limit
014-316-330 1150 El
Camino Real Tanforan Regional
Commercial
Transit-
Oriented
Development
P-D
85 feet
P-D
85 feet
014-311-060
1292
Huntington
Avenue
Tanforan
Transit-
Oriented
Development
Transit-
Oriented
Development
TOD-1
65 feet
P-D
85 feet
020-013-100 1151 El
Camino Real
San Bruno Pet
Hospital
Neighborhood
Commercial
Transit-
Oriented
Development
C-N
35 feet
TOD
50 feet
020-213-200
020-013-170
1101 El
Camino Real Dental Office High-Density
Residential
Transit-
Oriented
Development
P-D
70 feet
P-D
70 feet
296 of 304
ATTACHMENT 4
Susy Kalkin, ALUC
February 12, 2024
SFO ALUCP AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS
The subject development sites are within two Airport Influence Areas: Area A – Real Estate Disclosure Area (all of San Mateo County) and Area B – Policy/Project Referral Area (a smaller subarea in the northern part of San Mateo County), as defined by the SFO ALUCP. Within Area A, the real estate disclosure requirements of state law apply (see Attachment A). A property owner offering a property for sale or lease must disclose the presence of planned or existing airports within two miles of the property. Within Area B, the Board of Directors of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), acting as the designated Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), shall review proposed land use policy actions, including new general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, plan amendments and rezonings, and land development proposals (see Attachment A). The real estate disclosure requirements in Area A also apply in Area B.
SFO ALUCP NOISE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES
As shown in the City’s application, the subject development sites are within the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 70 A-weighted decibel (dBA) noise contour (see Attachment B). As shown in Table IV-1 of the SFO ALUCP, residential uses are not compatible within the CNEL 70 dBA contour (see Attachment B). Developing residential uses within the CNEL 70 dBA contour would expose residents to extreme and persistent noise from aircraft operations. Such exposure can result in adverse health effects including stress-related illnesses, high blood pressure, hearing loss, and sleep disruption.1 This noise exposure is not mitigable for residential uses due to the nature of that development type, which is characterized by operable windows, access to open space, and other design elements which preclude effective mitigation.
The Airport supports practical housing development in the Bay Area to address our region’s housing affordability crisis. However, adding housing to areas which have been found to be fundamentally unsuited to residential development is neither practical nor desirable. The Airport understands that because of the presence of high-quality transit near the subject development sites, the City is under State obligation to meet a higher Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), but meeting this obligation cannot come at the expense of future residents’ health and well-being.
All development actions related to residential uses within the CNEL 70 dBA contour, including rezoning of a site from nonresidential use to residential use, are determined to be incompatible under Noise Compatibility Policy NP-4 of the SFO ALUCP. This differs from the CNEL 65 dBA contour, where acoustical treatments are capable of reducing interior noise levels and making residential developments conditionally compatible.
Developing residential uses within the CNEL 70 dBA contour would result in a significant effect on future residents and is identified under research-based federal and state regulations as incompatible. Interior insulation would fail to address noise in outdoor amenity spaces often provided alongside housing.
Furthermore, the simple act of opening a window would compromise the efficacy of even the best noise insulation.
The baseline noise conditions for future residents would be significant but can be avoided if the City identifies other locations for housing outside the CNEL 70 dBA contour. The Airport has noted to the City and the ALUC that the City has failed to take zoning actions at other sites, including 2101 Sneath Lane and 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Act Title IV – Noise Pollution. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-title-iv-noise-pollution.
297 of 304
Susy Kalkin, ALUC
February 12, 2024
300 Piedmont Avenue, which would increase residential density in compatible areas of the City and therefore reduce or eliminate the need to provide for housing developments within incompatible areas like the subject development sites.
SFO ALUCP SAFETY COMPATIBILITY POLICIES
As shown in the City’s application, two of the subject development sites are not within a Safety Zone, but the Tanforan development site is within Safety Zone 4 (see Attachment C). Incompatible uses within Safety Zone 4 include large child day care centers, Biosafety level 3 and 4 facilities, and children’s schools. Uses to be avoided, such as critical public utilities, should not be allowed in the Safety Zone unless no feasible alternative is available, as determined by the City. Where these uses are allowed, habitable structures shall be provided with at least 50 percent more exits than required by applicable codes. If a project is constructed on the Tanforan development site, the Airport encourages the City to consider Safety Zone 4 compatibility policies during the master planning and site development phases to prevent development of such incompatible uses.
SFO ALUCP AIRSPACE PROTECTION POLICIES
As shown on Exhibit IV-17 of the SFO ALUCP (see Attachment D), the elevations of the critical aeronautical surfaces at the subject development sites range from approximately 125 to 145 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), as defined from the origin of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).
Assuming that any projects proposed on the subject development sites would not exceed the elevations of the critical aeronautical surfaces, such projects would not be inconsistent with Airspace Protection Policy AP-3 (Maximum Compatible Building Height) of the SFO ALUCP, subject to the issuance of a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any proposed structures.
Any projects proposed on the subject development sites would be required to undergo FAA review as described in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 for both (1) the permanent structures and (2) any temporary cranes or other equipment taller than the permanent buildings that would be required to construct those structures. Due to the proximity of the Tanforan development site to the Airport and certain procedures from the two primary departure runways (Runways 10L-28R and 10R-28L), any penetrations of the critical aeronautical surfaces adopted in the SFO ALUCP would result in real financial and economic impacts to air carriers, cargo operators, and the City and County of San Francisco/SFO. Such impacts would potentially reduce airlines’ ability to transport the high-value cargo that many City businesses, including the laboratory/office uses proposed at Tanforan, rely upon for their viability.
Due to the proximity of the subject development sites to the Airport, Airspace Protection Policies AP-1 through AP-4 of the SFO ALUCP are attached as reminders of incompatible site characteristics, especially as they pertain to building materials or features that reflect and create bright lights or glare, which can pose serious safety hazard to pilots and aircraft. If any projects are constructed on the subject development sites, building materials and lighting should be selected and designed to minimize visual hazards to pilots. * * *
While the proposed rezoning would not appear to be inconsistent with the safety compatibility and airspace protection policies of the SFO ALUCP, it would be inconsistent with the noise compatibility policies. The Airport does not support the proposed rezoning and urges the City to abandon its plans for introducing fundamentally incompatible residential land uses into the CNEL 70 dBA contour. As the Airport has noted in
298 of 304
Susy Kalkin, ALUC
February 12, 2024
prior letters on both this and other projects, there are alternative locations outside of the CNEL 70 dBA contour for developing housing to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 3,165 units by the year 2031, and the Airport encourages the City to take advantage of these resources rather than subjecting its future residents to unmitigable noise exposure. The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821-6678 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Nupur Sinha
Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs
San Francisco International Airport
Attachments
Attachment A – SFO ALUCP Airport Influence Areas
Attachment B – SFO ALUCP Noise Compatibility Policies
Attachment C – SFO ALUCP Safety Compatibility Policies
Attachment D – SFO ALUCP Airspace Protection Policies
cc: Sean Charpentier, Executive Director, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
Andrew Fremier, Executive Director, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Matt Maloney, Regional Planning Program Director, ABAG
Mark Shorett, Regional Planning Program, ABAG
Laurie Suttmeier, Manager, FAA Western Pacific Region, San Francisco Airports District Office Matthew Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Alex McIntyre, City Manager, City of San Bruno
Darcy Smith, Assistant City Manager, City of San Bruno
Peter Gilli, Community Development Department Director, City of San Bruno Michael Laughlin, Planning and Housing Manager, City of San Bruno Michael Smith, Senior Planner, City of San Bruno
Ivar Satero, SFO Airport Director
Geoffrey W. Neumayr, SFO Chief Resilience and Sustainability Officer Jeff Littlefield, SFO Chief Operating Officer
Cathy Widener, SFO Chief External Affairs Officer
Audrey Park, SFO, Environmental Affairs Manager
Chris DiPrima, SFO, Acting Airport Planning Manager
299 of 304
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: April 9, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ashley Crociani, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Consider Introducing, Reading by Title Only, and Waiving Further Reading of an Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance of the City of San Bruno Amending Section 6.36.010 of the San Bruno Municipal Code Regarding Adoption of San Mateo County’s Animal Control Ordinance” and Making a Finding of Exemption Under CEQA
BACKGROUND:
Animal Control has been one of the longest running regional/shared services in San Mateo County. Since 1952, the County has contracted with the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA (PHS) for animal care and control, shelter services, and animal licensing. All 20 cities in the County have in turn contracted with the County for these services. Historically, cities have taken advantage of the economies of pooling resources in order to realize lower costs for services than each city could likely achieve by providing its own services.
On May 25, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-38 authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with San Mateo County for continued provision of animal control services for a five-year term beginning on July 1, 2021. The City and several other participating cities in San Mateo County (“County”) entered into a Facilitation and Coordination of Animal Control Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with the County on July 1, 2021. The Agreement provides for the County's provision of animal control services to participating cities and requires payment to the County for those services by the cities.
Section 3 “Each City’s Responsibilities” of the Agreement requires San Bruno to “adopt and maintain animal control ordinance(s) which are substantially the same as the provisions of Chapters 6.04, 6.12, and 6.16 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code1, as they currently exist or maybe amended by County from time to time, to be effective within each City’s territorial limits.”
DISCUSSION:
Section 6.04.060 of Chapter 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code provides that for any animal, including cats, to be upon any public street, sidewalk, park, school ground, any public 1 https://library.municode.com/ca/san_mateo_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT6AN_CH6.04 ANCO
300 of 304
Item 8a.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
3 4
0 property, or upon any unenclosed premises, it must be licensed. However, Section 6.36.010 of the San Bruno Municipal Code currently states that “the city of San Bruno shall not require cats to be licensed.” Consequently, San Bruno’s ordinance is not substantially the same as the County’s and is therefore in violation of the terms of the Agreement. The County has contacted the City to provide notice of this violation and has further informed the City that it is the only participating city that does not require cat licensing as provided by the County’s ordinance.
The purpose of this agenda item is to consider introduction of an ordinance that would amend San Bruno Municipal Code Section 6.36.010 “Adoption of San Mateo County’s “Animal Control” Ordinance” to require cats to be licensed. Thus, the City Ordinance will be substantially the same as the County Ordinance, as required by the Agreement.
Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, if the City does not amend its ordinance to require cat licensing, the County may seek reimbursement of costs incurred in enforcing an ordinance that differs from the County's and other participating cities. Additionally, the City does not have the option to terminate the County's animal control services or the City's obligation to pay the County for its services until June 30, 2026. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City amend its ordinance to provide for this licensing requirements for cats.
Licensing cats provides many benefits for the community, primarily as a means of rabies control. Rabies is a preventable viral disease most often transmitted through the bite of a rabid animal. The rabies virus infects the central nervous system of mammals, ultimately causing disease in the brain and death. To obtain a license, owners must submit proof of a rabies certificate for their cats. Thus, this requirement allows for the County to maintain a tracking system of licensed cats in case of a bite or rabies exposures. It also increases the likelihood of finding a cat that has been exposed to rabies, and that can help reduce the number of people who must receive the post-exposure rabies vaccine. Licensing can also help owners find their cats if they are lost. Cats are required to be licensed by four months of age or within 60 days of an owner acquiring the cat. New residents to the County must license their dog or cat within 60 days.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the ordinance will increase the revenue generated from cat licensing fees, which will reduce the amounts owed by cities to the County for its animal control services.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Sections 15301(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5), in that it is not a project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.” Adoption of the ordinance is therefore exempt from CEQA and no further environmental analysis is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce, Read by Title Only, and Waive Further Reading of an Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance of the City of San Bruno Amending Section 6.36.010 of the San Bruno Municipal Code Regarding Adoption of San Mateo County’s Animal Control Ordinance” and Making a Finding of Exemption Under CEQA
301 of 304
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
April 9, 2024
3 4
0 ALTERNATIVES:
1. Decline to introduce the ordinance. If the City does not amend its animal control ordinance to require licensing for cats, the Agreement permits the County to seek reimbursement for the cost of enforcing an ordinance that differs from the County’s and other participating cities’ ordinances. Staff does not recommend this approach because of the cost impact to the City’s General Fund; or
2. Provide additional direction to staff regarding the provisions of the ordinance. Substantive modifications would require the ordinance to be re-introduced at a future City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
302 of 304
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AMENDING SECTION
6.36.010 OF THE SAN BRUNO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
ADOPTION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY’S ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of San Bruno ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 6.36.010(Adoption of San Mateo County’s “Animal Control” Ordinance) of Chapter 6.36 (Animal Control) of Title 6 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) of the San Bruno Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (deleted language is show with strikethrough):
Chapter 6.36 entitled "Animal Control" in Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code as such chapters now exist and as they may hereafter be amended, are hereby referred to, adopted and made applicable within the city. A copy thereof and amendments therefor shall be filed with the city clerk. All references to "unincorporated San Mateo County" shall refer instead to the "City of San Bruno" and further the city of San Bruno shall not require cats to be licensed.
In case of any other conflicts between Chapter 6.04 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code and any other provision of this title, the provisions of this title shall prevail.
SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY; SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The city council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective.
SECTION 3. CEQA EXEMPTION. The adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act under Sections 15301(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5), in that it is not a project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days from and after the date of its adoption.
SECTION 5. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk is directed to cause publication of this ordinance as required by law.
_________________________
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
303 of 304
ATTACHMENT 1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_________________________
Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney
---o0o---
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.
________ was introduced on April 9, 2024, and adopted
at a regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council on
______________________, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:________________________________
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:________________________________
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:________________________________ _________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
304 of 304