HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-14 e-packetStaff Report
Subject:
Date:
Page 2 of2
Attachments:
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point -Development Agreement Amendment
January 14, 2015
1. Ordinance adopting the First Amendment to the Development Agreement
Exhibit A -First Amendment to the Development Agreement
ORDINANCE NO. __ _
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 20.1 ACRE
SITE FOR THE BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT PROJECT IN THE
BAY WEST COVE SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, HCP Oyster Point III, LLC ("Owner" or "Applicant") owns property
commonly known as Planning Area 1 of the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, and located at the
northern terminus of Gateway Boulevard; and,
WHEREAS, on February 26,2014, after conducting all proceedings and making all
findings necessary for the valid adoption and execution of a development agreement for the
Property in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 1483-2014, approving and adopting a development agreement
for the property at 101 Oyster Point Boulevard ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2014, Applicant and City entered into a certain Development
Agreement for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project to permit the development of the
Property with an office/research and development ("R&D") campus, commercial, hotel, and
recreational open space uses ("Project"), as approved and adopted by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, Applicant has submitted a First Amendment to the Development Agreement
to the City to allow modifications to the hotel development within the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
("SEIR") on February 12, 2014 (State Clearinghouse number 1996-092081) in accordance with.
the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et
seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of
the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the modifications to the hotel development contemplated in the First
Amendment to the Development Agreement are minor in nature, the approval of which would
not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the SEIR certified by
City Council, nor does the First Amendment to the Development Agreement constitute a change
in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November
20,2014, to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and take public
-1-
testimony, ~t the conclusion of which the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve the First Amendment to the Development Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 10, 2014,
to consider the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and take public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the
CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco
General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project
applications; the i 997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project EIR, including the Draft and Final
EIR and all appendices thereto; the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR,
including the Draft and Final EIR and all appendices thereto; the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
Precise Plan Subsequent EIR, including the Draft and Final SEIR and all appendices thereto; all
site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission's duly noticed November 20,2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed December 10,2014 meeting; and
any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. Th~ foregoing recitaIs are true and correct.
B. The Exhibit attached to this Ordinance, the proposed First Amendment to the
Development Agreement (Exhibit A), is incorporated by reference and made a part of this
Ordinance, as if set forth fully herein.
C. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
D. The Owner and City have negotiated a First Amendment to the Development
Agreement ("First Amendment") pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq. The First
Amendment, in conjunction with the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, sets
forth the duration, property, project criteria, and other required infonnation identified in
Government Code section 65865.2. Based on the findings in .support of the Project, the Planning
Commission finds that the First Amendment, in conjunction with the Development Agreement,
vesting a project for a campus-style development of office and R&D buildings and a hotel, is
consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South
San Francisco General Plan, the Bay West Cove Specific Plan, and any applicable zoning
-2-
regulations.
E. The First Amendment, in conjunction with the Development Agreement is
compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in
which the real property is located. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the
land use being proposed. The General Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of
project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the
environmental document prepared for the Project.
F. The First Amendment, in conjunction with the Development Agreement is in
conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice in that the
project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan and the Bay West Cove
Specific Plan which have planned for campus-style development of office and R&D buildings
and a hotel at this location.
G. The First Amendment, in conjunction with the Development Agreement will not
be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare because the project will proceed in
compliance with all of the policies and programs specified in the General Plan and the Bay West
Cove Specific Plan and in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building
regulations of the City of South· San Francisco.
H. The First Amendment, in conjunction with the Development Agreement will not
adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in
that the project wi,ll be consistent with the General Plan and the Bay West Cove Specific Plan.
SECTION 2. Approval of Development Agreement.
A. The City COuDc~1 of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the First
Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and RCP
Oyster Point III, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
B. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Development
Agreement, on behalf of the City, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, and to make
revisions to such Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not
materially or substantially increase the City's obligations thereunder.
SECTION 3. Severability.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
-3-
irrespective ofthe fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. Publication and Effective Date.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the
10th day of December, 2014.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the 14th day of January, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: ______ ~ ______________________________________ ___
NOES: ______________________________________________ ___
ABSTENTIONS:· _______________________________________ __
ABSENT: ______________ ------~-------------------------
Attest: ------------------------------City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this
14th day of January, 2015.
Mayor
-4-
Exhibit A
First Amendment to the Development Agreement
-5-
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to the Development Agreement ("First Amendment") is entered
into by and between HCP OYSTER POINT III, LLC ("Developer") and the CITY OF SOl1TH
SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation ("City") on this __ day of ______ _
2014.
RECITALS
A. On February 26, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1483-2014 ("Ordinance")
concerning a Development Agreement between City and Developer (''Development Agreement").
The executed Development Agreement was recorded onJune, 6,2014 (Doc. 2014-049290).
B. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on and considered
and recommended approval of the proposed First Amendment to the Development _'\.greement.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission is based on its determinations as stated in
Resolution No. ~.
C. On , the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed First Amendment to
the Development Agreement and adopted Ordinance No. __ _
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties
herein contained, the City and Developer agree as follows:
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated herein.
2. Defined Tenns. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them'in the Development Agreement.
3. Article 1. The 12th term included in Article 1 Definitions of the Development Agreement
shall be deleted as folloWs with deletions in strikethrough text:
''PHll SeMee Hetel" sha:H ha"f'e that meMlffig set ferth in See~eft 3.02(h)(ii) ef this
:l'~eeffieftt.
4. Section 3.02. Section 3.02 of the Development Agreement not including its subsections, is
hereby amended to read as follows, with additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough
text:
BN 17276076v6
Section 3.02. The Project: The Project consists of development of the
improvements, amenities, and facilities described below. The Project will include: (1)
construction of seven buildings for a total of up to 884,344 square feet of research
and development and office buildings, predicated upon Floor Area Ratio ("FAR")
calculation of 1.0 across Planning Areas la, 2 and 3 of the Bay West Cove Specific
Plan; (2) approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial and restaurant
development; (3) a full seMee hotel of2QG 185 rooms and including a dine-in
-6-
restaurant built in a building of appremm:atdy between 110,000 and 145,000 square
feet; and (4) an 8 to 9-floor Pll!king structure and surface parking.
5. Section 3.02(h). Section 3.U2(b) of the Development is hereby amended to read as
follows, with additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough text:
(b) Hotel.
(i) The Project includes aft appremm:ately a 110,000 to 145,000 square foot FtiH
6efViee full service or upscale boutique-style. free standing hotel with 6 to 11-
stories he tel with ~ and 185 rooms and a dine-in restaurant ("Hotel") on a
2.21-acre portion of the 20.1 acre Project site identified as Planning Area 1b
("Hotel Site").
(n) FtJll 6effiee The Hotel is deiifted as: is a hotel with a distinguished design and
enhanced physical attributes that provides a full range of guest services, facilities
and amenities for lodging purposes. The Full Serviee Hotel shall offer ftfHI:ll-
ptlrp6se a dine-in restaurant and bar which serves breakfast. and at a minimum
light dinner/small plates. Additional amenities of a Ptti:!: Serviee the Hotel shall
include approximately 8;QOO 4.000 square feet of meeting space, a business
center, fitness room, swimming pool, and whirlpool, wireless internet access,
telecommunication, fax and copy services similar to other full sen-ice boutique
style or upscale quality hotels, transportation assistance, conference rooms,
e6fteierge seMee, and bell-hop sen1ce available upon request, aftd re6ffi serviee.
Accommodations shall also include traditional decor with spacious work desks,
and signature bedding such as pillow-top mattresses. (These hotels are usually
near corporate complexes, convention centers and airports. By way o"f
illustration, Sheraton by Starwood, Wyndham by Wyndham, Le Meridien by
Starwood, AC Hotels by Marriot. Renaissance by Marriot, and InterContinental
by IHG include these services.)
6. Section" 8.02. Section" 8.02 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows, with additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough text:
Section 8.02. Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement. The permitted uses of the
Project Site; the density and intensity of use of the Project Site; the maximum height,
bulk and size of the proposed buildings; provisions for reservation or dedication of
land for public purposes and the location of public improvements; the general
location of public utilities; and other terms and conditions of development applicable
to the Project, shall be as set forth in the Project Approvals and the Subsequent
Approvals. Permitted uses of the Project Site shall include, without limitation,
research and development, office, hotel, business services, and employee-serving
amenities such as personal service establishments, and eating and drinking
establishments.
7. Section 8.03. Section 8.03 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows, with additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough text:
BN 17276076v6 -7-
Section 8.03. Applicable Law. The rules, regulations, official policies, standards and
specifications applicable to the Project (the "Applicable Law") shall be those set
forth in this Agreement. the First Amendment and the Project Approvals and
Subsequent Approvals, and with respect to matters not addressed by this Agreement
as amended or the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals. those rules,
regulations, official policies, standards and specifications (including the General Plan
and City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses, building locations,
timing of construction, densities, design, and heights, and the fees, assessments,
exactions, and taxes in force and effect on the EffectiYe Dates of this Agreement, or
as specified in Exhibit~ E and illustrated in E-1..
8. Section 8.08. Section 8.08 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows, mth additions underlined and deletions in strikethrough text:
Section 8.08. life of Project Approvals. The tenn of any approval, permit, or other
land use entitlement approved as a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall
automatically be extended for the longer of the duration of the Agreement (including
any extensions) or the tenn otherwise applicable to such Project Approval or
Subsequent Approval if the Agreement is no longer in effect.
9. Effect of this First Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment,
the Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its tenns,
and Developer and City hereby ratify and affirm all their respective rights and obligations
under the Development Agreement, including but not limited to Developer's
indemnification obligations as set forth in Section 13.10 of the Development Agreement.
In the event of any conflict between this First Amendment and the Development
Agreement, the provisions of this First Amendment shall govern.
10. Binding Agreement. This First Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of
the parties hereto. Any reference in this First ~'\mendment to a specifically named party
shall be deemed to apply to any successor, administrator, executor, or assign of such party
who has' acquired an interest in compliance with the tenns of this First Amendment or
under law.
11. Recordation: The City shall record a copy of this First Amendment within ten (10) days
following execution by all parties.
12. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute
the same document.
13. California Law. This First Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
14. Invalidity. Any provision of this First Amendment that is determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed severed from this
BN 17276076v6 -8-
First Amendment, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if
the invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part hereof
15. Headings. The headings used in this First Amendment are for convenience only and shall
be disregarded in interpreting the substantive provisions of this First Amendment.
IN ~'ITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been entered into by and between Developer
and City as of the date and year first above written.
HCP OYSTER POINT III LLC
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
2351489.1
BN 17276076v6 -9-
CITY OF SOUTH SAN
F RANCISCO
By:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______ _
Steven T. Mattas
City Attorney
ATTEST:
By: _______ _
Krista J. Martinelli, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. ________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE RELATED TO
TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE TERRABAY
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
(“City”) adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance, which repealed the
then-existing Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and replaced it with an
entirely new Title that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards (“Zoning Ordinance Update”); and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update in July 2010, the City has
identified areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction;
and,
WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance establishes a “Terrabay Specific Plan District”;
and,
WHEREAS, in recognition of the unique location of the commercial district within the
Terrabay Specific Plan commercial district, and in an effort to promote General Plan economic
development policies within this important commercial district; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment will provide flexibility to the type, size,
and location of temporary signs for commercial district tenants that meet certain design standards
within the Terrabay Specific Plan District, which will achieve economic development goals; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Update was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
(“CEQA”), which IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
Update and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update could not have a significant
effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA
would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Zoning
Ordinance Amendment, as they relate to the Terrabay Specific Plan District, are minor in nature,
the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed
1
and analyzed in the IS/ND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on November 20, 2014; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on December 10,
2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because, although the proposed amendments would change the performance standards for
temporary signage in the Terrabay Specific Plan District, the zoning amendments would not
otherwise alter the permitted uses or operation of uses in the commercial district that would be
inconsistent with the General Plan designation as Business Commercial. The proposed text
amendments will remain consistent with the City’s General Plan vision for community and
economic development and will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land
use designations established in the General Plan.
2
2. The proposed zoning amendments would only affect temporary signage within the
commercial district of the Terrabay Specific Plan District and have been designed to be
appropriate for the specific area. No new permanent uses would be permitted, and accordingly
all affected properties within the zoning district would generally be suitable in terms of access,
size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by
the Planning Commission and City Council.
3. The proposed zoning amendments would not be detrimental to the use of land in
any adjacent zone because the proposed change would only affect temporary signage that would
be temporary in nature. Performance standards have been introduced to adequately provide for
appropriate design standards for any temporary signage proposal so that adjacent properties in
other zoning districts are not substantially impacted.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows. Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are
not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A. Revise Section 20.240.013 “Commercial District Regulations” as follows:
20.240.013 Commercial District Regulations
The following special regulations shall apply to the development within the Terrabay
commercial district shown on Figure 20.240.001, Terrabay Specific Plan District.
A. Building Height Limits.
1. The North Tower shall not exceed 360 feet above mean sea level and the South Tower
shall not exceed 275 feet above mean sea level. The parking structure shall not exceed
160 feet above mean sea level.
2. Height is measured from the top of the uppermost parapet down to finished grade at the
point below or directly parallel to that point where the exterior façade of the building
intersects the finished grade from mean sea level.
B. Entry/Exit Drive. A privately maintained entry drive shall be constructed to serve the
Terrabay commercial district. The drive shall have an 88-foot right-of-way at the intersection
of Airport Boulevard which will accommodate two inbound lanes, three outbound lanes and
a median. The additional right of way will also accommodate an additional outbound lane if
warranted by the circulation monitoring required by the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum.
C. Internal Intersection. The first internal inbound driveway shall include a minimum of 52 feet
of right-of-way to accommodate two inbound traffic lanes and the potential for an additional
exclusive right turn and left turn lane pocket. The outbound portion of the driveway shall
3
include a minimum of 48 feet of right-of-way to accommodate three outbound lanes of traffic
and the potential for an additional lane should circulation monitoring warrant the addition of
the lane.
D. Roadway Improvements. In keeping with the requirements of the Terrabay specific plans and
development agreements, development in the Terrabay commercial district shall proceed
only to the extent that the project sponsor improves the adjacent roadways in accordance with
the Terrabay specific plan. Adjacent roadways are not able to carry the traffic generated by
each phase of the development if the public improvements identified in the Terrabay specific
plan as necessary for each phase are not constructed concurrently with that phase.
E. Parking Requirements—Office.
1. A parking capacity of 1,952 cars in striped stalls is required based upon the parking
requirements of 2.74 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of floor area as set forth in the
final Terrabay specific plan. Parking shall be provided as follows:
a. Valet or similar assisted parking services shall not be used in the surface parking lot.
b. Valet or similar assisted parking services shall be used during special events and or
during peak seasons in the parking structures.
2. Striped stalls in the parking structures shall measure eight and one-half feet in width and
18 feet in length and otherwise meet the requirements of Chapter 20.330 (“On-Site
Parking and Loading”). Parking adjacent to columns shall be nine feet in width.
3. Striped stalls in the surface lots shall measure a minimum of eight and one-half feet in
width and 18 feet in length. Two feet of the required 18 feet may overhang in a landscape
area provided that the area is a minimum of six feet in width and the overhang does not
interfere with shrub or tree growth. Parallel parking shall measure eight and one-half feet
in width and 20 feet in length with four feet of separation between the spaces.
4. Parking and parking services, including valet or similar assisted parking services and the
size of striped parking for van pool, car pool, shuttle bus and motorcycle parking shall
conform to the requirements of the TDM program identified in the final Terrabay specific
plan and 20.350, On-Site Parking and Loading.
5. A childcare drop-off and pickup area shall be provided that is protected from the flow of
traffic and does not impede the flow of traffic.
F. Temporary Signs. Any temporary sign designed or intended to be temporarily mounted or
displayed, and that is not intended for permanent or long-term use as defined by South San
Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.360.006(Q). If the proposed temporary sign does not
conform to the technical standards of Chapter 20.360, but nonetheless accomplishes the
design purposes of Chapter 20.360, the Chief Planner may approve an application for a
temporary sign placement provided the following standards are met:
4
1. Any development within the Commercial District is eligible for a temporary sign
placement at a height no greater than the maximum height of the existing structure,
subject to compliance with Building Division requirements.
2. The allowable size of temporary signs shall be reviewed in the context of providing the
smallest sized signage that adequately conveys the intended message, as determined by
the Chief Planner, and shall generally not exceed 200 square feet. Any proposed sign
should be consistent with surrounding signage and design. The size, depth, durability o f
material and other design features of the proposed temporary sign shall be reviewed for
consistency with the City’s design standards in Chapter 20.360, as applicable.
3. Temporary signs shall be removed within 30 days after they are placed, erected or
installed, or 15 calendar days after the conclusion of the event to which they relate
occurs, whichever is later. The Chief Planner may, for good reason, grant an extension of
up to 45 days based on the sign owner’s written application. In no case shall a temporary
sign remain in place for more than 90 days or be allowed more than twice per year.
4. All temporary signs shall be maintained appropriately or will be subject to removal at the
applicant’s expense.
5. Property Management authorization for the proposed sign shall be submitted with the
application.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk ’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
5
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 10th day of December, 2014.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the 14th day of January, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:_______________________________________________________________________
NOES:_______________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:_______________________________________________________________
ABSENT:_____________________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this 14th day of January, 2015.
Mayor
6
Staff Report
DATE: January 14, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: 1256 MISSION SUBDIVISION - DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 31
TOWNHOMES AND 4 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, AUTHORIZE
DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVES FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE
SITE TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT
FROM 25-FEET TO 35-FEET AND TO ALLOW THE USE OF ONE
ARCHITECTURAL PROTOTYPE, AND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 5
FOOT 2 INCH TALL FENCE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AT 1256
MISSION ROAD IN THE TRANSIT VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
DENSITY (TV-RM) AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL-8) ZONING
DISTRICTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC TITLE 19 (SUBDIVISIONS)
AND CHAPTERS 20.080, 20.250, 20.300, 20.310, 20.330, 20.380, 20.390,
20.460, 20.480 AND 20.490, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT
IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
Address: 1256 Mission Road (APNs 011-171-330, 011-171-500 & 011-171-
130)
Owner: Antonio Cuneo
Applicant: City Ventures
Case No.: P14-0081: UP14-0009, DR4-0049, SA14-0001 & AHA14-0001
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P14-
0081, including UP14-0009, DR14-0049, SA14-0001 and AHA14-0001 subject to the
attached draft conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project is for a medium-density residential development consisting of 31 for-sale
townhome-style condominiums and 4 single-family style condominium homes on a largely
vacant site in close proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station (“SSF BART”), within
the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood.
Prior to submitting an application, City Ventures held informal community meetings informing
the neighborhood of its plans and presenting the general design. A formal neighborhood meeting
was held in November 2014 to introduce the project for which entitlements were being sought.
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – 35 Unit Subdivision
Date: January 14, 2015
Page 2 of 9
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 4, 2014, to consider the design of
the project and the requested entitlements, which it endorsed by a vote of 5-1.
In accordance with City regulations an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) and a Tentative
Subdivision Map are required for any residential subdivision project. Both the AHA and
Tentative Subdivision Map are subject to review and approval by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
(A complete discussion of Development Policies related to the South San Francisco BART
Station Area and the proposed project is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff
report dated December 4, 2014.)
Figure 1: Neighborhood Aerial
Development Policies
In the past 15 years, the City Council has established a vision for the SSF BART station area to
transform the area into a transit-supportive neighborhood. The General Plan, adopted in 1999,
created specific policies related to the development around the SSF BART station, including
higher intensity development, with a minimum density of 30 units per net acre within ½ mile of
the station. The South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, adopted in 2001, envisioned
development of a slightly higher intensity than the single family homes that currently exist, to
create a visual and physical buffer between Mission Road activity and the Sunshine Gardens
neighborhood behind. Finally, the Housing Element of the General Plan, which is required by
state law to identify how and where housing needs of the community will be met, identifies the
subject site as a near-term housing site.
Proposed Project
In keeping with the basic policy directions for the site, City Ventures has submitted an
application to construct a medium-density residential development with a total of 35 units on the
approximately 1.7 acre parcels on Mission Road adjacent to the SSF BART station, within the
Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. Historically, the majority of the subject site has been used for
agricultural purposes, with farming activity occurring until approximately 15 years ago.
Therefore, the majority of the site is undeveloped. In addition to the SSF BART station,
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – 35 Unit Subdivision
Date: January 14, 2015
Page 3 of 9
medical office uses are also located directly across Mission Road to the west, a Pacific Gas &
Electric (“PG&E”) utility easement and single-family homes are adjacent to the northwest,
Baywood Ave and single-family homes are adjacent to the northeast, and single-family homes
and the Edgewood Way cul-de-sac are adjacent to the east.
The proposed project has been designed to provide high-quality family housing near a regional
transit station, in keeping with the vision pursued by the City for this area over the past 15 years.
The building architecture is contemporary, designed with flat roofs to minimize the total
apparent height of the buildings. The building massing and design will set a high standard for
future redevelopment along Mission Road.
Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on December 4, 2014. Eight
members of the public spoke on the project, with concerns related to the following:
Opposition to extension of Edgewood Way into project site, with preference that all
townhome-style condominium units have vehicular access from Mission Road only.
Proposed townhomes are too tall, not in keeping with surrounding neighborhood
Development should consist of more single-family detached homes, not townhomes
Concerns with access to adjacent residence at 1256 Edgewood Way
Edgewood Way Extension
Access to the development from Edgewood Way was also the most prominent comment at the
November 2014 neighborhood meeting; City Ventures prepared a site-plan that depicts how the
overall project would be affected by providing the southern portion of the site with vehicular
access only from Mission Rd. A full discussion of this concern is contained on page 11 of 15 of
the attached Planning Commission staff report.
Planning Commissioners discussed with both Police Department and Fire Department staff
whether having a single entrance off of Mission Rd or multiple entrances (from Mission and
Edgewood) would be preferable for the purposes of emergency services. Both departments
stated that multiple vehicular entrance points would be preferable, but also stated that the
alternative with only one entrance from Mission Road would also be a supportable design.
Height of Proposed Townhomes
The aerial image below shows the proposed site plan overlaid on a Google Earth satellite image.
The portion of the image highlighted in red depicts the area where a maximum height of 35 feet
is allowed (the depth of the adjacent parcels fronting on Mission Road). The remainder of the
subject site where there is no highlighting has a maximum allowable height of 25 feet.
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – 35 Unit Subdivision
Date: January 14, 2015
Page 4 of 9
Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan and 35-foot Height Zone
As depicted, half of the second row of proposed townhomes is subject to the 35 foot height limit,
while the remainder of the second row and the entire third row of townhomes are subject to the
25 foot height limit. In order to design a project that provides larger units and meets the required
residential densities, the applicant has requested an incentive to allow the 35-foot height limit to
be applicable to all of the townhome units.
As originally noted in the Planning Commission staff report, the height allowance in the
surrounding single-family neighborhood is 28 feet, so the proposed height would be seven feet
(25%) greater than what is allowed in the surrounding single family neighborhood.
Density of Residential Development
General Plan Implementing Policy 3.4-I-8 requires any new development/redevelopment within
½ mile of the BART station at a density of no less than 30 units per net acre for residential uses.
The Transit Village Plan also envisions medium-density development of a higher intensity than
the surrounding single-family neighborhood. In an effort to conform to these standards, the
applicant is proposing to construct townhome-style attached residential units rather than single-
family detached units.
Access to Residence at 1256 Edgewood
There is a significant grade change between the portion of the site accessed from Baywood Ave
and the portion of the site accessed from Edgewood Way. When the existing buildings adjacent
to Baywood Ave on the subject property were developed, easements were created to allow both
the subject property and the property at 1256 Edgewood to access Edgewood Way. In the aerial
below, the 1256 Edgewood property is highlighted yellow. The area outlined in red shows the
basic location of an easement allowing the subject property access through 1256 Edgewood, and
the area outlined in green shows the location of an easement allowing the 1256 Edgewood
property owner access through the subject property to Edgewood Way. The existing driveway
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – 35 Unit Subdivision
Date: January 14, 2015
Page 5 of 9
from Edgewood Way to the homes was constructed at a grade of approximately seventeen
percent, which is greater than the fourteen percent currently allowed by City standards.
Figure 3: Easements between subject property and 1256 Edgewood Way
In order to extend Edgewood Way into the subject property as part of the proposed project, the
existing driveway at 1256 Edgewood Way would be required to be altered. As part of the
original application submittal, the applicant proposed to provide a conforming driveway that
could be accessed from Baywood Ave through the applicant’s property to the 1256 Edgewood
property. However, the 1256 Edgewood property owner wants to maintain his existing access.
SSFMC Title 19 – Subdivisions, allows for the granting of exceptions if specific findings can be
made. The attached Entitlement Resolution includes specific findings stating that allowing the
existing driveway to be redeveloped at a grade greater than fourteen percent will not be a
significant increase over existing conditions and will not constitute a special privilege. Based on
the adoption of these Tentative Subdivision Map findings, the 1256 Edgewood property owner
would be allowed to maintain access from Edgewood Way.
Planning Commission Discussion
The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the project as it furthered the goals of the
Transit Village Plan and fulfilled a need to provide new types of housing throughout the City.
The Commissioners also supported having multiple vehicle access points to the development.
However, there was some concern with the amount of open space being provided on the project
site. As proposed, the development includes a small playground area and meets the applicable
yard and walkway development standards, and would also be required to pay a park in lieu fee.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project by a vote of 5-1.
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – 35 Unit Subdivision
Date: January 14, 2015
Page 6 of 9
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
The proposed development is obligated to provide twenty percent (20%) of the proposed
dwellings as affordable to low and moderate income households (SSFMC 20.380 “Inclusionary
Housing Regulations”). The applicant is proposing to construct 35 dwellings, and therefore the
applicant is required to restrict a minimum of 7 units to fulfill the affordable housing obligation.
A Draft Affordable Housing Agreement between the applicant and the City has been prepared
and is attached for review. The Affordable Housing Agreement has been drafted to comply with
the requirements contained in SSFMC 20.380.
City Ventures has requested two incentives for affordable housing: a height increase for a portion
of the project site and allowance to use Architectural Prototype 5 Guidelines for all of the
townhome units. In accordance with State Density Bonus Law (Govt. Code Section
65915(d)(2)(B), the applicant is entitled to a density bonus and at least two incentives if the
project includes a minimum of 20% of the units restricted to lower income households.
Accordingly, the city is obligated to grant the requested incentive unless it can find that the
incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, that the incentive would
have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on
any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or that the
incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. The incentives for a height increase for a
portion of the site and the more dense architectural prototype are required to make the project
financially feasible, are consistent with the applicable State law requirements, and do not impact
any property on the California Register of Historical Resources. Based on this, State Density
Bonus Law obligates the City to grant incentives to the project.
Incentive 1 – Maximum Height Allowance
As discussed above under the “Planning Commission Meeting” section, the portion of the site
fronting along Mission Road is allowed a maximum height of 35 feet and the remainder of the
site with the TV-RM district is allowed a maximum height of 25 feet. The applicant has
requested an exception to allow the 35-foot height limit to be applicable to all of the townhome
units. Allowing all of the townhomes to be up to 3-stories in height results in a greater number
of 3-bedroom units, better integrating the townhome units with the existing neighborhood.
Figure 4 – Proposed Height Limit Areas
Incentive 2 – Applicable Architectural Prototypes
The Transit Village Plan also includes Architectural Prototype Design Guidelines which identify
architectural design and site planning principles that are appropriate for specific areas of the plan
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – 35 Unit Subdivision
Date: January 14, 2015
Page 7 of 9
area. For the subject site, the Mission Road frontage is identified as Architectural Prototype 5,
while the remainder of the property is identified as Architectural Prototype 6. Following are the
differences between the two prototypes:
Architectural Prototype 5 – Townhouse with rear-accessed tuck-under or surface parking
accessed from a shared driveway off of Principal Street or private Neighborhood Street.
Architectural Prototype 6 – Townhouse facing Principal Street with front loaded parking,
or Townhouse in back of large parcel with front loaded parking off of private
Neighborhood Street.
Prototype 5 results in a denser product-type that requires less total site area, while Prototype 6 is
only slightly denser than the surrounding single-family neighborhood. In order to develop a
project closer to the minimum density requirements contemplated by the General Plan, including
the current Housing Element update, the applicant is requesting an incentive allowing
Architectural Prototype 6 to be the applicable design guidelines for the lower portion of the
project site where the 21 townhome-style condominium units are proposed to be located.
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
A Tentative Subdivision Map is proposed to create two separate lots with a total of 35 residential
condominium units; 31 units on Lot 1 and 4 units on Lot 2. The City Engineer has reviewed the
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – 35 Unit Subdivision
Date: January 14, 2015
Page 8 of 9
proposed map and determined that it complies with the City Standards and the State Subdivision
Map Act.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Medium Density Residential. As
discussed above in the Background section, the General Plan includes specific policies related to
development within the immediate vicinity of the SSF BART Station Area, in an effort to create
“a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area’s
new role as a regional center.”
The proposed project will conform to the General Plan Land Use Policies by creating medium-
density residential units that emphasize a pedestrian-oriented development along Mission Road
in keeping with the development intensity requirements, including residential density. The
project also provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the
goals of the Transit Village Plan. The project design is consistent with the City’s Design
Guidelines as it relates to building design, form and articulation.
Additionally, the proposed project complies with the General Plan Housing Element, which
identifies the subject site as a near-term housing opportunity site.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review
under the provisions of CEQA (Class 32, Section 15332: In-fill Development Projects), which
provides an exemption for in-fill development projects which meet the following conditions:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
A “CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256 Mission Road Project” Memorandum
analyzing conformance with these conditions was prepared by Urban Planning Partners Inc. and
is attached to this staff report (Attachment 4).
A public comment at the Planning Commission meeting questioned if the additional traffic along
Edgewood Way would result in a significant impact. According to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, the average
townhome/condominium generates approximately 5 vehicle trips per day and the average single-
family home generates approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. Based on this, the overall project
would generate less than 200 daily trips, with only approximately 50 additional daily vehicle
Attachment 1
Draft Entitlement Resolution
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B: Tentative Subdivision Map
Exhibit C: Affordable Housing Agreement
Exhibit D: 1256 Mission Road Project Plans
1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT, FOR A 35-
UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1256 MISSION ROAD IN THE
TRANSIT VILLAGE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Anthony Cuneo (“Owner”) and City Ventures (collectively “Applicant”) have
submitted an application for development of a 35-unit residential condominium project on an
approximately 1.7 acre site located at 1256 Mission Road, South San Francisco, California
(“Project”); and,
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative
Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt under CEQA as a Class 32 Categorical
Exemption for projects which are determined to be in-fill development, as set forth in greater detail
below, and is consistent with the applicable General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements; and,
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on
the project, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve the project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January 14, 2015 to
consider the Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and Affordable Housing
Agreement and take public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,
which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations
§15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San
Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the 1256 Mission Road Project Plans, as
prepared by Hunt Hale Jones Architects, dated revised November 12, 2014; the 1256 Mission Road
“CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256 Mission Road Project” Memorandum, as
prepared by Urban Planning Partners Inc., dated November 17, 2014, including all appendices
thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission’s meeting held December 4, 2014 meeting; all site plans, and all reports,
2
minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly notice public hearing on
January 14, 2015, and City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of
Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City of South San Francisco City Council
hereby finds as follows:
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project
Approval (Exhibit A), the Tentative Subdivision Map (attached as Exhibit B), the Affordable
Housing Agreement (attached as Exhibit C), and the 1256 Mission Road Project Plans (attached as
Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully
herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
4. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review
and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, the City Council, exercising its
independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project falls within the Categorical Exemption set
forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332/Class 32, which exempts from the provisions of CEQA
the construction of projects characterized as in-fill development, because it meets the following
conditions:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation (Medium
Density Residential) and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with
applicable Zoning Ordinance designation (Transit Village – Medium Density
Residential) and regulations given that the site is planned and zoned for medium-
density residential development within; and,
b.The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of
approximately 1.7 acres, which is less than the five acre maximum, and is
surrounded by urban uses; and,
c. The project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species,
which would be negatively impacted given that the site is relatively flat and is
surrounded by urban uses; and,
d.Approval of the project would not result in any significant effect relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality, given that:
a. General Plan Guiding Policy 4.2-G-10 exempts development within ¼ mile
of the South San Francisco BART Station from any traffic level of service
standards, and therefore no significant traffic level of service operation
impacts would result from the proposed project;
3
b. The project’s contribution to noise would not be significant subject to
meeting the standards of South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”)
Section 8.32.30 and compliance with the construction noise control plan
measures identified in the “CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256
Mission Road Project” memorandum; and,
c. The project complies with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s significance thresholds
screening criteria, and therefore the project would have a less-than-significant
impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The City Council finds that none of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15300.2 apply to this project.
B. Use Permit
1. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Transit Village – Medium Density Residential
Zone District and the Low Density Residential Zone District. The Project meets or exceeds all of
the general development standards of the Transit Village – Medium Density Residential District,
with the exception of the maximum building height and the front yard fence height in the Low
Density Residential Zone District. However, the exception for the maximum building height is
permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which allows an applicant to request an
incentive to allow a modification to a zoning ordinance standard in return for the provision of
certain types of affordable housing, which the applicant is providing. The proposed fence height is
allowed per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.005, which allows fences taller
than three feet in a required front-yard subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit.
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a pedestrian-
oriented medium-density residential development that emphasizes pedestrian-activity along Mission
Road, provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of
the Transit Village Plan, and is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to
building design, form and articulation.
3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare
of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the
proposed use is consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the commercial
and residential. The project proposes medium-density residential uses on a site located in the City’s
Transit Village Plan district, which is intended for this type of use. The General Plan has analyzed
this type of use in the South San Francisco BART Station area, and concluded that such residential
uses are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed fence is designed to be
transparent and allow views into and out of the property. As the proposed Project is consistent with
4
other medium-density land uses in the Transit Village Plan area, approval of the Project will not be
detrimental to the nearby properties.
4. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the maximum height for a portion of the site and the
maximum height of a portion of the fence within the required front-yard. The stated exceptions are
permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is located in the
Transit Village Plan District and, subject to the exception discussed above, meets the minimum
standards and requirements for that district.
5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are
compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the
Project proposes medium-density residential uses in the Transit Village Plan district, which is
specifically intended for such uses. The proposed fence is in keeping with the aesthetic quality of
the buildings on the site and allows views into and out of the property.
6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as
the medium-density residential use will benefit from being located in close proximity to the South
San Francisco BART Station within the Transit Village Plan district, and the size and development
is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards.
7. The Project is consistent with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above.
C. Design Review
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a medium-density residential
project which will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment with extensive
landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated.
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because
the proposed medium-density residential development is consistent with the policies and design
direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Medium-Density Residential
land use designation by encouraging the development of a pedestrian-oriented development of a
higher intensity within ½ mile of the South San Francisco BART Station.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the South San
Francisco BART Transit Village Plan Design Guidelines.
5
4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit for the reasons stated in Section B,
above.
5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San
Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has
been evaluated by the Design Review Board on October 16, 2014, and found to be consistent with
each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the
Ordinance, and the Design Review Board.
D. Tentative Subdivision Map
1. The proposed tentative subdivision map, including the proposed designs and
improvements, are consistent with the City’s General Plan as set forth in Findings B.2 and C.2
above, and because the tentative subdivision map would facilitate the development of a medium
density residential development that would not conflict with the Medium Density Residential Land
Use designation.
2. The proposed tentative subdivision map is consistent with the standards and
requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Transit Village –
Medium Density Residential Zoning District.
3. The tentative subdivision map complies and meets all of the requirements of Title 19
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (“Subdivisions”), subject to the Conditions of
Approval, and would allow for the granting of an exception for the driveway grade of the property
at 1256 Edgewood Ave as discussed below, and is consistent with the requirements of the State
Subdivision Map Act.
a. The proposed Project would extend Edgewood Avenue onto the subject property as
a private street to provide access to a portion of the residential development. In
order to extend Edgewood Avenue, the existing driveway of the adjacent parcel at
1256 Edgewood Avenue would be required to be altered. An exception allowing
the existing driveway at 1256 Edgewood Ave to be redeveloped at a grade greater
than fourteen percent will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity because the existing
driveway currently exceeds the maximum permitted grade and the proposed change
in grade will not constitute a significant increase over the existing conditions.
b.The steep slope along the western edge of the property at 1256 Edgewood Avenue
creates a special circumstance that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity if Title 19 were strictly applied. The existing
driveway on the property is at a seventeen percent grade, and the proposed change
6
in grade will not constitute a significant increase over the existing conditions. If the
standards of Title 19 were strictly applied, it would not be possible to provide a
driveway conforming to the maximum grade standards from the existing access
easement adjacent to Edgewood Avenue.
c. The exception allowing the existing driveway at 1256 Edgewood Avenue to be
redeveloped at a grade greater than fourteen percent carries out the spirit and intent
of Title 19 by providing a parcel affected by a steep topography that has historically
had nonconforming driveway access with continued access that meets all other
driveway design standards except the maximum grade.
4. The Project site is physically suitable for the type of development and density
proposed, as the medium-density residential development will be located in the Transit Village area,
and the size and number of residential units is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land
use and zoning standards.
5. The Project, including the proposed designs and improvements, are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or serious public health problems, since the project plans
call for management of any hazardous materials that would exist by virtue of it being a former
agriculture site, and since such impacts have been thoroughly evaluated as part of the CEQA
process and determined not to exceed any stated thresholds of significance.
6. The design and improvements of the tentative subdivision map are not in conflict
with any existing public easements.
7. The property is located in a developed, urban setting, and is not subject to a
Williamson Act contract, on open space easement, a conservation easement, or an agricultural
conservation easement. The surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support
agricultural uses; the resulting parcels would result in residential development not incidental to
commercial agricultural use of the land.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of
Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves the Use Permit,
Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
7
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of South
San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 14th day of January, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:_________________________________________________
NOES: ____________
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Attest:
City Clerk
8
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
9
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P14-0081: UP14-0009, DR4-0049, SA14-0001 & AHA14-0001
1256 MISSION ROAD
(As recommended by Planning Commission on December 4, 2014)
A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and
Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential
Projects.
2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set
prepared by Hunt Hale Jones Architects, dated revised November 12, 2014.
3. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view
through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and
landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall.
Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior
to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility
locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for
review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee.
4. The Final Subdivision Map shall be substantially consistent with the Tentative
Subdivision Map entitled “Tentative Map”, dated November 11, 2014, prepared by C2G/
Civil Consultants Group, Inc.
5. The Final Subdivision Map shall comply with all applicable requirements of SSFMC
Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance).
6. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall:
a) Prior to the Final Inspection the owner shall pay the fee in-lieu of parkland
dedication in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19.24, subject to review and approval
of the City’s Parks and Recreation Director; and,
b) Execute and Record an Affordable Housing Agreement consistent with SSFMC
Chapter 20.380 Inclusionary Housing Regulations.
7. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public
improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and Chief Planner.
8. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the
applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer
and Chief Planner.
9. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements,
the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval
by the Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with
10
SSFMC § 20.300.007 “Landscaping”, including Water Efficient Landscaping and
Irrigation calculations.
10. All parking areas are to be maintained free and clear of litter and storage and shall
remain clear for parking at all times. No outdoor storage of materials is allowed.
11. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall revise the
development plans to address the following design related comments, subject to review
and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
a) Reduce the total habitable area of Unit 35 to no more than 2,499 square feet.
b) Remove the vehicular access gate at the entrance to the Edgewood Avenue
extension.
12. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for residential uses, the applicant shall pay
any applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 20.115. This fee is subject to annual adjustment, and presently is assessed at
$1,858.00 per medium density residential unit.
13. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012
(“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior
design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief
Planner for a determination.
14. Prior to the recordation of the Covenants Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) with the
San Mateo County Recorder, the applicant shall submit the final CC&Rs to the Chief
Planner for review and approval.
15. The applicant shall implement all of the construction-related measures identified in the
“CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256 Mission Road Project” Memorandum
prepared by Urban Planning Partners, Inc., dated November 17, 2014.
16. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall revise the
development plans to include the following Climate Action Plan requirements, subject to
review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
a) Install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
b) Use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the
voluntary CALGreen standards.
c) Implement the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following:
(i) Establish a variable-speed pump exchange for water features.
(ii) Restrict hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after
sunrise.
(iii)Install irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
11
(iv) Landscape with native, water-efficient plants.
(v) Install drip irrigation systems.
(vi) Reduce impervious surfaces to the maximum extent practical.
17. Prior to the issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall contact
the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash
enclosures and work with staff to locate the trash enclosure in accordance with the
zoning ordinance, SSFMC 20.300.014. An approval letter from South San Francisco
Scavenger shall be provided to the Chief Planner.
18. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements or
approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the applicant shall submit to the City for review
and approval by the Chief Planner and the City Attorney documentation demonstrating a
perfected right to enter and perform work on the existing driveway at 1256 Edgewood
Avenue.
Planning Division contact: Billy Gross, Senior Planner (650) 877-8535
B) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing the
following improvements for review and approval by the Fire Marshal or designee:
a) Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13, NFPA 13D and SSFFD requirements
under separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground.
b) Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code
section 1003.3.
c) Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
d) Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code.
e) All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications.
f) Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed
load of 75,000 pounds.
g) Road gradient and vehicle turning radius shall not exceed maximum allowed.
h) Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix III-A.
i) Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 450 feet between hydrants;
location and number to be determined. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum
fire flow of 2000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for duration of 4 hours.
12
j) All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF
municipal code section 15.24.100.
k) Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, and others to be determined.
l) The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
m) All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
2. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permit, the applicant shall pay any
applicable Public Safety Impact Fee in accordance with City Council Resolution 97-
2012. This fee is subject to annual adjustment, and presently is assessed at $563.00 per
high density residential unit.
Fire Prevention contact: Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshal (650) 829-6645
C) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The Owner shall perform a flow study of the City sewer collection system to determine
whether flow from this new development can adequately be handled.
2. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall comply with all requirements,
and pay for all deposits and fees, as described in the City Municipal Code.
Engineering Division contact: Eric Evans, Associate Engineer (650) 829-6652
D) Police Department requirements shall be as follows:
1. Municipal Code Compliance. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance
revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security
and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed / revised building plans.
Police Department contact: Sergeant Bruce McPhillips (650) 877-7248
E) Water Quality Control Plant requirements shall be as follows:
1. Fire sprinkler test drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
2. Condensate drains from HVAC system must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
3. Site is subject to Low impact development requirements; site must treat stormwater prior to
it entering the stormwater system. Complete applicable forms for low impact development.
4. Roof leaders cannot be connected directly to the storm drain system.
13
5. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
6. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the
project site:
a) Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff
by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that
provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and
prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
b) Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil
type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall,
air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to
ensure successful establishment.
c) Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into
the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d) Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.
e) Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as
part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM
principles and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In
making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity,
as well as seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants.
iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting
the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects.
7. No decorative bark shall be used in landscaping.
8. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
9. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted.
Water Quality contact: Rob Lecel (650) 877-8555
14
Exhibit B
Tentative Subdivision Map
15
16
Exhibit C
Affordable Housing Agreement
17
Affordable Housing Agreement 1
1256 Mission Road
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
Documentary Transfer Tax $
EXEMPT
County of San Mateo
City of South San Francisco
_____________________________
Right of Way Agent
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR BELOW MARKET RATE PROPERTY
This Affordable Housing Agreement for Below Market Rate Property (“Agreement”) is
entered into as of this _____ day of _____________, 2014, by and between the City of South
San Francisco (“City”) and ________________________ (“Developer”). City and Developer
are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth the
requirements for Inclusionary Housing (“Inclusionary Housing Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer is the fee simple owner of that certain real property
(“Property”) located in the City of South San Francisco, State of California, and more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
WHEREAS, the Developer intends to construct thirty-five (35 for-sale housing units on
the Property (the “Project”) and has submitted site development plans for the Project; and
18
Affordable Housing Agreement 2
1256 Mission Road
WHEREAS, as a condition of development of the Project, Developer must comply with
the City of South San Francisco ’s housing policies and programs as set forth in the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance adopted by the City Council on December 12, 2001, as it
applies to the provision of affordable housing.
WHEREAS, the Developer proposes meeting these requirements by selling the required
number of Below Market Rate Units (defined below); and
NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. As a condition of developing and constructing ninety-nine (99) condominiums on
the Property, Developer shall designate seven (7) units as Below Market Rate Units and shall
make these units available for sale as Below Market Rate Units (the “Below Market Rate
Units”). The number of Below Market Rate Units shall be equal to twenty percent (20%) of the
total number of condominiums to be built upon the Property and identified in Exhibit B. The
Below Market Rate Units shall be affordable to low- and moderate income households
guaranteed by deed restrictions or other enforceable covenants running with the land. Developer
shall sell:
(i) One (1) three-bedroom housing unit in the Project to a household whose
annual gross income does not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the unadjusted median
income (“Low-Income Household”) for a San Mateo County household in the San
Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, published annually by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (as adjusted annually, the “Base Median Income”);
(ii) One (1) three-bedroom unit to a household whose annual gross income
does not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the unadjusted median income;
(iii) One (1) three-bedroom unit to a household whose annual gross income
does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the unadjusted median income;
(iv) One (1) three-bedroom unit to a household whose annual gross income
does not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the unadjusted median income;
(v) Two (2) three-bedroom units to a household whose annual gross income
does not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the unadjusted median income; and
(vi) One (1) three-bedroom unit to a household whose annual gross income
does not exceed one hundred ten percent (110%) of the unadjusted median income,
(jointly “Low and Moderate-Income Households”).
19
Affordable Housing Agreement 3
1256 Mission Road
2. Developer shall sell the Below Market Rate Units at a price that will result in an
allowable housing expense for a for-sale unit (as defined in Section 20.125.020 of the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) that does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross monthly
income for Low- and Moderate-Income Households, adjusted for household size.
3. The Below Market Rate Units shall be located in close proximity to the El
Camino Real, a major commercial and transportation corridor. The Developer and the City
acknowledge this is an ideal area for such Below Market Rate Units as it is in close proximity to
and has access to employment opportunities, urban services and transportation facilities.
4. Occupancy of the Below Market Rate Units shall be established concurrently with
occupancy of the market rate units located on the Property. This requirement shall be effective
as of the date the first unit is occupied on the Property. This requirement for the Below Market
Rate Units shall remain in effect even in the event all market rate units on the Property become
unoccupied.
5. Developer shall require the buyer of the Below Market Rate Units to execute a
Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreement substantially in the form attached hereto
as Exhibit C (“Resale Restriction Agreement”). The Resale Restriction Agreement shall be
recorded against the parcel containing the Below Market Rate Units upon close of escrow of sale
for such Below Market Rate Units. The Below Market Rate Units shall remain restricted and
affordable to Low- and Moderate Income Households for a term of fifty-five (55) years,
commencing on the date each Below Market Rate Unit is sold. The restrictions shall apply to all
subsequent buyers.
6. Developer shall sell the Below Market Rate Units to eligible Low- and Moderate-
Income Household pursuant to Section 2. Developer shall work with the City and/or the City’s
First Time Homebuyer Administrator to identify and qualify eligible buyers for said units. At
the time of sale, Developer shall pay an administrative fee to reimburse the City for all
administrative and processing costs and fees incurred in processing the sale of the Below Market
Rate Units, which may include the First Time Homebuyer Administrator fees.
7. The Below Market Rate Units shall remain owner-occupied units.
8. Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold
harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against
any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising or
allegedly arising out of or relating in any manner to the Project, the Property, or Developer’s
performance or nonperformance under this Agreement, except to the extent arising from the
gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City. The provisions of this section shall survive
the expiration or other termination of this Agreement or any release of part or all of the Property
from the burdens of this Agreement.
9. Developer shall pay an administrative fee to reimburse the City for all
administrative/processing costs and fees incurred in processing the Agreement, which may
include reasonable attorney’s fees and cost, and implementing the requirements of the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
20
Affordable Housing Agreement 4
1256 Mission Road
10. Developer hereby subjects the Property to the covenants, conditions and
restrictions set forth in this Agreement. The Parties hereby declare their express intent that all
such covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be deemed covenants running with the land and
shall pass to and be binding upon Developer’s successors in title to the Property. All covenants
without regard to technical classification or designation shall be binding for the benefit of the
City, and such covenants shall run in favor of the City. Each and every contract, deed or other
instrument hereafter executed applicable to or conveying the Property or any portion thereof
shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such
covenants, conditions and restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants, conditions and
restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument. This Agreement shall be
recorded on the Property upon final map recordation or, if a map is not being processed, prior to
the issuance of building permits for the Property.
11. Prior to the sale of the Below Market Rate Units to eligible Low- and Moderate-
Income Households, the Developer may not transfer the whole or any part of the Property, the
Project or this Agreement unless (i) such transfer is to a limited liability company or limited
partnership formed by Developer for purposes of carrying out the Project, (ii) the Developer first
notifies the City of the proposed transfer or assignment and delivers to the City the
organizational documents of the transferee or assignee (the "Transferee"), and (iii) the Developer
causes the Transferee to execute an agreement, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to
City, accepting and assuming the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement.
Developer shall reimburse City for all City costs, including but not limited to reasonable
attorneys’ fees, incurred in reviewing instruments and other legal documents proposed to effect a
permitted transfer or assignment under this Agreement within ten (10) days following City’s
delivery of an invoice detailing such costs.
12. Provided that Developer has complied with all of the terms and conditions set
forth herein, upon the sale by Developer of the Below Market Rate Units, Developer shall be
released from, and shall have no further obligations under this Agreement. Such release shall be
effective upon the sale and shall not require any further action or documentation by any party to
this Agreement.
13. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be processed in the same manner as an
original application for approval pursuant to Section 20.125.150 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code. Nothing, however, shall prevent the body granting final approval of the project
development, from modifying the location and phasing of the Below Market Rate Units as a
condition of approval for the Project.
14. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement without regard to
principles of conflicts of laws. In the event that either party brings any action against the other
under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the
state courts of California in the County of San Mateo or in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.
15. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory
relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
21
Affordable Housing Agreement 5
1256 Mission Road
entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be
entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that
purpose.
16. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged
shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this
Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
17. Any notice or demand shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt
requested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below:
Developer: ______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
City: City of South San Francisco - City Clerk
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
18. Notwithstanding any previous provision of this Agreement, the terms of this
Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.125 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
DEVELOPER :
By: ________________________________
Name Printed: _______________________
Its: _________________________________
CITY:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
By: ___________________________
Mike Futrell
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
22
Affordable Housing Agreement 6
1256 Mission Road
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Exhibit B
BMR Units Plan
Exhibit C
Form of Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreement for Below Market Rate Property
23
Exhibit D
1256 Mission Road Project Plans
2363711.2
24
Attachment 2
Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Minutes – Meeting of December 4, 2014
25
Planning Commission
Staff Report
DATE: December 4, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 1256 Mission Subdivision
Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and Affordable Housing Agreement to construct
a new residential development consisting of 31 Townhomes and 4 Single Family Dwellings,
authorize Density Bonus Incentives for the southern portion of the site to allow an increase in
allowable building height from 25-feet to 35-feet and to allow the use of one architectural
prototype, and Use Permit to allow a 5 foot 2 inch tall fence in the required front yard at
1256 Mission Road in the Transit Village Residential Medium Density (TV-RM) and Low
Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning Districts in accordance with SSFMC Title 19
(Subdivisions) and Chapters 20.080, 20.250, 20.300, 20.310, 20.330, 20.380, 20.390, 20.460,
20.480 and 20.490, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
Address: 1256 Mission Road (APNs 011-171-330, 011-171-500 & 011-171-130)
Owner: Antonio Cuneo
Applicant: City Ventures
Case No.: P14-0081: UP14-0009, DR4-0049, SA14-0001 & AHA14-0001
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution making findings and
recommending that the City Council approve Planning Project P14-0081, including UP14-0009, DR14-0049,
SA14-0001 and AHA14-0001 based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft
conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
Existing Site
The Project site is comprised of three separate lots, totaling approximately 1.7 acres in size, within the
Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. The site is immediately bounded by Mission Road to the southwest, with
medical office uses and the South San Francisco BART Station (“SSF BART”) directly across Mission
Road, a Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) utility easement and single-family homes to the northwest,
Baywood Ave and single-family homes to the northeast, and single-family homes and the Edgewood Way
cul-de-sac to the east. El Camino High School is approximately one block to the northwest, Sunshine
Gardens Elementary School is approximately ¼ mile to the northeast, and Sunshine Gardens Shopping
Center is approximately one block to the southeast.
26
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 2 of 15
Figure 1: Neighborhood Aerial
Historically, the majority of the subject site has been used for agricultural purposes, with farming activity
occurring until approximately 15 years ago. Therefore, the majority of the site is undeveloped, with a vacant
residential structure on the southern portion of the site along Mission Road, two occupied residential
structures and miscellaneous accessory buildings on the northern portion of the site.
Development Policies related to South San Francisco BART Station Area
In the past 15 years, the City has developed a vision for the SSF BART area to transform into a transit-
supportive neighborhood. Following is a discussion of specific policy documents that create the vision for
the subject property, which is an important transitional location between the single-family neighborhood to
the south and east and the SSF BART station.
1999 General Plan – BART Station Area
The South San Francisco General Plan was adopted in 1999; at this time the SSF BART Station location was
known, but construction had not been finalized. The General Plan created specific policies related to the
development around the planned station, including:
Guiding Policy 3.4-G-3. Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-
oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area’s new role as a regional
center.
Implementing Policy 3.4-I-5. Establish transit-supportive development requirements for the
approximately eight-acre station area that include:
Designation of the area as a transit-overlay zone, with specific development requirements
established in the Zoning Ordinance;
Transit-oriented design and development standards that address pedestrian scale, comfort and
safety, including maximum setbacks or “build-to” lines, and building transparency
requirements;
Inclusion of child care facilities;
Prohibition on auto-oriented and drive-through establishments; and
Minimum density and development intensity requirements.
27
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 3 of 15
Implementing Policy 3.4-I-8. Require any new development/redevelopment within ½ mile of the
BART station at a density of no less than 30 units per net acre for residential uses, or an FAR of 1.5
for non-residential uses, or an appropriate combination of the two. Maintain higher intensities where
specified otherwise in the General Plan.
South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan
Per the General Plan Implementing policies, the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan (“Transit
Village Plan”) was adopted in 2001, with an intent to provide a clear set of design regulations for
development within about a ½ mile radius from the BART station. The Transit Village Plan envisions
Mission Road as a street with wider sidewalks, street trees and lighting similar to other areas of the Transit
Village, and with housing fronting the sidewalks that is of a slightly higher intensity than the single family
homes that currently exist, to create a visual and physical buffer between Mission Road activity and the
Sunshine Gardens neighborhood behind, as well as to reduce the number of conflict points along Mission
Road, by reducing the number of curb cuts.
Housing Element Opportunity Sites
The Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated Elements of the General Plan. Unlike other
elements, the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the State; the City is currently in the
process of updating the Housing Element for the housing cycle of 2015-2022. The Housing Element is the
blueprint for future housing development in the city and includes goals, policies, and programs that direct
residential decision-making. The Housing Element is required by state law to identify how and where the
housing needs of each community will be met. For the upcoming housing cycle, the City of South San
Francisco has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of 1,835 units.
To show that the City has properly zoned land to meet the RHNA numbers, the City is required to identify
adequate opportunity sites throughout the jurisdiction. The available site inventory focuses on sites with
near-term development potential, typically where the site is currently vacant or highly underutilized. In both
the current and draft Housing Elements, the Transit Village Plan area was identified as providing many
potential opportunity sites, including the subject site. Assuming a density of 30 dwelling units per acre,
consistent with densities allowed within the Transit Village corridor, the site was identified as being able to
accommodate up to 47 units.
DISCUSSION
Project Overview
In keeping with the basic policy direction discussed above, the applicant is proposing a medium-density
residential development consisting of 31 for-sale townhome-style condominiums on the lower section of the
site, accessed from Mission Road and Edgewood Ave, and 4 single-family style condominium homes on the
upper section of the site, accessed from Baywood Ave.
28
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 4 of 15
Figure 2: 1256 Mission Road Site Plan
On the lower portion of the site, the 21 townhome-style condominiums provide 3 bedrooms and range in size
from 1,350 – 1,700 square feet, with a two car garage in either a tandem or side by side configuration. The
single family homes on the upper portion of the site provide between 3 and 5 bedrooms and range in size
from 1,900 – 2,600 square feet, with a one- or two-car garage and a driveway to provide additional parking
area.
Building Architecture
The townhome-style condominiums are designed as 3-story attached units, with 4-7 units per building. The
architecture is contemporary, using massing and material changes to differentiate between separate units and
to give cohesion to the overall development. The primary materials include stucco and horizontal hardi-
plank siding, with the materials alternating vertically to identify individual units. The buildings are designed
with flat roofs to minimize the total apparent height of the buildings.
Figure 3. Townhome Architecture
29
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 5 of 15
The single family homes are 2-story detached units, with traditional residential architecture to be in keeping
with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. The material palette is consistent with that of the
townhome-style condominiums, with stucco and horizontal siding as the primary materials. Sheet CB of the
project plans (Exhibit D of the Entitlements Resolution) includes a graphic depiction of the colors and other
materials.
Figure 4: Single Family Architecture
Circulation
Vehicular traffic access is provided at three separate locations to minimize new trip generation from any
singular access point. The primary access point is Mission Road, which would provide vehicular access to
21 of the townhome units and to 3 guest parking spaces. Edgewood Ave, which currently terminates at the
site boundary, is proposed to be extended to provide vehicular access to the remaining 10 townhome units, as
well as up to 10 guest parking spaces. The 4 single family units and 4 additional guest parking spaces would
be accessed from Baywood Ave.
Pedestrian circulation is provided throughout the site to allow easier access to other uses within the
development, as well as to the public sidewalks along Mission Road and Edgewood Ave, which in turn allow
direct pedestrian access to amenities within close proximity, including the SSF BART Station, neighborhood
schools, Centennial Way Linear Park and neighborhood commercial centers.
Landscaping/Open Space
Landscaping for the site is primarily provided along the Mission Rd frontage and along the pedestrian
walkways throughout the project, including the Paseo between the second and third row of townhomes.
Each of the townhomes will have a private patio located adjacent to the front entrance stairs, while the
single-family homes will have separate yards. The applicant is also proposing a small playground adjacent
to the Edgewood Ave extension aisle, which will provide communal open space for the development. Staff
has included a condition of approval requiring the landscaping along Mission Rd to be consistent with the
Transit Village Plan, which envisions improved streetscape aesthetics and pedestrian circulation throughout
the Transit Village corridor, including street trees planted 30-feet on center.
30
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 6 of 15
Southern Live Oaks are proposed as the street trees along Mission Rd, the short frontage on Baywood Ave,
and on the Edgewood Ave extension. Other trees proposed within the interior of the site include Strawberry
Trees, Hopseed, New Zealand Christmas and Flowering Plum. Path lights, benches and other street furniture
would be provided throughout. Sheets L.2-3 of the Project Plans (Exhibit D of the Entitlements Resolution)
includes images of the proposed landscape species.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
The proposed development is obligated to provide twenty percent (20%) of the proposed dwellings as
affordable to low and moderate income households (SSFMC 20.380 “Inclusionary Housing Regulations”).
The applicant is proposing to construct 35 dwellings, and therefore the applicant is required to restrict a
minimum of 7 units to fulfill the affordable housing obligation. A Draft Affordable Housing Agreement
between the applicant and the City has been prepared and is attached for review. The Affordable Housing
Agreement has been drafted to comply with the requirements contained in SSFMC 20.380.
City Ventures has requested two incentives for affordable housing: a height increase for a portion of the
project site and allowance to use Architectural Prototype 5 Guidelines for all of the townhome units. In
accordance with State Density Bonus Law (Govt. Code Section 65915(d)(2)(B), the applicant is entitled to a
density bonus and at least two incentives if the project includes a minimum of 20% of the units restricted to
lower income households, and if the incentives assist in ensuring the affordability of the project. The
applicant is requesting two incentives, and staff supports the requested incentives outlined below, since they
are consistent with State law, will assist in ensuring the affordability of the project, and should not result in
significant adverse impacts.
Incentive 1 – Maximum Height Allowance
The Transit Village Plan District includes height zones; for the subject property the maximum height allowed
is 35 feet for a depth of approximately 93 feet from Mission Road (which is the depth of existing parcel 011-
171-500, where the vacant residence is located). The remaining portion of the lot within the TV-RM district
has a maximum height of 25 feet. It should be noted that the height allowance in the surrounding single-
family neighborhood is 28 feet, so while many of the surrounding homes in the area are only one-story, the
proposed height would not be significantly greater than what is allowed in the surrounding neighborhood.
Allowing all of the townhomes to be up to 3-stories in height results in a greater number of 3-bedroom units,
better integrating the townhome units with the existing neighborhood. In order to design a project that
provides larger units and meets the required residential densities, the applicant has requested an exception to
allow the 35-foot height limit to be applicable to all of the townhome units.
Figure 5 – Proposed Height Limit Areas
31
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 7 of 15
Incentive 2 – Applicable Architectural Prototypes
The Transit Village Plan also includes Architectural Prototype Design Guidelines which identify
architectural design and site planning principles that are appropriate for specific areas of the plan area. For
the subject site, the Mission Road frontage is identified as Architectural Prototype 5, while the remainder of
the property is identified as Architectural Prototype 6. Following are the differences between the two
prototypes:
Architectural Prototype 5 – Townhouse with rear-accessed tuck-under or surface parking accessed
from a shared driveway off of Principal Street or private Neighborhood Street.
Architectural Prototype 6 – Townhouse facing Principal Street with front loaded parking, or
Townhouse in back of large parcel with front loaded parking off of private Neighborhood Street.
Prototype 5 results in a denser product-type that requires less total site area, while Prototype 6 is only slightly
denser than the surrounding single-family neighborhood. In order to develop a project closer to the
minimum density requirements contemplated by the General Plan, including the current Housing Element
update, the applicant is requesting an incentive allowing Architectural Prototype 6 to be the applicable
design guidelines for the lower portion of the project site where the 21 townhome-style condominium units
are proposed to be located.
32
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 8 of 15
ZONING CONSISTENCY
The existing parcels that are identified as 1256 Mission Road and 1262 Edgewood Way are located in the
Transit Village Medium Density Residential (“TV-RM”) Zone District, while the third parcel at 1261-1267
Baywood Ave is located within the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zone District. The applicant is
proposing a Tentative Map that would create two new parcels; Lot 2 would include area that is in both the
TV-RM and RL-8 zoning districts.
SSFMC Section 20.300.003 “Development on Lots Divided by District Boundaries” includes regulations
that would be applicable to Lot 2. Generally, where a lot is divided by a zoning district boundary, the
regulations applicable to each district shall be applied to the area within the district; however, the minimum
lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the district that covers the greatest portion of the lot area shall
apply to the entire lot. The greatest portion of Lot 2 is within the TV-RM district, and therefore the TV-RM
minimum lot standards have been applied to all of Lot 2. For the building development standards, the
applicant has designed Unit 35, adjacent to Baywood Ave, to meet the standards of the RL-8 zoning district,
while Units 32-34 at the rear of Lot 2 meet the standards of the TV-RM zoning district, including the
Architectural Prototype 6 Design Guidelines.
Upon construction, the proposed project will entail a medium-density residential development that fulfills all
of the purpose statements of the TV-RM District: the project will provide medium density housing in close
proximity to the SSF BART station; the development would serve as a physical and visual buffer and will
provide a transition between the SSF BART station and the existing Sunshine Gardens neighborhood; and
the project would assist in supporting additional neighborhood development and/or redevelopment along
Mission Road.
General Development Standards
Subject to the Inclusionary Housing incentives requested by the applicant, the proposed project would meet
the development standards of the TV-RM district, as well as the RL-8 district for the applicable portion of
the site, as shown below:
Development Regulations for Transit Village – Medium Density Residential
TV-RM RL-8 Proposed
Building Scale – Intensity of Use
Min. Lot Area 5,000 sf 5,000sf 58,109sf/17,642 sf
Min. Lot Width 50’ Complies
Min. Lot Depth 80’ Complies
Max. Density (units per acre) 30 8 26.4
Max. Lot Coverage (%) 75% 50% 44%/21%
Max. Floor Area Ratio 0.50 Complies
Building Form and Location
Max. Building Height 35’ 28’ 35’/25’1
Max. # of stories 2 Complies
Min. Yards – Front 15’ 15’
Side 5’ 5’ 5’
Rear Yes 20’ Complies
Build-to Lines See Figure 20.250.004(E) Complies
33
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 9 of 15
Pedestrian Orientation
Building Entries Yes Yes Complies
Vehicle Accommodation
Driveway Restrictions Yes Yes
Pedestrian Walkways Yes Yes Complies
Other Standards
Bicycle Amenities Yes Complies
Trash Enclosures Yes Complies
Screening of Mech Equip Yes Yes Complies
1 – Subject to Affordable Housing Incentive 1- Maximum Height Allowance, which allows the
maximum height to be 35 feet for the southern portion of the site where the townhome-style
condominiums would be located.
Parking Standards
For all of the residential units within the TV-RM district, SSFMC Table 20.250.004(N) “Required Parking
Spaces, TV Districts” requires a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 parking spaces per residential unit. The
project would provide each unit with a maximum of 2 parking spaces, within the range required. For the unit
within the RL-8 district, SSFMC Table 20.330.004 “Required On-Site Parking Spaces” requires 2 spaces per
unit for homes up to 2,500 square feet and less than 5 bedrooms. The unit within the RL-8 district is
currently proposed to have 2,591 square feet in total area with a 2 car garage. Staff has included a condition
of approval (A-11) requiring that the size of the house be reduced to no more than 2,499 square feet prior to
issuance of building permits for the project.
The Transit Village Plan regulations do not include any specific requirements related to guest parking, but
SSFMC Chapter 20.330 “Off-Street Parking” specifies that projects with more than 10 units must provide 1
guest parking space for every 4 units. Based on this ratio, the Project would be required to provide 8 guest
parking spaces. During initial community meetings that the applicant held prior to application submittal, the
surrounding neighborhood expressed a concern related to providing adequate guest parking. Based on
parking concerns from the neighborhood, the applicant proposes to provide significantly more guest parking
spaces, with a total of 17 guest parking spaces throughout the site; 3 adjacent to the Mission Road access
driveway, four 4 adjacent to the Baywood Ave access driveway, and the remaining 10 located on the north
side of the Edgewood Ave extension.
Circulation
As stated above, the project proposes 3 vehicular access points; Mission Road for 21 of the townhome units,
Edgewood Ave for the remaining 10 townhome units, and Baywood Ave for the 4 single-family units.
Based on concerns raised by neighbors along Edgewood Ave, the applicant proposes a vehicle entrance gate
at the Edgewood Ave entrance.
General Plan Implementing Policy 2-I-8 includes language related to gated communities, as follows:
2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve the
community orientation of new development.
A community orientation calls for greater attention to the relationship between residences, streets and
shared spaces, and does not require sacrifice of privacy or amenities. Specific steps could include: 34
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 10 of 15
Not permitting gated developments;
Allowing sound walls only along freeway or arterial streets, as established in Chapter 4:
Transportation; and
Requiring parking in all non-industrial and business and technology park areas to be tucked
behind buildings.
Per the intent of the first bullet point above, staff has included a condition of approval (A-11) requiring the
applicant to remove the Edgewood Ave vehicle entrance gate prior to issuance of building permits.
Front Yard Fence
Fences and walls located in the front or street-facing side yard are regulated by SSFMC Section
20.300.005(A)(1):
“Fences and walls may be a maximum of three feet high within required front or street-facing side
yards. Visually transparent and non-opaque fences over three feet high may be allowed in required
front and street-facing side yards, subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit.”
The applicant is proposing to construct a 5 foot 2 inch tall fence within portions of the front yard setback to
separate private patios in front of each unit along Mission Road. To allow a fence taller than the 3 foot
height limit within the required front yard, a Minor Use Permit would typically be required; because the
Planning Commission is reviewing other aspects of the development application, the fence height application
is being processed as a Conditional Use Permit.
The fence will consist of a stucco retaining wall for a height of 2 feet and then a horizontal wood fence for
the remaining 3 feet 2 inches. The design will provide a non-opaque barrier that is in keeping with the
architecture of the buildings and provides adequate visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles
entering/exiting the site.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board reviewed the project at their meeting of October 16, 2014. The Board was
supportive of the overall project, with the following general comments:
1. Revise the unit floor plans to meet the minimum interior dimension requirements for garages (10 feet
by 20 feet per space).
2. Revise the site plan to include an internal pedestrian connection within the development to connect
Mission Road and Baywood.
3. The project is lacking adequate usable open space; consider revising the site plan to provide more
usable area (i.e. play structure, amenity building).
4. Revise the building elevations on Sheets A5.0 and A5.1 to have consistent roof shapes.
5. Revise the landscape plan to incorporate species that will survive the SSF climate; avoid Quercus Ilex
or Muhlenbergia rigens. Add street trees that will be in scale with the proposed building height along
Mission Road frontage.
6. Contact the Fire Department to determine if alternative paving can be used in non-circulation areas
(including hammer-head turn).
35
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 11 of 15
The Project Plans attached to this staff report (Exhibit D of the Entitlements Resolution) have been modified
in response to comments made by the Design Review Board. Comment 2 above was related to providing a
pedestrian connection for children that may live in the development to a neighborhood playground at
Sunshine Gardens Elementary school, as the site plan reviewed by the Design Review Board did not include
any play areas. Due to the change in elevation between the northern and southern portions of the site,
creating an accessible connection from the southern portion of the site to Baywood Ave would not be
possible without significant impacts to the overall site plan. Therefore, the applicant has removed two guest
parking spaces along the Edgewood Ave extension and provided a small play area for use of tenants of the
property. The applicant has also provided direct pedestrian connections from the development to each of the
adjacent streets. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has adequately addressed all of the specific
comments.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
A neighborhood meeting was held on November 5, 2014 in which approximately 20 residents attended.
Concerns raised at the meeting included the following:
Strong desire to not allow extension of Edgewood Ave into project site, with preference that all
townhome-style condominium units have vehicular access from Mission Road only.
Too many guest parking spaces provided along Edgewood Ave extension.
Questions related to how affordable unit tenants are selected
3-story height allowance will impact privacy of existing residences.
Edgewood Ave Extension
The most prominent comment at the neighborhood meeting was the concern related to the extension of
Edgewood Ave. Subsequent to the meeting, the applicant prepared a site-plan that depicts how the overall
project would be affected by providing the southern portion of the site with vehicular access only from
Mission Rd.
Figure 6 – Alternative Site Plan not extending Edgewood Ave
As depicted, the proposed pedestrian walkway between buildings would be widened into a central access
road with spurs providing vehicular circulation to the townhome units. The primary visual impacts to the 36
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 12 of 15
southern portion of the site are at the second row of townhomes, where the end townhome units and the
landscaped pedestrian walkways are replaced with the central access road, which negatively impacts the
appearance of the development from Mission Rd. This configuration also requires more of the site to be
graded to meet the required access slopes.
In order to continue to meet the minimum density requirements, the 3 units that would be removed due to the
road widening would be incorporated into the northern portion of the site, with the replacement of the 3
single-family detached homes at the rear of the northern portion of the site with a row of 6 townhome-style
homes. To allow such a configuration, the affordable housing incentives to allow a height increase for a
portion of the project site and to allow the use of Architectural Prototype 5 Guidelines for all of the
townhome units would have to be extended for the entirety of the parcels within the TV-RM district. Under
this scenario, 28 units would be accessed from Mission Rd, and the remaining 7 units would be accessed
from Baywood Ave.
One alternative that would allow density to be maximized on the southern portion of the site and would
minimize the need for traffic access from other neighborhood streets would be to allow residential
construction above podium parking; however, this alternative would require a Zoning Amendment and
would not be in keeping with the surrounding single-family neighborhood.
When the Transit Village Plan was adopted in 2001, it envisioned Edgewood Ave being extended to provide
a better vehicular connection to the subject site and neighborhood. To minimize overall vehicular impacts
and to provide housing densities that meet the City’s requirements, the applicant is proposing only to extend
Edgewood Ave to access the 10 townhome units on this portion of the property. According to the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, the average single-family home
generates approximately 10 vehicle trips per day, while the average townhome/condominium generates
approximately 5 vehicle trips per day. Currently, there are 16 single-family homes on the dead-end block of
Edgewood, which according to ITE standards would result in approximately 160 vehicle trips per day. The
10 townhomes proposed to have access from Edgewood would result in approximately 50 additional vehicle
trips on the impacted block. Staff believes that providing vehicular access for 10 townhome units via the
extension of Edgewood Ave results in a project that better conforms to the overall vision for the TV-RM
district along Mission Rd than the alternatives mentioned above, with less significant impacts to the overall
neighborhood.
Guest Parking Spaces
In regards to guest parking spaces, it would be possible to revise the configuration of the Edgewood Ave
guest parking spaces so that all were parallel rather than perpendicular spaces. This would reduce the overall
number of guest spaces to no more than 6 along Edgewood Ave, and 13 for the entire site, which would
continue to comply with the overall requirement.
Affordable Housing Selection
For the project’s affordable units, the applicant will work with the City and the City’s first time homebuyer
administrator to broadly announce the availability of the units, prepare a preliminary application, qualify
eligible buyers and conduct a lottery to select the buyers. In addition to income requirements, staff will
establish other eligibility criteria in consultation with the City Council.
37
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 13 of 15
Existing Development Privacy Impacts
The applicant has indicated in the project plans that window locations on the east side of the townhomes
were located in such a way as to minimize direct visibility between the new units and existing residences.
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
A Tentative Subdivision Map is proposed to create two separate lots with a total of 35 residential
condominium units; 31 units on Lot 1 and 4 units on Lot 2. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed
map and determined that it complies with the City Standards and the State Subdivision Map Act.
In conjunction with the Tentative Subdivision Map, the applicant has also submitted Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the subdivision; these CC&Rs include Use Restrictions for each of the units,
including regulations related to window coverings, antenna restrictions, maintenance of animals and other
similar items.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Medium Density Residential. As discussed above in
the Background section, the General Plan includes specific policies related to development within the
immediate vicinity of the SSF BART Station Area, in an effort to create “a vital pedestrian-oriented center,
with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area’s new role as a regional center.”
The proposed project will conform to the General Plan Land Use Policies by creating medium-density
residential units that emphasize a pedestrian-oriented development along Mission Road in keeping with the
development intensity requirements, including residential density. The project also provides a well-
articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Transit Village Plan. The
project design is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as it relates to building design, form and
articulation.
Additionally, the proposed project complies with the General Plan Housing Element, which identifies the
subject site as a near-term housing opportunity site.
SUSTAINABILITY / CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The proposed project is consistent with recent sustainability regulations that have been adopted at both the
State, regional and local levels. Examples include Senate Bill 375, passed in 2008, which aims to lead to
more efficient communities that provide residents with alternatives to using single occupancy vehicles.
Projects that link higher density development to transit are in keeping with this goal. At the local level, the
Transit Village district aims to create a pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and a mix of uses. The
applicant is proposing a medium-density residential project that will be located adjacent to a major transit
station and within walking distance of regional and local bus routes, consistent with all of the above
mentioned sustainability goals.
The applicant has indicated that its projects are designed to be all-electric, with solar-panels installed on all
homes. Stated goals of the applicant include garages pre-wired for electric car charging stations, energy
efficient appliances, and Smart Home Technology throughout to allow homeowners to understand and be in
control of energy usage. 38
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 14 of 15
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) in February 2014; the CAP serves as South San
Francisco’s greenhouse gas reduction strategy. The CAP includes requirements applicable to new
development projects; following are the specific requirements applicable to the proposed project.
Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
Encourage the use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the
voluntary CALGreen standards.
Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by
undertaking the following:
Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features.
Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise.
Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants.
Installing drip irrigation systems.
Reducing impervious surfaces.
In addition to the requirements listed above, the CAP includes additional measures that are encouraged in
order to help with the City’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts:
Integrate higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and
community facilities, and reduce dependence on autos through smart parking practices.
Work with developers of multi-family properties and nonprofit groups to maximize energy efficiency
in new construction.
Encourage the use of CALGreen energy efficiency measures as a preferred mitigation for CAP
streamlining.
Promote on-site renewable energy or distributed generation energy systems in new and existing
residential and nonresidential projects. Encourage developers of multi-family and mixed-use projects
to provide options for on-site renewable electricity or install distributed generation energy systems,
similar to the statewide Homebuyer Solar program.
As currently designed, the proposed project will comply with many of the standards above, and staff will
continue to work with the applicant to incorporate as many sustainable features as possible into the project.
Staff has included Condition of Approval A-16, which requires the applicant to revise the project drawings to
include the CAP requirements stated above subject to Chief Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Subject to the conditions of approval, the project is consistent with the City’s
CAP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review under the
provisions of CEQA (Class 32, Section 15332: In-fill Development Projects), which provides an exemption
for in-fill development projects which meet the following conditions:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
39
Staff Report
Subject: 1256 Mission Road – Medium Density Residential Development
Date: December 4, 2014
Page 15 of 15
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
A “CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256 Mission Road Project” Memorandum analyzing
conformance with these conditions was prepared by Urban Planning Partners Inc. and is attached to this staff
report (Attachment 2).
CONCLUSION
The proposed project seeks to transform a largely vacant, underutilized site into a 35-unit high-quality
residential development that furthers the City’s vision for transit-oriented development in close proximity to
the South San Francisco BART Station, in keeping with the vision of the General Plan, including the
Housing Element, and the Transit Village Plan District standards and guidelines.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and Affordable Housing
Agreement based on the attached draft findings and subject to the attached draft conditions of approval.
By:
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Entitlement Resolution with Exhibits
a. Conditions of Approval
b. Tentative Subdivision Map
c. Affordable Housing Agreement
d. 1256 Mission Road Project Plans, dated November 12, 2014
2. CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256 Mission Road Project, dated November 17, 2014
3. Design Review Board Minutes – October 21, 2014
2363971.1
40
EXCERPT FROM 12-04-14 PC MINUTES 1256 MISSION
1256 Mission Subdivision
CUNEO ANTONIO/Owner
City Ventures/Applicant
1256 MISSION RD
P14-0081: UP14-0009, DR14-0049, SA14-0001 & AHA14-0001
Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and Affordable Housing Agreement to construct a new
residential development consisting of 31 Townhomes and 4 Single Family Dwellings, authorize
Density Bonus Incentives for the southern portion of the site to allow an increase in allowable
building height from 25-feet to 35-feet and to allow the use of one architectural prototype, and Use
Permit to allow a 5 foot 2 inch tall fence in the required front yard at 1256 Mission Road in the
Transit Village Residential Medium Density (TV-RM) and Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning
Districts in accordance with SSFMC Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Chapters 20.080, 20.250, 20.300,
20.310, 20.330, 20.380, 20.390, 20.460, 20.480 and 20.490, and determination that the project is
categorically exempt from CEQA.
Chairperson Martin opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Senior Planner
Gross informed the Commission of additional correspondence received after the staff report was
finalized. Letters from the public were received from Christy Morgan and Gregory Young,
commenting on the project. The applicant, City Ventures, also submitted correspondence dated
December 3rd and December 4th; copies of all of the additional correspondence was provided to the
Commission. He further explained that the City has had a vision related to development near the
SSF BART station, including policies in the General Plan, SSF BART Transit Village Plan and the
Housing Element. He discussed how the proposed project complied with adopted City policies and
development standards, and then discussed specific aspects of the project, including the proposed
extension of Edgewood Way into the project site to access 10 townhome units, the affordable
housing agreement and requested incentives for additional height and for a change in architectural
prototypes, and the concerns with the adjacent property owner at 1256 Edgewood Way related to
impacts to an existing driveway.
Commission inquired about the requirement for permit parking in the SSF BART station area. Sgt.
McPhillips stated that the project is within the permit parking area, and permits can be issued to all
registered vehicles for residents within the development.
Samantha Rothstein, representing City Ventures, introduced her project team, including Ben Besley
with City Ventures, Ron Jones and Scott Lockwood, architects, and Todd Cramer, C2G Civil
Engineers. She stated that City Ventures is a green developer that specializes in developing infill
sites in neighborhoods and gave a brief presentation informing the Commission that the plan
incorporates the feedback from the neighbors, the Design Review Board and staff. Ron Jones,
architect, gave a more elaborate explanation of the architecture. The Commission inquired whether
City Ventures had any conversations with PG&E regarding their easement to the north;
Mrs. Rothstein stated that this site plan does not impinge on the PG&E easement so they have not
been in contact.
41
Chairperson Martin asked if there were any speakers on the project.
Speaking in opposition:
Michelle Zacione, legal counsel representing Gregory Young, the owner of the adjacent
property at1256 Edgewood Way, stated that her client opposes the project because it
unreasonably interferes with private use of his property by changing/re-routing the
existing driveway access to Baywood Ave, and opposes the requested incentive for
increased height.
Laura Fanella (1236 Edgewood Way) opposes the height concession and would like the City
to reconsider allowing access from Edgewood Way.
Jim Scott (1224 Edgewood Way) opposes allowing access from Edgewood Way and would
like the development to follow the current style homes (single two-car garage homes) instead
of townhomes. He also expressed concern for safety.
Adam & Mary Ornellas (1243 Edgewood Way) expressed safety concerns with opening the
access through Edgewood Way.
Joseph Bacigalupi (1237 Edgewood Way) expressed concerns with overflow parking in front
of the existing homes on Edgewood Way and opposed allowing access from Edgewood.
Ona Bacigalupi (1237 Edgewood Way) expressed concerns that property values of existing
homes on Edgewood Way would decrease with additional development access via
Edgewood Way.
Donald Wood opposes opening access to Edgewood Way.
Speaker in favor:
Evan Hendrix (103 Rosewood Way) likes the new growth in South San Francisco and
supports the proposed development within the Transit Village.
There being no more speakers the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments/questions:
Commission understands the impact to existing views but stated that the City has to provide
additional housing for future generations.
Commission agrees there will be impacts by this decision but there isn't enough housing.
The City also needs to meet the housing goals mandated in the Housing Element.
Commission expressed support of housing within the Transit Village, as South San
Francisco has produced jobs but not enough housing.
Commission expressed concern with the massing of the structures and the elevations along
Mission Rd. Samantha Rothstein responded to the concern regarding the elevated porches
along Mission Road, noting that the Transit Village Plan Design Guidelines recommend
these features, and the project is attempting to comply.
Commission expressed concerns about the amount of tandem parking, noting that may put
more pressure on use of guest parking spaces. Senior Planner Gross stated that the Transit
Village Plan allows a minimum of 1 space per unit, but the development will provide more
parking to meet market demands. He also stated that tandem parking is allowed by the
42
Zoning Ordinance for all residential development sites. Since the site is within an 1/8 of a
mile from BART, the need for parking should be reduced.
Commission asked about the paseo and expressed concern that the project does not
provide enough open space for children to play or enough recreational area for the new
residents. Ms. Rothstein explained that the paseo is located between the second and third
row of townhomes, with a total width of approximately 32 feet. She explained that it is a
central walk with landscaping, benches and common space. Additionally, there are patios on
all of the homes. City Ventures has tried to intersperse a lot of open space throughout the
development. Senior Planner Gross explained that this project is also subject to park in lieu
fees which are required to be used within the geographic zone.
Commission inquired if multiple vehicular access points are preferable over a singular
access from Mission Rd for public safety purposes. Fire Marshal DaSilva stated that both
plans work but expressed that the proposed plan is more effective. Sergeant McPhillips
concurred with the Fire Marshal.
Commission expressed concern with only having access from Mission Road from a
congestion standpoint.
Commission inquired about the affordable housing. Senior Planner Gross explained there
will be 7 affordable units and they will be interspersed throughout the development.
Commission asked if there is a difference in quality for the affordable units. Senior Planner
Gross stated there is no difference in quality of the units.
Commission asked about location of satellite dishes and other mechanical equipment. Ms.
Rothstein stated that the buildings are designed to screen all mechanical equipment behind
the roof parapet.
Commission inquired about the specifics for affordable unit tenant selection. Senior Planner
Gross responded that the specific selection criteria will be determined by the City Council.
Commission inquired about the amount of open space. Ms. Rothstein again explained the
paseo concept and stated that a small playground area was added based on feedback from
the Design Review Board and staff. She further explained that the most stringent
requirement in the zoning ordinance is 150 sq. ft. per home and the proposed project
exceeded the target.
Commission asked about accommodating the older community as well. Ron Jones,
architect, responded the development included lower floor units for accessibility and noted
that all units also allow access through the garage.
Commission asked the developer about their approach to site design, and specifically about
the Edgewood Way extension. Ms. Rothstein explained that the extension provides a more
accessible site and better integrates the development as a part of the neighborhood. The
extension of Edgewood Way also allows for more open space on the site than would be
possible if access were only from Mission Road.
Commission stated that more housing creates more demand for transit.
Motion--Commissioer Khalfin/Second--Commissioner Zemke: that the Planning Commission
adopt a Resolution making Findings and recommending that the City Council approve P14-
0081:UP14-009, DR14-0049, SA14-0001 and AHA14-0001 based on the attached revised draft
Findings and subject to the attached revised draft Conditions of Approval. Approved (6-1) by the
following roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioners Giusti, Khaflin, Ochsenhirt, Ruiz, Zemke and Vice
Chair Wong; Noes: Chairperson Martin. .
43
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Resolution 2754-2014 - Entitlements
44
RESOLUTION NO. 2754-2014
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT, DESIGN
REVIEW, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AGREEMENT, FOR A 35-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1256
MISSION ROAD IN THE TRANSIT VILLAGE MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Anthony Cuneo (“Owner”) and City Ventures (collectively “Applicant”) have
submitted an application for development of a 35-unit residential condominium project on an
approximately 1.7 acre site located at 1256 Mission Road, South San Francisco, California
(“Project”); and,
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative
Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt under CEQA as a Class 32 Categorical
Exemption for projects which are determined to be in-fill development, as set forth in greater detail
below, and is consistent with the applicable General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements; and,
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on
the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,
which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations
§15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San
Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the 1256 Mission Road Project Plans, as
prepared by Hunt Hale Jones Architects, dated revised November 12, 2014; the 1256 Mission Road
“CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256 Mission Road Project” Memorandum, as
prepared by Urban Planning Partners Inc., dated November 17, 2014, including all appendices
thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 4, 2014 meeting; and any other evidence (within
the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
45
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project
Approval (Exhibit A), the Tentative Subdivision Map (attached as Exhibit B), the Affordable
Housing Agreement (attached as Exhibit C), and the 1256 Mission Road Project Plans (attached as
Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully
herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
4. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review
and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, the Planning Commission,
exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has recommended that the City Council find that
the Project falls within the Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section
15332/Class 32, which exempts from the provisions of CEQA the construction of projects
characterized as in-fill development, because it meets the following conditions:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation (Medium
Density Residential) and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with
applicable Zoning Ordinance designation (Transit Village – Medium Density
Residential) and regulations given that the site is planned and zoned for medium-
density residential development within; and,
b.The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of
approximately 1.7 acres, which is less than the five acre maximum, and is
surrounded by urban uses; and,
c. The project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species,
which would be negatively impacted given that the site is relatively flat and is
surrounded by urban uses; and,
d.Approval of the project would not result in any significant effect relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality, given that:
a. General Plan Guiding Policy 4.2-G-10 exempts development within ¼ mile
of the South San Francisco BART Station from any traffic level of service
standards, and therefore no significant traffic level of service operation
impacts would result from the proposed project;
b. The project’s contribution to noise would not be significant subject to
meeting the standards of South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”)
Section 8.32.30 and compliance with the construction noise control plan
46
measures identified in the “CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256
Mission Road Project” memorandum; and,
c. The project complies with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s significance thresholds
screening criteria, and therefore the project would have a less-than-significant
impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council find that none of the exceptions
to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 apply to this project.
B. Use Permit
1. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Transit Village – Medium Density Residential
Zone District and the Low Density Residential Zone District. The Project meets or exceeds all of
the general development standards of the Transit Village – Medium Density Residential District,
with the exception of the maximum building height and the front yard fence height in the Low
Density Residential Zone District. However, the exception for the maximum building height is
permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which allows an applicant to request an
incentive to allow a modification to a zoning ordinance standard in return for the provision of
certain types of affordable housing, which the applicant is providing. The proposed fence height is
allowed per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.005, which allows fences taller
than three feet in a required front-yard subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit.
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a pedestrian-
oriented medium-density residential development that emphasizes pedestrian-activity along Mission
Road, provides a well-articulated and visually engaging development that implements the goals of
the Transit Village Plan, and is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to
building design, form and articulation.
3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare
of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the
proposed use is consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the commercial
and residential. The project proposes medium-density residential uses on a site located in the City’s
Transit Village Plan district, which is intended for this type of use. The General Plan has analyzed
this type of use in the South San Francisco BART Station area, and concluded that such residential
uses are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed fence is designed to be
transparent and allow views into and out of the property. As the proposed Project is consistent with
other medium-density land uses in the Transit Village Plan area, approval of the Project will not be
detrimental to the nearby properties.
47
4. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the maximum height for a portion of the site and the
maximum height of a portion of the fence within the required front-yard. The stated exceptions are
permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is located in the
Transit Village Plan District and, subject to the exception discussed above, meets the minimum
standards and requirements for that district.
5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are
compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the
Project proposes medium-density residential uses in the Transit Village Plan district, which is
specifically intended for such uses. The proposed fence is in keeping with the aesthetic quality of
the buildings on the site and allows views into and out of the property.
6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as
the medium-density residential use will benefit from being located in close proximity to the South
San Francisco BART Station within the Transit Village Plan district, and the size and development
is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards.
7. The Project is consistent with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above.
C. Design Review
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a medium-density residential
project which will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment with extensive
landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated.
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because
the proposed medium-density residential development is consistent with the policies and design
direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the Medium-Density Residential
land use designation by encouraging the development of a pedestrian-oriented development of a
higher intensity within ½ mile of the South San Francisco BART Station.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the South San
Francisco BART Transit Village Plan Design Guidelines.
4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit for the reasons stated in Section B,
above.
48
5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San
Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has
been evaluated by the Design Review Board on October 16, 2014, and found to be consistent with
each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design Review Criteria” section of the
Ordinance, and the Design Review Board.
D. Tentative Subdivision Map
1. The proposed tentative subdivision map, including the proposed designs and
improvements, are consistent with the City’s General Plan as set forth in Findings B.2 and C.2
above, and because the tentative subdivision map would facilitate the development of a medium
density residential development that would not conflict with the Medium Density Residential Land
Use designation.
2. The proposed tentative subdivision map is consistent with the standards and
requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the Transit Village –
Medium Density Residential Zoning District.
3. The tentative subdivision map complies and meets all of the requirements of Title 19
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (“Subdivisions”), subject to the Conditions of
Approval, and would allow for the granting of an exception for the driveway grade of the property
at 1256 Edgewood Ave as discussed below, and is consistent with the requirements of the State
Subdivision Map Act.
a. The proposed Project would extend Edgewood Avenue onto the subject property as
a private street to provide access to a portion of the residential development. In
order to extend Edgewood Avenue, the existing driveway of the adjacent parcel at
1256 Edgewood Avenue would be required to be altered. An exception allowing
the existing driveway at 1256 Edgewood Ave to be redeveloped at a grade greater
than fourteen percent will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity because the existing
driveway currently exceeds the maximum permitted grade and the proposed change
in grade will not constitute a significant increase over the existing conditions.
b.The steep slope along the western edge of the property at 1256 Edgewood Avenue
creates a special circumstance that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity if Title 19 were strictly applied. The existing
driveway on the property is at a seventeen percent grade, and the proposed change
in grade will not constitute a significant increase over the existing conditions. If the
standards of Title 19 were strictly applied, it would not be possible to provide a
driveway conforming to the maximum grade standards from the existing access
49
easement adjacent to Edgewood Avenue.
c. The exception allowing the existing driveway at 1256 Edgewood Avenue to be
redeveloped at a grade greater than fourteen percent carries out the spirit and intent
of Title 19 by providing a parcel affected by a steep topography that has historically
had nonconforming driveway access with continued access that meets all other
driveway design standards except the maximum grade.
4. The Project site is physically suitable for the type of development and density
proposed, as the medium-density residential development will be located in the Transit Village area,
and the size and number of residential units is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land
use and zoning standards.
5. The Project, including the proposed designs and improvements, are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or serious public health problems, since the project plans
call for management of any hazardous materials that would exist by virtue of it being a former
agriculture site, and since such impacts have been thoroughly evaluated as part of the CEQA
process and determined not to exceed any stated thresholds of significance.
6. The design and improvements of the tentative subdivision map are not in conflict
with any existing public easements.
7. The property is located in a developed, urban setting, and is not subject to a
Williamson Act contract, on open space easement, a conservation easement, or an agricultural
conservation easement. The surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support
agricultural uses; the resulting parcels would result in residential development not incidental to
commercial agricultural use of the land.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of
Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of South
San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the
City Council adopt a resolution approving the Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision
Map and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 4th day of December, 2014 by the
following vote:
50
AYES: Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Khalfin, Commissioner
Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Zemke
NOES: Chairperson Martin
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Attest: /s/Susy Kalkin
Susy Kalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
51
Attachment 4
CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis Memo
52
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 21, 2014
TO: FROM:
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Lynette Dias, AICP, Principal
Hayley Cox, Assistant Planner
P. 510.251.8210
E. ldias@up-partners.com
RE: CEQA Categorical Exemption Analysis for 1256 Mission Road Project
I. INTRODUCTION
This document provides a description of the 1256 Mission Road City Ventures Project (project) and
evaluates the applicability of a Categorical Exemption to the proposed project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Sections 21080 and 21084 of the California Public Resources Code exempt certain projects from the
provisions of CEQA. Section 21084 specifically requires the CEQA Guidelines to include a list of these
projects (found in Article 19, Categorical Exemptions), which are not expected to result in a significant
effect on the environment. Projects classified as exempt are found in Section 15301 to Section 15333 of
the CEQA Guidelines.
As described below, the proposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15332, In-
Fill Development Project, in Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15332 states:
A Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions
described in this section.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
53
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 2
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The following provides an overview of the proposed project and a discussion as to how the project meets
the conditions of an in-fill development.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location and Setting. The project site is located at 1256 Mission Road in the City of South San Francisco
(City) in San Mateo County. The site consists of three parcels (APNs 001-171-130, 001-171-330, and 001-
171-500) which encompass approximately 1.7 acres, and is located in a commercial and residential area of
South San Francisco. The project site is bounded by a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) utility easement to the
west, followed by single-family homes and El Camino High School; Mission Road to the south, along which
various commercial properties and offices lie; single-family homes to the east; and Baywood Avenue
followed by single-family homes to the north. Edgewood Way forms a cul-de-sac that abuts the site on its
eastern side. Additionally, the project site is located less than ¼ mile from the South San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, which lies immediately west across Mission Boulevard.
Existing Site Conditions. The majority of the project site is undeveloped, with the exception of some
residential and vacant structures. The northern portion of the site consists of two occupied residential
structures, a detached garage, several small sheds, concrete walkways, and patios. Abandoned cars are
located west of the driveway area that connects Baywood Avenue and the two existing residences within
the property boundaries. A vacant two-story structure is located on the southern property line along
Mission Road, approximately mid-way between the southwest and southeast corners of the property. The
central and southwestern portions of the site are mostly undeveloped, and old farming and tractor
equipment resides near the southwest corner of the site. Overall, the site is mostly paved and is sparsely
vegetated.
Project Components. The project includes the development of 31 townhomes and 4 single-family homes
for a total of 35 dwelling units (du).The townhomes would be constructed along Mission Road to the
south and would cover a majority of the site. The single-family dwellings would be constructed at the
northern end of the site along Baywood Avenue, replacing the two existing residential structures.
III. EXEMPTION ANALYSIS
Class 32 In-Fill Development. As described below, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under
Section 15332, In-Fill Development Project, in Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines.
54
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 3
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
The following provides a discussion as to how the project meets the conditions of an in-fill development
project Categorical Exemption. The conditions are presented in italics, followed by a discussion about how
the project meets each condition.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
The project is subject to the City’s General Plan, adopted October 1999, and the most recent 2009
Housing Element; the City’s Zoning Ordinance; the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan
(“Specific Plan”), which was adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan in 2001;
and the Transit Village Zoning District, which was adopted into the City’s Zoning Ordinance
pursuant to the Specific Plan. Residential development on the project site is permitted by right
under the Specific Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance.
The project site is designated as Medium Density Residential in the General Plan, and falls into one
of the five Transit Village zoning sub-districts established by the Specific Plan and adopted into the
Zoning Ordinance—Transit Village Residential, Medium Density (TV-RM). The purpose of the TV-RM
sub-district is defined as follows:
The Transit Village Residential, Medium Density sub-district is intended to provide
sites for medium density housing in close proximity to the BART station. Townhouse
and multi-family units on Mission Road will serve as a physical and visual buffer and
will provide a transition between the BART station and the existing Sunshine Gardens
neighborhood. The TV-RM sub-district supports additional neighborhood
development and/or redevelopment along Mission Road.1
The project would add townhome units along Mission Road, which, along with the proposed single
family dwellings behind them, would contribute to an improved transition between the BART
station and the existing Sunshine Gardens residences that lie directly north of the project site. The
project would also contribute to the development and/or redevelopment along Mission Road
identified in the zoning sub-district text above. Additionally, the project site is specifically identified
as a “Housing Opportunity Site in the Transit Village Area” in the 2009 Housing Element. The
project thus complies with the policy-based intentions for the site.
Under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, the maximum density for the project
site is capped at 30 units per acre2 unless a project thereon qualifies for a density bonus under the
State Density Bonus law, which could increase the maximum density by another 25 percent.3 The
1 City of South San Francisco, 2014. Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 20.250 Transit Village Plan District.
2 While some of the land use maps in the 1999 General Plan show the Property as Medium Density Residential, having a density of
8.1-18 units per acre, the same maps also show the property as within a the one-quarter mile radius of the South San Francisco
BART station with a minimum density of 30 units per acre. The Specific Plan and the 2009 Housing Element—both of which are part
of the General Plan and expressly note that the project site has a 30 unit per acre maximum density—would supersede the
potentially inconsistent maps.
3 City of South San Francisco, 2014. Zoning Ordinance. Section 20.390.003.
55
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 4
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
project would include a minimum of 20 percent of the total units as restricted and affordable to
low-income households, qualifying the project for a density bonus pursuant to section 20.390.003
of the Zoning Ordinance. The density bonus would also allow the project to a fixed number of
concessions from development standards (which would not require amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance or the General Plan). The development standard for height for the property is a
maximum height of 35 feet along Mission Road and a maximum height of 25 feet on the remaining
portions of the project site.4 The project would utilize a density bonus concession for building
height, as the proposed townhome units would have a height of 35 feet but would extend beyond
the area designated with a 35-foot maximum height into the area with a designated 25-foot
maximum height.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres sub-
stantially surrounded by urban uses.
The 1.7-acre project site is within the city limits of the South San Francisco and comprises less than
5 acres. The site is surrounded on all sides by urban uses, including single-family homes, the South
San Francisco BART Station, small office buildings, and railroad tracks.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
The project site is currently used for residential purposes, but is mostly undeveloped with a vacant
structure, a former greenhouse, tractor storage, several small storage sheds, two occupied multi-
tenant residential structures, and a detached garage. The site has been disturbed by development
and contains no substantial vegetation.
The project site does not fall within any area deemed to contain sensitive species per State or
federal legislation. According to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General
Plan, the City contains two types of ecologically sensitive habitat: Habitat Conservation areas and
wetlands. The project site falls in neither of these areas and has been explicitly identified as a site
which does not require site-specific assessment of biological resources.5 As a result, the site has no
value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air qual-
ity, or water quality.
The project would not result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. The
less-than-significant impacts of the project in these topical areas are discussed briefly below.
Traffic. Policy 4.2-G-10 of the City’s General Plan exempts development within ¼ mile of the BART
station from any traffic level of service (LOS) standards. Given the project site is within ¼ mile of
the BART station and this policy, a traffic analysis was not completed. This policy allows the City to
4 City of South San Francisco, 2014. Zoning Ordinance. Section 20.250.004(D).
5 City of South San Francisco, 1999. Open Space and Conservation Element, pages 228 - 231.
56
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 5
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
make a finding that no significant traffic level of service operation impacts would result from the
proposed project. Though it is exempt from the City’s LOS thresholds, the project’s trip generation
was estimated to provide some context to how traffic may change as a result of the project. With
up to 31 town home units and 4 single-family units, the project would generate less than 200 daily
trips and 15 AM or PM peak hour trips per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 9th Edition. This incremental increase would be negligible and even if the
project was subject to the City’s LOS thresholds, the project would n ot likely result in any significant
project impacts or contribute significantly to any cumulative impacts.
Noise. Construction and operation of the proposed project would incrementally impact noise in
the project vicinity. The City certified an EIR for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
(ECR/Chestnut) Area Plan in 2011. This EIR evaluated proposed development of a greater intensity
across Mission Road from the project site. The findings of the EIR are summarized below and used
to support a conclusion that similar to development proposed as part of the ECR/Chestnut Area
Plan, the proposed project would not result in any significant noise impacts.
The 2011 EIR found that concurrent implementation of the ECR/Chestnut Area Plan and forecast
development of residential and employment land uses in the region (which included development
consistent with the General Plan for the project site) could result in increased noise, thereby
contributing to increased noise levels in the ECR/Chestnut Area Plan area and its vicinity, including
the project site. The 2011 EIR further found that the ECR/Chestnut Area Plan’s contribution was
found to be less than considerable as the increase in noise levels with the proposed Plan was less
than 3 dB compared to existing conditions, as discussed in greater detail in Section 3.5 of the 2011
EIR. Based on this finding, although the proposed project would also incrementally increase noise,
as a result of project operation, the project’s contribution would not be significant.
The ECR/Chestnut Area Plan EIR also found that construction activities associated with the Area
Plan would be temporary in nature and related noise impacts would be short-term. The EIR
acknowledged that since construction activities could substantially increase ambient noise levels at
noise-sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially significant, albeit temporary,
impacts to sensitive receptors. Per Section 8.32.030 of the Municipal Code, it is unlawful for noise
to be generated in an area that exceeds the noise level standard for that area’s land use for a
cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour. Table 8.32.030, which lists these
standards for each applicable land use category, is included below. Given this requirement, the
project will prepare and implement a construction noise control plan that specifies the means and
methods required to reduce the noise levels generated by construction activities to maximum
extent practicable. The control plan will be prepared by a qualified noise professional and approved
by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. A qualified professional is defined as a Board
Certified Institute of Noise Control Engineering member or other qualified consultant or engineer
57
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 6
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
Table 8.32.030 NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB)
R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or any single-family or
duplex residential in a specific plan district
10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 50
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 60
approved by the project engineer. The construction noise control plan will include the following
measures and such measures will be included on the project building and grading permit plans:
The construction contractor shall designate a “Noise Disturbance Coordinator”, who would
be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The name
and telephone number of the Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be provided to the City
prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator will
determine the cause of all noise complaints and will require that reasonable measures
warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall
record all noise complaints received and actions taken in response, and submit this record to
the City.
Signs shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site that include permitted
construction days and hours, and the name and telephone number of the Noise Disturbance
Coordinator.
All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition. Good mufflers shall result in non-impact equipment
generating a maximum noise level of 80 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet.
Impact tools (e.g. jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project
construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where
use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust
shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA.
External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible, which could achieve a
reduction of 5 dBA.
Construction equipment idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes.
Temporary noise barriers or partial enclosures shall be constructed to provide acoustical
shielding for stationary noise-generating equipment and for outdoor construction areas, if
practicable.
Compliance with the above would ensure that construction noise impacts are less than significant.
As a result, the project would not result in any significant impacts related to noise.
Air Quality and GHG. In California, mobile emissions sources (e.g., construction equipment, trucks,
and automobiles) are regulated by CARB and stationary emissions sources (e.g., industrial facilities)
are regulated by the air quality management districts. The project is located in the San Francisco
Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality
58
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 7
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD has established guidelines for the treatment of criteria
air pollutants and greenhouse gases in CEQA analysis. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, updated in
2011, develop certain screening criteria “to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a
conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant air
quality impacts.”6 If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, detailed air quality
assessment of their project‘s air pollutant emissions need not be performed. Although the
BAAQMD’s adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial
actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and
Justification Report (October 2009), provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD
recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD
recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis.
Additionally, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2014 that affirms that these
thresholds “can be used to determine that a proposed project’s impact on greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions is less than significant if the project is in compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Strategy.” Because the CAP itself is a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, a
project that is compliant with both the City’s CAP and the BAAQMD screening criteria would
require no further analysis.7
Measure 1.3 of the CAP is to “integrate higher-density development and mixed-use development
near transit facilities and community facilities…” and lists the completion and implementation of
Station Area Plans (specifically the El Camino Real Master Plan and Downtown Station Area Plan) as
Actions that enforce the measure.8 These plan areas are directly adjacent to the project site, which
itself lies within ¼ mile of the South San Francisco BART station. The higher-density development
proposed for this project is thus compliant with the intention of this measure, and meets an overall
goal established in the CAP.
As the project is a small, up to 35-unit development, it falls below both the operational air quality
and GHG emission screening level sizes established by BAAQMD. The applicable screening level
sizes for non-high-rise condominiums and townhomes is 451 units for air quality operational
criteria pollutants and for GHG criteria it is 78 units. The screening criteria for single-family units is
at 325/56 units respectively. Given that the project includes 31 townhomes and 4 single-family
dwellings, it falls well below both screening level sizes, including the more conservative 56 single-
family unit screening criterion.
The applicable screening level sizes for construction criteria pollutants and precursors are as
follows: 114 du for single-family dwellings and 240 du for non-high-rise condominiums and
townhomes. The project also falls well below both of these screening level sizes at 35 du total. The
CEQA Guidelines further state that projects that are mixed-use, infill, and/or proximate to transit
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Guidelines, p. 3-1.
7 City of South San Francisco, 2009. Climate Action Plan, p. 25.
8 City of South San Francisco, 2009. Climate Action Plan, p. 47.
59
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 8
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
service and local services, emissions would be less than greenfield type project on which these
screening criteria are based. Although these screening criteria and the relevant significance
thresholds are currently the subject of litigation, is it known that they are conservative and thus
support a finding that the project would not result in any significant air quality or GHG impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines notes that if all of the following Screening Criteria are met, the construction of
the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact from criteria air pollutant and
precursor emissions.
1. The project is below the applicable screening level size shown in Table 3-1; and
2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and
implemented during construction; and
3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following:
a. Demolition inconsistent with District Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos Demolition,
Renovation and Manufacturing;
b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building
construction would occur simultaneously);
c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop
residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill
development);
d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land
Use Emissions Model [URBEMIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or
e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export)
requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.
Given that the project falls below all applicable screening level sizes; that all the above screening
criteria would met by the project; and that the project is compliant with the City’s CAP, a Qualified
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy; detailed air quality assessment of their project‘s air pollutant
emissions is not required. Given these findings, and that the City has determined that BAAQMD
recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis, the project would have a less-
than-significant impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions which need not be further
analyzed here or subsequently.
Water Quality. Construction of the project would result in the disturbance of one acre or more of
land. As a result, it would be required to comply with the General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General
Permit). Under the Construction General Permit, preparation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the site would be required. The SWPPP would include BMPs for
erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/ waste management, management
of non-stormwater discharges, runon and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair
activities, as consistent with the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality
Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction.
60
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 9
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
Municipal stormwater discharges are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal
Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP). The
MRP is overseen by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). MRP
Because the project would add and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area, it
would be subject to MRP Provision C.3, which addresses post-construction stormwater
management requirements. Provision C.3 requires the City to require incorporation of site design,
source control and stormwater treatment measures into development projects, to minimize the
discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharges, and to prevent
increases in runoff flows. The MRP requires that Low Impact Development (LID) methods shall be
the primary mechanism for implementing such controls.
It is anticipated that there would be a net increase in impervious surface area as a result of
implementation of the project. However, given that the applicant would have to comply with the
Construction General Permit and MRP requirements detailed above, including the preparation of a
SWPPP and all Provision C.3 requirements, the impact of the project on water quality would be less
than significant.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Based on the findings of the ECR/Chestnut Area Plan EIR, which did not find that the ECR/Chestnut
Area Plan or forecasted future development would result in or contribute to any significant impacts
related to utilities or public services, development of up to 35 units on the project site is not
expected to result in a significant impact or undue burden upon services or utilities.
Exceptions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 lists the following project types for which Categorical
Exemptions may not apply. The following section discusses whether the project would be subject to any
of these exceptions. The exceptions are presented in italics, followed by a discussion about how the
project is not subject to each exception.
(a) Location. Classes 3,4,5,6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located
– a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly
sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all
instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or
critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by
federal, state, or local agencies.
Item (a), above, applies to Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 only. Because the Categorical Exemption that
applies to the project is categorized as Class 32 in the CEQA Guidelines, this item does not apply.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
61
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 10
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
As described in item (a) under Class 32 In-Fill Development above, implementation of the project
would result in development consistent with what is proposed is accounted for in the General Plan,
Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. The ECR/Chestnut Area Plan EIR evaluated cumulative impacts
and although development of the project site was not considered as part of the Area Plan, it was
considered in the cumulative analysis since the proposed development is consistent with the
General Plan. As discussed above, the project would not result in any significant project impacts or
contribute significantly to any significant cumulative impacts related to land use, traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality. The same would be the case for all other environmental topics given the
size of the project and the existing conditions on site. Thus, the impact of this project in
combination with other projects similarly consistent with the General Plan and any other applicable
policy plans would not result in a significant cumulative impact.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
The project site was historically used for agriculture. In the second half of the nineteenth century,
South San Francisco, or the unincorporated land that would later comprise the City, was home to
many farms, dairies, and other notable agricultural uses.9 Much of the land within the direct
vicinity of the project site was used for agricultural purposes similarly to the project site,10
indicating that much of the surrounding area currently developed with residential uses was subject
to the similar environmental conditions resultant of historical agricultural use prior to their
development. A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) were conducted for th e
project site. While the Phase I identified the need for further environmental exploration around a
potential Recognized Environmental Condition (REC), that further exploration conducted in the
Phase II ESA concluded that the historical agricultural use of the site did not represent a REC or a
human health risk in light of the contemplated residential use of the site, and recommended no
further investigation regarding this issue.11 Additionally, all contaminant concentrations identified
in the Phase II ESA are acceptable based on the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board’s Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for construction workers who have direct contact
with soils containing contaminants during construction. Based on these findings, the project—
during both construction and operation—will not have a significant effect on the environment due
to unusual circumstances.
The soil sample analysis performed for the Phase II ESA found, overall, that levels of residual
organochlorine pesticides and lead were reported within acceptable California Human Health
9 Page & Turnbull, 2014. Historic Resource Memorandum of Opinion Regarding 1256 Mission Road, South San Francisco, p. 10.
October 27.
10 Page & Turnbull, 2014. Historic Resource Memorandum of Opinion Regarding 1256 Mission Road, South San Francisco, p. 17.
October 27.
11 Stantec Consulting Services Inc., 2014. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for 1256 Mission Rd., 1260-1267 Baywood Ave.,
and 1262-1268 Edgewood Way South San Francisco, California, p. 4-5. July 21.
62
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 11
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
Screening Levels (CHHSLs) for residential use. Although arsenic was detected in levels above the
residential CHHSL of 0.07 mg/kg for all soil samples, the levels recorded for all soil samples fell
within the established range of background arsenic concentrations in California soils—between 0.6
and 11.8 mg/kg. The Phase II ESA thus concluded that the detected concentrations of arsenic at
the site appear to be well within the range of naturally-occurring regional background levels, with
the very similar levels between samples also indicating background levels. Regulatory agencies
have not required action where arsenic exists at background levels, even when detected above the
CHHSLs. As a result, the Phase II ESA has concluded that arsenic does not represent a REC in light of
the contemplated residential use of the site, and recommends no further assessment regarding
this issue.
Although CHHSLs have not been developed for construction scenarios, the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board has developed Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for
construction workers who have direct contact with soils containing contaminants during
construction.12 These ESLs evaluate potential risks to construction workers due to incidental
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation due to volatilization and fugitive dust over a shorter
period (one year) than for residential scenarios, as most construction exposures are short-term in
nature. Since all of the contaminant concentrations identified in the Phase II investigation are
below the construction worker ESLs, no significant risks to workers during the construction phase
of the project are anticipated.
As stated above, the results of the Phase II subsurface investigation confirm that the historical
agricultural use of the site does not represent a REC or a human health risk in light of the
contemplated residential use of the site, and recommends no further investigation regarding this
issue. Additionally, all measured contaminant concentrations fall below construction ESLs,
indicating that no significant risks to construction workers during the construction phase of the
project are expected. Given that any potential impacts resulting from the former agricultural use of
the site have been fully analyzed, and that no other RECs associated with the site were identified,
the Phase II ESA concludes that no further investigation of environmental condition of the site is
necessary. As a result, no significant effects related to the construction and operational phases of
the project are expected to occur.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in
damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings,
or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not
apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or
certified EIR.
12 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2013, Environmental Screening Levels, Table K-3, Construction/Trench
Worker Scenario, updated December. Website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml
63
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 12
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
State Route 82 (SR 82) is the only State highway in the vicinity of the project site. No portions of SR
82 within San Mateo County are officially designated scenic highway, nor are any portions eligible.
The nearest scenic highway is the Father Junipero Serra Freeway (Interstate 280), which is
designated by the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a California Scenic Highway
from the Santa Clara County line to the San Bruno city limit.13 The project site is located
approximately 4.25 miles from the designated portion of Interstate 280 and is not visible from this
highway. Thus, implementation of the project would not result in the damage of trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings, or other scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site
which is included on any list complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
The project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site List (Cortese List, compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code).14 Additionally, no other sites that lie within ½ mile radius of the project site are listed in the
EDR report from the CORTESE database.15
(f) Historical Resource. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
The three parcels that compose the project site contain a total of three buildings and seven small
shed structures. 1256 Mission Road (APN 011-171-500) is occupied by a house that appears to have
been built in the 1920s or 1930s. 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue (APN 011-171-130) is an empty
unpaved lot. 1262 Edgewood Way (APN 011-171-330) is occupied by two houses: the northwest
house at 1262 Edgewood Way appears to have been built in the 1910s and the southeast house at
1262 Edgewood Way was built between 1946 and 1956. The respective ages of these structures
indicate a potential that they could qualify as historic resources. Page & Turnbull evaluated the site
and structures in the attached Memorandum of Opinion, dated September 29, 2014. The
memorandum details that the project site as a whole does not appear eligible for listing in the
California Register because it lacks significance and integrity, and that the individual buildings do
not appear eligible for listing in the California Register because they lack significance under any of
the four prescribed criteria (Events, Persons, Architecture, and Information Potential). As a result,
neither the individual buildings nor the property as a whole qualify as historical resources pursuant
to CEQA. Additionally, no buildings on the project site are included in the City’s local register, a list
of Designated and Potential Historic Resources established in 2002 per a Historic Preservation
13 California Department of Transportation, 2014. California Scenic Highway System. Website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/. Accessed August 28, 2014.
14 Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website:
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed August 28, 2014.
15 Stantec Consulting Services Inc., 2014. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for APNs 011-171-500; 011-171-330, and 011-171-
130, South San Francisco, California. May 30.
64
TO: Billy Gross
DATE: November 21, 2014
PAGE: 13
P:\14-012 CVSSF\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public\CVSSF_CEQA_Memo_14_1121.docx
Survey completed in 1985 and 1986. A categorical exemption for the project therefore would not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Conclusion. Based on the above analysis, the project is not anticipated to result in significant
environmental impacts. Likewise, the absence of significant environmental impacts that would result from
the proposed project would make unnecessary the adoption of mitigation measures. Because the project
meets the criteria for categorically exempt infill development projects listed in CEQA Guidelines Section
15332, it is Urban Planning Partners’ recommendation that a notice of exemption for the project be
prepared and filed with the County Clerk following project approval.
Attachment
Historic Resource Memorandum of Opinion
65
Historic Resource Memorandum of Opinion
DATE October 27, 2014 PROJECT NO. 14217
TO Hayley Cox
Lynette Dias
Samantha Rotstein
PROJECT 1256 Mission Road,
South San Francisco
OF City Ventures
444 Spear Street Suite 200
San Francisco CA 94105
&
Urban Planning Partners Inc.
505 17th Street, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
FROM Miriam Aranoff
Architectural Historian &
Cultural Resources Planner
CC VIA E-mail
REGARDING: 1256 Mission Road, South San Francisco
INTRODUCTION
This Memorandum of Opinion was prepared by Page & Turnbull at the request of City Ventures for
the properties at 1256 Mission Road (APN #011-171-500), 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue (APN
#011-171-130), and 1262 Edgewood Way (APN #011-171-330) in the Sunshine Gardens
neighborhood of South San Francisco, CA (Figure 1). There are a total of three buildings and seven
small shed structures on the subject site. 1256 Mission Road is occupied by a house that appears to
have been built in the 1920s or 1930s, when the Mediterranean Revival style was popular. 1261-1267
Baywood Avenue is an empty unpaved lot. 1262 Edgewood Way is occupied by two houses; the
northwest house at 1262 Edgewood Way appears to have been built in the 1910s as a vernacular
building with Craftsman style influences; the southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way was built
between 1946 and 1956 and does not exhibit any particular style.
Historical research on the site was previously conducted by Stantec Consulting Services and is
documented in their Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014). The document, however,
does not include an evaluation of historic significance, and no other Historic Resource Evaluations
have been completed for the property. The subject site is not listed in the California Historic
Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with any Status Code, indicating that it is not listed
66
on any local, state, or national registers. The subject site is also not included in the City of South San
Francisco List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources.
This memorandum provides brief background information on the history of 1256 Mission Road,
1261-1267 Baywood Avenue, and 1262 Edgewood Way, a brief physical description, and current
images. Page & Turnbull has also provided a preliminary assessment of the property’s potential as a
historical resource or cultural landscape under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This memorandum does not qualify as a full Historic Resource Evaluation report, which would
include more exhaustive historic research and an intensive-level survey of the site.
Page & Turnbull prepared this memorandum using photographs taken during a site visit on
September 16, 2014, and research undertaken at various local repositories, including the South San
Francisco Local History collection at the Grand Avenue Public Library and the Building Division of
the City of South San Francisco. The historical societies in South San Francisco and Colma were also
consulted. Page & Turnbull referred to Past Consultants’ Historic Context Statement for Agricultural
Resources in the North County Planning Area, Monterey County (September 2010), listed on the California
Office of Historic Preservation website, for guidance on registration requirements for agricultural
resources.
Summary of Findings
The following analysis concludes that there are no historically significant buildings on the subject site.
None of the buildings or the property as a whole qualify as historical resources for the purposes of
CEQA.
67
Figure 1. Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office. Edited by author.
68
BRIEF ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
The approximately two-acre site is located in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood, which is bounded by
Lawndale Boulevard to the northwest, Hillside Boulevard to the northeast, Chestnut Avenue to the
southeast, and Mission Road to the southwest (Figure 17). The site itself is bounded by Mission Road
to the southwest and Baywood Avenue to the northeast; Edgewood Way forms two dead-ends at the
northwest and southeast borders of the property. Residences abut the site to the northwest and
southeast (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Aerial of subject site.
Source: Google Earth. Edited by author.
69
1256 Mission Road
The residence at 1256 Mission Road is located at the southwest portion of the site. Though the date of
construction is unknown, the Mediterranean Revival style of the building dates it to the 1920s or 1930s
(Figure 3). It is a two-story, wood-frame building with a rectangular plan, covered by a flat roof. The
building is clad in stucco. The primary entrance is located within a recessed entry on the second floor of
the northwest façade and is accessed by a flight of concrete stairs. The primary (southwest) façade
features a roll-up garage door and the second floor features multi-faceted bay windows with five
windows each, accentuated with blind arches and capped with shed roofs covered in terracotta tile. All
of the windows are currently boarded. The primary façade terminated in a stepped and pedimented
parapet with decorative coping and a diamond relief at the center. There are angled bay windows on the
northwest and southeast side facades. The house is currently unoccupied.
Figure 3. 1256 Mission Road, viewed facing northwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, September 2014.
70
1261-1267 Baywood Avenue
1261-1267 Baywood Avenue is an empty unpaved lot. The parcel serves as the entrance to 1262
Edgewood Way and is used for parking cars (Figures 4-5). A small shed, apparently used as a dog
house, is located in the west corner of the property. It is not clear whether the shed is on the parcel for
Baywood Avenue or the Edgewood Way parcel.
Figure 4. 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue, viewed facing southwest.
Source: Google Maps.
Figure 5. 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue, viewed facing southwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, September 2014.
71
1262 Edgewood Way
The parcel addressed as 1262 Edgewood Way occupies the majority of the project site. The southwest
border directly fronts onto Mission Road; the northeast border abuts 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue; and
Edgewood Way forms two dead-ends at the northwest and southeast borders of the property. Much of
the parcel is an empty field that was farmed until approximately five years ago, as recounted by Kathy
Kay, Local History Specialist at the South San Francisco Library.1 A tractor is located behind the house
at 1256 Mission road, and four sheds are located at the west corner of the 1262 Edgewood Way site
(Figure 6). The shed directly fronting Mission Road has a rectangular footprint and is comprised of
metal. Further northeast, the next shed is comprised of wood and is covered in a flat roof with
projecting eaves. The next shed is a wood frame structure, is partially clad in corrugated metal, and is
covered by a gable roof. The fourth shed is also a wood frame structure, is clad in corrugated metal, and
is covered by a flat roof.
Figure 6. Four sheds located on the parcel encompassing 1262 Edgewood Way, view facing northwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, September 2014.
Two single-family residences are located at the northwest corner of the parcel. They are accessed via the
parcel addressed as 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue. The southeast house is built in a vernacular style with
Craftsman influences (Figure 7). Though no documentation was uncovered for the date of
construction, it appears to date to the 1910s. The house is a two-story wood frame building over a
concrete foundation. It is rectangular in plan and covered with a gable roof with a flat peak. The house
1 Kathy Kay, in-person conversation with author, 19 September 2014.
72
is clad in channel drop wood siding at the first story and narrow beveled boards at the second story. It
features a square bay window and double-hung wood sash windows with arched muntins and ogee lugs.
The primary entrance is located on the northeast façade and features a wood door with a multi-lite
square panel; the muntins are set in a diamond pattern. The house fronts an unpaved area, and behind
the house is a backyard with multiple trees and shrubs. The house is currently occupied.
The northwest house was built between 1946 and 1956 according to historic aerial photographs. It
contains features commonly used at mid-century but lacks a particular style (Figure 8). The residence is
a single-family, two-story over basement, wood frame building, and is clad in stucco. It features a
mixture of single-hung, casement, and fixed windows. The primary entrance is located on the northeast
façade and features a wood door with a glass panel. The building terminates in a hipped roof with a flat
boxed eave. There is a stuccoed wood-frame two-car garage with a hipped roof off the north corner of
the building and two small sheds in the backyard. The house is currently occupied.
Figure 7. Southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way, viewed facing south.
Source: Page & Turnbull, September 2014.
73
Figure 8. Northwest house at 1262 Edgewood Way, viewed facing southwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, September 2014.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Industrial History of South San Francisco
South San Francisco developed as an industrial suburb to San Francisco, with meat packing as the first
industry beginning in 1854. The city was incorporated in 1908, and in 1909, a Southern Pacific Railroad
Station was built on Grand Avenue. In the 1910s, rice mills, chemical plants, marble fabricators, steel
foundries, and metal producers located to the area. The slogan “South San Francisco the Industrial City”
was etched into Sign Hill in 1923. During World War II, the city’s population doubled in size to 12,722,
as shipyard workers sought work in the area. During this time, Western Pipe and Steel, located in South
San Francisco, built 45 ships in four years for the Maritime Commission. By 1950, the population was
19,351 and by 1960, the population had risen to 38,762. In the 1960s, industrial production in South San
Francisco began to slow down, with major industries such as meat packing and steel production
reducing labor and eventually closing the plants. However, new companies such as Woolworth’s, Gallo
Sales Inc., and Koret of California came to fill these gaps to take advantage of the city’s proximity to the
San Francisco Airport. The 1960s also saw the establishment of Genentech, a biotechnology company
and currently the largest employer in South San Francisco.2 3
2 South San Francisco Historical Society, Images of America: South San Francisco (USA: Arcadia Publishing, 2004).
3 City of South San Francisco. Local History Articles. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=1215
74
Figure 9. South San Francisco in 1925, aerial view facing northwest.
Source: Kauffman, Linda. South San Francisco: A History (1976) 33.
Agricultural History
In the second half of the nineteenth century, South San Francisco was home to many farms and dairies
including Twelve Mile Farm (ca. 1850), J.G. Knowles Farm (1853), Baden Dairy and Farm (1871), Jersey
Farm (1875), Howard Telden’s Buri Buri Ranch (1891), Guadalupe Dairy, and the Lepsic Dairy
(estimated to be 1895) (Figure 11).4 Kathy Kay, Local History Specialist at the South San Francisco
Library, recalls that Twelve Mile Farm, formerly located between Grand and Chestnut avenues, was
farmed up until fifteen or twenty years ago.5 Another prominent agricultural enterprise was the Rod
McLellan Nursery, which was located at 1450 El Camino Real from 1926 until 1997.6 The nursery was
61 acres in size and was located in the unincorporated area northwest of the city, one-fifth of a mile
from the subject site. The land occupied by the nursery was slowly annexed to the city until the last acre
was annexed for development in 1998.7
4 Linda Kauffman. South San Francisco: A History (1976).
5 Kathy Kay, in-person conversation with author, 19 September 2014.
6 Bits of History: Exploring San Mateo County Historical Photographs. http://bitsofhistory.plsinfo.org/
7 South San Francisco Historical Society, Images of America: South San Francisco (USA: Arcadia Publishing, 2004).
75
Figure 10. Queen Ingrid of Denmark’s visit to the Rod McLellan Nursery in the 1950s.
Source: Bits of History: Exploring San Mateo County Historical Photographs
Much of the farming that existed in what is today South San Francisco was unincorporated land in the
earlier twentieth century. The 1910 and 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps show that from the city’s
incorporation in 1908 up through 1950, the official borders of South San Francisco excluded the
agricultural areas and included only the original residential areas, the downtown commercial core, and
the city’s industrial area. Nearby agricultural areas, including the subject property, were not incorporated
until these agricultural areas were subdivided for residential development in the second half of the
twentieth century (Figures 18-20). The 1910 Sanborn map for the city of South San Francisco shows
only one vegetable garden at the fringe of the city and next to residential areas (Figure 12).
76
Figure 11. 12 Mile Farm. Date unknown.
Source: Kauffman, Linda. South San Francisco: A History (1976) 3.
Figure 12. 1910 Sanborn map. The only farm within the city bounds at the time is highlighted in red.
Edited by author.
77
Since historical accounts for the city of South San Francisco generally focus on the incorporated areas,
the agricultural history of the subject site can be gleaned from historical narratives of the city of Colma,
the border of which is less than a quarter of a mile away from the subject site. Colma had fertile sandy
soil and natural drainage that made it ideal for farming.8 It later developed into a site for cemeteries,
however, due to its proximity to San Francisco. The Historical Resources Element for the neighboring
city of Colma states:
In the 1850s a large area in northern San Mateo County was called Colma. This early district
extended from the San Francisco County line to parts of today’s Daly City and South San
Francisco and from San Bruno Mountain to Pacifica. Immigrant settlers started farming in the
area in the mid-1850s growing potatoes, vegetables and grain for the San Francisco market.
Later floricultural, hog ranches, and dairies were significant business in the area.9
Cemeteries came to define Colma, but agriculture and flower nurseries still continued in the area
(Figure 13). Flower nurseries were the dominant form of agriculture, though vegetable farming also
took place. The 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance map for Colma and the 1945 Sanborn map show many
nurseries (Figures 14-15).
Figure 13. Vegetable gardens in Colma, 1915.
Source: Bits of History: Exploring San Mateo County Historical Photographs
8 Michael Smookler. Images of America: Colma (USA: Arcadia Publishing, 2007).
9 Historic Resources Element (June 1999). http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/Colma.pdf
78
Figure 14. Index to the 1926 Colma Sanborn map, showing many agricultural enterprises.
79
Figure 15. 1945 Sanborn map. A sample of the agricultural enterprises in Colma in 1945, highlighted in
red. All of the areas are listed as greenhouses. Sanborn maps for other areas in the city also show
agricultural uses. Edited by author.
80
In the late 1940s, however, the prospect of commercial and residential development made land too
valuable to farm. The owners of cemeteries terminated farm leases and most privately owned farms
were sold or leased to real estate developers. The Cerruti vegetable farm, however, operated in Colma
from 1920 until 1971, until the farm moved to the Orange Park District in South San Francisco.10
There are remnants of farmstead houses less than half a mile away from the subject site at 1256 Mission
Road. At 1431-1437 Mission Road, the city of Colma designated the Old Mission Road Historic
District. This district consists of six Neo-Classical style houses that comprise the largest group of
residences built in Colma between 1908 and 1918, are the most complete illustration of family
farmsteads in Colma, and are from Colma’s last and largest farmstead (Figure 16).11
Figure 16. The Old Mission Road Historic District.
Source: Google Maps.
10 Michael Smookler. Images of America: Colma (USA: Arcadia Publishing, 2007).
11 Historic Resources Element (June 1999). http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/Colma.pdf
81
The Sunshine Gardens Neighborhood
The subject site is located in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood of South San Francisco. The
neighborhood was not part of the original 1908 incorporation of South San Francisco and was annexed
to the city at an unknown date after 1950. The neighborhood was subdivided between 1953 and 1957 as
part of the increasing demand for housing resulting from returning war veterans, urban flight, and
general large-scale migration to California.12
Historic aerial photographs show that Sunshine Gardens was once part of an agricultural area that was
increasingly developed into housing in the 1950s and 1960s (Figures 18-20). By 1968, the ratio of open
space to built up areas reached the condition it exhibits today (Figure 21).
Figure 17. Sunshine Gardens neighborhood outlined in red. Subject property filled in green. Edited by
author. Source: City—Data.com
12 City of South San Francisco. Local History Articles. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=1215
82
Figure 18. Sunshine Gardens neighborhood in 1946. Subject property outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
Figure 19. Sunshine Gardens neighborhood in 1956. Subject property outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
83
Figure 20. Sunshine Gardens neighborhood in 1968. Subject property outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
Figure 21. Sunshine Gardens neighborhood in 2010. Subject property outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
84
Subject Site: 1256 Mission Road, 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue, 1262 Edgewood Way
Construction
The following table shows the records on file at the Building Division of South San Francisco. The
earliest records date to 1984 and there were no records for 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue. The early
construction history of the property is unknown.
1256 Mission Road
Date
Permit
Number Owner Architect Description
Oct. 26,
1984 84-1019 Macolini
Ed
Castagnetto
Roofing
Co.
Overlay original roof with 1-40 lb. and 2-15 lb.
molded solid new gravel stop, flood coat and
embed gravel.
Sept 9, 1985 None None None
Spoke with “Butch” Cuneo regarding the
abandoned home on Mission… said that
structure will be torn down during this coming
winter when there is less dust. He was told to
board up the meter box and get PG&E to
disconnect the electricity.
1262 Edgewood Way
Date
Permit
Number Owner Architect Description
November
17, 1995
P95-655
Antonio J.
Cuneo, Jr.
Southwood
Plumbing
and Heating Application for plumbing-mechanical permit
Historic aerial photographs of the site show buildings on the property, but architectural details are not
distinguishable (Figures 22-27). The 1943 aerial photograph shows that there were buildings at the
same locations as 1256 Mission Road and the southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way (Figure 22). The
northwest house at 1262 Edgewood Way does not appear in the 1946 aerial photograph but is depicted
in the 1956 aerial photograph (Figures 23-24). The aerial photographs show that between 1968 and
1993, a building that was situated northwest of 1256 Mission Road was demolished (Figures 25- 26).
No other construction history records for the subject site were found.
85
Figure 22. Subject site in 1943. Subject property
outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
Figure 23. Subject site in 1946. Subject property
outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
Figure 24. Subject site in 1956. Subject property
outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
Figure 25. Subject site in 1968. Subject property
outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
Figure 26. Subject site in 1993. Subject property
outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
Figure 27. Subject site in 2010. Subject property
outlined in red. Edited by author.
Source: Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (May 30, 2014).
86
Ownership
According to Stantec Consulting Services’ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Antonio Cuneo, the
current site owner, recalled that the property was purchased by his grandparents in the 1940s and it had
been previously used as a vegetable and flower farm. Antonio Cuneo is the son of Eldina and Joseph
Cuneo (Figure 28). The Cuneos sold their produce to the San Francisco Farmers Market on Alemany
Boulevard.13 The family sold the subject properties in 1998 and 2006.
Figure 28. Eldina Ratto Cuneo depicted in her fields. The surrounding buildings show that this field is
not the subject property.
Source: South San Francisco Historical Society.
13 San Francisco Historical Society, Eldina Ratto Cuneo (n.d.).
87
The following tables show deed information made available online by San Mateo County. Online
records only go as far back as 1985. Biographical information was found on Ancestry.com, through
online research, and in city directories at the South San Francisco History Room. The early pre-1940
directories in the History Room do not include the subject property since it was not part of the official
borders of the city at that time. Researching the California Digital Newspaper Collection did not yield
any biographical information. No deed information was found for 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue.
1256 Mission Road (APN #011-171-500)
Date Document # Grantor Grantee
December
26, 2006
2006-194405 Albert Capurro Antonio Cuneo (b.1929 – d.1985): Antonio
Cuneo was born to Joseph/Guiseppe and
Idolina/Edolina/Adonline/Eldina Cuneo,
Italian immigrants who worked on a duck farm.
City directories from 1952 to 1978 list the
Cuneo Produce Market, the Cuneo Ranch, and
Cuneo Produce. No
December
26, 2006
2006-194891 Jane Peabody, a
relative of Antonio
Cuneo
Antonio Cuneo
1262 Edgewood Way (APN #011-171-330)
Date Document # Grantor Grantee
March 13,
1998
1998-033430 Idolina Cuneo Rev
Intervivos Trust,
Antonio J. Cuneo
Junior Trust
Antonio J. Cuneo Jr. Trust
March 13,
1998
1998-033431 Jane Peabody Antonio J. Cuneo Jr., currently 64 years old
Occupancy
The following tables contain the names of occupants of the subject properties between 1977 and 2013,
based on information published Stantec Consulting Services’ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The
early pre-1940 directories in the South San Francisco History Room do not include the subject property
88
since it was not part of the official borders of the city at that time. Earlier occupants are therefore not
known. 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue was not listed in the city directories.
1256 Mission Road
Year Resident or Business Name(s) Source
1977 Address not listed Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1980 Address not listed Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1985 Address not listed Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1990 Address not listed Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1995 Address not listed Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1999 Albert Capurro Cole Information Service
2003 Albert Capurro Cole Information Service
2008 Address not listed Cole Information Service
2013 Address not listed Cole Information Service
1262 Edgewood Way
Year Resident or Business Name(s) Source
1977 A. Cuneo Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1980 A. Cuneo Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1985 A. Cuneo Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1990 A. Cuneo Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1995 No resident listed Haines Cross-Cross Directory
1999 “Occupant unknown” Cole Information Service
89
2003 Jerry Morello Cole Information Service
2008 “Occupant unknown” Cole Information Service
2013 Zendy Moreno Cole Information Service
EVALUATION OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY
The following evaluations are for eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources, based on
the research conducted above. Both the property as a whole and the individual buildings on the
property are evaluated. Evaluations include a consideration of the property’s or buildings’ historic
significance, and whether the property or buildings retain enough integrity to convey their historic
significance.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant
architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in
the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National
Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be
nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The
evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those
developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. These criteria can
be used to evaluate landscapes as well as individual buildings.
In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant
under one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural
heritage of California or the United States.
Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to
local, California, or national history.
Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or
possess high artistic values.
90
Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the
potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area,
California, or the nation.
Entire Property: 1256 Mission Road, 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue, and 1262 Edgewood Way
The subject site consists of three buildings and a formerly farmed landscape. The historic context above
establishes the relevant period of agricultural development from the 1850s, when land in the area began
to be cultivated, until the 1940s-50s, when commercial and residential development dominated the area.
Although there were a few farms—Twelve Mile Farm, the Rod McLellan Nursery, the Cerruti vegetable
farm, and the subject site—that continued to be cultivated past the 1940s-50s, the area as a whole was
no longer defined by the agricultural industry. The important period of agricultural development
therefore ends in the 1940s-50s.
The property does not appear to be a historic resource or cultural landscape under California Register
Criterion 1 (Events) as a property that is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or
the United States. The property was one of many that were developed during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century for farming. Much of the unincorporated area near South San Francisco and
Colma was covered with farming operations. The context of farming was an important period in the
area’s history, but no information was uncovered that indicates that this particular property was
individually important or significant compared to other farms in Colma and South San Francisco. The
property is one of the last remaining undeveloped parcels in the area. It does not, however, retain
sufficient integrity to its historic farming period, and therefore it is not able to sufficiently convey this
historic context (see below for further discussion of integrity).
The property also does not appear historically significant under Criterion 2 (Persons) for its association
with persons important to local, state, or national history. Though the Cuneo family has owned the
subject property since the 1940s, research has not shown that any members of the family were especially
significant in the civic, economic, or cultural development of Colma and South San Francisco, aside
from their longevity as farmers of this site. There was little information about the Cuneo family, and the
later owners and occupants at local repositories, and no references to these individuals in local
newspaper articles and the internet. The property as a whole, therefore, does not appear eligible for
listing under Criterion 2 (Persons) for an association with persons important to local, state, or national
history.
91
The property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion 3 (Architecture). None of the buildings
on the property are individually architecturally significant (described in more detail below). The property
as a whole does not represent an architecturally cohesive grouping of buildings that would embody the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of
a master, or possess high artistic values. Rather, the property as a whole includes: 1256 Mission Road, a
Mediterranean Revival style home built in the 1920s or 1930s; the southeast house at 1262 Edgewood
Way, a vernacular residence that appears to have been built in the 1910s; and the northwest house at
1262 Edgewood Way, a residence without a particular style that was built between 1946 and 1956. There
are also a number of small sheds on the property that have an unknown construction date. A cohesive
grouping or complex of farm-related buildings would typically include a primary residence, barns or
sheds for equipment, and other outbuildings.14 As the oldest residence on the site, the southeast house
at 1262 Edgewood Way was likely once the primary residence for the farmers. It is not clear, however,
whether 1256 Mission Road also functioned as part of the farm. The northwest house at 1262
Edgewood Way was built between 1946 and 1956, as part of the residential development that consumed
the open space at that time. The house is a mid-century suburban house that was constructed on
farmland but is not of a type or period of construction typically associated with an agricultural context
and does not architecturally relate to the other buildings. Most of the small sheds appear to have been
used for storage for agricultural-related materials, but the date of their construction is unknown; and
none of the ancillary structures are larger buildings that may have been associated with production or
packaging. As a grouping, the buildings do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of construction, or convey a historic use or development pattern. In sum, the
property as a whole does not include architecture that appears eligible for listing in the California
Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture).
California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is not relevant to this evaluation. The “potential
to yield information important to the prehistory or history of California” typically relates to
archeological resources, rather than built resources. When Criterion 4 does relate to built resources, it is
for cases when the building itself is the principal source of important construction-related information.
Based on historic research, Criterion 4 is not applicable to the property of the project site.
Individual Property: 1256 Mission Road
1256 Mission Road does not appear to be a historic resource individually under California Register
Criterion 1 (Events) as a property that is associated with events that have made a significant
14 Past Consultants, LLC, Historic Context Statement for Agricultural Resource in the North County Planning Area, Monterey County
(September 2010) 111.
92
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or
the United States. Research did not indicate that the building’s function related the larger historic
context of agriculture on the property. The home may have been associated with the farming that
occurred on the plot but there is no documentation to confirm this. Moreover, there is a better example
of farmstead housing that has been designated as the Old Mission Road Historic District in nearby
Colma. This district contains a collection of six buildings that are associated with farming in the area.
Under Criterion 2 (Persons), it is not evident through historic research that the Cuneos, the owners of
1256 Mission Road, were especially significant in the history and development of Colma or South San
Francisco, aside from their tenure at the subject site and others in the area. Thus, 1256 Mission Road
does not appear eligible for listing in association with significant people.
Under Criterion 3 (Architecture), 1256 Mission Road is a typical example of a Mediterranean Revival
style house and is not important as a type, period, or method of construction. Research did not uncover
an architect or builder, and the building cannot be considered to have high artistic values. It therefore
lacks individual significance.
California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is not relevant to this evaluation.
Individual Property: 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue
There are no buildings to evaluate on this site.
Individual Property: Southeast House at 1262 Edgewood Way
The southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way does not appear to be a historic resource individually
under California Register Criterion 1 (Events) as a property that is associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage
of California or the United States. Research did not indicate that the building’s function related to the
larger historic context of agriculture on the property. As the oldest building on the project site, the
house was likely once the primary residence of a farmer, but no documentation was found to confirm
this. Moreover, there is a confirmed example of farmstead housing that has been designated as the Old
Mission Road Historic District. This district contains a collection of six buildings that are associated
with farming in the area.
Under Criterion 2 (Persons), it is not evident through historic research that the Cuneos, the owners of
the southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way, were especially significant in the history and development
of Colma and South San Francisco, aside from their tenure at this property and others in the area. Thus,
93
the southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way does not appear eligible for listing in association with
significant people.
Under Criterion 3 (Architecture), the southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way is a good example of a
vernacular building with Craftsman style influences that appears to have been built in the 1910s. It does
not stand out, however, as individually important as a type, period, or method of construction. Research
did not uncover an architect or builder, and the building cannot be considered to have high artistic
values. It therefore lacks individual significance.
California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is not relevant to this evaluation.
Individual Property: Northwest House at 1262 Edgewood Way
The northwest house at 1262 Edgewood Way is not a historic resource individually under California
Register Criterion 1 (Events) as a property that is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or
the United States. The building was constructed between 1946 and 1956 as part of the residential
building boom of the area and is therefore not associated with the relevant period of agricultural
development for the site.
Under Criterion 2 (Persons), it is not evident through historic research that the Cuneos, the owners of
the northwest house at 1262 Edgewood Way, were especially significant in the history and development
of Colma and South San Francisco, aside from their tenure at this property and others in the area. Thus,
northwest house at 1262 Edgewood Way does not appear eligible for listing in association with
significant people.
Under Criterion 3 (Architecture), the northwest house at 1262 Edgewood Way does not have an
apparent architectural style, though it uses modern materials, and it does not stand out as important as a
type, period, or method of construction. Research did not uncover an architect, and the building cannot
be considered to have high artistic values. It therefore lacks individual significance.
California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is not relevant to this evaluation.
94
Integrity
A discussion of integrity is usually reserved for sites determined to be historically significant. Although
neither the site nor any of the buildings were found to be significant, integrity will still be assessed.
Integrity is often described as the retention of characteristics that enable a property to convey its
appearance as it existed during its historic period. According to integrity thresholds outlined in the
Historic Context Statement for Agricultural Resource in the North County Planning Area, Monterey County, the
seven aspects of integrity for agriculture-related cultural landscapes are defined as:
Location is the place where the significant activities that shaped a property took
place, often determined by geographical factors.
Setting is the physical environment within and surrounding a property, including
large-scale features (e.g., woodlands or rock formations) and small-scale
features (e.g., fences, gateposts, springs or individual trees).
Design is the composition of natural and cultural elements comprising the form,
plan, and spatial organization of a property. Elements include buildings,
structures, boundary demarcations, circulation networks, windbreaks,
vegetation and topography.
Materials include construction materials of buildings, outbuildings, roadways,
fences, and other structures. For rural historic landscapes, vegetation similar
to historic species in scale, type and visual effect will generally convey historic
integrity.
Workmanship is exhibited in the ways people have fashioned their environment
for functional and decorative purposes, including how they constructed
buildings, fences and small-scale elements. For rural historic landscapes,
workmanship in raising crops contributes to integrity if it reflects traditional or
historic practices.
Feeling is intangible but is evoked by the presence of physical characteristics
that reflect the historic scene. The cumulative effect of setting, design, materials
and workmanship creates the sense of past time and place.
95
Association is the direct link between a property and the important events or
persons that shaped it. Continued use and occupation help maintain integrity of
association if traditional practices are carried on. Using traditional methods in
new construction reinforces a property’s integrity by linking past and present.15
Entire Property: 1256 Mission Road, 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue, and 1262 Edgewood Way
Based on the definitions for each aspect of integrity established above, the entire subject site retains
integrity of location because it has not moved. The property has lost integrity of setting since the
surrounding area has been converted to suburban housing. The site does not retain integrity of design
and materials since one of the buildings has been demolished and, aside from the existing open land,
there are no plant remains to indicate the type of farming that took place on the site. Integrity of
workmanship for the site, such as the sheds and fencing that separates some areas, could not be
determined since the date of construction for the small sheds is unknown. Feeling has diminished since
the sense of past time and place has eroded with the impacts to setting and the cessation of farming on
the property. While the property’s association with agriculture is conveyed by the open land, the small
sheds, and the tractor on the property, the type of farming is not apparent and no important events or
persons have been identified that previously or currently are associated with the property. Although two
buildings from the relevant period of agricultural development remain, the buildings are not clearly
associated with farming. The small sheds were used for farming, but are not sufficient themselves to
convey an association with farming for the entire site. For these reasons, the property as a cultural
landscape has lost integrity to the historic context of farming in Colma and South San Francisco during
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Eligibility for listing in the California Register requires both historic significance and integrity. The
subject site as a whole has been found in this evaluation to lack both historic significance and integrity,
and is not considered eligible for the California Register.
Individual Property: 1256 Mission Road
Based on the definitions for each aspect of integrity established above, 1256 Mission Road retains
integrity of location because it has not moved. The building has lost some integrity of setting since the
surrounding area has been converted to suburban housing. The building retains integrity of design since
no apparent alterations have changed the floor plan or the façades. The building retains integrity of
materials and workmanship, despite the fact that the windows have been boarded and the building has
15 Past Consultants, LLC, Historic Context Statement for Agricultural Resource in the North County Planning Area, Monterey County
(September 2010) 127.
96
deteriorated in other aspects. Feeling has diminished since the sense of past time and place has eroded
with the impacts to setting, though the building does still read as a residence from the 1920s or 1930s.
Although the Cuneo family owned the house, no evidence was found to associate the house with the
farming that took place on the property. For these reasons, 1256 Mission Road retains moderate
integrity.
Individual Property: 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue
There are no buildings on the site to assess.
Individual Property: Southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way
Based on the definitions for each aspect of integrity established above, the southeast house at 1262
Edgewood Way retains integrity of location because it has not moved. The building has lost some
integrity of setting since the surrounding area has been converted to suburban housing. The building
retains integrity of design, materials, and workmanship since no apparent alterations have changed the
floor plan or the building’s appearance. Feeling has diminished since the sense of past time and place
has eroded with the impacts to setting and the cessation of farming on the property. Although the
Cuneo family owned the house, no evidence was found to associate the house with the farming that
took place on the property. For these reasons, the southeast house at 1262 Edgewood Way retains
moderate integrity.
Individual Property: Northwest house at 1262 Edgewood Way
Based on the definitions for each aspect of integrity established above, the northwest house at 1262
Edgewood Way retains integrity of location because it has not moved. The building has integrity of
setting since it is surrounded by suburban housing which was built around the same time as the subject
building. The building retains integrity of design, materials, and workmanship since no apparent
alterations have changed the floor plan or the building’s appearance. The cumulative impact of these
various aspects of integrity contribute to the integrity of feeling for the property. Given that the house
continues to be used as a residence, it also retains integrity of association. The northwest house at 1262
Edgewood Way retains high integrity, although it does not have historic significance.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the property which includes 1256 Mission Road, 1261-1267 Baywood Avenue, and 1262
Edgewood Way does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register because it lacks significance
and integrity. The individual buildings also do not appear eligible for listing in the California Register
because they lack significance under any criteria. Based on the information provided in this
97
memorandum, none of the buildings or the property as a whole qualify as historical resources for the
purposes of CEQA.
98
Attachment 5
Design Review Board Minutes – October 16, 2014
99
MINUTES
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Meeting of October 21, 2014
TIME: 4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Harris, Nelson, and Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Billy Gross, Senior Planner
Tony Rozzi, Associate Planner
Rozalynne Thompson, Associate Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. Administrative Business: - None
2. OWNER Christine Bianucci
APPLICANT Ron & Jennifer Bianucci
ADDRESS 300 Ravenwood Way
PROJECT NUMBER P14-0079: DR14-0047
PROJECT NAME Bianucci Residence - 2nd Story Addition
(Case Planner: Rozalynne Thompson)
DESCRIPTION Design Review for a 2nd story addition to an existing single
family dwelling in the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning
District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.080, 20.330,
20.360 & 20.480 and determination that the project is
categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. Add a street tree on both street frontages. Review the City’s plant list for suitable
tree species.
2. Provide detailed information on how the new windows will be trimmed, as new
and existing windows should match.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
100
3. OWNER Jeffery Kafai Ho
APPLICANT Steven Leo
ADDRESS 820 Olive Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P14-0082: DR14-0048
PROJECT NAME Ho Residence - New SFD
(Case Planner: Rozalynne Thompson)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a new residential dwelling at 820
Olive Avenue in the Downtown High Residential (DRH) Zoning
District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.100, 20.460 &
20.480 and determination that the project is categorically exempt
from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The proposed development is too boxy and massive for the site. Revise the
building elevations to include more articulation.
2. Revise the site plan to provide more useable open space between the residential
units; the minimum dimension allowed between any portion of the structures
should be 10 feet.
3. Revise the floor plan to provide an internal connection from the garage to the
living area.
4. Contact the Building Division to determine if operable windows are allowed if
setback only 3 ft from the side property line.
5. Contact the Building Division to determine if the stairway provides adequate
clearance within the garage. Consider shifting the parking spaces further to the
north in the garage to allow additional vertical clearance.
6. Redesign the front entrance to create a sense of arrival into the dwelling and
reduce the size of the driveway to its minimum requirement to provide additional
landscaping along the new building’s frontage.
7. Contact the Building Division on the proper entrance width for a single family
dwelling.
8. How will the second story deck function for a single family dwelling?
Resubmittal required.
4. OWNER Horon Lee & Lydia Shinha
APPLICANT Kevin Lee
ADDRESS 230 South Spruce Ave
PROJECT NUMBER P06-0004: UPM14-0004
PROJECT NAME UPM - Full Service Restaurant
(Case Planner: Rozalynne Thompson)
DESCRIPTION Use Permit Modification and Design Review to allow a full
service restaurant at 230 South Spruce Avenue in the Mixed
Industrial (MI) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC
Chapters 20.110, 20.330, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490 and
determination that the project is categorically exempt from
CEQA.
101
The Board had the following comments:
1. Contact the Building Division on the proper ADA van stall requirements.
2. Revise the project plans to include proposed elevations (including signage and the
updated screen wall), a landscape plan (including proposed plant species).
3. Define the parking lot layout for the restaurant and day care facility.
4. Include a material board with your resubmittal.
5. Consider “Outdoor Seating” to enhance the restaurant.
Resubmittal required.
5. OWNER Emiko Woolery TR
APPLICANT Patricia Barnes
ADDRESS Armour & Linden Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P14-0063: DR14-0039
PROJECT NAME Multi-Family Development
(Case Planner: Tony Rozzi)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review to lot merge and construct a
new 5-unit multi-family apartment building at the corner of
Armour & Linden Avenue in the Downtown Residential High
Density (DRH) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC
Chapters 20.100, 20.300, 20.330, 20.460 & 20.480 and
determination that the project is categorically exempt from
CEQA.
The Board had the following comments;
1. The proposed project is a vast improvement.
2. Contact the Building Division regarding the proper ADA Van stall requirements.
3. Revise the landscape plan to provide species that will survive the SSF elements
and use species that are in scale with the building. Some of the proposed species
may not grow very tall.
4. Contact SSF Scavengers to determine if the proposed trash enclosure meets
minimum size requirements and is an acceptable location.
5. The 15 foot tall blank concrete wall at ground level is unacceptable. Revise the
plans to incoporate better design with openings if possible,. Patterns, textures, etc.
to acknowledge the pedestrian scale at ground-level.
6. Contact the Building Division on the necessary wall ventilation for the parking
garage.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
102
6. OWNER Russell Skrable
APPLICANT Zareh Samurkashian
ADDRESS 221 Airport Blvd
PROJECT NUMBER P14-0078: UP14-0007 & DR14-0046
PROJECT NAME Use Permit - Service Station
(Case Planner: Billy Gross)
DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review to allow a non-conforming
service station expansion at 221 Airport Blvd in the Downtown
Core (DC) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters
20.100, 20.320, 20.330, 20.350, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490 and
determination that the project is categorically exempt from
CEQA.
Item pulled from the Agenda.
7. OWNER Peter Zheng Pei Qian
APPLICANT Kevin Wong
ADDRESS 301 Chapman Way
PROJECT NUMBER P14-0060: DR14-0036
PROJECT NAME Zheng Residence – Duplex
(Case Planner: Billy Gross)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal”- Design Review to construct a duplex at 301
Chapman Avenue in the Medium Density Residential (RM-15)
Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.080,
20.460 & 20.480 and determination that the project is
categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. Contact the Building Division on the exiting requirements from the 3rd story, as a
stairwell exit may be required.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
103
8. OWNER HCP, Inc.
APPLICANT HCP, Inc.
ADDRESS 561 Eccles Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P14-0084: DR14-0052
PROJECT NAME Exterior Facade Modifications
(Case Planner: Billy Gross)
DESCRIPTION Design Review for exterior facade and landscaping
improvements to an industrial building at 561 Eccles Avenue in
the Business and Technology Park( BTP) Zoning District in
accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.110, 20.460 & 20.480 and
determination that the project is categorically exempt from
CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. Contact the Water Quality Control Plan regarding the requirements for trash
enclosures. A rooftop enclosure will be required.
2. Contact the Building Division to determine proper ADA van stall requirements
and proper placement of the ADA accessibility route from the building to the
street. The route should not be a striped path through parking circulation areas.
3. Revise the landscape plan to replace all existing turf with drought tolerant
vegetation (consider low water species or clumping grasses). Replace Aristocrat
Pear with a more suitable species for SSF’s climate.
Recommend Appoval with Conditions.
9. OWNER Antonio Cueno
APPLICANT City Ventures
ADDRESS 1256 Mission Road
PROJECT NUMBER P14-0081: DR14-0049 & SA14-0001
PROJECT NAME Mixed Use Development
(Case Planner: Billy Gross)
DESCRIPTION Design Review & Tentative Subdivision Map to construct 31
Townhomes and 4 Single Family Dwellings at 1256 Mission
Road in the Transit Village Residential Medium Density (TV-
RM) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters in
accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.250, 20.300, 20.310,
20.380, 20.390, 20.460 & 20.480 and determination that the
project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
104
The Board had the following comments:
1. Revise the unit floor plans to meet the minimum interior dimension requirements
(10 feet by 20 feet per space).
2. Revise the site plan to include an internal pedestrian connection within the
development to connect Mission Road and Baywood.
3. The project is lacking adequate usable open space; consider revising the site plan
to provide more usable area (i.e. play structure, amenity building).
4. Revise the building elevations on Sheets A5.0 and A5.1 to have consistent roof
shapes.
5. Revise the landscape plan to incorporate species that will survive the SSF climate;
avoid Quercus Ilex or Muhlenbergia rigens. Add street trees that will be in scale
with the proposed building height along Mission Road frontage.
6. Contact the Fire Department to determine if alternative paving can be used in non-
circulation areas (including hammer-head turn).
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
105
Attachment 6
Correspondence from the Public
106
From: Laura Fanella <laurafanella@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:05 PM
To: Gross, Billy
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION ATTN: BILLY GROSS REGARDING 1256 MISSION ROAD
DEVELOPMENT
Attachments: TOWNHOUSES.pdf; SINGLE FAMILY.pdf
As a resident of 1236 Edgewood, I would like to express my concerns regarding this development. Most of my neighbors have the
same concerns. I have tried to offer an alternative--albeit very sketchy-to a point of cut and paste-using their properties from the
diagrams previously provided to us and including the same number of townhomes.
What we were shown on the Baywood side looks nice and doesn't seem to conflict with the neighborhood like the townhomes. But
for the proximity to Bart, I'm just not convinced that this particular piece of property should fall into the "transit village" criteria. I only
remember seeing the Mission Road row at 35' in the "transit village" plans. None of us envisioned what has been proposed-not a
road from Edgewood much less 35' throughout the project.
After reviewing the new Housing Element draft of 10-24-2014, I came away from it believing that the city wants to maintain the
integrity of the single family neighborhoods. This project in our opinion does not withstand that test. None of the other projects
down to Chestnut have this type of impact on single family homes, much less those that have already been built closer to Bart. In
fact if any of us wanted to do an addition to 3 stories or 35', we would have been denied and yet this project has been accepted.
I hope you will take into consideration our points of view, all the while realizing we are looking forward to an improvement to this
property.
Thanks for your consideration--we too want to be good neighbors and look forward to something besides what's there now!
LAURA FANELLA
650 589-8453
107
10
8
10
9
From: JOSEPH D'ANGELO <jdangelo2014@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 1:41 PM
To: Gross, Billy
Cc: Tony Violanti; Laura Fanella
Subject: Attn: Planning Commission 1256 Mission Development
I wish to object to the lack of "Green Space" in the 1256
Mission Development project; and inadequate parking space.
Experience shows there is an increasing need, and not less
need, for additional residential parking. The overflow simply
ends as a shortage of space in adjacent residential areas or
commercial property.
Residential areas in the neighborhood lack adequate open
space and green areas for all residents. This latter issue has
been long overlooked.
Joe D'Angelo
310 Evergreen Dr
SSF, 94080
jdangelo2014@yahoo.com
110
From: Kristy Morgan <kristylynmorgan@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 12:34 AM
To: Gross, Billy
Cc: samantha@CityVentures.com; Wes Morgan
Subject: 1256 Mission Road
Dear Mr. Gross,
I recently learned about the development at 1256 Mission Road in South San
Francisco. As a resident and new condo owner, I am excited to see more new housing
opportunities near our BART station. New homes, especially the townhomes that are
proposed, provide excellent opportunities for affordable home ownership. The higher
density nature of the proposed project, so close to BART, will help our city grow in a
smart and sustainable way. My husband and I often walk the SSF centennial trail and
wonder at the vacant lots near by and we are encouraged to see projects such as this
come to our neighborhood.
Best regards,
Kristy and Wes Morgan
1400 El Camino Real #308, SSF, CA 94080
mobile: 510-410-7742
KristyLynMorgan@gmail.com
111
11
2
December 3, 2014
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
Planning Division, City of South San Francisco
PO Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Re: 1256 Mission Road – Public Comment Letter from Mr. Gregory Young
Dear Mr. Gross:
In response to the letter addressed to the Planning Commission from our neighbor Mr. Gregory
Young dated November 25, 2014, I would like to address the specific issues he raises regarding
our property at 1256 Mission Road and his property at 1256 Edgewood Way.
Existing Driveway Easement – Our proposed project does not violate Mr. Young’s existing
driveway easements or diminish access to his property. There are two ingress/egress
easements relevant to the subject project. The first ingress/egress easement favors 1256
Edgewood Way, and grants the owner of that property access over our site from Edgewood
Way, as depicted on page 2 of Attachment B. The second ingress/egress easement favors
the project site and grants the owner of 1256 Mission Road access over 1256 Edgewood
Way down to Edgewood Way, as depicted on page 1 of Attachment B. Our project does not
propose to alter either of the easements relevant to the property (see Attachments A & B).
Relocation of Driveway – At the request of Mr. Young, City Ventures along with our licensed
engineer, C2G Engineers, studied access to 1256 Edgewood Way on September 8, 2014 and
developed an access study for Mr. Young (see Attachment C). The study was shared with
Mr. Young at an in‐person meeting on October 31, 2014. The Access Study proposes to
leave the existing easement in favor of 1256 Edgewood Way in place. While the currently
non‐conforming driveway will adjust in grade, remaining non‐conforming, City Ventures will
also allow access across our property, which will result in a conforming point of access from
Mr. Young’s property at 1256 Edgewood Way, where an access conforming to the City’s
engineering standards does not currently exist. This access was reviewed and approved by
the City Engineering Division. City Ventures has offered to fund the driveway shortening,
grading, and unrelated repair of an adjacent dilapidated fence belonging to Mr. Young.
Property Boundary – Our proposed project does not encroach on Mr. Young’s property.
City Ventures’ licensed engineers C2G Engineers and Alpha Land Surveys Inc. developed
both topographic and boundary surveying of the subject site. These surveys were used as
the basis of the proposed plans that have been submitted to your office. City Ventures
shared the survey with Mr. Young on August 29, 2014 (see Attachment D).
113
I would also like to address the concerns that Mr. Young raises about the design process that
City Ventures went through to bring this project to the Planning Commission.
Neighborhood Outreach – Anticipating the concerns of our neighbors on Edgewood Way,
our company held three community meetings – on 5/13/14, 8/27/14, and 11/5/14 – during
which we shared our plans and discussed their concerns. We discussed these concerns with
City of South San Francisco staff and the concerns led to adding more than double the
amount of code‐required guest parking, the development of an alternative vehicular access
plan, proposal of an opaque gate, and providing additional landscaping along the extension
of Edgewood Way.
Building Height – I believe your staff report addresses the State Density Bonus law which
allows for a modification to the building height for a portion of our project. Also, as you
note, the height allowance in the surrounding single‐family neighborhood is 28 feet, so the
proposed height would not be significantly greater than what is allowed in the surrounding
neighborhood. Allowing a third story for the townhome buildings results in a greater
number of 3‐bedroom homes, better integrating the townhome units with the existing
housing stock of the neighborhood.
Access through Edgewood Way – The project as designed balances the concerns of our
neighbors with concern for the surrounding community. Having three points of access for
these 35 proposed new homes minimizes new vehicular trip generation from any singular
access point. As your analysis of our alternative site plan points out, eliminating access
through Edgewood Way would lead to more new trips on Mission Road, a diminished
appearance from Mission Road, and taller buildings over the balance of the project
including the area adjacent to Mr. Young’s property. It would also result in loss of
approximately half of the common open space, which would be replaced by impervious
pavement.
We hope that the Planning Commission will agree that we have designed the best project for
this property given its irregular shape, slope, and existing conditions and adjacencies. The
proposed design meets the intent and letter of the City’s General Plan, Transit Village Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. We are committed to continue to work with the City and our neighbors to
bring new homes and a new community to the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood of South San
Francisco. We look forward to the public hearing tomorrow evening.
Sincerely,
Samantha Rotstein
ENCLOSED ATTACHMENTS:
A) Easement Memo
B) First American Title Company ‐ Mapped Easements
C) 1256 Edgewood Way Access Study
D) Survey of 1256 Mission Road
114
December 3, 2014
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Phil Kerr
Quail Investment Group, LLC
444 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: 1256 Mission Road, South San Francisco (the "Property")
Dear Mr. Kerr:
As you know, I represent City Ventures, LLC ("CV") in connection with the Property. In that
capacity, I am familiar with (i) Samantha Rotstein's letter dated December 3, 2014 to Billy Gross,
Senior Planner of the City of South San Francisco (the "Rotstein Letter"), (ii) the two (2) driveway
easements discussed therein and (iii) the project proposed by CV on the Property for which
applications for approval are pending.
As to the easements described in the Rotstein Letter, please be advised that CV's project would not
alter or diminish the rights of Mr. Young with respect to the easement for the benefit of 1256
Edgewood Way, which is depicted on page 2 of Attachment B to the Rotstein Letter. In furtherance
of the foregoing, I understand that in connection with the proposed improvements to Edgewood
Way, CV remains willing to perform and pay for any work approved by the City's engineering
division to insure that Mr. Young's physical access is not diminished.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth M. Kaplan
KMK/cm
14120301.docx
115
3$
5
&
(
/
$
3
$
5
&
(
/
,
3$
5
&
(
/
%
3$
5
&
(
/
&
0,66
,
2
1
5
2
$
'
%$<
:
2
2
'
$
9
(
1
8
(
('*
(
:
2
2
'
:
$
<
7K
L
V
P
D
S
P
D
\
R
U
P
D
\
Q
R
W
E
H
D
V
X
U
Y
H
\
R
I
W
K
H
O
D
Q
G
G
H
S
L
F
W
H
G
K
H
U
H
R
Q
<R
X
V
K
R
X
O
G
Q
R
W
U
H
O
\
X
S
R
Q
L
W
I
R
U
D
Q
\
S
X
U
S
R
V
H
R
W
K
H
U
W
K
D
Q
R
U
L
H
Q
W
D
W
LR
Q
WR
W
K
H
J
H
Q
H
U
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
W
K
H
S
D
U
F
H
O
R
U
S
D
U
F
H
O
V
G
H
S
L
F
W
H
G
)
L
U
VW
$P
H
U
L
F
D
Q
7
L
W
O
H
H
[
S
U
H
V
V
O
\
G
L
V
F
O
D
L
P
V
D
Q
\
O
L
D
E
L
O
L
W
\
I
R
U
D
O
O
H
J
H
G
O
R
VV
R
U
GD
P
D
J
H
Z
K
L
F
K
P
D
\
U
H
V
X
O
W
I
U
R
P
U
H
O
L
D
Q
F
H
X
S
R
Q
W
K
L
V
P
D
S
5H
I
H
U
H
Q
F
H
1
R
D
O
D
&R
X
Q
W
\
6
D
Q
0
D
W
H
R
7D
[
,
'
6K
R
U
W
/
H
J
D
O
$
3
R
U
W
L
R
Q
R
I
&
R
X
Q
W
\
R
I
6
D
Q
0
D
W
H
R
0D
S
1
R
W
7R
6
F
D
O
H
/R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
0
D
S
/H
J
H
Q
G
3$
5
&
(
/
$
3
$
5
&
(
/
,
3$
5
&
(
/
$
3
$
5
&
(
/
,
,
3$
5
&
(
/
%
3$
5
&
(
/
&
116
3$
5
&
(
/
$
3
$
5
&
(
/
,
3$
5
&
(
/
%
3$
5
&
(
/
&
0,66
,
2
1
5
2
$
'
%$<
:
2
2
'
$
9
(
1
8
(
('*
(
:
2
2
'
:
$
<
7K
L
V
P
D
S
P
D
\
R
U
P
D
\
Q
R
W
E
H
D
V
X
U
Y
H
\
R
I
W
K
H
O
D
Q
G
G
H
S
L
F
W
H
G
K
H
U
H
R
Q
<R
X
V
K
R
X
O
G
Q
R
W
U
H
O
\
X
S
R
Q
L
W
I
R
U
D
Q
\
S
X
U
S
R
V
H
R
W
K
H
U
W
K
D
Q
R
U
L
H
Q
W
D
W
LR
Q
WR
W
K
H
J
H
Q
H
U
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
W
K
H
S
D
U
F
H
O
R
U
S
D
U
F
H
O
V
G
H
S
L
F
W
H
G
)
L
U
VW
$P
H
U
L
F
D
Q
7
L
W
O
H
H
[
S
U
H
V
V
O
\
G
L
V
F
O
D
L
P
V
D
Q
\
O
L
D
E
L
O
L
W
\
I
R
U
D
O
O
H
J
H
G
O
R
VV
R
U
GD
P
D
J
H
Z
K
L
F
K
P
D
\
U
H
V
X
O
W
I
U
R
P
U
H
O
L
D
Q
F
H
X
S
R
Q
W
K
L
V
P
D
S
5H
I
H
U
H
Q
F
H
1
R
D
O
D
&R
X
Q
W
\
6
D
Q
0
D
W
H
R
7D
[
,
'
6K
R
U
W
/
H
J
D
O
$
3
R
U
W
L
R
Q
R
I
&
R
X
Q
W
\
R
I
6
D
Q
0
D
W
H
R
0D
S
1
R
W
7R
6
F
D
O
H
3O
R
W
W
H
G
(
D
V
H
P
H
Q
W
V
/H
J
H
Q
G
3$
5
&
(
/
$
3
$
5
&
(
/
,
3$
5
&
(
/
%
3$
5
&
(
/
&
7U
D
F
W
0
D
S
%
N
3
J
3
X
E
O
L
F
8
W
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
,
%N
3
J
4
&
'
0
%N
3
J
,
Q
J
U
H
V
V
(
J
U
H
V
V
117
11
9
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
:
CITY
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
44
4
S
P
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
0
SA
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
9
4
1
0
5
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
S
A
M
A
N
T
H
A
R
O
T
S
T
E
I
N
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
PH
O
N
E
:
6
4
6
.
5
2
2
.
4
2
6
0
E-
M
A
I
L
:
s
a
m
a
n
t
h
a
@
c
i
t
y
v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
.
c
o
m
ww
w
.
c
i
t
y
v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
.
c
o
m
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
HU
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
44
4
S
P
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
5
SA
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
9
4
1
0
5
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
D
A
N
H
A
L
E
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
PH
O
N
E
:
4
1
5
.
5
6
8
.
3
8
3
3
E-
M
A
I
L
:
d
h
a
l
e
@
h
h
j
a
.
c
o
m
ww
w
.
h
h
j
a
.
c
o
m
CI
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
:
C2
G
C
I
V
I
L
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
G
R
O
U
P
,
IN
C
.
44
4
4
S
C
O
T
T
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
D
R
I
V
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
6
SC
O
T
T
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
D
A
V
E
D
A
U
P
H
I
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
PH
O
N
E
:
8
3
1
-
4
3
8
-
4
4
2
0
E-
M
A
I
L
:
d
a
v
i
d
@
c
2
g
e
n
g
r
s
.
c
o
m
ww
w
.
c
i
v
i
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
g
r
o
u
p
.
c
o
m
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:THOMAS BAAK & ASSOCIATES, LLP 1620 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 4 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA CONTACT: ANDREA SWANSON Project Manager PHONE: 925-933-2583 E-MAIL: aswanson@tbaak.com www.tbaak.com
SU
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
D
A
T
E
:
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
2
3
,
2
0
1
4
RE
V
I
S
E
D
:
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
1
2
,
2
0
1
4
CS
1
-
C
O
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
CS
2
-
S
H
E
E
T
I
N
D
E
X
CS
3
-
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
CS
4
-
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
(
C
O
N
T
.
)
SP
1
-
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
SP
2
-
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
C
R
I
T
E
R
I
A
A1
.
0
.
1
-
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
O
A
D
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
A1
.
0
.
2
-
B
A
Y
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
RE
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
A1
.
1
-
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
A2
.
0
-
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
-
P
L
A
N
1
.
0
&
1
.
1
A2
.
1
-
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
-
P
L
A
N
1
.
0
&
1
.
1
A2
.
2
-
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
-
P
L
A
N
1
.
0
&
1
.
1
A2
.
3
-
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
-
P
L
A
N
1
.
0
&
1
.
1
A2
.
4
-
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
-
P
L
A
N
1
.
2
.
0
A2
.
5
-
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
-
P
L
A
N
1
.
2
.
1
A3.0 - EXT. ELEVATIONS - BLDG. 2 A3.1 - BLDG PLANS - BLDG. 2 A3.2 - BLDG. PLANS - BLDG. 2 A3.3 - ROOF PLAN - BLDG. 2 A4.0 - UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2.0 A4.1 - UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2.0 A4.2 - ROOF PLAN - PLAN 2.0 A5.0 - EXT. ELEVATION - PLAN 2.0 A5.1 - EXT. ELEVATION - PLAN 2.0 A6.0 - UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2.1 A6.1 - UNIT PLAN - PLAN 2.1 A6.2 - ROOF PLAN - UNIT 2.1 A7.0 - EXT. ELEVATIONS - PLAN 2.1 A7.1 - EXT. ELEVATIONS - PLAN 2.1 C0.1 - TENTATIVE MAP C1.0 - EXISTING SITE AND DEMOLITIONPLANC1.1 - PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C2.1 - PRELIMINARY SITE GRADING PLAN C2.2 - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN C3.1 - PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C4.1 - PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN C5.1 - CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C5.2 - CONSTRUCTION DETAILS L-1 - LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 - SITE AMENITIES L-3 - CUT SHEETS, PLANT NOTES AND DETAILS
SI
T
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
SI
T
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036SCALE:PROJECT SUMMARY CS3 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036SCALE:PROJECT SUMMARY (CONT.)CS4 1/4" = 1'-0"
SO
U
T
H
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
NO
R
T
H
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
UN
IT
T
Y
P
E
PL
A
N
1
.
0
(S
H
E
E
T
A
2
.
0
&
A
2
.
1
)
PL
A
N
1
.
0
-
E
N
D
(S
H
E
E
T
A
2
.
2
&
A
2
.
3
)
PL
A
N
1
.
1
(S
H
E
E
T
A
2
.
2
&
A
2
.
3
)
PL
A
N
1
.
2
.
0
(S
H
E
E
T
A
2
.
4
)
PL
A
N
1
.
2
.
1
(S
H
E
E
T
A
2
.
5
)
PL
A
N
2
.
0
(S
H
E
E
T
A
4
.
0
&
A
4
.
1
)
PL
A
N
2
.
1
(S
H
E
E
T
A
6
.
0
&
A
6
.
1
)
GR
O
U
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
L
I
V
I
N
G
3
0
6
.
9
S
Q
.
F
T
.
3
0
6
.
9
S
Q
.
F
T
.
7
8
.
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
7
8
.
1
S
Q.
F
T
.
7
8
.
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
7
7
7
.
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1,
1
1
6
.
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
6
4
7
.
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
7
0
1
.
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
6
4
7
.
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
6
8
0
.
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
6
6
0
.
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
0
.
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
0
.
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
UP
P
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
67
2
.
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
7
1
6
.
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
6
7
2
.
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
7
2
0
.
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
6
7
7
.
5
S
Q
.
F
T
.
9
2
8
.
5
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1,
4
7
4
.
5
S
Q
.
F
T
.
TO
T
A
L
1,
6
2
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
,
7
2
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
,
3
9
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
,
4
7
9
S
Q
.
F
T
.
14
1
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1,
7
0
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
,
5
9
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
GA
R
A
G
E
A
R
E
A
45
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
4
5
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
4
7
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
5
5
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
5
5
5
.
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
3
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
4
6
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
TO
T
A
L
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
P
E
R
U
N
I
T
2,
0
8
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
,
1
8
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
,
8
6
9
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
,
0
3
5
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
,
9
7
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
,
9
3
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
3
,
0
5
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
U
N
I
T
S
(
T
O
T
A
L
:
3
5
U
N
I
T
S
)
8
6
14
2
1
3
1
TO
T
A
L
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
B
Y
U
N
I
T
T
Y
P
E
16
,
6
6
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
3
,
0
8
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
6
,
1
7
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
4
,
0
7
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
1
,
9
7
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
5
,
8
0
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
6
,
1
0
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
TO
T
A
L
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
B
Y
L
O
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
61
,
9
5
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
11
,
9
1
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
TO
T
A
L
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
73
,
8
6
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
TO
T
A
L
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
73
,
8
6
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
TO
T
A
L
S
I
T
E
A
R
E
A
(
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
S
P
1
)
75
,
7
7
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
FL
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
R
A
T
I
O
0.
9
7
NO
R
T
H
L
O
T
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
11
,
9
1
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
NO
R
T
H
L
O
T
S
I
T
E
A
R
E
A
17
,
6
4
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
NO
R
T
H
L
O
T
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
R
A
T
I
O
0.
6
8
SO
U
T
H
L
O
T
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
61
,
9
5
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
SO
U
T
H
L
O
T
S
I
T
E
A
R
E
A
58
,
1
0
9
S
Q
.
F
T
.
SO
U
T
H
L
O
T
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
R
A
T
I
O
1.
0
7
VE
H
I
C
L
E
A
C
C
O
M
O
D
A
T
I
O
N
(T
A
B
L
E
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
0
4
)
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
TA
B
L
E
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
0
4
(
N
)
1
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
S
P
A
C
E
PE
R
U
N
I
T
(
M
I
N
.
)
2
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
S
P
A
C
E
S
PE
R
U
N
I
T
(
M
A
X
.
)
2
P
E
R
U
N
I
T
GU
E
S
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
1
S
P
A
C
E
P
E
R
4
U
N
I
T
S
(TA
B
L
E
2
0
.
3
3
0
.
0
0
4
)
MU
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y
U
N
I
T
S
8
S
P
A
C
E
S
(
M
I
N
.
)
13
DE
T
A
C
H
E
D
U
N
I
T
S
1
S
P
A
C
E
(
M
I
N
.
)
4
OT
H
E
R
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
SI
D
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
Y
E
S
YE
S
(3
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
DI
S
T
A
N
C
E
B
E
H
I
N
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
F
A
C
A
D
E
20
F
T
.
(
M
I
N
.
)
2
9
F
T
.
(
M
I
N
.
)
VI
S
I
B
L
E
F
R
O
M
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
NO
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
F
O
R
M
(
R
L
-
8
)
(TABLE 20.250.004)
LO
T
A
R
E
A
5,000 SQ. FT.7,958 SQ. FT.
LO
T
W
I
D
T
H
60 FT.60 FT.
LO
T
DE
P
T
H
80 FT.87 FT.
PR
I
V
A
T
E
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
150 SQ. FT.450 SQ. FT.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
FI
G
U
R
E
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
0
4
(
D
)
28 FT.25 FT.
FR
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
TA
B
L
E
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
0
4
(
E
)
:
C
-
1
-
6
0
15 FT.10 FT.
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D
5 FT. (INTERIOR)10 FT. (STREET)5 FT. (MIN)
LO
T
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
(1
,
7
2
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
B
L
D
G
.
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
)
50%21%
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
F
O
R
M
(
T
V
-
R
M
)
(T
A
B
L
E
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
0
4
)
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
FI
G
U
R
E
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
0
4
(
D
)
25
F
T
.
(
S
F
D
)
35
F
T.
(
M
F
D
)
25
F
T
.
35
F
T
.
FR
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
TA
B
L
E
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
0
4
(
E
)
:
C
-
1
-
6
0
10
F
T
.
(
M
I
N
.
)
15
F
T.
(
M
A
X
.
)
10
F
T
.
SI
DE
Y
A
R
D
5
F
T
.
(
M
I
N
)
5
F
T
.
(
M
I
N
)
BU
I
L
D
T
O
L
I
N
E
S
TA
B
L
E
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
0
4
(
E
)
:
C
-
1
-
6
0
60
%
73
%
T
O
7
4
%
(S
E
E
I
L
L
U
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
1
ON
T
H
I
S
S
H
E
E
T
)
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
A
L
L
S
E
T
A
C
K
R
A
N
G
E
1
0
F
T
.
T
O
1
5
F
T
.
13
.
5
F
T
.
LO
N
G
E
S
T
F
A
C
A
D
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
(M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
O
A
D
O
N
L
Y
)
25
0
F
T
.
7
6
F
T
.
BUILDING 1 TOTAL FACADE AREA: 2,084 SF BUILDING 2 TOTAL FACADE AREA: 2,653 SFILLUSTRATION 1:BUILD-TO LINES BUILD-TO LINE AREA:1,542 SF = 73%BUILD-TO LINE AREA:1,968 SF = 74%SCALE:ADDITIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA SP2 1" = 20'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
SCALE:MISSION ROAD RENDERING A1.0.1 1/8" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
SCALE:BAYWOOD AVENUE RENDERING A1.0.2 1/8" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
SI
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
B
-
B
LO
N
G
I
T
U
D
I
N
A
L
MI
S
S
I
O
N
R
O
A
D
PA
S
E
O
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y
35'-0"
MAX.
35'-0"
MAX.
35'-0"
MAX.
25'-0"
MAX.
25'-0"MAX.
SI
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
-
A
TR
A
N
S
V
E
R
S
E
BU
IL
D
I
N
G
1
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
3
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
5
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCESINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROPERTY LINE
SIDE YARD SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'-0"
MAX.
35'-0"
MAX.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
5
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
6
LI
N
E
O
F
G
R
A
D
E
BE
Y
O
N
D
SCALE:SITE SECTIONS A1.1 1/16" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
0
(
L
E
F
T
S
I
D
E
)
LI
V
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
6
4
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
0
(
L
E
F
T
S
I
D
E
)
GARAGE AREA: 456 SQ. FT.LIVING AREA: 307 SQ. FT.
T
R
TR
30
x
2
4
C
L
R
UPUP 6" 6" 6" 6"
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
1
(
R
I
G
H
T
S
I
D
E
)
LI
VI
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
6
4
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
1
(
R
I
G
H
T
S
I
D
E
)
GARAGE AREA: 471 SQ. FT.LIVING AREA: 78 SQ. FT.10'-9"20'-3"31'-0"43'-1"
15
'
-
5
"
2"
15
'
-
5
"
31
'
-
0
"
46'-0"
LI
V
.
14
'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
6
"
BT
H
.
3
5'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
DI
N
.
11
'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
KI
T
.
8'
-
0
"
X
1
1
'
-
0
"
DE
N
/
B
D
.
3
8'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
26
6
8
2668
21
0
6
8
46
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
26
6
8
2668
21
0
6
8
46
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
BT
H
.
3
5'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
DE
N
/
B
D
.
3
8'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
KI
T
.
8'
-
0
"
X
1
1
'
-
0
"
LI
V
.
14
'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
6
"
DI
N
.
11
'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
UPDN
UPDN
2'-7"
1'-0"45'-0"
11
'
-
1
1 2"
4'-4"2"15'-5"31'-0"
43'-1"
45'-0"1'-0"
31
'
-
0
1 2"
DEN
14
'
-
5
"
X
1
0
'
-
2
"
PD
R
.
6'
-
4
"
X
6
'
-
0
"
ENT.ENT.2-CAR GARAGE 20'-0"" X 20'-6"TANDEM GAR.10'-0" X 42'-6""2668 2668
26
6
8
2868 308030803068286816080 STEEL PANELS GARAGE DOOR8080 STEEL PANELS GARAGE DOOR STOR.STOR.10' X 40' MIN. CLEARANCE FOR TANDEM GARAGE20' X 20' MIN. CLEARANCE FOR 2-CAR GARAGE SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1.0 & 1.1 A2.0 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
30
x
2
4
C
L
R
30x24 CLR
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
1
(
R
I
G
H
T
S
I
D
E
)
LIVING AREA: 672 SQ. FT.15'-5"2"
15
'
-
5
"
31'-0"45'-0"
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
0
(
L
E
F
T
S
I
D
E
)
LIVING AREA: 672 SQ. FT.266826682668
56
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
21068
2468
2868
3068
3068 4068 BI-PASS 4068 BI-PASS2668266826685668 BI-PASS21068 2468 2868 3068 3068 4068 BI-PASS 4068 BI-PASS
BD
.
2
8'
-
6
"
X
1
2
'
-
6
"
M.
B
D
.
12
'
-
2
"
X
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
M.
B
T
H
.
6'
-
9
"
X
6
'
-
3
"
BTH. 2 5'-2" X 8'-0"
LN
D
Y
.
3'
-
6
"
X
3
'
-
1
0
"
BD. 2 8'-6" X 12'-6"BTH. 2 5'-2" X 8'-0"LNDY.3'-6" X 3'-10"M. BTH. 6'-9" X 6'-3"M. BD. 12'-2" X 14'-10"DNDN
45'-0"1'-0"
46'-0"
1'-0"31'-0"
T
R
DE
N
14
'
-
5
"
X
1
0
'
-
2
"
T
R
EN
T
.
EN
T
.
2-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
20
'
-
0
"
"
X
2
0
'
-
6
"
TA
N
D
E
M
G
A
R
.
10
'
-
0
"
X
4
2
'
-
6
"
"
UP
UP
26
6
8
2868
3080
3080
2 8 6 8
16
0
8
0
S
T
E
E
L
P
A
N
E
L
S
GA
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
80
8
0
S
T
E
E
L
P
A
N
E
L
S
GA
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
ST
O
R
.
1/4"
1/4"
1'
-
6
"
2'
-
0
"
1/4"
3068
PD
R
1/
4
"
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
AD
A
P
T
A
B
L
E
P
L
A
N
1
.
0
(
L
E
F
T
S
I
D
E
)
GA
R
A
G
E
AR
E
A
:
4
5
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
LI
V
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
3
0
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
1
(
R
I
G
H
T
S
I
D
E
)
GA
R
A
G
E
A
R
E
A
:
4
7
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
LI
V
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
7
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
10
'
X
4
0
'
M
I
N
.
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
FO
R
T
A
N
D
E
M
G
A
R
A
G
E
20
'
X
2
0
'
M
I
N
.
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
FO
R
2
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1.0 & 1.1 A2.1 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
0
-
E
N
D
U
N
I
T
(
L
E
F
T
S
I
D
E
)
LI
VI
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
7
0
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
10'-6"20'-6"31'-0"43'-1"
15
'
-
5
"
2"
16
'
-
5
"
32
'
-
0
"
45'-0"
46'-0"
T
R
TR
30
x
2
4
C
L
R
UPUP 6" 6" 6" 6"
UT
I
L
.
UT
I
L
.
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
1
(
R
I
G
H
T
S
I
D
E
)
LI
VI
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
6
4
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
0
-
E
N
D
U
N
I
T
(
L
E
F
T
S
I
D
E
)
GARAGE AREA: 456 SQ. FT.LIVING AREA: 307 SQ. FT.
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
1
(
R
I
G
H
T
S
I
D
E
)
GARAGE AREA: 471 SQ. FT.LIVING AREA: 78 SQ. FT.
26
6
8
2668
21
0
6
8
46
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
26
6
8
2668
21
0
6
8
46
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
LI
V
.
14
'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
6
"
BT
H
.
3
5'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
DI
N
.
11
'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
KI
T
.
8'
-
0
"
X
1
1
'
-
0
"
DE
N
/
B
D
.
3
8'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
BT
H
.
3
5'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
DE
N
/
B
D
.
3
8'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
KI
T
.
8'
-
0
"
X
1
1
'
-
0
"
LI
V
.
14
'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
6
"
DI
N
.
11
'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
UPDN
UPDN
10'-7"12'-5"11'-0"11'-0"
46'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"
22'-0"11'-0"
10'-1"
43'-1"
11
'
-
1
"
4'-4"2"11'-1"31'-0"
32
'
-
0
"
4'-4"
1'
-
0
1 2"
1'
-
0
"
33
'
-
0
"
DEN
14
'
-
5
"
X
1
0
'
-
2
"
PD
R
.
6'
-
4
"
X
6
'
-
0
"
ENT.ENT.2-CAR GARAGE 20'-0"" X 20'-6"TANDEM GAR.10'-0" X 42'-6""2668 2668
26
6
8
2868 308030803068286816080 STEEL PANELS GARAGE DOOR8080 STEEL PANELS GARAGE DOOR STOR.STOR.10' X 40' MIN. CLEARANCE FOR TANDEM GARAGE20' X 20' MIN. CLEARANCE FOR 2-CAR GARAGE SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1.0 & 1.1 A2.2 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
15'-5"2"
16
'
-
5
"
32'-0"46'-0"
30
x
2
4
C
L
R
30x24 CLR
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
1
-
(
R
I
G
H
T
S
I
D
E
)
LIVING AREA: 672 SQ. FT.
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
0
-
E
N
D
U
N
I
T
(
L
E
F
T
S
I
D
E
)
LIVING AREA: 716 SQ. FT.266826682668
56
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
21068
2468
2868
3068
3068 4068 BI-PASS 4068 BI-PASS2668266826685668 BI-PASS21068 2468 2868 3068 3068 4068 BI-PASS 4068 BI-PASS
BD
.
2
8'
-
6
"
X
1
2
'
-
6
"
M.
B
D
.
12
'
-
2
"
X
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
M.
B
T
H
.
6'
-
9
"
X
6
'
-
3
"
BTH. 2 5'-2" X 8'-0"
LN
D
Y
.
3'
-
6
"
X
3
'
-
1
0
"
BD. 2 8'-6" X 12'-6"BTH. 2 5'-2" X 8'-0"LNDY.3'-6" X 3'-10"M. BTH. 6'-9" X 6'-3"M. BD. 12'-2" X 14'-10"DNDN1'-0"45'-0"
1'-0"11'-0"11'-0"9'-111
2"13'-01
2"
46'-0"
33'-0"
2'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
16
'
-
4
1 2"212"15'-5"SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1.0 & 1.1 A2.3 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
30
x
2
4
C
L
R
TRUP6" 6" UTIL.1'-8""x8'-0"UTIL.1'-8""x3'-8"PLAN 1.2.0 GARAGE AREA: 556 SQ. FT.LIVING AREA: 78 SQ. FT.
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
2
.
0
LI
VI
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
7
2
0
S
Q
.
F
T
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
2
.
0
LI
VI
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
7
0
1
S
Q
.
F
T
26
6
8
26
6
8
2668
56
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
21
0
6
8
2468
2868
3068
30
6
8
4068 BI-PASS 4068 BI-PASS
BD
.
2
8'
-
6
"
X
1
2
'
-
6
"
BT
H
.
2
5'
-
2
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
LN
D
Y
.
3'
-
6
"
X
3
'
-
1
0
"
M.
B
T
H
.
6'
-
9
"
X
6
'
-
3
"
M.
B
D
.
12
'
-
2
"
X
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
DN
26
6
8
2668
21
0
6
8
46
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
KI
T
.
8'
-
0
"
X
1
1
'
-
0
"
BT
H
.
3
5'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
DE
N
/
B
D
.
3
8'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
LI
V
.
14
'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
6
"
UPDN
11'-0"11'-0"9'-111
2"13'-01
2"
45'-0"
17
'
-
0
"
45'-0"
16
'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
17
'
-
0
"
11'-0"11'-0"12'-5"10'-7"
45'-0"
16
'
-
0
"
45'-0"
16
'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
17
'
-
0
"
9'-0"11'-0"23'-0"43'-0"10'-8"4'-4"15'-0"2'-6"40'-6"43'-0"10' X 40' MIN. CLEARANCE FOR TANDEM GARAGE SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1.2.0 A2.4 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
PLAN 1.2.1 GARAGE AREA: 556 SQ. FT.LIVING AREA: 78 SQ. FT.43'-0"
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
2
.
1
LI
V
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
6
7
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
1
.
2
.
1
LI
V
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
6
6
0
S
Q
.
F
T
26
6
8
26
6
8
2668
56
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
21
0
6
8
2468
2868
3068
30
6
8
4068 BI-PASS 4068 BI-PASS
26
6
8
2668
21
0
6
8
46
6
8
B
I
-
P
A
S
S
KI
T
.
8'
-
0
"
X
1
1
'
-
0
"
BT
H
.
3
5'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
DE
N
/
B
D
.
3
8'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
LI
V
.
14
'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
6
"
BD
.
2
8'
-
6
"
X
1
2
'
-
6
"
BT
H
.
2
5'
-
2
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
LN
D
Y
.
3'
-
6
"
X
3
'
-
1
0
"
M.
B
T
H
.
6'
-
9
"
X
6
'
-
3
"
M.
B
D
.
12
'
-
2
"
X
1
4
'
-
1
0
"
DN
UPDN
TRUP6" 6" UTIL.1'-8""x8'-0"UTIL.1'-8""x3'-8"
30
x
2
4
C
L
R
16
'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
17
'
-
0
"
11'-0"11'-0"23'-0"
45'-0"
45'-0"
15
'
-
0
"
11'-0"11'-0"23'-0"
45'-0"
11
'
-
8
"
4'
-
4
"
16
'
-
0
"
45'-0"
9'-0"11'-0"23'-0"15'-0"40'-6"2'-6"43'-0"
15
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
17
'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
17
'
-
0
"
2'-0"17'-0"10' X 40' MIN. CLEARANCE FOR TANDEM GARAGE
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1.2.1 A2.5 1/4" = 1'-0"
8'
-
7
"
8'
-
7
"
8'
-
7
"
MA
I
N
P
L
A
T
E
UP
P
E
R
S
U
B
F
L
O
O
R
UP
P
E
R
P
L
A
T
E
LO
W
E
R
P
L
A
T
E
MA
I
N
S
U
B
F
L
O
O
R
S.
O
.
G
.
34'-9" ±
2'-6"3'-6"
FR
O
N
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
:
5
-
U
N
I
T
3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
C
O
N
D
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
LE
F
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
:
5
-
U
N
I
T
3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
C
O
N
D
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
8'-7"8'-7"8'-7"
MA
I
N
P
L
A
T
E
UP
P
E
R
S
U
B
F
L
O
O
R
UP
P
E
R
P
L
A
T
E
LO
W
E
R
P
L
A
T
E
MA
I
N
S
U
B
F
L
O
O
R
S.
O
.
G
.
34'-9" ±
2'-6"3'-6"
FF FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUNIT 6 PLAN 1.1UNIT 7 PLAN 1.0UNIT 8 PLAN 1.1UNIT 9 PLAN 1.2
8'-7"8'-7"8'-7"
MA
I
N
P
L
A
T
E
UP
P
E
R
S
U
B
F
L
O
O
R
UP
P
E
R
P
L
A
T
E
LO
W
E
R
P
L
A
T
E
MA
I
N
S
U
B
F
L
O
O
R
S.
O
.
G
.
34'-9" ±
2'-6"3'-6"
RE
A
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
:
5
-
U
N
I
T
3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
C
O
N
D
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
FF FFFFFF
F
F FF
F F
F FF
F F
F
FF
F
8'-7"8'-7"8'-7"
MA
I
N
P
L
A
T
E
UP
P
E
R
S
U
B
F
L
O
O
R
UP
P
E
R
P
L
A
T
E
LO
W
E
R
P
L
A
T
E
MA
I
N
S
U
B
F
L
O
O
R
S.
O
.
G
.
34'-9" ±
2'-6"3'-6"
RI
G
H
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
:
5
-
U
N
I
T
3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
C
O
N
D
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
F
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
FF
FF
FFF
3'-6"
FFUNIT 5
PL
A
N
1
.
0
63411
9
1213 814
1.
CO
M
P
O
S
I
T
E
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
R
O
O
F
2.
SO
L
A
R
P
A
N
E
L
S
.
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
M
A
Y
V
A
R
Y
D
E
P
E
N
D
I
N
G
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
O
R
I
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
R
O
O
F
PL
A
N
S
3.
3
C
O
A
T
S
T
U
C
C
O
4.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
4
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
5.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
5
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
6.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
8
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
8.
MT
L
.
R
O
L
L
-
U
P
G
A
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
9.
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
C
L
O
S
E
T
10
.
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
I
G
H
T
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
(
A
N
D
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
I
G
N
W
H
E
R
E
SH
O
W
N
)
.
11
.
DO
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
(
W
I
T
H
S
C
U
P
P
E
R
B
O
X
W
H
E
R
E
S
H
O
W
N
)
12
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
13
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
14
.
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
E
N
T
R
Y
S
T
A
I
R
W
I
T
H
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
C1
GO
L
D
E
N
F
L
E
E
C
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
3
8
)
C2
HE
R
O
N
P
L
U
M
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
7
0
)
C3
FR
E
N
C
H
R
O
A
S
T
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
6
9
)
C4
SP
A
L
D
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
7
4
)
C5
SH
O
J
I
W
H
I
T
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
4
2
)
C6
DO
R
I
A
N
G
R
A
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
1
7
)
C7
TO
A
S
T
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
9
5
)
RC
1
C
E
R
T
A
I
N
T
E
E
D
P
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
S
H
A
K
E
-
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
G
R
A
Y
RC
2
IR
O
N
O
R
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
6
9
)
SCALE:EXT. ELEVATIONS - BLDG. 2 A3.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
77'-1012"43'-0"
UN
I
T
5
PL
A
N
1
.
0
UNIT 4 PLAN 1.1UNIT 3 PLAN 1.0UNIT 2 PLAN 1.1UNIT 1 PLAN 1.2 6" 6" 6" 6"
78
'
-
1
1
"
45'-0"
6"
6"
6"
6" 6" 6"
1'-0"
2'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
SCALE:BLDG PLANS - BLDG. 2 A3.1 1/8" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
78'-11"45'-0"SCALE:BLDG. PLANS - BLDG. 2 A3.2 1/8" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
78
'
-
1
1
"
33
'
-
2
1 2"
2'-0"
6"
6"
SCUPPER AND DOWNSPOUT 4'-6"
SO
L
A
R
A
R
R
A
Y
AT
E
A
C
H
U
N
I
T
SCALE:ROOF PLAN - BLDG. 2 A3.3 1/8" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
ENT.
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
2
.
0
(
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
U
N
I
T
)
GA
R
A
G
E
AR
E
A
:
2
3
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
LI
V
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
7
5
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
DI
N
.
9'
-
0
"
X
7
'
-
0
"
5'-10"
35
'
-
0
"
15'-81
2"10'-71
2"
16'-0"
26'-4"
10'-4"
8'
-
4
"
40
'
-
7
"
54
'
-
9
"
5'-10"
DI
N
.
12
'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
4
"
LI
V
.
13
'
-
0
"
X
1
5
'
-
0
"
FL
E
X
S
P
A
C
E
BE
D
.
4
/
G
A
R
.
17
'
-
6
"
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
GA
R
.
22
'
-
0
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
PD
R
.
PATIO 5'-0" X 14'-4"
6"
6"
10' X 20' MIN. CLEARANCE
FOR ONE-CAR GARAGE
SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2.0 A4.0 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
2
.
0
(
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
U
N
I
T
)
LI
VI
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
9
0
5
S
Q
.
F
T
.
5'-10"
35
'
-
0
"
15'-81
2"
16'-0"
26'-4"
40
'
-
7
"
54
'
-
9
"
5'-10"
10'-71
2"
9'
-
3
"
12
'
-
1
1 2"
BE
D
2
11
'
-
1
0
"
X
1
1
'
-
6
"
BE
D
3
10
'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
LN
D
Y
.
6'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
M.
B
T
H
8'
-
0
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
W.
I
.
C
.
6'
-
6
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
M.
B
E
D
13
'
-
4
"
X
1
5
'
-
4
"
BT
H
2
8'
-
0
"
X
8
'
-
0
"
SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2.0 A4.1 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
9"
1'
-
0
"
EA
V
E
1'
-
0
"
EA
V
E
9" EAVE TYP. U.N.O.1'-4"RAKE TYP. U.N.O.
8:
1
2
4:12
8:
1
2
8:
1
2
8:
1
2
4:12
4:12
4:12
RIDGE
RI
D
G
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
I
P
HIP
H
I
P
HIP
H
I
P
RI
D
G
E
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
(
U
N
I
T
S
3
2
,
3
3
&
3
4
)
1'
-
0
"
EA
V
E
9"RAKE
9"
RAKE
SO
L
A
R
A
R
R
A
Y
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
1
SO
L
A
R
A
R
R
A
Y
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
2
SO
L
A
R
A
R
R
A
Y
S
T
O
B
E
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
E
D
A
T
WH
I
C
H
E
V
E
R
O
F
T
H
E
T
W
O
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
SH
O
W
N
H
A
S
T
H
E
M
O
S
T
S
O
U
T
H
E
R
N
EX
P
O
S
U
R
E
.
S
E
E
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
F
O
R
U
N
I
T
OR
I
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
4:12
SCALE:ROOF PLAN - PLAN 2.0 A4.2 1/8" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
1.
C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
E
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
R
O
O
F
2.
SO
L
A
R
P
A
N
E
L
S
.
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
M
A
Y
V
A
R
Y
D
E
P
E
N
D
I
N
G
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
O
R
I
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
R
O
O
F
PL
A
N
S
3.
3
C
O
A
T
S
T
U
C
C
O
4.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
4
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
5.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
5
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
6.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
8
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
8.
MT
L
.
R
O
L
L
-
U
P
G
A
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
9.
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
C
L
O
S
E
T
10
.
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
I
G
H
T
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
(
A
N
D
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
I
G
N
W
H
E
R
E
SH
O
W
N
)
.
11
.
DO
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
(
W
I
T
H
S
C
U
P
P
E
R
B
O
X
W
H
E
R
E
S
H
O
W
N
)
12
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
13
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
14
.
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
E
N
T
R
Y
S
T
A
I
R
W
I
T
H
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
C1
GO
L
D
E
N
F
L
E
E
C
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
3
8
)
C2
HE
R
O
N
P
L
U
M
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
7
0
)
C3
FR
E
N
C
H
R
O
A
S
T
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
6
9
)
C4
SP
A
L
D
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
7
4
)
C5
SH
O
J
I
W
H
I
T
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
4
2
)
C6
DO
R
I
A
N
G
R
A
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
1
7
)
C7
TO
A
S
T
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
9
5
)
RC
1
C
E
R
T
A
I
N
T
E
E
D
P
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
S
H
A
K
E
-
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
G
R
A
Y
RC
2
IR
O
N
O
R
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
6
9
)
25'-0"
11
SO
U
T
H
L
O
T
NO
R
T
H
L
O
T
11
'
-
3
"
SCALE:EXT. ELEVATION - PLAN 2.0 A5.0 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
1.
C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
E
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
R
O
O
F
2.
SO
L
A
R
P
A
N
E
L
S
.
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
M
A
Y
V
A
R
Y
D
E
P
E
N
D
I
N
G
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
O
R
I
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
R
O
O
F
PL
A
N
S
3.
3
C
O
A
T
S
T
U
C
C
O
4.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
4
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
5.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
5
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
6.
HA
R
D
I
(
O
R
E
Q
.
)
L
A
P
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
8
"
E
X
P
O
S
U
R
E
8.
M
T
L
.
R
O
L
L
-
U
P
G
A
R
A
G
E
D
O
O
R
9.
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
C
L
O
S
E
T
10
.
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
I
G
H
T
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
(
A
N
D
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
I
G
N
W
H
E
R
E
SH
O
W
N
)
.
11
.
DO
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
(
W
I
T
H
S
C
U
P
P
E
R
B
O
X
W
H
E
R
E
S
H
O
W
N
)
12
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
13
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
14
.
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
E
N
T
R
Y
S
T
A
I
R
W
I
T
H
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
O
O
D
G
U
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
C1
GO
L
D
E
N
F
L
E
E
C
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
3
8
)
C2
HE
R
O
N
P
L
U
M
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
7
0
)
C3
FR
E
N
C
H
R
O
A
S
T
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
6
9
)
C4
SP
A
L
D
I
N
G
G
R
A
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
7
4
)
C5
SH
O
J
I
W
H
I
T
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
4
2
)
C6
DO
R
I
A
N
G
R
A
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
1
7
)
C7
TO
A
S
T
Y
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
6
0
9
5
)
RC
1
C
E
R
T
A
I
N
T
E
E
D
P
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
S
H
A
K
E
-
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
G
R
A
Y
RC
2
IR
O
N
O
R
E
(
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
#
S
W
7
0
6
9
)
24'-10"
11
'
-
3
"
SCALE:EXT. ELEVATION - PLAN 2.0 A5.1 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
2
.
1
(
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
U
N
I
T
)
GA
R
A
G
E
AR
E
A
:
4
7
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
LI
V
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
1
,
1
1
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
GA
R
.
22
'
-
0
"
X
2
0
'
-
0
"
EN
T
.
UP
22'-212"10'-912"
12
'
-
6
1 2"
4'-0"
14
'
-
6
"
2'-0"
13
'
-
2
"
23
'
-
1
1 2"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12'-8"
24
'
-
1
1 2"
30
x
2
4
C
L
R
LI
V
.
14
'
-
0
"
X
1
8
'
-
0
"
KI
T
.
14
'
-
6
"
X
1
1
'
-
6
"
KI
T
.
14
'
-
0
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
BD
.
4
12
'
-
0
"
X
1
2
'
-
0
"
BT
H
.
3
20' X 20' MIN. CLEARANCE
FOR TWO-CAR GARAGE
SCALE:UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2.1 A6.0 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
14
'
-
6
"
17
'
-
1
1
"
2'-0"16'-0"
13
'
-
5
"
12
'
-
6
1 2"
13
'
-
8
"
23
'
-
7
1 2"
5'
-
0
"
M.
B
T
H
7'
-
0
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
W.
I
.
C
.
M.
B
D
.
17
'
-
4
"
X
1
4
'
-
0
"
BD
.
2
13
'
-
5
"
X
1
2
'
-
1
0
"
BD
.
3
11
'
-
7
"
X
1
5
'
-
2
"
BT
H
.
2
OP
T
.
B
D
.
5
13
'
-
0
"
X
1
1
'
-
6
"
LD
Y
.
6'
-
4
"
X
1
0
'
-
0
"
PD
R
.
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
PL
A
N
2
.
1
(
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
U
N
I
T
)
LI
V
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
1
,
4
7
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
12'-8"6'-0"14'-4"
6'-212"10'-912"33'-0"
50
'
-
1
0
"
33'-0"
51
'
-
1
0
"
LO
F
T
/
SCALE:UNIT PLAN - PLAN 2.1 A6.1 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
(
U
N
I
T
3
5
)
5:
1
2
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
5:
1
2
5:
1
2
5:
1
2
5:12
5:12 5:12
5:12
RI
D
G
E
RIDGE
RI
D
G
E
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VA
L
L
E
Y
VALLEY
VA
L
L
E
Y
VA
L
L
E
Y
VALLEY
VA
L
L
E
Y
VALLEY
HIP HI
P
HIPHI
P
3:12
9" EAVE
TYP. U.N.O.
1'-4"RAKE
TYP. U.N.O.
SO
L
A
R
A
R
R
A
Y
SCALE:ROOF PLAN - UNIT 2.1 A6.2 1/8" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
1.COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF 2.SOLAR PANELS. LOCATIONS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON BUILDING ORIENTATION. REFER TO SITE PLAN AND ROOF PLANS 3.3 COAT STUCCO 4.HARDI (OR EQ.) LAP SIDING WITH 4" EXPOSURE 5.HARDI (OR EQ.) LAP SIDING WITH 5" EXPOSURE 6.HARDI (OR EQ.) LAP SIDING WITH 8" EXPOSURE 8.MTL. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR 9.UTILITY CLOSET 10.EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE (AND ADDRESS SIGN WHERE SHOWN).11.DOWNSPOUT (WITH SCUPPER BOX WHERE SHOWN)12.PAINTED WOOD FENCE 13.PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL 14.CONCRETE ENTRY STAIR WITH PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL C1GOLDEN FLEECE (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW638)C2HERON PLUME (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW6070)C3FRENCH ROAST (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW6069)C4SPALDING GRAY (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW6074)C5SHOJI WHITE (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW7042)C6DORIAN GRAY (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW7017)C7TOASTY (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW6095)RC1CERTAINTEED PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE - COUNTRY GRAY RC2IRON ORE (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW7069)
FR
O
N
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
(
U
N
I
T
3
5
)
10
SCALE:EXT. ELEVATIONS - PLAN 2.1 A7.0 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
RE
A
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
(
U
N
I
T
3
5
)
9'-1"
MA
I
N
S
.
O
.
G
.
MA
I
N
P
L
A
T
E
1.COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF 2.SOLAR PANELS. LOCATIONS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON BUILDING ORIENTATION. REFER TO SITE PLAN AND ROOF PLANS 3.3 COAT STUCCO 4.HARDI (OR EQ.) LAP SIDING WITH 4" EXPOSURE 5.HARDI (OR EQ.) LAP SIDING WITH 5" EXPOSURE 6.HARDI (OR EQ.) LAP SIDING WITH 8" EXPOSURE 8.MTL. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR 9.UTILITY CLOSET 10.EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE (AND ADDRESS SIGN WHERE SHOWN).11.DOWNSPOUT (WITH SCUPPER BOX WHERE SHOWN)12.PAINTED WOOD FENCE 13.PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL 14.CONCRETE ENTRY STAIR WITH PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL C1GOLDEN FLEECE (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW638)C2HERON PLUME (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW6070)C3FRENCH ROAST (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW6069)C4SPALDING GRAY (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW6074)C5SHOJI WHITE (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW7042)C6DORIAN GRAY (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW7017)C7TOASTY (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW6095)RC1CERTAINTEED PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE - COUNTRY GRAY RC2IRON ORE (SHERWIN WILLIAMS #SW7069)SCALE:EXT. ELEVATIONS - PLAN 2.1 A7.1 1/4" = 1'-0"
C
H
U
N
T
H
A
L
E
J
O
N
E
S
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
444 Spear Street, Suite 105 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.hunthalejones.com t. 415-512-1300 f. 415-288-0288DATE:PROJECT:
SO
U
T
H
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CI
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
10.12.2014 317036
Staff Report
Subject: Special Event Permits / Temporary Uses Municipal Code Revisions
Date: January 14, 2014
Page 2 of5
be issued (e.g. festivals, parades, runs/walks, block parties etc.), while other event permits can be issued
with the approval of the Police Department alone (e.g. Weddings, Birthdays, Graduations, etc.). At this
time, special event permitting requires review by several different departments and in-person visits to attain
appropriate permits; this creates some confusion and hassle for applicants.
The purpose of the revisions in Chapter 6.48 is to set forth a process that will minimize confusion, reduce
redundancy and streamline the event permit process to ensure efficient use of staff time. The revised
ordinance would accomplish this by revising the definition of "Special Event" and creating a new category
of event called, "Private Event." In addition to creating two separate event categories, the revised ordinance
would outline a specific application procedure for each type of event, which would ensure that each event
is getting the appropriate level of review.
Proposed Revisions to Chapter 6.48
Revising the definition of Special Event and creating a new Private Event category would clarify how
different types of events impact City services and categorize them accordingly. One-time events that are
held in rented or leased halls and that are determined to not have an extraordinary impact on City services
would be considered Private EYents and would require applicants to fill out a Private Event permit
application. Examples of these types of events include birthday parties, weddings, and ceremonial events.
Private Event permit applications only require the Police Department's approval. Conversely, larger-scale
events that impact multiple departments within the City beyond regular day-to-day operations and require
more than one department's approval would be categorized as Special Events. Organizers of Special
Events would be required to fill out a Special Event permit application. Examples of these types of events
include parades, athletic events, block parties, festivals, parades, 4th of July celebrations. Special Event
permit applications would be reviewed by the multi-departmental "Special Event Team."
Under the current ordinance, representatives from various City Departments review Special Event permit
applications as needed. The revised ordinance would formalize this process and create a Special Event
Team. The "Special EYent Team" would be a group of designated representatives from, but not limited to,
the following City Departments: Police Department, Fire Department, Planning Department, Building
Department, Water Quality Control, Public Works Department, Code Enforcement, and Parks and
Recreation, who are responsible for evaluating Special Event permit applications. Within the proposed
process, the applicant for a Special Event permit would file one application with a designated member of
the Police Department, who is also a member of the Special Event Team. The application would then be
entered into a computer database, scanned and forwarded to each member of the Special Event Team for
review and comment. Upon receipt of the comments from the reviewing departments represented by the
Special Event Team, the applicant will be advised of the required fees and any additional requirements.
In addition to the necessary Municipal Code revisions, two (2) separate and distinct applications have been
developed to assist event planners and applicants in ascertaining which process applies to their event and
are attached for reference. The proposed zoning amendment is also attached.
Current Chapter 20.340 Regulations and Assessment
The City's Zoning Ordinance currently regulates temporary uses and some special events under Chapter
20.340 "Temporary Uses" and requires a Temporary Use Permit application. Chapter 6.48 of the City's
Municipal Code was adopted in 2010 and also comprehensively regulates special events. Based on the
current regulations, in some cases, a one-time event in the City could require both a Special Event Permit
Staff Report
Subject: Special Event Permits / Temporary Uses Municipal Code Revisions
Date: January 14, 2014
Page 3 of5
and a Temporary Use Pennit. Temporary uses are limited to three days with ministerial approval, or up to
one month with approval of a Minor Use Permit application as long as it can be detennined that no adjacent
properties or occupants are affected, and no pedestrian or vehicular traffic would be impacted. The thirty
day limit for Temporary Use Permits has limited utility for most applicants, however, given the short-time
duration. The most common Temporary Use Permit application is for special events, typically on corporate
campuses.
Proposed Revisions to Chapter 20.340
The proposed zoning amendment would: 1) revise and clarify what proposed temporary uses would require
a Temporary Use Pennit or would otherwise be exempt, 2) clarify language related to current temporary
use pennit regulations, and 3) define new duration and perfonnance standards for temporary uses reviewed
as a Minor Use Permit. Additionally, these changes would exempt "special" or private events that are
regulated through Chapter 6.48, such as carnivals, fairs, and corporate campus events. Following adoption
of this zoning amendment, Temporary Use Permits would only be required for temporary commercial uses,
such as business promotions, outdoor sales and displays. A Minor Use Permit would continue to be
required for temporary commercial uses lasting longer than three days but no longer than one month. New
provisions for a construction related temporary use are included with performance standards and a time
limit of up to two years with approval of a Minor Use Pennit. The proposed zoning amendment is
attached.
Benefits of the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance Amendments
As described above, the proposed revisions to Chapter 6.48 would provide clarity on the types of permitted
events issued permits through the City'S Police Department and formally establish the review authority of
the Special Event Team at the discretion of the Police Chief.
The logic behind the proposed zoning amendment is to strengthen the focus of the Temporary Uses Chapter
20.340 to address unique commercial uses that are temporary and distinct from typical special events open
to the public or held in private. Special and private events would be well-served by the current Special
Event regulations in Chapter 6.48, with minor revisions as proposed. By removing the Temporary Use
Permit application requirement for special events, the review process is streamlined for applicants and
eliminates redundancy.
Additionally, this proposed zoning amendment addresses temporary use performance standards, frequency
of temporary use occurrences, and businesses conditionally displaced by redevelopment. A business that
proposes more than four temporary uses per year would now be permitted with approval of a Minor Use
Permit, at the Chief Planner's discretion and in accordance with performance standards. Allowing
businesses to relocate due to construction activities, with a time limit of up to two years, provides flexibility
for the City to retain temporarily displaced uses during construction (pharmacy, public services, or parking
that is removed during a shopping center renovation, for example). Screening, security, trash management,
parking, and other relevant performance standards would be applicable.
PLANNING COMMISSION
At the December 4, 2014 Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed zoning amendment and unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed
Staff Report
Subject: Special Event Pennits / Temporary Uses Municipal Code Revisions
Date: January 14, 2014
Page 5 of5
ATTACHMENT:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Revised Event applications
3. Planning Commission Draft Minutes -Meeting of December 4,2014
4. Planning Commission Resolution 2755-2014 -Zoning Text Amendment Resolution
2381676.1
ORDINANCE NO. __ _
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.48 (SPECIAL
EVENTS) TO CLARIFY EVENT PERMIT REGULATIONS AND
TO CHAPTER 20.340 (TEMPORARY USES) TO. REVISE
REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING FOR SPECIAL EVENTS
AND TEMPORARY USES, CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
("City") adopted a comprehensive update to the City's zoning ordinance, which repealed the
then-existing Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and replaced it with an
entirely new Title that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards ("Zoning Ordinance Update"); and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update in July 2010, the City has
identified areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction;
and,
WHEREAS, the City's Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations for Temporary Uses;
and,
WHEREAS, the City's Special Event Pennit Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter 6.48) was
revised and updated in 2010, about the same time as the Zoning Ordinance Update (SSFMC Title
20) was completed; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has since identified areas of overlapping authority between
Chapter 20.340 and Chapter 6.48, and has drafted proposed revisions to the City's Zoning
Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance Amendment") as well as the City's Special Event Permit
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, there are a number of different types of events that occur in the City of
South San Francisco that require permits under the Special Event Permit Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, certain types of events subject to the Special Event Pennit Ordinance have a
greater impact on the City than other events; and
-1-
WHEREAS, due to the variation in special events and the different level of review
required for different types of events, the City has identified revisions to the Special Event
Pennit Ordinance permitting process that is more appropriately tailored to the type of event; and
WHEREAS, a more tailored permitting process would be more efficient and less
cumbersome for applicants and City staff; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment also provides modifications to the
Chapter 20.340 in order to provide added flexibility to accommodate construction period impacts
in an effort to retain existing businesses that may otherwise close for an extended period of time
due to the redevelopment of their current location; and
WHEREAS, consistent with General Plan economic development goals for the City to
attract, retain and promote existing businesses;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment provides performance standards and
regulations to all,ow temporary uses for extended periods of time if the use has been relocated
due to construction; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Update was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial StudylNegative Declaration ("ISIND") in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
("CEQA"), which ISIND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
Update and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update could not have a significant
effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA
would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Z oning
Ordinance Amendment, as they relate to the regulations governing temporary uses, are minor in
nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed
and analyzed in the ISIND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the
refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in
circumstances that would require additional environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before
it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of
South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
-2-
A. General Findings.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part 0 f this Ordinance.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based,
includes without limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQ A")) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all
written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on December 4, 2014; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on January 5,
2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2).
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco" 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because they strengthen and promote economic development objectives related to business
attraction, retention and expansion. The proposed text amendments will remain consistent with
the City's General Plan vision for community and economic development and will not impede
achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General
Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendments would generally be suitable in tenns of access,
size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by
the Planning Commission and City Council because appropriate perfonnance standards for
temporary uses have been included and would be applied to projects on a case-by-case basis to
minimize impacts to the adjacent properties and occupants, and parking and traffic circulation.
3. The proposed zoning amendments would not be detrimental to the use of land in
any adjacent zone because any new temporary use would be limited in duration to no longer than
two years and would need to meet all appropriate development standards to minimize impacts to
the adjacent properties and occupants, and parking and traffic circulation.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating
-3-
addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included
below, and shall remain in full force and effect.
A. Add Section 6.48.005 "Purpose" to Chapter 6.48 to read as follows:
6.48.005 Pumose.
The purpose of this Chanter is to define the types of events which are regulated and/or permitted within
the citv of South San Francisco and to outline the application and permitting process for each type of
event subject to this Chapter.
B. Revise Section 6.48.010 "Dermitions" as follows:
6.48.010 Definitions.
(a) "Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, organization, association,
society, club, individual or group of individuals that seeks an speeial event pennit from the city:,
through the police chief, to host, conduct organize, sponsor, promote, or advertise an special
event or series of special events governed by this eChapter.
(b) "Corporate event" shall mean any activity, function, or event, conducted entirely within a
business, technology or office park or other corporate or business building. space. or facility,
exclusive of parking. loading. and circulation areas. which activity, function, or event is not open
to the public, and is attended only by the host corporation's employees and/or direct or express
invitees of the host corporation.
Cc) "Event" means any organized activity. function or gathering of persons within the citv.
including special events. private events. comorate events. and those gatherings exempt from
pennit requirements under Section 6.48.040.
Cd) "Eyent permit" means a permit issued for a "special event" or "oriyate eyent" pursuant to
this Chapter.
(~ "Extraordinary security services" means, as determined by the police chief, that at least
one South San Francisco police officer, or alternatively, private security officer approved by the
police .chief, must be present during the event to preserve and protect the safety and welfare of
those in attendance and in the community.
(af) "Open to the public" means during the special event, the specific area or premises at
which the speeial event is held are available for use by or accessible to the general public,
including without limitation business invitees, with or without a fee or charge for admission or
use of the area or premises.
-4-
(eg) "Permitted eyent" means any event for which a permit is required and/or has been issued
pursuant to this Chapter."
(h) "Persons financially interested" means all persons who share in the profits, on the basis of
gross or net revenue, ofthe finn, partnership, corporation, association, society, club, individual
or group of individuals that are hosting, providing, maintaining, organizing, allowing,
conducting, promoting or advertising a special event.
(fij "Police chief" means the chief of police of the city of South San Francisco or his or her
designee.
G) "Private Event" means anyone-time activity, function, or event that is likely to be
attended by seventy-five or more people and occurs in a rented or leased hall or other venue and
is contained within the facility or private propertY and does not impact departments within the
city above and beyond a department's regular day-to-day operations . Private Events include,
without limitation, any non-exempt activity. function, or event. occurring alone or as part of a
business, conducted for the purposes of holding the attention of, gaining the attention of, or
diverting or amusing guests or patrons, such as Birthday parties, Weddings, or ceremonial
events, and meets the following criteria:
(1) The Private Event is not reasonably expected to obstruct. delay, or interfere with the
normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or otherwise fail to comply with traffic laws and
controls:
(2) The Private Event is not reasonably expected to require extraordinary security services as
determined by either the police cbieror fire chief because there is little threat to the public
peace, health, safety or general welfare:
(3) The Private Eyent is not reasonably expected to have a common or collective use, purpose
or benefit that would involve the use ot: or have an impact on public property or public
facilities and/or the provision of city public safety services in response thereto.
(g k) "Special event" shall melude means any activity, function or extraordinary event that is
likely to be attended by seventy five or more people and impacts one or more departments within
the City. above and beyond a department's regular day-to-day operations. Special events include
without limitation, any non-exempt activity, function, or event, occurring alone or as part of a
business, conducted for the purposes of holding the attention of, gaining the attention of, or
diverting or amusing guests or patrons (e.g., an assembly, eORgregatiOfl, attraction, display,
entertainment, demonstration, carnival, circus, rodeo, or other traveling show, fair, fashioR show,
festival, food fair, cook-off, danee, sporting event, wedding, party, concert or performance, or
any other planned occurrence) that is likely to meet anyone or more of the following criteria:
-5-
(1) Be atieHaea by se:veaty five or more people;
(~1) Obstruct, delay, or interfere with the nonnaI flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or
otherwise fail to comply with traffic laws and controls;
(J ~ Is reasonably expected to threaten the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, or
otherwise require extraordinary security services, as detennined by either the police chief or fire
chief;
(4~ Sell or otherwise provide alcoholic beverages, including by any charitable, civic,
cultural, fraternal, patriotic, political, religious, social, or amateur sports organizations; or
(~~ Has a common or collective use, purpose or benefit that involves the use of, or has an
impact on, other public property or facilities and/or the provision of city public safety services in
response thereto.
en "Special Event Team" means a group of designated representatives from. but not limited
to. the following city departments; police department. fire department. planning department.
building department. water quality control. public works department. code enforcement.
engineering department. and parks and recreation department. who are responsible for evaluating
special event pennit applications ..
C. Revise Section 6.48.020 "Notification of event required" as follows:
6.48.020 Notification of event required.
Except for corporate events and events that are held in a private residence and not open to the
public, every person; finn, partnership, corporation, organization, association, society, club,
individual or group of individuals that intend to host, hold, allow, maintain, organize, conduct,
promote or advertise any event, activity, or function that is reasonably expected to be attended by
at least seventy-five people, regardless of whether the event, activity, or function is a "private
event" or "special event" as defmed.in Section 6.48.010, shall notify the city police department
at least fifteeH: thirty (30) days prior to the event. Notification shall include the location, date(s)
and time(s) of the event, the names and addresses of the persons charged with managing the
event, the type of event, and the anticipated numbers of attendees.
D. Revise Section 6.48.030 "Special event permit and business license required" as
follows:
6.48.030 Special event and private event pennit and business license requiredments.
It is unlawful for any person to provide, maintain, organize, allow, conduct, promote or
advertise any speeial event constituting a special event or private event without first obtaining an
-6-
special event pennit from the police chief . in accordance with the application procedures
outlined in Sections 6.48.050 and 6.48.055. Any facility, establishment, corporation, or
organization that hosts, leases or provides space for any special event or private event must also
obtain or have obtained a valid and current business license from the finance department, in
accordance with this title. Any corporation, organization, or association that organizes,
facilitates, advertises or promotes any special event or private event must also obtain or have
obtained. a valid and current business license from the finance department, in accordance with
this title. Issuance of a business license, as required by this eChapter, shall comply with the
procedures and be subject to the provisions of Division I of this title.
E. Revise Section 6.48.040 "Exemptions from special event permit Itequirement" as
follows:
6.48.040 Exemptions from special event permit requirement,§.
The following types of events shall not be required to obtain a speeial eycnt event permit,§,
provided that, in the sole discretion of the police chief, no extraordinary security services are
required and the event will not otherwise adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare.
1. An event attended by seventy-four or fewer persons.
2. An event held in a private residence where no admission is charged and the event is not
advertised or open to the public.
]. f\n EweRt held ffi a banquet hall or similar facility, atteneed by seventy four or fewer
persoRs, vihorel'lo admission is chargee, ane the event is Rot advertisee or open .to the public.
4 J, An event provided for members and their guests at a private club having an established
membership and which is not advertised to non-members or open to the public. For purposes of
this section, private club means corporations or associations operated solely for objects of
national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political, or athletic nature, membership in which is by
application and for which regular dues are charged, and the advantages of which club belong to
the members, and the operation of which is not primarily for monetary gain.
~~. Religious exercise hosted by a religious entity and held in the religious entity's facility.
e ~. Events held by commercial recreation uses and eating and drinking establishments that
are currently licensed and operating in accordance with a use permit, to regularly provide
specified entertainment activities at fixed locations in the city. This exemption shall not apply to
any party, other than the lawfully permitted commercial recreation or eating and drinking
establishment, that who provides, maintains, organizes, allows, conducts, promotes or advertises
any special &'/ent event to be held on the premises of the lawfully permitted commercial
recreation or eating and drinking establishment.
-7-
1-~. Events, including pn¥ate events not open to the public, held in the restaurant area at full
service restaurants, where the restaurant provides food and beverage services to event attendees
who are served while seated. This exemption shall only apply to dining acti vities, and shall not
apply to other types of activities, including but not limited to dancing and live entertainment,
regardless of whether such other activities are held in the restaurant area. F Qr purposes of this
exemption, the "restaurant area" shall be the physical location within the establishment where, as
part of the regular course of business, the establishment provides food and beverage services to
patrons who order and are served while seated.
&1. Funeral receptions.
9~. Corporate events.
--l-G£. Events conducted by, sponsored by, or held to exclusively benefit any bona fide club or
organization that is exempt from taxation pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Sections 501 (c)(3),
501 (c)(4), or 501 (c)(6), when all proceeds, if any, arising from such speeial e¥eBt event are used
exclusively for the benevolent purposes of such club or organization.
-HlQ. Performances by students at educational institutions, as defined by the Education Code,
where such performances are part of an education or instructional curriculum or program.
Wl1. Book readings, book signings, and similar literary entertainment.
H12.. Events sponsored or organized by any agency of the city, the county of San Mateo, the
various boards of education, or of any other political subdivision of the state of California, acting
within the scope 6ftheir authorized function.
1413.-; Events held in or on a facility, establishment, or area, excluding public rights-of-way,
that the applicant rents, leases, borrows, or otherwise directly contracts for the use of with, the
city, the county of San Mateo, the various boards of education, or of any other political
subdivision of the state of Cali fomi a, provided the speeial eveRt events obtain any and all other
permits and approvals that may be required for the event, including without limitation, permits
required by Chapter 10.36 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
H~ Events held at the South San Francisco Conference Center, provided the organizers of
the speeial event obtain any and all other permits and approvals that may be required for the
event.
M 15-:-Any other event, series of events and/or specific type of event that is exempted at the
discretion of the police chief, based upon evidence that the event or events will not impact police
services and will not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare.
-8-
F. Revise Section 6.48.050 "Application for special event permit" as follows:
6.48.050 Application for special private event pennit.
(a) Private event pennit aApplications shall be filed with the police department of the city of
South San Francisco, not less than fifteen thirty (30) days prior to the opening date of the event,
except that the police chiefmay accept late applications upon:
(1) The showing of good cause by the appHcant;
(2) A detennination that there is sufficient time for the city to process and investigate the
application; and
(3) If applicable, payment of the late application fee.
(b) Complete applications for a special private event pennit shall include the following
information:
(1) The true names and addresses of all persons fiNanoially iNterested organizing or hosting m
the special private event.
(2) If the event is sponsored or promoted by an organization, the name, address, and
telephone number of the organization, and the contact information for a responsible party of
organization. Ifrequested by the.police chief, written authorization to apply for an speoial e'fent
event pennit by an officer of the organization must be submitted with the application.
(3) The nature and purpose of the event.
(4) The exact location and address of the facility, establishment, or area where the applicant
will hold the event, including its boundaries.
(5) Date and estimated start and ending times of the event.
(6) The estimated number of persons attending the event and the maximum number of
persons, if any, to be allowed to attend the event.
(7) The extent and type of advertising and promotion of the event;
(8) E¥idenee of iIlSl:lf8:11oe iR a form aBd amotlftt acoeptable to the city attorney shall be
provided by the applicant, or the facility, estaelishmem, or area ill ... ",moo the 6'feH-t will ocear,
prior to the issuaflce of the pemiit. Should the EWeRt be held OR puelic PfOperty, the city, its
offieers, agents, employees, aRd vohmteers shall be Damed as additioftal insureds aRd the poliey
-9-
sliall indicate that tfte inStil'ance is primary and aHoy inslH'aflee wliieli may ae carried ay the sity
sh.all ae eensidered as eKeess te o
(9[) Evidence of any required approvals or clearance from the State Alcoholic Beverages
Commission.
(I-G2) Any additional information that the police chief determines is needed to make a
determination as to whether the speeial event will require extraordinary security services, or
whether the SfJecial event may otherwise adversely impact the public health, safety, or welfare.
(c) The poliee department may refer any speeial e-fent applioation to tfte eity of Somh San
Pt-anoisco plarming division fur re¥ie'tV, and sliall refer to the planning division, all applieations
fur e>Y'eB.-ts to ae held in a facility, estaalishment, or area other tftan a Iiotel, Fcsta1:lFant, or aanqt:tet
Iiall. Planning division sliaIl re-fie-II any applieation reeeived for complianee witft Title 20 of the
Soutli San Franeiseo Municipal Code, ineluding without limitation issuanee of use permit, minor
use permit, and temporary use permit. .Any sueli reqt:tired permits or approyuls sliall ae issued
aefore a special e-fent permit is issued.
(d) The Police Department may refer any special e-fent application to tfte City of South San
Franciseo auilding division for F&VieVl, and shall refer to the auilding diYision, all applieations
for eYfeB.-ts to ae held in a faeility, estaalishment, or area other than a Iiotel, resta1:lfaHt, or aanEJilet
hall. The auilding division sliall f6"lio>.Y any applieation reoeiyed for eomplianee witft the
Amerieans with DisaBilities Aet and the California Building Code. Any required permits or
approvals shall ae issued aefore a speeial e-,teB.-tpermit is issued.
(0) The poliee department shall refer all speeial e-fent applioations to tlie eity of Sou& San
Franciseo fire department, for review to ensure that the required special event permit complies
'.vith applieaBle Fire Code reqt:tiremeB.-ts. Any sueli reqt:tired permits or approvals shall ae issued
aefore a speeial ellent permit is is!,ued.
(c) Application Fees. Each application for a speoial private event permit shall be
accompanied by payment of, or a receipt showing that applicant has already paid, a
nonrefundable processing fee and, if applicable, any late application fee, as set forth in the
master fee schedule of the city adopted by resolution of the city council.
G. Add Section 6.48.055 "Application for special event permit:
6.48.055 Application for special event permit.
Cal Special event permit applications shall be completed and filed with the police department
of the city of South San Francisco. not less than sixtydavs (60) prior to the opening date of the
event. except that the police chief may accept late applications upon:
-10-
(1) The showing of good cause by the applicant:
(2) A determination that there is sufficient time for the city to process and investigate the
application: and
(3) If applicable. payment of the late application fee.
(b) Complete applications for a special event permits shall include the following information:
(1) The true names and addresses of all persons financially interested in the event.
(2) If the event is sponsored or promoted by an organization. the name. address. and
telephone number of the organization. and the contact information for a responsible party of
organization. If requested by the police chief. written authorization to apply for an event pennit
by an officer of the organization must be submitted with the application.
(3) The nature and pumose of the event.
(4) The exact location and address ofthe facility. establishment. or area where the applicant
will hold the event. including its boundaries.
(5) Date and estimated start and ending times ofthe event.
(6) The estimated number ofpersons attending the event and the maximum number of
persons. if anY. to be allowed to attend the event.
(7) The extent and type of advertising and promotion of the event:
(8) Evidence of insurance in a form and amount acceptable to the city attorney shall be
provided by the applicant. or the facility, establishment; or area in which the event will occur.
prior to the issuance of the permit. Should the event be held on public property. the city. its
officers. agents. employees. and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds and the policy
shall indicate that the insurance is primarv and any insurance which maY be carried by the city
shall be considered as excess to.
(9) Evidence of any required approvals or clearance from the State Alcoholic Beverages
Commission.
C1 0) Depending on the size and/or scope of the special event and at the discretion of the police
chief or his designee. one or more of the following items contained within the special event
application may be required:
(a) site plan I route information.
-11-
(b) security plan.
(cl parking plan.
(d) marketing plan
(e) medical emergency plan.
(f) handicap accessibility plan.
(g) sanitation and recycling plan
(11) Any additional information that the police chief detennines is needed to make a
detennination as to whether the event will require extraordinary security services. or whether the
event may otherwise adversely impact the public health. safety, or welfare.
(12) All special event permit applications will be reviewed by the special event team (defined
in 6.48.10 m to determine the necessary services to be provided by the city and the applicable
fees associated with those services.
ec) Application Fees. Each application for an event pennit shall be accompanied by payment
of. or a receipt showing that applicant has already paid. a nonrefundable processing fee and. if
applicable. any late application fee. as set forth in the master fee schedule of the city adopted by
resolution of the city council.
H. Revise Section 6.48.060 "Conditions on special event permits" as follows:
6.48.060 Conditions on speeial (went ~ permits.
(a) The police chief may impose conditions on the special event~ permit~ relating to the
operation of the special e'len:t pennitted event, and necessary to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare. Conditions may include, but are not limited to:
(1) The days, hours, location, or route of the event;
(2) The area of assembly and disbanding of parade or other event activities occurring along a
route;
(3) Accommodation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, including restricting the event to only a
portion of a street traversed;
(4) Requirements for the use of traffic cones, delineators or barricades;
(5) Requirements for the provision of first aid or sanitary facilities;
(6) Requirements for use of event monitors, and providing notice of permit conditions to
event participants;
-12-
(7) Restrictions on the number and type of vehicles, animals, or structures at the event, and
inspection and approval of floats, structures, and decorated vehicles for safety purposes;
(8) Compliance with animal protection ordinances and laws;
(9) Requirements for use of trash containers, recycling containers, cleanup, and restoration of
the facility, establishment or area;
(10) Requirements for separate entrances, exits, and restroom facilities on the premises, or
other similar res~ctions designed to prevent minors from obtaining alcohol are required;
(11) Restrictions'on use of amplified sound;
(12) Notification to businesses and residences along the affected street(s);
(13) Compliance with any relevant ordinance or law, including obtaining any legally required
pennit or license;
(14) Restrictions on the consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(15) The age of persons allowed to attend the speeial !WeRt event;
(16) Requirements for extraordinary security services at the event, including how many
security guards are required;
(17) Other si~ilar conditions.related to public health, safety and welfare.
I. Revise Section 6.48.070 "Action on applications-Appeal" as follows:
6.48.070 Action on applications-Appeal.
(a) Itt those siWatioHs where a lise pefftlit or other permit is Bot refJ:wes p1:1fS1:laBt to Title 20
of the SOlitft San PmBeiseo M1.-mieipal Cose, t!he police chief shall either grant, conditionally
grant, or deny the application for 3R speeial !Went event permit within fifteen days of receiving a
complete application. The pennit may be denied for any of the following reasons:
(1) The structure or building is by reason of its physical design unsuited to ready police
inspection; or
(2) The applicant has made any false statement in his or her application; or
(3) The granting of a permit to the applicant in the location applied for would be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare; or
-13-
(4) The building or location fails to meet the required or applicable city, county or state
building, zoning or health laws or regulations; or
(5) The specified facility, establishment or area does not meet with the minimum standards,
rules and regulations that have been formally adopted by the State Fire Marshal for the
prevention of fire or for the protection of life and property against fire or panic; or
(6) The facility, establishment or area does not comply.with all fire ordinances and/or fire
codes of the city, county or state; or
(7) The structure or building is by reason of its physical design unsuited to ready fire safety
inspection; or
(8) The applicant has not obtained or complied with the conditions of required planning or
zoning approvals or with other existing planning division conditions; or
(9) The applicant has failed or refuses to comply with any city ordinance, regulation or
condition.
(b) Appeal. The action of the police chief in denying an, speeial event permit shall be subject
to an appeal to the city manager. A written application for such an appeal must be filed with the
city clerk within ten days after the denial of the permit. Upon failure to file such notice within
the ten-day period, the action of the police chief in denying the permit shall be final and
conclusive.
J. Revise Section 6.48.080 "Special event permit possession" as follows:
6.48.080 8peeial e>reBt Event permit possession.
The applicant for which a-an speeial event permit has been approved shall maintain in their
possession during the event~the speeial e¥eat event permit and any conditions, for inspection by
the police and fire departments upon request.
6.48.090 Security officer(s) required.
Every organizer of a permitted speeial event aa:viBg at any aBe time an atteaaaaee of at least
stw-eBty five persoBs shall hire a South San Francisco police officer or private security officers
approved by the city police chief, to be present during the event, unless in the discretion of the
police chief, the hiring of a South San Francisco police officer or private security officer is not
necessary to preserve and protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of those in attendance
and the community. This discretionary waiver will take into consideration the on-site presence of
the permittee's agent(s) during the event, and their ability to control behavior.
-14-
If the nature of the speeial pennitted-event requires hiring of city regular or reserve police
officers, the applicant shall deposit funds with the city's police department to cover projected
security costs prior to issuance of the special event event permit.
K. Revise Section 6.48.100 "Supervision of special event" as follows:
6.48.100 Supervision of special permitted event.
The special Permitted event~ shall always be supervised continuously during event hours by
the permittee or hislher agent, which shall act in permittee's place and for which the permittee is
responsible, or by the person hiring the facility, establishment, or area regardless of the fact that
the person did or did ,not give consideration for the hire of the facility, establishment, or area.
L. Revise Section 6.48.110 "Police and fire inspection" as follows:
6.48.110 Police and fire inspection.
All special pennitted events shall be open to city inspection at all times without advance
notice.
M. Revise Section 6.48.130 "Lighting" as follows:
6.48.130 Lighting.
It is unlawful for any person conducting, maintaining or operating a special pennitted event or
having charge or control thereof, pr for any person employed in and about the same, to hold or
conduct, or to cause or permit to be held or conducted any special permitted event unless such
event is illuminated by electric light.
N. Revise Section 6.48.140 "Number of persons allowed in special event" as follows:
6.48.140 Number of persons allowed in special permitted event.
The maximum number of persons allowed to attend a speeial permitted event shall b e the
lesser of (i) the maximwn number of persons allowed in the specified facility, establishment, or
area prescribed in the standards, rules and regulations that have been formally adopted by the
State Fire Marshal for the protection of life and property against fire or panic, or (ii) the number
prescribed in all city fire codes and ordinances, or (iii) the number prescribed by the special
e¥eftt event permit.
-15-
O. Revise Section 6.48.150 "Public nuisance" as follows:
6.48.150 Public nuisance.
No person shall pennit, cause, create, conduct or allow to be maintained a public nuisance in,
upon, or in association with any SJ3eoial pennitted event. In addition to the definition of
nuisances set forth elsewhere in this code, in~luding but not limited to Section 6.48.180, a
"public nuisance," for the purpose of this chapter, includes boisterous conduct, and loud, unusual
and discordant sounds that cause public annoyance or menace to public comfort, safety or
welfare.
P. Revise Section 6.48.160 "Special even permit suspension and revocation" as follows:
6.48.160 Speoial &"/ea-t Event pennit suspension or revocation.
The police chief shall have the right for cause to revoke or suspend any speoial e'leftt event
permit or approval, and order the event stopped and terminated. Any revocation, suspension, or
termination of the event, shall be based on any of the grounds upon which the police chiefmay
deny an SJ3eeial e'lent event permit, any violation of this chapter, or any violation of the rules and
regulations established by the SJ3eoial &"/ent event permit. Any person whose special e'leHt event
permit has been revoked shall not be eligible to again be issued an special event event pennit for
a period of one year from the date the revocation became final and conclusive. At the discretion
of the police chief, any facility, establishment, or area for which an speoial e'lent event pennit
has been revoked shall not be eligible to host, hold, allow, maintain, organize, conduct, promote
or advertise any special event event that requires a permit under this Chapter for a period of one
year from the date the revocation became final and conclusive.
Q. Revise Section 6.48.170 "Licenses and permits not assignable" as follows:
6.48.170 Licenses and permits not assignable.
No business license or special event pennit issued under the tenns of this chapter shall be
assignable or transferable.
R. Revise Section 6.48.180 "Violation-Penalty for violation" as follows:
6.48.180 Violation-Penalty for violation.
(a) Any violation of this chapter, including but not limited to providing, maintaining,
organizing, allowing, conducting, promoting or advertising any special event that requires a
permit under this Chapter without first obtaining an special e:"/ent event permit, or doing so in a
manner that conflicts or is inconsistent with an speeial e'/ea-t event pennit issued for the event,
including allowing more than the maximum number of persons prescribed by Section 6.48.150 to
-16-
attend the special eYeBt event, is a threat to the public peace, health, safety and welfare, and shall
constitute a public nuisance.
(b) In the event of a violati~n of this chapter, the police chief or any police officer at the scene
shall have the discretion and authority to issue a notification and warning, issue a citation for
violation, require the removal of persons from the facility, establishment, or area where the
special ~/eH:t event is located, prevent persons from entering the facility, establishment, or area
where the special e"/ent event is located, order the event stopped and tenninated, and/or take any
other action deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The
permit applicant and property owner of the facility, establishment, or area at which the special
e¥eBt event is located shall be jointly and severally liable for the actual costs of any and all city
services, including police and fire service, required to enforce and remedy violations of this
eChapter. In addition to all other penalties authorized by this chapter, any person who violates
any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be
punished as provided in Chapter 1.24 of this code.
S. . Revise Section 6.48.190 "Nonwaiver clause" as follows:
6.48.190 Nonwaiver clause.
Nothing in this chapter shall relieve a person to whom ~ special ~/en:t event pennit is issued
from complying with all other city, county, state and federal health, safety, sanitation, licensing
and other law requirements.
T. Revise Section 20.340.002 "Temporary Uses Not Requiring a Temporary Use
Permit" as follows:
20.340.002 Temporary Uses Not Requiring a Temporary Us e Pennit
The following types of temporary uses may be conducted without a temporary use
permit. Other permits, such as building pennits, may be required.
A. Garage Sales. Garage sales of personal property conducted by a resident of the
premises for no more than three consecutive days twice a year.
B. Real Estate Sales. Real estate sales from a manufactured or mobile unit office for the
temporary marketing, sales, or rental of residential, commercial, or industrial
development.
C. Temporary Construction Office Trailers. On-site temporary construction offices
during the period of construction. Screening may be required by the Chief Planner.
-17-
D. Seasonal Sales. The annual sales of holiday related items such as Christmas trees,
pumpkins, and similar items may be permitted in accordance with the following
standards:
1. Time Period. Seasonal sales associated with holidays are allowed up to a month
preceding and one week following the holiday. Christmas tree sales are allowed from
Thanksgiving Day through December 31 st.
2. Goods, Signs and Temporary Structures. All items for sale, as well as signs and
temporary structures, shall be removed within 10 days after the end of sales, and the
appearance of the site shall be returned to its original state.
E. Special Events Exempt. Special Events. as defined and regulated by Chapter 6.48. are
exempt from the requirements of this Chapter.
U. Revise Section 20.340.003 "Temporary Uses Requiring a Temporary Use Permit" as
follows:
20.340.003 Temporary Uses Requiring a Temporary Use Permit
Other temporary uses may be permitted pursuant to Chapter 20.520 ("Temporary Use
Permits"), subject to the following standards. Additional or more stringent requirements may be
established through the Temporary Use Permit process in order to prevent the use from
becoming a nuisance with regard to the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole.
A. Temporary Speeial Commercial Uses and Sales. Other s§hort term temporary
commercial uses. such as business promotions. special e>;eo.ts, outdoor sales, and displays that do
not exceed three consecutive days, may be permitted in accordance with the following standards:
1. Location. &treats B::Fe 1 ,Limited to nonresidential districts.
2. Number 6{Events Frequencv. No more than four wents Temporary Commercial
Uses at one site shall be allowed within any 12-month period.
3. Signs. Ol:ltaaar uses Temporarv Commercial Uses and sales may include the
addition of one nonpermanent sign up to a maximum size of twenty-four square feet in area,
subject to the requirements of Chapter 20,360 ("Signs").
4. Existing Parking. The available parking shall not be reduced to less than 75
percent of the minimum number of spaces required by Chapter 20.330 ("On-Site Parking and
Loading").
5. Reereati6ltal Speeial Events. Shaft term reereatianw eveo.ts shall he part af B:B
trusting Cammereial ReereatiaB: ar Persanw Ser\qee tise laeatec:i an the same site.
-18-
6. ClI1'Ifiwlls, :M.I?ai,.s, lind :M.lle5#wll Ewmts. Carni'falS, fairs, and festival e>fentS are
also suaject to the following standards:
a. LeCtlti8fl. CBrflivals, fairs, and festi'fal t¥fents are limited to areas ',vithin
oommereial or employment districts, or on property o'Nned ay a sehool.
a. Time Limit. '}Jhen loeated adjaeent to a resid6fltial distriet, the flOl:lrS of operation
shall ae limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
7. Temp61'11ry Outdoor Sales. Temporary outdoor sales-including, but not limited
to, grand opening events, and other special sales events-are also subject to the following
standards:
a. Temporary outdoor sales shall be part of an existing business on the same site.
b. Outdoor display and sales areas must be located on a paved or concrete area on
the same lot as the structure(s) containing the business with which the temporary sale is
associated.
c. Location of the displayed merchandise must not disrupt the normal circulation of
the site, nor encroach upon driveways, pedestrian walkways, or required landscaped areas, or
obstruct sight distances or otherwise ((reate hazards for vehicle or pedestrian traffic.
V. Revise Section 20.340.004 "Temporary Uses Requiring a Minor Use Permit" as
follows:
20.340.004 Temporary Uses Requiring a Minor Use Permit
A. Qther-Temporary uses. such as business promotions. speeial e>feHtS, outdoor sales,
and displays that either 1) exceed three consecutive days~ but not more than one month, or 2) do
not exceed three consecutive days but exceed the frequency standards stated in Section
20.340.003(A)(2) of more than four distinct oCcurrences at one site may be allowed with the
approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner so long as they are not intended to 6*tend
longer than one month and they are the temporary use is determined to not impact neighboring
uses or otherwise create significant impacts. Further. Temporary Uses that exceed the frequency
standards stated in Section 20.340.003(A)(2) of more than four distinct occurrences at one site
may be permitted with the approval of a Minor Use Permit. provided that no more than twelve
(2) distinct occurrences take place within a twelve month period.
B. Permitted uses that need to be temporarily relocated due to construction activities
may be allowed with the approval of a Minor Use Pennit by the Chief Planner. Such uses may
utilize a temporary non-residential structure and/or compatibly zoned site for use as office. retail.
-19-
or storage space, subject to appropriate screening, security, trash management. parking, and other
relevant perfonnance standards. as determined by the ChiefPlan.ner.
I. Time Period. Pennitted uses that are temporarily relocated due to construction
may commence no more than two weeks prior to start of related pennitted construction activity
and shall terminate concurrent with issuance of a certificate of occuPancy or within two Years
from initiation, whichever occurs earlier, and the appearance of the site shall be returned to its
original state, unless the Minor Use Permit stipulates differently.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinanc e shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary , and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. Thi s Ordinance shall becom e effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,
held the 14th day of January, 2015.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the __ day of ,2015 by the following vote:
AyES: ___________________________________________________ _
-20-
NOES: __________________________ _
ABSTENTIONS: _______________________ _
ABSENT: ______________________________________________ _
Attest ______________ _
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve th e foregoing
Ordinance this __ day of ,2015.
Mayor
2382941.1
-21-
EXCERPT FROM 12-04-14 PC MINUTES TEMPORARY USE PERMITS
Temporary Use Permits
City of South San Francisco-Owner/Applicant
Citywide
P07-0136: ZA14-0009
Zoning Text Amendment to SSFMC Chapter 20.340 to revise regulations and permitting
for Temporary Uses citywide in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 20.550.
Chairperson Martin opened the public hearing and called for the staff report.
Senior Planner Rozzi presented a brief staff report explaining that staff has identified a
few issues within the Municipal Code that have created overlap between the special
events chapter (SSFMC 6.48) and temporary use permit (SSFMC 20.340). Modifying
the code will streamline review. Additionally, the current regulations have no allowance
for temporary uses lasting longer than 30 days or more than four times per year, and no
allowance for uses temporarily relocated or impacted by on-site construction. The
benefit of this proposal would be to exempt special events as defined and addressed in
Chapter 6.48, allow temporary uses to occur up to 12 times per year with approval of a
Minor Use Permit, and allow use's temporarily relocated due to construction to operate
in a temporary facility and/or location for up to a maximum of two years to promote
economic development.
There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments/questions:
Commission asked staff whether the City is responsible for locating areas for food truck
events, which could benefit from this ordinance change. Senior Planner Rozzi stated
that the City has broad zoning powers for where these types of uses could be
located but typically these types of events are established and administered by
professional event planning groups. Commission expressed concern for parking
impacts related to any food truck event for any location other than Orange
Park. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that the City would want to discuss any type of event
like this with downtown restaurants/merchants or potential stakeholders who could also
have concerns, but parking would certainly be examined as part of any proposal.
Motion-Commissioner OchsenhirtlSecond--Commissioner Giusti: that the
Planning Commission make Findings and adopt a Resolution recommending that the
-30-
City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code related to regulations
and permitting for Temporary Uses. Approved by unanimous roll call vote (7-0)
-31-
RESOLUTION NO. 2755-2014
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING MODIFICATIONS TO
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING CODE RELATED
TO TEMPORARY USES CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco
("City") adopted a comprehensive update to the City's zoning ordinance, which repealed the
then-existing Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and replaced it with an
entirely new Title that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and
refonnatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated
provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and
development standards ("Zoning Ordinance Update"); and,
WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update in July 2010, the City has
identified areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction;
and,
WHEREAS, the City's Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations for Temporary Uses;
and,
WHEREAS, the City's Special Event Permit Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter 6.48) was
revised and updated in 2010, about the same time as the Zoning Ordinance Update (SSFMC Title
20) was completed; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has since identified areas of overlapping authority between
Chapter 20.340 and Chapter 6.48, and has drafted proposed revisions to the City's Zoning
Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance Amendment"), and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment also provides modifications to the
Chapter 20.340 in order to provide added flexibility to accommodate construction period impacts
in an effort to retain existing businesses that may otherwise close for an extended period of time
due to the redevelopment of their current location; and
WHEREAS, consistent with General Plan economic development goals for the City to
attract, retain and promote existing businesses;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment provides performance standards and
regulations to allow temporary uses for extended periods of time if the use has been relocated
due to construction; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Update was adopted after preparation, circulation,
consideration, and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("ISIND") in accordance
-32-
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
("CEQA"), which ISIND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance
Update and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update could not have a significant
effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA
would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Zoning
Amendment, as they relate to the regulations governing temporary uses, are minor in nature, the
adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed
in the ISIND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements,
clarifications, and/or . corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances
that would require additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS, on December 4,2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San
Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the
CEQA finding and the proposed zoning ordinance amendments, take public testimony, and make
a recommendation to the City Council on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Publi c
Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the
South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments; and all reports,
minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed
December 4,2014 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources
Code §21 080( e) and §21 082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco
hereby finds as follows:
SECTION I FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. Exhibit A attached to this Resolution, is incorporated by reference and made a
part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Zoning Amendment Findings
1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan
because they strengthen and promote economic development objectives related to business
-33-
attraction, retention and expansion. The proposed text amendments will remain consistent with
the City's General Plan vision for community and economic development and will not impede
achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General
Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendments would generally be suitable in terms of access,
size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by
the Planning Commission and City Council because appropriate perfonnance standards for
temporary uses have been included and would be applied to projects on a case-by-case basis to
minimize impacts to the adjacent properties and occupants, and parking and traffic circulation.
3. The proposed zoning amendments would not be detrimental to the use of land in
any adjacent zone because any new temporary use would be limited in duration to no longer than
two years and would need to meet all appropriate development standards to minimize impacts to
the adjacent properties and occupants, and parking and traffic circulation.
SECTION II RECOMMENDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and
recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Code, as attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
BE IT FUR THER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 4th day of December, 2014 by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner
Khalfin, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Zemke
NOES: ______________________________________ ___
ABSTENTIONS: ____________________________________________ ___
ABSENT: __________________________________________________ __
Attest: Is/Susy Kalkin
SusyKalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
-34-