Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 136-1999 RF_~OLUTION NO. 136-99 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GP-99-61 WI-~JREAS, on September 15, 1999, September 22, 1999, and October 13, 1999, the City Council held duly noticed study session and public hearing to consider the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, In accordance with Section 65351 of the California Government Code, over a two-year period, the City has facilitated public participation in the preparation of the General Plan Update by conducting City COuncil and Planning Commission Public hearings, study sessions, workshops, and joint City Council/Planning Commission study sessions; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has provided the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the public with background information, including Land Use and Circulation diagrams, Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report, Alternative Sketch Plans Report, the Draft South San Francisco General Plan, the South San Francisco General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and other Policy Documents; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared and implemented a public participation program that informed the public of the on-going general plan update, obtained public input regarding major issues, community objectives, and plan policies, provided the public with opportunities to evaluate alternative plans and to participate in choosing the preferred alternative, informed decision makers of public opinions, and worked towards community consensus; and WHEREAS, Section 65300, et seq. of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) require every city to adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical development of the City which bears a reasonable relationship to the planning and development of the city; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco, has updated its General Plan in accordance with the State Office Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update consists of the mandatory and optional elements each containing goals and policies. The elements in the General Plan Update are Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, Parks, Recreation and Services, Economic Development, Open Space and Conservation, Health and Safety, and Noise; and WHEREAS, the Noise Element is consistent with the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control in'the California Department of Health Services; and WHEREAS, Section 65302(g) et seq. of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires a city a adopt a Safety Element to protect the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of a seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure, slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards identified in Chapter 7.8 of the Public Resources Code. WHEREAS, the Safety Element was submitted to the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology review of the General iPlan policies and the South San Francisco Draft EIR. The Division of Mines commented to the City in a letter dated August 20, 1999. The City considered the Division's findings and responded to the Division's findings in the Final EIR, distributed on September 30, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element Update will be prepared in approximately May 2000 following adoption of the Regional Housing Needs Distribution by the Executive Board of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, on April 29, July 1, 1999, August 12, 1999, September 2, 1999, and September 16, 1999, the Planning Commission held duly noticed study sessions and public hearings to consider the Draft General Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the General Plan Update to the City Council; and wHEREAS, on September 22, 1999 and October 13, 1999, the City Council held duly noticed public heatings on the General Plan update as recommended by the Planning Commission. NOW, THE~ORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the South San Francisco City Council does hereby find that: The General Plan and elements, including the Exhibit A (Draft South San Francisco General Plan) as modified by Exhibit B dated October 13, 1999 attached hereto comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the CiW of South San Francisco. BE IT FURTIql!.R RESOLVED that the South San Francisco City Council hereby adopts to the General Plan Update, GP-99-061, as set forth in Exhibit A as modified by Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a Regular meeting held on the 13thday of October, 1999 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Joseph A. Fernekes, Eugene R. Mullin and John R. Penna, Mayor Pro Tem Karyl Matsumoto, and Mayor James L. Datzman NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: City Clerk~/''~ $:\WPDLM NRSVtR40~ 1LRF.~O~ 19~AOctobc6~pre, s o.wpd ST,%T~ OF CALIFORNIA ~ COUNTY OF SAN MATLrO I, Sylvia M. P~y,e. City C~ of th~ ci~y ~ ~)uth Sen ciao. C~ ~ ~n M~. ~ate of ~l/~;a, an'ex.u~cio Ct~ ~ CiW C~nclt thief, do ;~ cen~ I~t I~ a~ve ~d ~- ~J~ Js a ~ufl, cue ~ corr~ ¢~y of ~ original tH which is ~ file h~ ~ ~ice, a~ ~ I h~ c~ul!y Sn~ M. PAYNE City Cfe~k an~ Ex-officio CI~ of ~ City {ou~ll ~ $ ~ ~puW O~ O~ EXHIBIT "A" SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Second Printing July 1999 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO City Council James L. Datzman, Mayor Karyl Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Eugene R. Mullin Joseph A. Fernekes John R. Penna Planning Commission Judith Honan, Chairperson Eugene Sim, Vice Chairperson Marc C. Teglia Julie Baldocchi William Romero Michael Meloni Joseph D'^ngelo City Staff Michael Wilson, City Manager Marty Van Duyn, Director of Economic and Community Development Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner Michael Lappen, Consulting Planner Jim Harnish, former Chief Planner (until June 1999) Let's Hear FromYou! City of South San Francisco Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 phone (650) 877-8535 fax (650) 829-6639 Prepared b? DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners With technical assistance from Sedway Group/Naomi Porat, Real Estate and Urban Economists Environmental Science Associates, Environmental Consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff, Transportation Planners and Engineers Fehr & Peers, Inc., Transportation Planners Charles M. Salter Associates, Noise Consultants JUNE 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview ................................. 1-1 1.1 Scope and Purpose of the General Plan ....................... 1-1 1.2 Evolution of South San Francisco ............................ 1-3 1.3 General Plan Challenges and Themes ....................... 1-12 1.4 General Plan Requirements ............................... 1-16 1.5 Plan Organization ....................................... 1-18 1.6 Related Studies .......................................... 1-21 1.7 Planning Boundaries ..................................... 1-22 Chapter 2: Land Use ............................................... 2-1 2.1 Constancy and Change .................................... 2-2 2.2 Land Use Framework ...................................... 2-5 2.3 Planning Sub-Areas ...................................... 2-21 2.4 General Plan Buildout ..................................... 2-23 2.5 Detailed Plans and Coordination with Other Jurisdictions ...... 2-29 2.6 Land Use Policies ......................................... 2-32 Chapter 3: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Planning Sub-Areas ........................................ 3-1 Downtown ............................................... 3-3 Lindenville .............................................. 3-11 South. Spruce Corridor/San Bruno BART Station Area .......... 3-18 E1 Camino Real .......................................... 3-24 East of 101 .............................................. 3-36 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 Avalon .................................................. 3-47 Orange Park ............................................. 3-50 Paradise Valley/Terrabay ................................... 3-51 Sign Hill ................................................ 3-57 Sunshine Gardens ........................................ 3-60 Westborough ............................................ 3-61 Winston-Serra ............................... ............ 3-67 Chapter 4: Transportation ........................................... 4-1 4.1 Travel Characteristics and Regional Framework ................ 4-3 4.2 Street Network, Classification, and Operations ................. 4-6 4.3 Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking ............... 4-21 4.4 Transit and Public Transportation ........................... 4-31 Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities, and Services .......................... 5-1 5.1 Parks, Recreation and Open Space ........................... 5-2 5.2 Educational Facilities ..................................... 5-17 5.3 Public Facilities and Services ............................... 5-21 Chapter 6: Economic Development .................................... 6-1 6.1 Economic Development and the City's Role ................... 6-2 6.2 Land Use Balance: Need and General Plan Provision ........... 6-5 6.3 Economic Development Strategy ............................ 6-7 Chapter 7: 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Open Space and Conservation .............................. 7-1 Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation ................ 7-2 Water Quality ............................................ 7-10 Air Quality .............................................. 7-13 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................ 7-19 Chapter 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8: Health and Safety ......................................... 8-1 Geologic and Seismic Hazards ............................... 8-2 Flooding ................................................ 8-10 Waste Management and Recycling .......................... 8-14 Fire Hazards ............................................ 8-20 Law Enforcement ........................................ 8-24 Emergency Management .................................. 8-28 Chapter 9: Noise .................................................... 9-1 9.! Noise Measurement and Reporting .......................... 9-2 9.2 Noise Sources and Projections ............................... 9-3 9.3 Noise Projections .......................................... 9-8 Glossary of Terms .................................................... i LIST OF TABLES 1. I-1 Correspondence Between Required General Plan Elements and Chapters in the South San Francisco General Plan ........ 1-19 · 2.2-1 2.2-2 2.4-1 2.4-1 2.4-1 2.4-2 2.4-3 2.4-4 Standards for Density and Development Intensity ............. 2-8 Standards for Density and Development Intensity ............ 2-13 Land Use Changes and Intensification; Approved Development. 2-24 Land Use Changes and Intensification; Additional Development Under the General Plan .................................. 2-25 Land Use Changes and Intensification; Combined Approved and Additional Development Under the General Plan ............. 2-26 Buildout Population ...................................... 2-27 Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout 2-27 Jobs/Housing Balance .................................... 2-27 3.1-1 3.1-2 3.2-1 3.4-1 3.5-1 3.5-2 3.7-1 3.8-1 Downtown: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan ..................................... 3-5 Permitted Intensities/Densities and Uses in Downtown ......... 3-8 Lindenville: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan .................................... 3-13 El Camino Real: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan .................................... 3-27 East of 101: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan .................................... 3-39 East of 101: Existing and Projected Building Area and Employment ............................................ 3-38 Orange Park: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan .................................... 3-53 Paradise Valley/Terrabay: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan ........................ 3-55 3.9-1 3.10-1 3.11-1 3.12-1 Sign Hill: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan ................................... 3-59 Sunshine Gardens: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan ................................... 3-63 Westborough: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan .................................... 3-65 Winston-Serra: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan ................................... 3-69 4.1-1 4.1-2 4.2-1 4.2-2 4.3-1 Modal Shares of South San Francisco Residents and Employees and North San Mateo County Employees .......... 4-3 South San Francisco Residents and Workers .......... : ....... 4-4 Traffic Level of Service Definitions ..........................4-9 Roadway Segment Analysis ............................ 4-10-12 Bikeway Classifications ................................... 4-22 5.1-1 5.1-2 5.1-3 5.1-4 5.2-1 5.2-2 5.3-1 5.3-2 5.3-3 5.3 -4 Existing Parks and Open Spaces ............................ 5-5 Park Standards ........................................... 5-9 New Park Need ......................................... 5-11 Proposed Parks ......................................... 5-12 Current School Enrollment and Capacity ................... 5-18 Current and Projected School Enrollment at Buildout ........ 5-19 Historical Water Use in South San Francisco (MGD) ......... 5-21 Water Users by Type and Consumption ..................... 5-21 Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow ........................... 5-24 Average Wastewater Flows, 1998-Buildout .................... 5-25 6. l-I 6.2-1 7.1-1 8.4-1 9.2-1 9.2-21 Fiscal Impact of Various Land Uses, Per Acre .................. 6-3 Land Use Need by Use and General Plan Provision ............. 6-6 Non-Native Invasive Plant Species that Should be Evaluated in Assessments of Biological Resources .............. 7-8 Summary of Fire Hazard Reduction Recommendations ........ 8-22 Land Use Criteria for Noise-lmpacted Areas .................. 9-6 Aircraft Noise Projections, 1990-2006 ........................ 9-8 6 LIST 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 !-5 OF FIGURES Regional Location ......................................... 1-4 Planning Area ............................................ 1-5 Evolution of South San Francisco's Form .................... 1-7 Elevation ................................................ 1-8 Digital Terrain Model ..................................... 1-9 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-6 2-7 Land Use Diagram ........................................ 2-7 Airport Related Height Limitations ......................... 2-10 Special Area Height Limitations ............................ 2-11 Viewshed ................................................ 2-12 Planning Sub-Areas ...................................... 2-22 Specific and Area Plans and Redevelopment Areas ............ 2-30 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3~o 3-11 3-12 Downtown .............................................. 3-4 Lindenville ............................................. 3-12 South Spruce Corridor/San Bruno BART Station Area ........ 3-20 El Camino Real ......................................... 3-26 East of 101 .............................................. 3-38 Avalon ................................................. 3-48 Orange Park ............................................ 3-52 Paradise Valle¥/Terrabay ................................ 3-54 Sign Hill ................................................ 3-58 Sunshine Gardens ....................................... 3-62 Westborough ........................................... 3-64 Winston Serra .......................... , ................ 3-68 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 Street Classifications ...................................... 4-7 Maior Street Improvements ............................... 4-15 Bicycle Facilities ......................................... 4-23 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements ........... 4-33 Caltrain/Multimodal Station Preferred Concept .............. 4-34 Airport Light Rail System ................................. 4-35 5-1 Schools, Parks and Open Spaces ............................ 5-3 7-1 7-2 7-3 General Plan Policies for Sensitive Biological Resources ........ 7-5 Special Environmental Study Required for Development Proposals ................................................ 7-7 Designated Historic Resources .............................. 7-21 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 Slope .................................................... 8-3 General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands ........... 8-9 General Plan Policies for Flood Protection ................... 8-13 Fire Hazard Management Units ........................... 8-21 9-1 9-2 9-3 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area ............. 9-5 Projected Road and Rail Noise .............................. 9-9 Potential lnfill Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours .... 9-14 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW I.I SCOPEAND PURPOSE OFTHE GENERAL PLAN The South San Francisco General Plan is a document adopted by the City Council that serves several purposes. It: Outlines a vision for South San FrancisCo's long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community; · Provides strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished; · Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans. The General Plan articulates a vision for the City, but it is not merely a compendi- um of ideas and wish lists. Plan policies focus on what is concrete and achievable and set forth actions to be undertaken by the City- broad objectives such as "qual- ity of life" and "community character" are meaningful only if translated into actions that are tangible and can be implemented. Because of legal requirements that a variety of City actions be consistent with the General Plan, regular on-going I-I DI~FT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The South San Francisco Urban Design Charette brought together a number of design professionals and community leaders who spent a day addressing specific urban design issues and community concerns in the Downtown. use of the Plan is essential. The Plan is both general and long-range; there will be circumstances and instances when detailed studies are necessary before Plan poli- cies can be implemented. The updated South San Francisco General Plan has been a result a community effort. Its major policy directions has been defined through dose involvement of the City Council, the Planning Commission, other boards and commissions, resi- dents, and the business community, in all phases of the General Plan process. REGIONAL LOCATION South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the Bay plain and the north- ern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically located along major trans- portation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the San Francisco International Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive landmark. The regional location of the City is shown in Figure 1-1. PLANNING BOUNDARIES State law requires that each city adopt a general plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which ... bears relation to its planning:' The Planning Area for the General Plan includes all land within City limits, and unincorporated "islands" surrounded by the city. Inclusion of unincorporated land in the Planning Area does not mean that the City is contem- plating annexation; these sites are included in the report for analysis purposes only. Figure 1-2 shows the General Plan Planning Area. San Francisco Bay to the east and San Bruno Mountain to the north provide strong natural boundaries. The cities of Brisbane, Daly City, Colma, Pacifica, and San Bruno adjoin South San Francisco. I-2 h INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEVV 1.2 EVOLUTION OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The modern history of South San Francisco began in 1827, when the 15,000-acre Rancho Buri Buri was given to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant. 1 In 1856, Charles Lux purchased 1,500 acres of the Rancho and founded the town of Baden, named for Lux's native region in Germany. At that time, the Baden area was used for cattle grazing and dairy operations. The meat industry played an important role in South San Francisco's evolution. The Gustavus Swift meat packing plant, established on Point San Bruno in 1888, was the City's first industrial development. Swift organized a "beef trust" with other Midwestern meat packing companies to join in building a community of stock- yards and packing plants on Point San Bruno, and organized for the development of an industrial town. In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company purchased 3,400 acres on the former site of the Rancho Buri Buri for development of the town. The arrangement of residential and industrial uses intentionally took advan- tage of stable ground and Bay access at Point San Bruno, as well the prevailing winds from San Bruno Gap that blew offensive odors away from residential areas and over the Bay. COMMUNITY GROWTH Industry and community growth have been dosely intertwined throughout South San Francisco's history. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad line between San Francisco and San Jose in 1904-1907 expanded opportunities for goods shipping from South San Francisco, and steel mills began to take advantage of the city's abundant land with excellent transportation access. A major lack of housing and services and a battle over a copper smelter precipitated incorporation, allowing South San Francisco to control its industrial future and provide the ser- vices needed to attract resident workers. When the City incorporated on September 19, 1908, it had 1,989 residents and 14 major industries. I Information on South San Francisco's history is primarily drawn from Kaufman, Linda, South San Francisco: A History (1976) and Joseph A. Blum, ~South City: The Town That Could" San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, September 4, 1983. I-3 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN MILES I-4 MARIN SAN M AT'E.O. i', CONTRA COSTA ALA~ DA Figure I-I Regional Location h INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Pacifica Source: D~tt & Bhatia .Colma \ san Bruno I/4 I/2 Figure I-5 Planning Area I-5 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Grand Avenue- 1906 (above) and 1997 (below). While the street no longer has railroad tracks, its scale has changed remarkably little over the last 90 years. Industries continued to locate and grow in South San Francisco in the 1920s and 1930s. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some of the city's major establishments whose products helped build California's mod- ern transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1950s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more attractive as a shipping terminal, and the city became the central distribution point for the entire Peninsula. Downtown and Civic Development Grand Avenue has always been the spine of the city's commercial core, extending west from the industrial areas, and had almost reached E1 Camino Real by the time incorporation occurred. With Sign Hill to the north and marshlands to the south limiting expansion, the oldest part of the city was developed with a strong east- west orientation, reinforced by a directional grid pattern of 950 by 500 foot blocks. The rail spur along Railroad Avenue formed the City's southern boundary. The city's growth over time, from just before incorporation in 1908 until the present, is shown in Figure 1-3. In the years following incorporation, South San Francisco's civic improvements kept pace with its growing industry. The City Hall was opened in 1920 and the 20- acre Orange Memorial Park was developed in 1925. I-6 h INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1908 A single-use pattern was established early, with industries to the east and homes and businesses to the west. The east-west grid reflects the limits imposed by San Bruno Mountain/Sign Hill to the north and marshlands to the south. 1928 Industrial expansion occured on Pt. San Bruno as the steel industry located in South San Francisco. The city' grid evolved to conform to topography and pre- existing roadway. Marshland continued to limit southern expansion. =============================================================== 1960 1997 Industrial growth during and after the Second World War helped fuel Infill development continued along the Bayshore Freeway and El Camino Real. unprecedented expansion. Fill and drainage projects opened many areas for Interstate 280 opened up the Westborough area for development. Bay fill continued development. Junipero Serra Boulevard formed the City's western boundary, at the airport, Oyster Point and Sierra Point. Remaining unincorporated "pockets" are the only opportunities for future expansion. ~ Urbanized Land Source: South San Francisco Public Library Local History Collection; Dyer & Bhafia Evolution of South San Francisco's Form I-7 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN colma 25-100 ~,.,.,.,za,,,, jjjjj~ 400-,500 ~J~JJ 500-600 Source Dvet~ & Bhada: Environmental Science Associat~ I-8 Francisco Figure 1.4 Elevation I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Figure I-5 Digi~l Terrain PIodel I-9 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Looking west from Point San Bruno Knoll. The industrial and business parks in South San Francisco are concentrated in the eastern portion of the city, with residential uses in the western and downtown areas. Sign Hill and high rises on land forraerly d~ot~d to industrial us~s can be seen to the right. ResidentJal Development and Hillside Growth Constrained by marshlands to the south, residential development began to extend north around and along the slopes of Sign Hill as the city grew, requiring the introduction of a curvilinear street form. Industries expanded to the south and west, taking advantage of the SPRR and spurs along Railroad Avenue and other streets west of the rail right-of-way. The city's elevation ranges from sub-zero in East of 101 to nearly 600 feet in the Westbomugh subarea, as shown in Figure 1-4. A digital terrain model of the city is shown in Figure 1-5. The growth of South San Francisco's steel and, later, shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War II helped spur residential growth. Between 1940 and 1960, South San Francisco's population increased more than six-fold from 6,290 to 39,418.2 Over 46 percent of South San Francisco's existing housing units were constructed between 1940 and 1959.3 Government-built housing for military personnel and shipyard workers was devel- oped during the war on the former marshland between Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. The area is still known as Lindenville after the largest government development. Demolition of the housing in the late 1950s paved the way for redevelopment of the area with warehouses, light industry, and single-family housing in the Mayfair Village subdivision. 2 City of South San Francisco, Land Use, Transportation and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, 1986. 3 1990 U.S. Census. 1-10 I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEVV POST-WAR TRANSFORMATION By the end of the 1950s, South San Francisco had essentially reached its present level of urbanization between U.S. 101 and Junipero Serra Boulevard. Many of the residential subdivisions west of Sign Hill and E1 Camino Real were complete. Except at the city's northwestern corner, Junipero Serra Boulevard formed the city's west~ ern edge, and Hillside Boulevard/Randolph Avenue was the northern boundary. During this decade, the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attract- ing light industry to the city for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the newly-developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and performance provi- sions, and featured a 0.5 FAR, ample parking, and consistent landscaping and building design. The park heralded South San Francisco's industrial future. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, devel- opment, and biotechnology. Because the city's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's future. With some important exceptions, land use in South San Francisco since the 1960s has stemmed from internal change rather than outright expansion. Infill develop- ment occurred along E1 Camino, Chestnut Avenue, and U.S. 101. Major expansion did occur in the Westborough area and East of 101, enabled respectively by the con- struction of Interstate 280 and landfill at Oyster and Sierra Points. The city has recently entered its last phase of expansion with multi-use development at Terrabay on the south slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Future opportunities for growth other than redevelopment are limited to remaining unincorporated islands. I-II DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 1.3 GENERAL PLAN CHALLENGES AND THEI"IES Protection of established neighborhoods from the impacts of changes occurring in other areas of the city is a General Plan theme. Genentech, the world's largest biotechnology firm, is head- quartered in East of 101 along the ba?shoreo attracting additional high-technology firms to the area. LOOKING AHEAD:THE CHALLENGES Many significant changes in and around South San Francisco are anticipated in the coming years, representing both challenges and opportunities. These indude a major expansion of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) with doubling of passenger traffic over the next ten years and extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to SFIA with stations in South San Francisco, and in San Bruno directly adjacent to the City. With demand for land exceeding availability, establishment of priorities will be essential to achieving community development objectives. GENERAL PLAN THEIqES The unique challenges and opportunities the City faces are reflected in General Plan's nine themes, which provide the basis for detailed policies induded in the Plan elements: Neighborhood-oriented Development. The General Plan envisions South San Francisco as a community of strong neighborhoods. While the City's com- mercial and industrial areas continue to evolve, the Plan seeks to ensure that the City's established neighborhoods, which encompass almost 75 percent of the area west of U.S. 101, are protected from the impacts of changes else where. A guiding premise of the Plan is that activities and facilities used on a frequent basis, such as stores and parks, should be easily accessible to residents. Land uses are designated to ensure balanced neighborhood development with a mix of uses, and provision of parks, stores, and offices in neighborhoods that presently lack them. The Plan seeks to ensure that infill development in the residential areas will be of appropriate scale and character, and restricts larger outlets to appropriate sites in community and regional centers. 1-12 I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Economic Development and Diversification. The evolution of the South San Francisco's economy, from manufacturing to warehousing and distribution and now high-technology and biotechnology, is a unique opportunity for the City to strengthen its economic base. Continued economic development is vital to accomplishing many of the General Plan's objectives as well; its impor- tance is underscored by the inclusion of an Economic Development Element in the General Plan. The element articulates the City's role in economic devel- opment and outlines policies to implement these strategies. In addition to ensuring that adequate sites are available for commercial and industrial devel- opment, strategies are designed to build on existing clusters of high-technolo- gy and service industries and capitalize on SFIA expansion and BART exten- sion. The Plan also promotes a new work/live district. In addition, targeted policies for specific areas are included in Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas. Increased Connectivity and Accessibility. Freeways, railroads, and major arteri- als sever the city into four major fragments - west of Junipero Serra (Westborough), between Junipero Serra and El Camino Real, between E1 Camino Real and U.S. 101, and the area east of U.S. 101. Connections between these different city segments are extremely limited, and the connecting road- way segments are major points of congestion. Integration of the different parts of the city is a theme that is reflected in several Plan policies. Roadway improvements and new streets are also proposed to link different neighbor- hoods. In addition, Plan proposals seek to improve residents' access to every- day commercial needs, and to parks and the shoreline. Redevelopment of Older Industrial Areas. The city's continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to SFIA, but echoing its role as the central distribution point for the Peninsula in the 1920s and 1930s, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land, formerly used for heavy industry, east of U.S. 101. In contrast, Lindenville, which lies south of down- town, emerged through piecemeal transition from residential to industrial use late in the city's history. As high-technology businesses have moved into many of these older industri- al areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of busi- Industrial site near the San Bruno BART Station. The General Plan proposes redevelopment of the area near the station as a high-intensity, mixed-use center. 1-13 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Downtown South San Frargisco. The General Plan seeks to reinforce Downtown' s identity and role as the city's center. ness centers--smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facil- ities such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways, and higher landscape standards--are much different from those of warehous- ing and industrial areas. The General Plan outlines a cohesive strategy that protects selected industrial areas, and policies to guide transformation of oth- ers. Land Use/Transportation Correlation and Promotion of Transit. Land uses, mixes, and development intensities in the General Plan have been designed to capitalize on major regional transit improvements underway, and to promote alternative forms of transit. High-intensity, mixed-use districts are proposed near BART stations, and land use incentives are offered for the provision of specific transit-oriented amenities. Improved connections between residential and employment centers and transit hubs are also included. Reinforcement of Downtown as the City's Center. The General Plan seeks to reinforce Downtown's identity and role as the physical and symbolic center of the city. Plan strategies include increased residential development to increase downtown's population base, better connections with Lindenville and other surrounding neighborhoods, and ensuring that commercial uses outside downtown--including in the new "power center" and in designated centers efist of U.S. 101--do not compete with Downtown. Enhancement of Community Character. The General Plan includes spedfic urban design policies are included for areas, such as Lindenville and East of 101, that are undergoing change. In addition, strategies are offered for provid- ing a cohesive image and identity for key corridors, such as E1 Camino Real. Coordinated Shoreline Development and Increased Accessibility. South San Francisco's four-mile long shoreline along the San Francisco Bay is a tremen- dous resource. The General Plan seeks to increase shoreline accessibility through a multi-pronged strategy that includes physical improvements and location of activitiesmsuch as new parks, Town Square/Campus Center, and a public marketplace--near the water. 1-14 I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Performance-based Standards for Services to Ensure Sustainability. Standards for capital facilities and public services, such as streets, parks, storm drainage, and fire-safety, are established to ensure that growth does not exceed carrying capacity. To maintain the quality of public services for residents, development would be required to meet specific standards established by the Plan. In addi- tion, the Annual Report on the General Plan will indude progress made towards implementing the General Plan policies. Colma Creek east of I01. Protection and enhancement of the city's natural resources is a General Plan theme. 1-15 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 1-16 1.4 GENERAL PLAN REQUIREPIENTS State law requires each California city and county to prepare a general plan. A gen- eral plan is defined as "a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." State requirements call for general plans that "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and com- patible statement of policies for the adopting agency." A city's general plan has been described as its constitution for development - the framework within which decisions on how to grow, provide public services and facilities, and protect and enhance the environment must be made. California's tra- dition of allowing local authority over land use decisions means that the state's cities have considerable flexibility in preparing their general plans. While they allow considerable flexibility, State planning laws do establish some requirements for the issues that general plans must address. The California Government Code establishes both the content of general plans and rules for their adoption and subsequent amendment. Together, State law and judicial decisions establish three overall guidelines for general plans. The General Plan Must Be Comprehensive. This requirement has two aspects. First, the general plan must be geographically comprehensive. That is, it must apply throughout the entire incorporated area and it should include other areas that the City determines are relevant to its planning. Second, the general plan must address the full range of issues that affects the city's physical devel- opment. The General Plan Must Be Internally Consistent. This requirement means that the General Plan must fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to each other without conflict. "Horizontal" consistency applies as much to figures and diagrams as to the general plan text. It also applies to data and analysis as well as policies. All adopted portions of the general plan, whether required by State law or not, have equal legal weight. None may supersede another, so the gen- eral plan must resolve conflicts among the provisions of each element. I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The General Plan Must Be Long-range. Because anticipated development will affect the city and the people who live or work there for years to come, State law requires every general plan to take a long-term perspective. 1-17 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 1-18 I.S PLAN ORGANIZATION GENERAL PLAN STRUCTURE The South San Francisco General Plan is organized into nine chapters: 1. Introduction and Overview. This includes General Plan themes, requirements for Plan monitoring, review, and amendments. Land Use. This chapter provides the physical framework for development in the Planning Area. It establishes policies related to location and intensity of development, and citywide land use policies. 3. Planning Sub-Areas. This chapter includes detailed policies for each one of the 14 sub-areas that the Planning Area is divided into. Transportation. This Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and circulation. It identifies future improvements and addresses alternative transportation systems and parking. Parks, Public Facilities, and Services. The chapter outlines the policies and stan- dards relating to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facili- ties. Economic Development. Although not required by State law, this Element out- lines the City's economic development objectives and serves to ensure that eco- nomic decision-making is integrated with other aspects of the city's develop- ment. Open Space and Conservation. This chapter outlines policies relating to habitat and biological resources, water quality, air quality, and historic and cultural resources conservation. 8. Health and Safety. This chapter addresses the risks posed by geologic and seis- mic hazards, flooding, hazardous materials and waste, and fire. I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 9. Noise. This required Element promotes a comprehensive, long-range program of achieving acceptable noise levels throughout the city. Arrangement of Required General Plan Elements The General Plan includes six of the seven elements required by State law (Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Noise and Safety) and other elements that address local concerns and regional requirements. The Housing Element is a separately published volume. The State-required mandatory elements are included in the General Plan, as outlined in Table 1-1. ORGANIZATION OF THE ELEMENTS; POLICY STRUCTURE Each chapter or element of the General Plan includes brief background informa- tion to establish the context for policies in the Element. This background material is neither a comprehensive statement of existing conditions nor does it contain any adopted information. Readers interested in a comprehensive understanding of issues related to a particular topic should refer to South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues (September 1997). This background information is followed by two sets of policies: · Guiding policies are the City's statements of its goals and philosophy. · Implementing policies represent commitments to specific actions. They may refer to existing programs or call for establishment of new ones. Together, the guiding and implementing policies articulate a vision for South San Francisco that the General Plan seeks to achieve. They also provide protection for the city's resources by establishing planning requirements, programs, standards, and criteria for project review. Explanatory material accompanies some Policies. This explanatory material pro- vides background information or is intended to guide Plan implementation. The use of "should" or "would" indicates that a statement is advisory, not binding; details will need to be resolved in Plan implementation. Where the same topic is addressed in more than one chapter, sections and policies are cross-referred, typi- Table I. I - I Correspondence Between Required General Plan Elements and Chapters in the South San Francisco General Plan Required Element Where Included in the Genera/Plan Land Use Circulation Conservation Open Space Safety Noise Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 4:Transportation Chapter 7: Open Space and Environmental Conservation Chapter 7: Open Space and Environmental Conservation Chapter 8: Health and Safety Chapter 9: Noise 1-19 DP.AFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PI_AN cally in italics for easy reference. Policy Numbering System Policies in the General Plan are organized using a two-part numbering system. The first part refers to the section and the second the order in which the policy appears in the chapter, with a letter designation to distinguish guiding policies from imple- menting policies. For example, the first guiding policy in Section 3.2 is numbered 3.2-G. 1 and the first implementing policy is 3.2-LI. In Chapter 2: Land Use, Chapter 6: Economic Development, and Chapter 9: Noise, the policies are all num- bered with the chapter number. Thus, each policy in the Plan has a discrete num- ber. 1-20 I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1.6 RELATED STUDIES As part of the General Plan preparation, several technical studies were conducted to document environmental conditions, and analyze prospects for economic devel- opment, community character and growth, and development alternatives. Studies prepared include: · Existing Conditions and Planning Issues; September 1997; · Fiscal Evaluation of Land Uses; January 1998; · Sketch Plans; February 1998; · Draft Environmental Impact Report; June 1999 · Final Environmental Impact Report; [to be prepared after completion of the public hearing period]. While these background studies and environmental documents have guided Plan preparation, they do not represent adopted City policy. 1-21 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 1.7 THE PLANNING PROCESS The City's planning process indudes monitoring and updating the General Plan and preparing specific plans, resource management plans, and neighborhood and special plans. An Annual General Plan Report will provide an overview of the sta- tus of the General Plan and its implementation programs. AI~IENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN As the City's constitution for development, the General Plan is the heart of the planning process. It is intended to be a living document and, as such, will be sub- ject to more site-specific and comprehensive amendments over time. Amendments also may be needed from time to time to conform to State or federal law passed since adoption, and to eliminate or modify policies that may become obsolete or unrealistic due to changed conditions (such as completion of a task or project, development on a site, or adoption of an ordinance or plan). State law limits the number of times a city can amend its general plan. Generally, no jurisdiction can amend any mandatory element of its general plan more than four times in one year, although each amendment may include more than one change to the general plan. This restriction, however, does not apply to amend- ments to: · Optional elements (such as the Planning Sub-Areas or Economic Development chapters of the South San Francisco General Plan); · Allow development of affordable housing; · Comply with a court decision; or · Comply with an applicable airport land use plan. 1-22 I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Process for Genera/Plan Amendments City-initiated Amendments The number of City initiated amendments will be limited to four in any one year, as per State law, although more than one change to the General Plan may be made as part of the amendment. The City may initiate amendments more frequently if so needed in the public interest or to comply with a new law or a court-ordered change. At the end of every quarter, City staff shall forward to the Planning Commission a list of proposed changes, if any, to the General Plan. As part of this, City staff shall report on how/whether the proposed changes further one or more of the nine General Plan themes outlined in this chapter. The Planning Commission shall review these findings and forward its recommendations to the City Council for action. Non-City Initiated Amendments Amendments to the General Plan requested by other non-City agencies, private firms or individuals are limited to twice a calendar year. City staff shall collect requests for amendments throughout the calendar year and at the end of June and December of every year, present to the Planning Commission a report that includes: Requests for amendments; · Findings of how/whether the proposed changes further the General Plan's nine themes; Findings on whether the requested change complies with the General Plan policies and if not, what changes would be required both for consistency of the project with the General Plan and any area or specific plans, as well as General Plan internal consistency; and · Overview of staff recommendations, along with a comprehensive citywide General Plan Diagram showing any recommended map changes. 1-23 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The City may decide to charge proponents of General Plan amendments for staff time related to prepare the amendments. No staff time will be charged when requests are considered as part of the five-year General Plan review or a compre- hensive update of the General Plan. SPECIFIC,AREA, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS The General Plan includes policies for each of the planning sub-areas in Chapter 3: Planning Sub-areas. To provide additional direction for some of these areas, the City may prepare detailed area or specific plans. Such plans may accommodate development on infill sites and also provide for the gradual elimination of incom- patible uses. Requirements for specific plans are spelled out in the State Government Code. Neighborhood and special area plans would be tailored to individual areas and may not necessarily address all of the topics required by State law for specific plans. All specific plans~ neighborhood and area plans, and rede- velopment plans will need to be consistent with the General Plan. ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN REPORT The California Government Code requires that an annual report be submitted to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implemen- tation. This report also is to be submitted to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the Department of Housing and Community Development. It must include an analysis of the progress in meeting the City's share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to maintenance, improvement, and development of affordable housing. Finally, the Annual Report should include a summary of all General Plan amendments adopted during the preceding year and an outline of upcoming projects and General Plan issues to be addressed in the coming year, along with a work program and budget. The Annual Report will be prepared by City staff during the early stages of the budget process and submitted for review to the Planning Commission, which will make a recommendation to the City Council. Public comments on the Annual Report may be submitted in writing to the Community and Economic Development Department. The Planning Commission and the City Council also will hear public comments on the Annual Report at duly-noticed public hearings. 1-24 I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW FIVE-YEAR REVIEW The City will undertake a comprehensive review of the General Plan in year 2004 to determine how well the General Plan has performed - whether policies related to development and conservation have been effective. This review will include: · Comprehensive evaluation of Plan policies; Analysis of the effectiveness of implementation programs and strategies initi- ated to carry out the Plan; and · Review of five-year growth trends, assessment of future urban land needs, and review of available development capacity by land use. As part of this review, a target date for a comprehensive update of the General Planmlikely between the years 2006 to 2008--will also be established. A report summarizing City staff's findings and recommendations will be circulated for Public comment and then presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will review the report on the five-year review and make a recom- mendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission and the City Council also will hear comments on the report at duly-noticed public hearings. LAND USE This dement of the General Plan outlines the framework that has guided land use decision-making, provides the General Plan land use classification system, and outlines citywide land use policies. Policies for each of the 14 individual sub-areas that comprise the General Plan Planning Area are in Chapter 3: Planning Sub- Areas. Looking towards the bay from the western hillside. A wide variety of uses cover the city, from sin- gle-family residential neighborhoods in the west side of the city to tall of]ice buildings in East of 101. 2-1 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2.1 CONSTANCYAND CHANGE South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another develop- ment trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeast- ern portions of the city, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multifamily housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. The city consists primarily of single-use areas, with industrial facilities and business parks con- centrated in the East of 101 area and residential uses in the north and west areas of the city. The view of San Bruno Mountain provides an aesthetic baekdrop for the city. 2-2 MAGNITUDE AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING USES As part of the General Plan preparation process, an existing land use database for the city was prepared, and a land use analysis was performed. South San Francisco's City limits encompass 4,298 acres. Like many communities, single-family residences are the most predominant land use, occupying 33 percent of the land (net, that is, exclusive of streets, water, and other rights-of-way) in the city. However, industrial uses, induding warehouses, manufacturing areas and business parks, also comprise over a quarter of South San Francisco's area. The land use analysis also found that: · Parks and open space occupy over 10 percent of the Planning Area, primarily concentrated in Sign Hill Park and the California Golf and Country Club; Many of South San Francisco's growing or highest priority land uses currently occupy relatively little land. Business parks for high-technology research and development (R&D) and manufacturing use occupy only 173 acres, or 14 per- cent of the land in the industrial classification. Hotels and motels can be found on only 37 acres, or ten percent of the land in the commercial use dassification. Only a handful of sites in South San Francisco--totaling 167 acres, or less than four percent of land within the Planning Area--are vacant. About half of this acreage is in Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater) and Sierra Point - two large sites at the northernmost tip of the city, with substantial soil contamination and under remediation for the past several years. The majority of the remain- ing vacant land comprises sites, such as in Westborough, that have steep slopes. Thus, virtually all growth in the city will result from redevelopment or intensi- fication; and · Development that is approved or under review indudes 1,150 housing units and 3.4 million square feet of non-residential space. 2: LAND USE The new condos on El Camino are an intensification of uses around the South San Francisco Bart Station. Older industrial sites in Lindenville are gradually being converted to offices and business and technology parks in some areas of the city; however, industrial uses in selected areas of the city would continue to meet regional needs. 2-3 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN CONSTANCY AND CHANGE With all land in the east of U.S. 101 area (East of 101) and some western parts of the city unsuitable for residential development because of aircraft operations at the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) and established residential neighbor- hoods in much of the rest of the city, the General Plan attempts to balance region- al growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neighbor- hoods. Development is targeted in centers and corridors to fulfill the City's objec- tives of enhancing quality of life and economic vitality; ensure that established areas are not unduly impacted; and to support the extraordinary regional invest- ments in transit represented by extension of BART to the city. Neighborhood-scale issues such as the character of new development and better linkages between and within neighborhoods are also explored in this and other plan elements. Vacant site in the foreground is the BART right-of-way in the city - the San Bruno Residence Inn is in the background. The General Plan proposes a linear park with a bike path along the right-of-way as BART will run underground. Sites in the city near the San Bruno Bart Station are Mlowed higher devdopment intensities under the General Plan to support transit ridership. 2-4 2: LAND USE 2.2 LAND USE FRAMEWORK The land use framework of the General Plan is guided by several key principles: · Conservation of the existing land use character of the city's residential neigh- borhoods. Promotion of Downtown as the focus of activity, induding through increased residential opportunities. Policies that promote development standards that build on Downtown's traditional urban pattern are identified. Integration of land use with planned BART extension, such as by providing a new transit-oriented village around the South San Francisco BART station, and new clusters of high-intensity offices and other similar uses to take advantage of regional access that will result from extension of BART to the city. · Provision of selected areas in the city where industrial uses, many of which ful- fill a regional obiective and are related to the SFIA, can continue and expand. · Mixed-use redevelopment along principal corridors, such as E1 Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. A new mixed-use neighborhood center at Linden Avenue/Hillside Boulevard to increase accessibility of Paradise Valley/Terrabay residents to convenience shopping. A new Business and Technology Park district to provide opportunities for con- tinued evolution of the city's economy, from manufacturing and warehous- ing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology. A new waterfront Town Square/Campus Center to provide identity and cater to the lunchtime and quality of life needs of the growing employment base in East of 101. A new live/work overlay district adjacent to downtown to provide a broader mix of housing opportunities and promote small-business and multimedia incuba- tion. DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN A new Business Commercial district, that will include hotels, principally serv- ing airport clientele, clustered along South Airport and Gateway boulevards. A regional "power center", in part to facilitate a full interchange at Victory Avenue/U.S. 101. GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAf4 The principles outlined on the previous page are encapsulated in the General Plan Diagram (Figure 2-1). The Diagram designates the proposed general location, dis- tribution, and extent of land uses. As required by State law, land use classifications, shown as color/graphic patterns, letter designations, or labels the Diagram, speci- fy a range for housing density and building intensity for each type of designated land Use. These density/intensity standards allow circulation and public facility needs to be determined; they also reflect the environmental carrying-capacity lim- itations established by other elements of the General Plan. The Diagram is a graph- ic representation of policies contained in the General Plan; it is to be used and interpreted only in conjunction with the text and other figures contained in the General Plan. The legend of the General Plan Diagram abbreviates the land use classifications described below, which represent an adopted part of the General Plan. Uses on sites less than two acres in size are generally not depicted on the Diagram. The interpretation of consistency with the General Plan on sites less than two acres in size will be done through the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map. 2-6 2: LAND USE D~ly Cit~ 5an Bruno ~anal ldi~ed lndmtrtd 'CIInq)ortation C~nter Public Park and Recreation Loft Ova-lay Dtstdct · *mefqe. axbtlnsReStonal/Aflerbl/Collector mm~me Pr(q~reet Iht erdunSe/Inter~ion SmdyAret 0 114 I/2 MILES S~n Francisco Airport Frdnd$co Figure 2-1 Land Use Diagram 2-7 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 2.2- I Standards for Density and Development Intensity Land Use Designation Residential Density (Unitslnet acres) Maximum Permitted FAR' Maximum Perm/tted with Incentives and Bonuses Units/Net FAR Acre (see Table 2.2-2) ResidentialTM Low Density Medium Density High Density up to 8.0 0.5 I 0.0 8. I - 18.0 1.0 22.5 18. 1-30.0 37.5 Downtown Downtown Commercial4 Downtown Residential Low Density Medium Density High Density Or, ce Commercial Community Commercial Business Commercial (Hotel) Coastal Commercial 3.0 5.1-12.0 0.7 15.0 12.1-25.0 1.25 31.3 25.1-40.0 - 50'oS 1.0 2.56 0.S 0.5 1.07 1.2 2.0 Industrial Business and Technology Park 0.5 1.08 Mixed Industrial 0.4 0.69 ~ Including garages for residential development, but excluding parking structures for non-residential development. 2 20 percent density bonus is available for development within ~l~-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (Caltrain, BART station or City-designated ferry terminal). 3 25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance. 4 Residential uses may be permitted on second and upper floors only and are subject to a use perrni~ s 25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for eldeHy residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance. 6, 7Required parking must be structured. 8 Permitted for research and development uses with Iow employment intensity, or other uses providing structured parking. 9 Permitted for uses with Iow employment intensity, such as wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution. 2-8 2.: LAND USE DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS The General Plan establishes density/intensity standards for each use dassification. Residential density is expressed as housing units per net acre. Maximum permit- ted ratio of gross floor area to site area (FAR) is specified for non-residential uses. FAR is a broad measure of building bulk that controls both visual prominence and traffic generation. It can be dearly translated to a limit on building bulk in the Zoning Ordinance and is independent of the type of use occupying the building. FAR limitations are also shown for some residential land use classifications in order to relate housing size to lot size; both housing density and FAR standards shall apply in such instances. Building area devoted to structured or covered park- ing (if any) is not included in FAR calculations for non-residential developments. However, parking garages are included in the FAR limitations for residential uses. The Zoning Ordinance could provide specific exceptions to the FAR limitations for uses with low employment densities, such as research facilities, or low peak-hour traffic generation, such as a hospital. In addition to density/intensity standards, some land use classifications stipulate allowable building types (such as single- family residential) as well. The density/intensity standards do not imply that development projects will be approved at the maximum density or intensity specified for each use. Zoning reg- ulations consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce development potential within the stated ranges. Airport-related height limits also restrict development, as shown in Figure 2-2. In addition, Figure 2-3 establishes height limitations in specific areas, induding Downtown, the E1 Camino Real Corridor, and near BART stations; these limitations shall apply to all uses, and land use-based height limitations (in the Zoning Ordinance) shall not apply. For areas outside the ones shown in Figure 2-3, height limitations shall be in accordance with the use-based limitations specified in the Zoning Ordinance. These heights are partly based on a viewshed analysis for the Planing Area, which revealed that the south face of Sign Hill, the base of San Bruno Mountain, and the east face of Point San Bruno Knoll, are visible from most areas of the city, as shown in Figure 2-4. Gross density standards and assumed averages for residential categories are listed below. 2-9 DR-ad=T SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN · Pacificl''' 0 sM Source: San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan FiEure 2-2 Airport-Related Height Limitations lma %,, 2: LAND USE : Pacifica Note: Building height limitations for areas shown on this indicated here, regardless of+U- --~-, ·. map shall be as areas shown oh t~s ~-- ~-.-"',~.m'u, er.~n, g u, se:.~or areas outside of the .... ,,,~p, utmomg ne,~ts snan be in a me oevelovment re~uln.:--- e ...... ccordance with · ,' /~,,,~uuns ~or me use m t~e tsity's Zoning Ordinance and/or as indicated in Figure 2-2: Airport-Related Height Limitations. F/gum 2-3 Special Area Height Limitations DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN · Viewpoint l~i~il Visible from at least one viewpoint ~ Visible from two viewpoints ~ Visible from all viewpoints Source: Dyett & Bhatia, derived from USGS Digital Elevation Model 2-12 Figure 2-4 Viewshed Table 2.2-2 Standards for Density and Development Intensity Land Use Sase Floor Incentive-based FAR Bonuses Available Designalfon Area Rat/o Specffied TransportaOon Demand Structured Parking~ Management (TDM) standards Office 1.0 0.3 0.S Business Commercial 0.5 0.2 - Business and Technology Park 0.5 0.2 - Hotels 1.2 0.4 - Mixed Industrial 0.4 ~ At least 80~ of the parking must be structured. :l Discretional; based on criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and upon review by Planning Commission. Off-site Imprownents CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The classifications in this section represent adopted City policy. They are meant to be broad enough to give the City flexibility in implementation, but dear enough to provide sufficient direction to carry out the General Plan. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains more detailed provisions and standards. More than one zoning district may be consistent with a single General Plan land use classification. Residential Three residential land use classifications are established for areas outside of Downtown to provide for development of a full range of housing types (Downtown residential land use classifications are included later in this section). Densities are stated as number of housing units per net acre of developable land, excluding areas subject to physical, environmental, or geological constraints, and areas dedicated for creekside greenways or wetlands protection, provided that at least one housing unit may be built on each existing legal parcel designated for res- idential use. Development would be required within the density range (both max- imum and minimum) stipulated in the classification. Development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance may limit attainment of maximum densities. 2: LAND USE Total Maximum FAR Oth~ ~ec~ed Des~ $~n~rds2 0.5 0.2 2.5 0.2 O.I 1.0 O.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.2 - 0.6 2-13 Housing Type Lot Size Dwelling Size Number of Floors Density (units/net acre) Typical Density Range for Housing Type General Plan Land Use Classification Detached (front loaded) 6,000 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 2 Low Density Detached Zero- Lot Line (front loaded) 35 2,500 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. 2 17 18 Medium Density Detached (front loaded) 2,500 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 2 15 16 Medium Density Townhouse (rear loaded) 2,500 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 2 15 12-25 Medium Density Townhouse (front loaded) 2,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. 2.5 22 15-30 Downtown Medium Density Residential Over Parking And Commercial Podium 1,200 sq. ft. 2-3 over podium 4O 30+ Downtown High Density 2-14 Figure 2-5 Illustrative Housing Types 2: LAND USE Second units permitted by local regulation, State-mandated density bonuses for provision of affordable housing, and a 20 percent density bonus for residential developments located within a 1/4-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (BART or Caltrain) station are in addition to densities otherwise permitted. Assumed average densities listed are used to calculate probable housing unit and population holding capacity. Neither the averages nor the totals constitute General Plan policy. Housing types (which are included here for illustrative purposes only, and do not represent adopted City policy) are shown in Figure 2-5. Low Density Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per net acre. Typical lots would be 6,000 square feet, but the minimum would be 5,000 square feet, and smaller lots (4,500 square feet or less) may be permitted in neighbor- hoods meeting specified community design standards, subject to specific review requirements. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The Zoning Ordinance may include a separate district for estate-type or zero-lot-line develop- ments. Medium Density Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre, with a minimum of 2,250 square feet of net area (i.e. exclusive of streets, parks and other public rights-of- way) required per unit, and a minimum lot area of 6,750 square feet. Dwelling types may include attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses. Multifamily housing type is not permitted. High Density Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units per net acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including sin- gle-family attached development subject to standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and is intended for specific areas where higher density may be appropriate. 2-15 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN DOWNTOWN Downtown Commercial This designation provides for a wide range of uses in commerdal core of down- town, including retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, commercial recreation, entertainment establishments and theaters, financial, business and per- sonal services, hotels, educational and social services, and government offices. Residential uses may be permitted on second and upper floors only, and subject to a use permit. The maximum Floor Area Ratio for all uses and mixes (residential and non-residential) is 3.0; the Zoning Ordinance may or may not establish max- imum residential densities or minimum housing unit size for mixed-use develop- ments. The Zoning Ordinance may also specify specific areas where retail or eating and drinking establishments would be required uses at the ground level. Downtown Residential In addition to housing type and density standards stipulated bdow, the Zoning Ordinance may establish development standards and parking and other require- ments for downtown residential development different from residential develop- ment elsewhere in the City. Three categories are induded and are shown on the General Plan Diagram: Downtown Low Density Residential Single-family (detached or attached) resi- dential development with densities ranging from 5.1 to 12.0 units per net acre. Multifamily development is not permitted. Downtown Medium Density Residential Residential development at densities ranging from 12.1 to 25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing types is permitted. Downtown High Density ResidentiaL Residential development at densities ranging from 25.1 to 40.0 units per net acre for lots equal to or greater than 1/2- acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots smaller than ¥~ acre, maximum den- sity shall be 30.0 units per acre. 2-16 2: LAND USE A maximum of 25 percent densitY bonus may be approved for projects with afford- able housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for res- idents, or housing that meets communitY design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Maximum densitY with all bonuses shall not exceed 50 units per net acre. OFFICE This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices in locations proximate to BART or CalTrain stations. Support commercial uses are permitted, subject to limitations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Site planning and building design shall ensure pedestrian comfort, and streets shall be fronted by active uses. The maxi- mum Floor Area Ratio is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. These bonus standards are shown in Table 2.2-2. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instances where existing buildings (such as at the former Zellerbach site) are rehabilitated for office use and are unable meet the structured parking or specified design standard criteria. However, the maximums (with incentives, is stipulated in Table 2.2-2) shall not be exceeded. COMMERCIAL Community Commercial This category includes shopping centers, such as Westborough, and major com- mercial districts, such as E1 Camino Real, and regional centers along South Airport Boulevard. Retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments, com- mercial recreation, service stations, automobile sales and repair services, financial, business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are permit- ted. An "R" designation on the General Plan Diagram indicates that the site is reserved for region-serving commercial uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5. Office uses are encouraged on the second and upper floors. 2-17 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Business Commercial This category is intended for business and professional offices, and visitor service establishments, with retail as a secondary use only. Permitted uses indude for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented commercial activities, including hotels and motels, convention and meeting facilities. Restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropriate standards. This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards, and South Spruce corridor. Thc maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments with low employment intensity, or for development meeting spe- cific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or spe- cific design standards. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified crite- ria. Coastal Commercial Business/professional services, office, convenience sales, restaurants, public mar- ketplace, personal/repair services, limited retail, hotel/motel with a coastal orien- tation, recreational facilities, and marinas. Maximum FAR is 0.5 for retail, recre- ation facilities, marinas, and eating and drinking establishments, 1.0 for offices, and 1.6 for hotels. All development will be subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Uses and development intensities at Oyster Point will be regulated by the Oyster Point Spedfic/Master Plan. INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPIqENT Two categories are proposed: Business and Technology Park, for the East of 101 areas north of East Grand Avenue, and Mixed Industrial, for the areas south of East Grand Avenue in East of 101 and Lindenville. Business and Technology Park This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate head- quarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include 2-18 LAND USE incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancil- lary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments with low employment intensity, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Mixed Industrial This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, stor- age and distribution, and service commercial uses. Industries producing substan- tial amounts of hazardous waste or odor and other pollutants are not permitted. Unrelated retail and service commercial uses that could be more appropriately located elsewhere in the city would not be permitted, except for offices, subject to appropriate standards. Small restaurants and convenience stores would be allowed as ancillary uses, subject to appropriate standards. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.4, with an increase to a total FAR of 0.6 for development undertaking or par- ticipating in off-site improvements as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. In addi- tion to development standards, the Zoning Ordinance may include performance standards to minimize potential environmental impacts. PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL To provide for schools, government offices, transit sites, airport, and other facilities that have a unique public character. Religious facilities are not called out separate- ly on the General Plan Diagram, but are instead shown with designations on adjoining sites; these facilities may be specifically delineated on the Zoning Map. PARKS Parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. 2-19 DPu&FT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE This designation indudes sites with environmental and/or safety constraints. Included are sites with slopes greater than 30 percent, sensitive habitats, wetlands, creekways, areas subject to flooding, and power transmission line corridors. Where otherwise not excluded by noise, aircraft safety or other environmental standards, residential development is generally permitted at a density not to exceed one hous- ing unit per 20 acres. 2-20 2: LAND USE 2.3 PLANNING SUB-AREAS Land use informatiOn presented in the section that follows is presented by 14 sub- areas, which have been collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design patterns and the need for focused planning efforts and activities. These sub- areas are shown in Figure 2-6. In some cases, the City's traditional neighborhood planning areas that are used for park and schools planning were aggregated where adjacent neighborhoods are very similar in terms of their land uses, age of devel- opment, and current activity level. The East of 101 area, which comprises a single City neighborhood planning area because there are no residents, is divided into four subareas for presenting planning information. The areas are: 1. Avalon 2. Downtown 3. East of 101 4. El Camino 5. Gateway 6. Lindenville 7. Orange Park 8. Oyster Point 9. Paradise Valley/Terrabay 10. Sign Hill 11. South Airport 12. Sunshine Gardens 13. Westborough 14. Winston-Serra Descriptions of these areas and detailed policies for each sub-area are included in Chapter 3. 2-21 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PI.AN ' Colma Pacific San Bruno Planning Sub-Area Source: Dyett & Bhatia 2-22 1/4 112 MILES Figure 2-6 Planning Sub-Areas 2.4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT 2: LAND USE BUILDOUT Development consistent with the General Plan resulting from application of assumed average densities and intensities for the different land use classifications to vacant and sites with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities is described in Table 2.4-1. The time at which full development ("buildout") will occur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan. Designation of a site for a cer- tain use does not necessarily mean that the site will be built/redeveloped with the designated use over the next 20 years, the horizon of the Plan. Table 2.4-1 shows by each of the 14 sub-areas described in Section 2.3: · Projects with Current Development Approvals. This includes about 1,150 hous- ing units, more than half have been proposed in Terrabay, and about 3.4 mil- lion square feet of non-residential floor space. Hotels, with about 1.1 million square feet of space with approvals, and offices, with 0.9 million square feet of approved space, represent the primary non-residential uses. · Additional Development Under the General Plan. This results from application of average assumed densities/intensities (shown on the table) to vacant sites and sites/areas with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities. Potential residential increases include 1,630 housing units, concentrated main- ly in El Camino, Sunshine Gardens, and Downtown. Potential non-residential development includes 8.9 million square feet of new space; with an expected decrease of 3.3 million square of industrial space, the net increase will be 5.6 million square feet. About 3.1 million square feet (56 percent) of this net increase is expected to be in the four East of 101 sub-areas (East of 101, Gateway, Oyster Point, and South Airport). · Combined Approved DeveloPment and Additional Development. This reflects the total of the two above categories, and represents the expected General Plan buildout. Buildout will result in increase of 2,780 housing units and 3, 3 million square feet of non-residential space to the city's current inventory of an estimated 19,400 housing units and 18.1 million square feet of non-residential space. Population and Employment; 1997 and Buildout 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 I0,000 0 1997 71,400 67,400 Population Employment I Buildout 2-23 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 2.4- I Land Use Changes and Intensification; Approved Development Subarea Residential (housing units) Low Med High Down- Densit7 Density Density town Total Business Business Res/- Comm Comm denlfal (Hotels) (Ofr~cesl Comm) Avalon Downtown East of I 0 I El Camino 180 30 Gateway Lindenville Orange Park 150 Oyster Point Paradise 600 Valley/Terrabay Sign Hill South Airport Sunshine - Gardens Westborough 130 Winston-Serra 60 - Total 990 160 210 150 600 130 60 1,150 22,500 497,500 300,000 73,000 I, 139,000 Non-Residential (floor area in square feet) Coastal Down- Of~ce 8usl Industrial Corem town Tech Corem Park 1~,000 2~,800 516,000 176,000 - 600 - - 40,000 128,700 397,000 286,000 ~omm- unie/ Comm 22,500 160,000 150,000 18,000 913,600 672,000 331 ~00 328,000 Total Non- residential 372,800 160,000 938,000 600 816,200 1,001,000 3,31N, 100 2-24 T~ble 2.4-1 Land Use Changes ~nd Intensiflc~tion; Additional Development Under the General Plan Avalon Downtown Ease of 10 I El Camino Gateway Lindenville Orange Park Oyscer Point Paradise Valley/ Terrabay Sign Hill South Airport Sunshine Gardens Wes~orough Winsmn-Serra Totzl Residential (housing units) Low Med High Down. Total Business Business Dens/ty Oens/ty Dens/ty town Res/den- Corem Comm ~ 7 ~ 15 ~ 28 Resid Ual (Hotels) units/ units/ units/ (Inten- ~ 0.9 Comm) acre acre acre silicat- FAR @ 0.5 ~n) FAR 290 290 10,000 246,000 3O 10 520 530 - - 46,000 7? ,000 - 70 70 126,000 281,000 50 80 130 64,000 230,000 - 249,000 988,000 3O 20 380 400 140 190 40 140 1,630 I~OOO 497,000 100 10,500 2~ 202,000 2,028,000 Non-Residential (floor area in square feet) Coastal Down- Or, ce Bus/ Induso'ial Comm- Comm town (~ 1.2 Tech Park ~ 0.55 un~ (~ 0.3 Camm avg. @ 0.5 FAR Corem avg. FAR (intensi~- FAR av~ FAR ~ icatJon) 0.3 FAR 59,000 121,000 - . - - 2,869,000 134,000 (I,867,000) (~,5 ~ 9,000) 105,000 2,307,000 p7~,o00) 216,000 104,500 145,000 457,000 31,000 8,000 2: LAND USE Total Non- residentJol 131,000 1,411,500 279,000 I 17,000 1,652,000 325,000 I, 171,000 430,000 8,000 71,000 121,000 2,441,000 2,869,000 (3,341,000) 816,500 5,595,500 2-25 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 2.4- I Combined Approved and Additional Development Under the General Plan (General Plan Buildout) Residential (housing units) Subarea Low Med High Down- Total Business Dens~ Density Density town Res/den- Comm t~al (Hotels) Avalon - Downtown - 290 290 22,500 East of I 01 - El Camino 180 40 520 740 Gateway - 292,000 Lindenville 70 70 216,000 Orange Park 150 50 80 - 280 64,000 Oyster Point - - 746,500 ParadiseValley/ 600 600 300,000 Terrabay Sign Hill 30 - 30 South Airport - 85,000 Sunshine 20 - 380 400 Gardens Westborough - 170 170 Winston-Serra 200 - 200 Total I, 180 260 1,050 290 2,780 1,636,000 Business Corem (O/~¢es! C~mm) 10,000 246,000 71,000 281,000 230,000 988,000 2,028,000 Non. Residential (floor area in ~quare Coastal Down- Of~.e Bus/ Industrial Comm town Tech Corem Park 59,000 105,000 121,000 134,000 516,000 2,307,000 6OO 397,OO0 3,039,000 176,000 40,000 286,000 (I,664,2OO) (I,519,000) H2,300) 216,000 164,OO0 121,000 3,354,600 3,541,000 (3,009,500) ~omm- 104,500 305,000 457,000 31,0OO 150,000 18,000 I, 144,500 Total Non- residential 153,500 1,71Pt,300 439,000 1,055,000 1,652,000 325,600 1,987,200 1,001,000 503,000 8,000 8,979,600 2-26 BUILDOUT POPULATION AND ENPLOYt4ENT Population South San Francisco, at buildout, will accommodate a population of approximate- ly 67,400, an increase of 14 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200. Table 2.4-2 shows the current and projected populations for South San Francisco. If buildout were to occur over 20 years, South San Francisco will moderately increase its share of the San Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 8.4 per- cent. Population growth rate Over the plan horizon will be much slower than growth experienced by the city over the last ten years. The chart on the following page shows a graphic depiction of South San Francisco's historical and projected population growth as well as its share of the County population. Employment While non-residential building space in South San Francisco will increase from an estimated current 18.1 million square feet to 24.6 million square feet at buildout (an increase of 31 percent), the General Plan at buildout will accommodate an employment increase from 39,100 currently to as much as 71,400 at bu~dout (an Table 2.4-2 Buildout Population 1990 1998 1990-1998 Buildout 1990..2020 Population Population Share Annual Population Share Annual of Grow~ of Growth County Rate County Rate South 54,312 59,208 8.3% 1.0% 67,400 8.4% 0.6% San Franciso San Mateo 649,623 715,382 100% 1.2% 798,600' County a) Projected year 2020 population for San Mateo County Source: US Census; ABAG Projections ~8; Department of Finance; Dyett & Bhatia 100% 0.5% 2: LAND USE Table 2.4-3 Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout Land Est/mated Increase Buildout Use 1997 to Eml~>/ment Eml~loyment~ Buildout Commercial/ 10,400 3, 100 13,500 Retail Hotels/ 1,800 3,900 5,700 Visitor Services Office and 5,700 23,500 29,200 Business (inc. Medical) Warehouse/ 13,400 (3,200) 10,200 Mixed Industrial ' Public and 1,500 1,500 Schools Construction 2,500 1,800 4,300 and Miscellaneous Others 3,800 3,200 7,000 (including at home workers) Total 39, 100 32,300 71,400 I 1997 estimate by Dyett & Bhatia. Table 2.4-4 Jobs/Housing Balance Est/mated 1997 Buildout Eml>loyment~ Jobs 39, 100 71,400 Employed Residents 27,900 32,352 Jobs/Employed Residents 1.4 2.2 Using information from Claritas Inc. (for the Planning Area) collected as part of the General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments, there were 41,500 jobs In the South San Francisco Sphere of Influence in 1995. 2-27 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 70,000 65.000 60.000 5outh San Francisco Historic and Projected Population, t940-2020 .............. ~. ............... L .............. ~. ................ i ...................................... 1940 19SO 1960 1970 1980 1990 :]000 2010 20;10 Jobs/Employed Residents Balance; 1997 and Buildout 120,000 I00,000 80,000 2.2 60,000 ~':":"' 40,0o0I 20,000 0 1997 Buildout ~g~ Employed Residen~ I Jobs increase of 83 percent; induding construction and at-home workers), primarily as sites with low-intensity warehousing and distribution uses (with an estimated average 960 square feet per employee in South San Francisco) are succeeded by higher intensity office, retail, and other similar uses. This level of employment attainment will likely take place over a time-period that may extend beyond 20 years. Table 2.4-3 shows existing and buildout employment by broad land use cat- egories. JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE Where once the residential and commercial portion of South San Francisco was a company town for the ~beef trust" packers on Point San Bruno, improved trans- portation access and extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco into a commuter suburb. Today only 23 percent of employed residents work in the city, despite a surplus of jobs, indicating regional jobs-housing inter- dependencies. As Table 2.4-4 shows, the city has continued to add jobs at a faster rate than population for the last 15 years, and in 1995, there were 13,610 more jobs than employed residents in the city. In contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall shortage of jobs; however, during the last 15 years, the overall jobs/employed residents ratio in San Mateo County has crept closer to balance. Given that almost half the land in the city--including all of the East of 101 area, and parts of Lindenville, Orange Park and Avalon neighborhoods--are not suited for residential development because of noise and aircraft safety considerations, it is unlikely that a balance between jobs and housing can be attained. However, con- tinued job growth in the city will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of tran- sit-including air and rail, and in the near future BART and ferry service-- employment growth in the city will support regional transit as well. Nonetheless, availability of housing in South San Francisco serves not only regional interest, but is imperative to attracting high-technology and biotechnology jobs that the dty seeks. Increased residential development within the city will help partly alleviate traffic impacts resulting from job growth, and provide residential opportunities to those that work in the city but live elsewhere. Thus, the General Plan seeks to max- imize residential development opportunities on infill sites. 2-28 LAND USE 2.5 DETAILED PLANS AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS AREAAND SPECIFIC PLANS In addition to policies articulated in the General Plan, area, specific, and redevel- opment plans direct planning in certain parts of the city. Figure 2-6 shows area, specific, and redevelopment plan areas. These include: · The East of 101 Area Plan, which applies to all parts of the city east of U.S. 101 and indudes a Design Element and policies; Specific master plans for kev development areas, including Genentech, Oyster Point, Terrabay, Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater), Sierra Point; and · Redevelopment plans for many of the areas with the greatest potential for change, including Gateway, Downtown/Central and the E1 Camino Corridor. These plans will continue to play key roles in shaping areas of their geographic con- cern. Certain aspects of some of these plans may need to modified to ensure con- sistency with the 1999 General Plan. PLANS AND PROGRAt4S OTHER JURISDICTIONS External impacts from land uses and activities in surrounding cities and jurisdic- tions influence development in South San Frandsco as well. By and large, none of the surrounding cities have planned uses that are likely to have a direct physical impact on South San Francisco. In its General Plan, the City of Brisbane outlines a development strategy for its bayside parcels similar to South San Francisco's strate- gies in the East of 101 area, potentially affecting South San Francisco's future devel- opment potential. If this development occurs, Brisbane could compete with South San Francisco for office .space or potentially increase traffic in the area; however, Brisbane still needs to overcome major infrastructure and environmental con- straints before this development is likely to begin. San Bruno is planning for a mix of office and hotel uses for the West Division property, one-quarter mile south 9 ~0 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Colma Pacifica ?~ Specific Plan Area E st of 101 Area Plan Redevelopment Area Source: Cit~, of South San Francisco 2-30 0 "4 I;2 Figure 2-7 Specific and Area Plans and Redevelopment Areas 2: LAND USE along El Camino Real, that is currently being used by the U.S. Navy, but will be vacated soon. Impacts of this are likely to be localized. San Francisco International Airport has major direct and indirect influences on South San Francisco's land use and economic prospects. Airport-imposed height restrictions and noise limit land use options in some parts of the city (see Figure 2- 2). However, a greater impact could stem from airport expansion, fueling growth in airport-supportive or -dependent uses such as freight forwarding, and the result- ing demand for housing and other services in South San Francisco. Noteworthy plans and programs of other agencies that influence or place limita- tions on development in South San Francisco include: · The 100-foot strip ofbayshore, inland of the mean high tide line, for which the Bay Conservation and Development Commission establishes policy; · The area around and including the Terraba¥ project, which is within the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Area; and · The area constrained by the Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 height limits, primarily East of 101, in Lindenville, and in the Country Club Park area. 2-31 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2.6 LAND USE POLICIES Because land use policies for each of the planning sub-areas are spelled out in Chapter 3, policies here focus on citywide issues and those of a programmatic nature. GUIDING POLICIES 2..G-I Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect res/dents fram changes in non-residential areas. Protection of residential neighborhoods is a General Plan theme. While some parts of the city are expected to undergo change over time, the General Plan seeks to ensure that existing residential neighbor- hoods are fully protected from changes elsewhere. 2-C,-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that prav/des opportunities for con- tinued economic growth, and bui/ding intens/ties that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessi- bility that will resu/t from BART extension to the c/ty and adjacent locations. Locating uses that can support transit ridership and providing high development intensities around transit stations is not just in South San Francisco's best interest, but a regional interest as well. 2-G-4 °rovide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial businesses at specific locations. The City recognizes that many existing manufacturing and warehous- ing and distribution uses perform a regional function as well, and seeks to maintain these as conforming uses in specific locations. 2-32 2-C,-$ Maintain Downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commerc/a/, and entertainment acOv~t/es. 2-G-6 Maximize opportun~es for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial opera~ons. 2-G-7 Target sites for m/xed-use (residential, retail, and ofra:e) development in cen- ters where they would support transit, in Iocat/ons where they would prov/de increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identRy and vitality. 2-G-8 Provide incenses to maximize community orienta~on of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. 2-G-9 Facilitate development of childcare centers and homes in all areas, and encourage inclusion of childcare centers in non-residential developments. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES 24-1 Update the City's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations contained in the A4unic~al Code for consistency with the Genera/Plan. A complete revamping of the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary, including: · Establishment of new base districts; · Establishment of new overlay districts, including for coastal zones, environmental protection and review processes, selected mixed- use areas (such as the Loft Overlay District), and transit-oriented development centers; · New development regulations that reflect policy direction con- tained throughout the Plan; and · Minimum and maximum development intensities as stipulated in the Land Use Classifications. 2: LAND USE San Bruno residences on the left and South San Francisco industrial uses on the right share Tanforan Avenue. Increased buffers between industrial and residential uses wouM reduce land use conflicts, including large trucks park- ing on residential streets. 2-33 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The Village, a residential development near Downtown. Permitting ground units in single-family residential areas would provide additional housing opportunities without building new housing units. 2-1-2 2-/-3 2-1-4 This policy is especially critical given the limited land available for res- idential development. Approval of developments at lower than stipu- lated densities should be accomplished by map amendment to the General Plan, not by providing exemptions from stipulated densities. Establish height limitot~ons for spec~ic areas as delineated on Figure 2-3. For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately by underlying base district uses. These are areas that are central from a community perspective or areas where change is expected. The intent is to provide to achieve unified development regardless of underlying uses. For building heights East of 101, also see Section 3.5: East of 101. Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards. While in recent years established development intensities have been constraints to achieving prevailing intensities in the region, and even in the city, necessitating the need for planned developments, intensities established in this General Plan reflect development that is appropri- ate given both the local and the regional context. This should obviate the need for planned developments merely as a tool to achieve higher than otherwise attainable standards. Establish specific cr/teria to implement development intensity bonus stan- dards, as established in Table 2.2-3. Elements of this include Transportation Demand Management (TDM) standards, off-site improvements, and design standards to be elaborated upon in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, incentives to promote structured parking fOr the Office district should also be estab- lished. 2-34 2: LAND USE 2-L6 2-/-7 Establish performance-based standards for industrial development to mini- mize resultJng impacts. These would address issues such as noise, glare, odor, air quality, and screening of parking and loading areas. Establishment of these is espe- cially critical where industrial uses come in contact with other uses, such as the Mayfair, Orange Park, and downtown neighborhoods near Lindenville. Undertake a comprehensive review of' the paridng standards and establish criteria for reduced parking for m/xed-use developments, for development that meets specified TDNI criteria, and /91edium- and High-Density Residen~al development. Differing standards could also be established for downtown and specif- ic transit-centered areas, such as within 1/4-mile of BART and CalTrain, and ferry terminal. Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strategy. Standards are items that can be mapped or measured and are manda- tory. Guidelines are suggestions and may also provide the basis for design review by the Planning Commission and/or the basis for award- ing design bonuses, as established by policy 2-I-4. Current city efforts in this area are uneven. While the City has residen- tial design guidelines in place, these do not address issues such as garage domination of streets, or the introverted or gated nature of some recent developments. Also, while some other adjacent cities (such as Brisbane) have design guidelines in place for warehousing and dis- tribution uses, South San Francisco does not have such guidelines and standards. Because new development is expected only in targeted areas, instead of trying to prepare all encompassing citywide guidelines, efforts may probably be better directed at standards/guidelines focused on specific 2-35 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Design standards for warehousing and industrial uses would reduce the adverse impacts of these uses on the communi~ such as the presence of trash dumpsters on Tanforan Avenue, and screening of parking and loading areas. 2-/-9 geographic areas. These could include: Lindenville. A simple strategy would be to extend guidelines for industrial development that apply to the East of 101 area to Lindenville as well; · Downtown; · E1 Camino Real Corridor; and · The two (South San Francisco and San Bruno) BART station areas. Policies outlined in Chapter 3 for each of these areas would provide a starting point. As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve the commun/ty 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: · Not permitting gated developments; Allowing sound walls only along freeway and arterial streets, as established in Chapter 4: Transportation; and · Requiring parking in all non-industrial and business and technol- ogy park areas to be tucked behind buildings. Ensure that an)/design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neigh- borhoods. Examples of urban patterns in South San Francisco that deviate from 2-36 2: LAND USE 2-1-10 2-1-11 2-LI2 contemporary practice that would not be permitted under current standards are several and indude: Southwood Center, one 9f the few examples of a shopping center outside of downtown built to the street edge; residential developments in downtown built to the street edge which would be proscribed under current standards; and small-lot subdivisions such as in the "Town of Baden" subdivision, built before the City was incorporated. Several tools are available to structure the Zoning Ordinance to be responsive to the city's urban fabric rather than imposing a unified set of standards, induding: community character based districts; special districts (base or overlay) targeted at areas with unique development characteristics, as well as performance-based standards that allow flex- ibility. These options will need to be explored as part of the Zoning Ordinance update (Policy 2-I-1). Establish regulations to permit second units in single-family residential developments in accordance with State law. Requirements for this are spelled out in California Government Code Section 65852. Undertake a comprehensive update of the ¢/ty's Sign Ordinance. Efforts need to be focused primarily in two areas: downtown and El Camino Corridor. See also policies for signage for the business park areas East of 101 in Section 3.5: East of 101. Unified sign programs should be required for multi-tenant projects. Undertake comprehensive efforts to promote development of* childcare fad/it/es. Efforts should include: · Permitting childcare centers in all districts except Mixed Industrial; · Developing criteria for incentives for childcare facilities, as part of bonuses for specified TDM programs (Policy 2-I-5); 2-37 DP,AFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-38 2-1-13 2-1-14 2-1-15 2-1-16 · Exploring the feasibility of assistance to child care programs; and · Preparing a childcare start-up guide. Regulations would also need to be in accordance with criteria for fam- ily day care homes established in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.6, Division 2 of the California Health and Safety Code. As part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas (see Figure 7-2 in Chapter 7), require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7. I: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. In addition to ensuring that development is environmentally sensitive, this would facilitate development review approval by allowing devel- opment to tier off the General Plan environmental review, and not undertake all encompassing environmental reviews, except where oth- erwise necessary or appropriate. Establish a Geographic Inf'ormat~on System (GIS) based land use planning and information system. In addition to the more common development tracking system, this system can be designed to provide clear direction regarding plan implementation. As part of' the Genera/ Plan Annual Report, monitor the rate and density/intensity of residential, commercial, and industrial development, and site availability for future development. The monitoring program should include a database linked to the city's GIS. Work with San Mateo County to resolve issues relating to land use conflicts in the unincorporated "islands". Churches and other institutional land uses in the unincorporated 2: LAND USE 2-1-17 Country Club park subdivision have been creating conflicts with sur- rounding residential areas. Parking, noise and traffic within City limits are exacerbated by the concentration of churcheS in this small area. Policy 3.6-I-4 stipulates that if this area were to incorporate, it would be as a whole, with infrastructure improvements funded by the County or by property owners. Exam/ne the patential for residential development in the San Bruno BART Station/South IJndenville area in the future if' airport noise were to shift and result in a noise environment that would be appropriate for residen- tial uses. While housing is an appropriate transit-oriented use in the area, the area is entirely within the 65 CNEL and a portion is within the 70 CNEL. Various studies related to SFIA are currently underway and the projected noise patterns could well shift in the near future. Noise contours for South San Francisco emerging from these studies should be tracked, and changes to the General Plan. Diagram should be examined if shifts occur. Noise standards for various uses are out- lined in Chapter 9: Noise. 2-39 PLANNING ELEMENT SUB-AREAS This chapter established policies, specific to individual planning sub-areas in the city. Policies in this element complement citywide policies included in the Land Use and other elements. The sub-areas, 14 in all, were collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design patterns and existing and needed planning efforts and activities. In some cases, the city's traditional neighborhood planning areas that are used for park and schools planning were aggregated where adjacent neighborhoods are very similar in terms of their land uses, age of development, and current activity level. The sub-areas are shown in Figure 2-6; these correspond with the sub-areas used for reporting land use information in Ghapter 2: Land Use Element. The East of 101 area, which comprises a single city neighborhood planning area because there are no residents, represents an aggregation of four sub-areas in the Land Use Element. E1 Camino Real was defined as a single sub-area to reflect its distinctive use pattern and to facilitate future planning. Some of these sub-areas have detailed area plans, specific plans, or redevelopment plans; where appropriate, the General Plan provides guidance as to how these plans may need to be changed in order to conform to the policy direction provided by the General Plan. While most neighborhoods in the city are established and unlikely to experience great change as a result of the General Plan, others are either in transition, or require special emphasis in the City's planning process. These areas are: · Downtown. This includes both the core commercial area, as well as downtown residential neighborhoods; · Lindenville. Located south of downtown, this is the city's only large-scale industrial area west of U.S. 101; 3-1 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN South Spruce Corridor/San Bruno Bart Station Area. Traditionally considered a part of Lindenviile, these areas are called out separately due to the potential created by extension of BART; · El Camino Real Corridor. Included here are policies addressing development in the almost three-mile long corridor along the old Peninsula highway; and · East of 101. This encompasses the entire area within City limits east of U.S. 101. Areas not expected to undergo major change are Avalon, Orange Park, Sign Hill, Sunshine Gardens, Westborough, and Winston-Serra. Development in the Terrabay portion of the Paradise Valley/Terrabay sub-area is likely to continue under the auspices of the Terrabay Specific Plan. 3-2 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3. I DOWNTOWN Located in the geographic heart of the city, Downtown is the city's most unique commercial center, and arguably contributes more to the city's identity than any other district. It includes the oldest commercial and residential areas of the city- the Grand Avenue Commercial District and adjoining residential areas, extending from South Linden Avenue in the east to Chestnut Avenue in the west. Downtown also extends northward in roughly a quarter-mile width along South Linden Avenue to Hillside Boulevard. The area within a half-mile radius of the South Linden Avenue/Grand Avenue intersection, a small portion of which is in Lindenville, supports more than 8,500 jobs (20 percent of the city total) and 15 percent of the city's residents. Downtown's gridiron development pattern was'established at the turn of the cen- tury. The orthogonal street pattern (completed in 1908) is 1.5-miles long and extends from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the east to Chestnut Avenue in the west. The pattern is 0.25-miles and four blocks wide from Railroad Avenue in the south to Miller Avenue in the north. Another 0.25-mile wide portion extends along South Linden Avenue from Miller Avenue to the edge of Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain to the north. The typical block dimension in Downtown is 1,300 x 300 feet, with 20-foot wide mid-block alleys. Resulting average lots are 140 feet deep and 50 feet wide, or 7,000 square feet in area. Half lots (25-feet wide) and other sizes exist as Well. While the tallest building in Downtown is four stories in height, the majority of buildings, including those along Grand Avenue, are one- to two-stories tall. Almost all non-residential uses are built to the street. Older commercial buildings have side-parking, permitting a portion of the site to be built to the street. Stores in Downtown generally serve the adjacent residential neighborhoods, although some restaurants have a citywide draw. A wide range of housing types-- from single-family detached residences to three-story apartment buildings with tuck-under parking--are represented. A handful of apartment buhdlngs with three occupied floors also exist in the northern part of the area. Due to the small lot sizes, there had been little recent residential redevelopment activity, until very recently. Typical Downtown Block Dimensions 14 1300 ft 7[ -I~ ~L -'Il ~F Downtown~s Gridiron Development Pattern 3-3 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FI~ANClSCO GENERAL PLAN lnterdm~tenectlon StudyArea I 0 Acres 2.5 Acres o ~/4 112 MILES 3-4 Table 3. I - I Downtown: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Residential Downtown (Intensification) Total Approved Additional (Housing Units/Floor Area in Square Feet) Total 290 290 Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) 22,500 - 23,000 Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) - 10,000 10,000 Coastal Commercial - - - Downtown Commercial (Intensification) - 121,000 121,000 Office Business & Technology Park - - Industrial - - - Community, Commercial - - - Total 22,500 131,000 154,000 Po~ulationl Employment 87O 870 55 26 448 . . - 529 3-5 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Streets in Downtown, including Railroad Avenue, do not provide adequate linkages to other areas of the city, since U.S. 101 and the Caltrain tracks to the east post barriers to travel. The General Plan establishes new linkages to better connect Downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods. Small markets are mixed in with offices and other commer- cial uses, providing convenient services for Downtown residents. 3-6 Linkages While Downtown is well connected to the residential neighborhoods to the west and north, U.S. 101 and the Caltrain tracks to the east post barriers to integration with the eastern parts of the city. In addition, since there are few connecting streets through Lindenville, which lies south of Downtown, accessibility to El Camino Real and the soon-to-emerge San Bruno BART station area is limited. Topography in the area is undulating, and the straight streets permit distant views, such as of Sign Hill, from many parts. Traffic and Circulation While traffic flow within Downtown is generally smooth, access to downtown from U.S. 101, especially at the Grand Avenue ramp is constrained, particularly since trucks with destinations/origins in Lindenville use the same ramp. Traffic is also a problem at Baden Avenue/Airport Boulevard, which is used by trucks from Lindenville to the northbound U.S. 101 ramp at Grand Avenue. Further com- pounding these constraints is the fact that the only connections between the east- ern and western parts of the city are through the two U.S. 101 interchanges. Additionally, in recognition of Downtown's poor connection to the Caltrain Station, the City has been working to facilitate creation of a multi-modal trans- portation center with better pedestrian linkages to Downtown. Redevelopment A redevelopment plan for Downtown was adopted in 1989. The plan identifies a goal of making the different parts of the area work together as a multi-use hub, improving the commercial and industrial business environment, and upgrading housing. GUIDING POLICIES: DOWNTOWN 3. I-G-I Promote Downtown's vitality and economic well-being~ and its presence as the city's center. 3. I-G-2 Encourage development of Downtown as a mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal services, government 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3. I-G-3 and professional o~ces, civic uses, and a variety of residential types and dens/t/es. Provide incentives for infill development, intensification, and reuse of cur- rently underutilized sites. Enhance linkages between Downtown and transit centers, and increased street connect/v~ w/th the surrounding neighborhoods. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: DOWNTOWN See also policies related to transportation and specific street improvements in Downtown in Chapter 4: Transportation, and Chapter 7: Open Space and Environmental Conservation for historic and cultural preservation policies. 3.1-1-1 Maintain land uses and development intensives in Downtown in accordance with Table 3. I-I. 3. I-I-2 Prohibit manufacturing, warehouses, and marginal uses such as bars or adult entertainment, as Well as add,anal single-mom occub~-:tcy units in Downtown. 3. I-1.3 Do not permit any commercial and o~ce uses in areas designated Downtown Residential. 3. I-I-4 Establish a height overlay zone in the Municipal Code corresponding to the standards depicted in Figure 2-3. Do not maintain separate height require- ments t/ed to underlying land uses. This will help attain heights appropriate to individual corridors, rather than reflecting the variation that will result from the application of height requirements tied to individual land uses. 3. I-1.5 Establish development standards in the Municipal Code to reinforce Downtown's trad~onal development pattern. Unique mid-block alleys in Downtown provide linkages and parking tucked away behind buildings. 3-7 ..... TSC .... SAN .... ,ICISL.,., ,~ENER,-~. r~AN City Hall, the Downtown's most prominent landmark, was built in 1920. The Downtown street scape improvement program would include tree planting along Downtown avenues, similar to these trees along Grand Avenue in front of City Hall. 3-8 Table 3. 1-2 Permitted Intensities/Densities and Uses in Downtown Downtown Commercial High Density Retail/Eating Yes No Establishments (required on first floor)1,2 Office Yes No Hotels Yes No Residential Yes Yes None on the first floor Residential Mecfium Density Low Density No No No No No No Yes Yes Maximum '.*-~.% (residential and non- residential uses together) Haximum Residential Density3 (units per net acre) Minimum Residential Density. (units per net acre) 3.0 None (limited only 40.0 by unit size requirements (30.0 for and development lots less standards in the than one Municipal Code, and acre in total FAR limitations) size) 25.0 12.0 14.1 20.1 12.1 None Off-street Parking None4 1.2 spaces 1.5 spaces 1.5 spaces Required per unit per unit per unit I The Municipal Code may allow with a use permit non-residential service-oriented establishments (such as banks, travel agencies, and real estate offices) on the first floor. Hotels may also be permitted on the first floor, provided a majority of street frontage is devoted to restaurants. 2 Residential'uses permitted as a conditional use on ground floor south of Baden Avenue. 3 25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for eldedy residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or sites located within Il'l-mile of a flxed-guideway transit (Caltrain) station, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specified In the Zoning Ordinance. Bonus may not be double counted. 4 For properties located in the Downtown Parking District. 3. I-i-6 3. I-L7 3. I-I-8 These should include: Maximum set-backs or build-to lines for development in areas designated as Downtown Commercial; Reduced set-back and open space requirements for Downtown Residential areas; Increased minimum lot-size requirements for sites designated as Downtown High and Medium Density Residential; and · Reduced off-street parking standards. Work with the Peninsula Joint Corridors Board and other agencies to deve/- ap a new multi-modal transportation hub on the southeast side of the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. See Figure 4-5 of Chapter 4 for a conceptual plan of the multi-modal hub. Undertake a Downtown streetscape improvement program, which would include: Signage or banners along the east side ~of Airport Boulevard to announce Downtown and the auto row from U.S. I01; Signage for the new multi-modal transportation center at the southeast comer of' Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard; Tree planting, especially along South Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Spruce Road, and Miller, Grand, and Commercial avenue~r and · Vegetation along Railroad Avenue to provide a buffer between Downtown residential uses and industrial areas to the south. Improve pedestrian connections between the new mu/t/-modal transporta- tion center and Downtown through techniques such as sidewalk bulbing, lighting improvements, and signage. 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Magnolia Senior Center is one of the few locations with street trees in Downtown. The addition of trees and vegeta- tion in other locations would beautify the area. 3-9 [ r SO~ .;AN ...... CISC.., ,.,~'NER, .... AN If development does not meet the established off-street park- ing requirements, proponents wouM be required to con- tribute an appropriate share to the Downtown Parking District to mitigate impacts associated with the development. 3. I-I-9 3.1-1-10 3.1-1-11 3.1-1-11 Establish design and signage standards for development along Grand and South Linden avenues. Require all development in Downtown to e/ther meet the established off-street parking requirements, or contribute an appropriate share to the Downtown Parking District to mit/gate impa~ assodated with the development. Many recent developments in Downtown have neither provided off- street parking, nor contributed any monies to the Downtown Parking District, because findings that result in exemptions allowed in the City's Zoning Ordinance have been easy to make. Section 20.74.080 the City's Zoning Ordinance will need to be amended to conform to this policy. Explore the feasibility of establishing Miller and Baden avenues as one-way couplets, for the extent between Airport Boulevard and Spruce Road. This effort should be coordinated with SamTrans, as both Miller and Baden avenues are bus routes. Expand the Downtown Central Redevelopment District boundaries to encompass sites designated Downtown Commercial, and Downtown High and Medium Density Residential. , This will require extension of the current redevelopment boundaries west to Orange Avenue, and expansion along the northern Linden Avenue corridor. 3-10 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.2 L. INDENVILLE For policies related to the S£ruce Corridor and the San Bruno BART Station area, see Section 3.3. Government-built housing for military personnel and shipyard workers was devel- oped during the war on the former marshland between Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue. The area is still known as Lindenville, after the largest government development. Demolition of the housing in the late 1950s paved the way for redevelopment of the area with warehouses, light industry, and single-family housing in the Mayfair Village subdivision. Today, warehousing and distribution and light industrial uses are dominant; storage, automobile repair, manufacturing, and small business parks are also present. Parcels in Lindenville are also smaller when compared to their industrial counterparts in the East of 101 area. The largest single structure is the 583,000 square foot Zellerbach Paper plant, which ceased operations in 1998. Lindenville is the city's only industrial area west of U.S. 101. Essentially the only part of South San Francisco where industrial and residential land uses are in close proximity, il~ is the source of most of the use conflicts in the city. Conflicts are most apparent along the Railroad Avenue corridor, where industrial uses abut the down- town residential neighborhoods, although the Mayfair Village, Francisco Terrace, and Baden subdivisions are sometimes affected as well. Access to the area is con- strained, and often trucks have to negotiate downtown streets to access U.S. 101 at the Grand Avenue intersection, creating bottlenecks at major entryways to the city. With the establishment of the San Bruno BART station, which lies at the southern tip of Lindenville, regional access to the area will be dramatically improved. Since the San Bruno BART station will be about half the distance from downtown South San Francisco than will be the South San Francisco BART Station, South Linden Avenue will form the connection between the BART station and Downtown, necessitating improvements. As with many of South San Francisco's older areas, Lindenville is need of upgrad- ing and rehabilitation. Many of the uses in Lindenville are nonconforming, partic- ularly with regards to parking, loading, and landscaping. The BART extension will Lindenville abounds with large industrial facilities such as the closed DuPont plant. Redevelopment of these uses with more-intensive uses including offices will occur in the Street improvements to South Linden Avenue are neccesary since it will provide the main connection between the San Bruno BART station and Downtown. 3-Il E .... ' SOL.,,, .;AN ..... CISC,., ~NER~. r~,N 3-12 Low Density Re~ldential ni~ De. milT Rtsidmtial Downtown C, omm~t~tai Business ~o~ ~nation ~ter ~bUc P~ ~d ~on o~sp~ ~-'~ Existin$ Re~ional/ArterJal/Coflector ].--nun Prolx)aed Street Planning Subarea Interchange/Intersection Study Area I 0 Acres 0 1/4 2.5 Acres 1/2 I MILES 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Table 3.2- I Lindenville: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Approved Additional Total (Housing Units/Floor Area in Square Feet) Residential Low Density - - Medium Density - - High Density - 70 Total - 70 Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) - 126,000 Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) - 281,000 Coastal Commercial - - Downtown Commercial - - Office - 2,307,000 Business & Technology Park - Industrial - (I,519,000) Community Commercial - 457,000 Total - 1,652,000 126,000 281,000 2,307,000 (~,s ~,ooo) 457,000 1,652,000 Ddf Population/Employment 210 210 300 739 . 7,098 (I,591) 914 7,461 3-13 I r so; ~AN CISC _ _ "NEK ._. _AN South Linden Avenue. Large warehouses and industrial facilities will be permitted to continue in selected areas. Corner of South Maple and Victory avenues. New office development will be encouraged in areas that are not desig- nated as Mixed Industrial. 3-14 also provide redevelopment opportunities, particularly since major uses have either closed operations or may provide succession to other uses. Additional rede- velopment opportunities stem from some abandoned parcels along South Linden and San Mateo avenues, although the presence of known hazardous waste will need to be negotiated. GUIDING POLICIES: LINDENVILLE 3.2-G-I Maintain the industrial character in the area from roughly the Spruce Avenue corridor in the west to San Mateo Avenue in the east, and south of' Railroad Avenue to the San Bruno BART station. 3.2-G-2 Develop new streets and through connections to facilitate truck movement; improve access to U.S. I01, and provide better connect/v/ty between the proposed San Bruno BART station and Downtown. 3.2-G-3 Develop a regional commercial center at the planned Victory Avenue exten- sion to U.S. I 0 I. 3.2-G-4 Enhance the appearance of*the area by undertaking streetscape and other improvements. 3.2-G-$ Improve buffering between industrial areas in IJndenville and surrounding residential neighborhoods. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: LINDENVILLE Land Use 3.2-1-1 Ensure that a full range of industrial uses continue to be permitted as con- forming uses on s/res designated as M/xed Industrial in the Genera/Plan. 3.2-1-2 Encourage new o/~ce development to locate in Downtown, Business Commercial, or 0f~ce districts; not in areas designated as Mixed Industrial. Ensure that existing offices continue to be recognized as conforming uses in the Zoning Ordinance. 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.2-1-3 3.2-1-4 3.2-/.$ 3.2-/-6 Establish a loft-style live/work overlay district for the area bounded by Co/ma Creek to the south, South L/nden Avenue to the east, Railroad Avenue to the north, and west to the City Corporation Yard(see Figure 3-2). Establish spec/ftc performance-based requirements and use compatibility standards for the distriCt and ensure that such development does not limit or impinge upon uses consistent with the underlying base Mixed Industrial designation. Do not permit manufacturing, warehousing or distribution on the sites des- ignated for Regional Commercial facilities, and retail uses on sites desig- nated as/d/xed Industrial. Recognize the Golden Gate Produce Terminal in its present state as a spe- cial conforming use w/th the Genera/Plan Regional Commercial designation. However, require transition to regional shopping uses in case of major changes, alterations, or redevelopment. Ensure that retail facilities at the new regional shopping center at the Victory Avenue/U.S. I 01 interchange do not compete with Downtown estab- lishments by perm/tting on/y a limited number of smaller stores, restaurants, and offices that could otherwise be located in Downtown. If the Golden Gate Produce Terminal undergoes major changes, alterations, or redevelopment, it will be redevel- oped as a regional shopping center. Parking, Loading, and Street. scape 3.2-1-7 Establish requirements for common Undenville in the Zoning Ordinance. loading and parcel access for 3.2-1-8 In partnership with property owners, explore the feasibility of establishing a street tree and lightJng district to provide a revenue source for streetscape improvements and maintenance in the area. 3.2-/-9 Create a Undenville Parking District to help alleviate problems of on-street truck parldng. Require existing uses to conform to parldng, loading, and landscaping requirements of' the Zoning Ordinance by e/ther meeting the standards outright, or participating in the Parking District program. South Maple Avenue near the San Bruno BART station. On-street truck parking is a nuisance that will be alleviated through the creation of a Lindenville Parking District. 3-15 I T SO ~AN ICISC ~_ :NER.._ . _AN Several streets in Lindenille, including South Linden Avenue, do not currently have sidewalks - streetscape' sig- nage, and sidewalks improvements are proposed in the General Plan. South Canal/South Linden avenues. Parking in Lindenville is a problem, since many uses such as auto repair facilities take up many parking spaces. 3-16 3.2-1-10 3.2-1-11 Prepare and implement a streetscape improvement plan for South Linden Avenue that recognizes its new role as the connector between the San Bruno BART Station and Downtown. The San Bruno BART station, south of Lindenville, will be exacdy one mile away from the center of downtown, whereas the South San Francisco station will be at a two-mile distance. Thus, Lindenville streets, especially South Linden Avenue, are likely to become important gateways into the city in general, and downtown in particular. These considerations should be reflected in streetscape, signage and other urban design aspects. Components of the streetscape plan coUld include emphatic street trees that help visually link Downtown with the BART station, street lighting to ensure pedestrian safety, under- grounding of overhead utilities, construction of sidewalks, pedestrian crosswalks, and bike lanes if feasible. Do not permit any truck parking along the new Victory Avenue extension, and along South Linden Avenue. Transportation and Goods Movement 3.2-1-12 3.2-1-13 Minimize any new curb-cuts on Victory and South I~nden avenues; encour- age site access from side streets wherever possible. Establish design and development standards for frontage along South ISnden and Victory avenues that include: · Requirements for landscaping; · Visual buffering of'loading and parking areas; · Requirements for windows; and · Setbacks. 3.2-1-14 Provide new street extensions in Lindenville as outlined in Chapter 4: Transf~ortation. 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT These indude a new interchange at South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101, extension of Victory Avenue to the interchange, extension of South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno BART station, extensio,, af Mission Street to South Maple Avenue, and Shaw Avenue extension north to Produce Avenue. 3.2-1-15 Require the new regional shopping center at Victor)/Avenue/U.S. I01 to pay /ts fair share of the new interchange and other improvements in the area. Consider active City/private parmerships to upfront part of the money for the interchange improvement. 3-17 E .....' SOL,,,, ~AN i ,~,~,~CISC~; ~cNER~ r~AN 3-18 3.3 SOUTH SPRUCE CORRIDOR/SAN BRUNO BART STATION AREA SOUTH SPRUCE CORRIDOR The South Spruce Corridor consists of a mixture of old and fairly new offices, light manufacturing, warehousing, and residential uses. One of the major manufactur- ing uses is Orowheat. Bordering uses include older industrial uses such as auto- mobile retail and repair shops and Black Mountain Water. BART STATION AREA This area includes manufacturing and distribution facilities such as Dow Chemicals and Rodger's Trucking that are either winding down operations or are closed. RV storage lots, tire service centers, and freight forwarders are the other uses in the area. Extension of BART to the area (the San Bruno BART Station is located within one-quarter mile of most of this 25-acre area) will dramatically alter regional accessibility. The area also lies across from the intensively developed Tanforan Shopping Center in San Bruno. Of all the sites near a fixed-guideway transit station in South San Francisco, this offers the greatest potential for redevel- opment and use intensification. Residential uses are not permitted due to aircraft overflights, and soil contamination is a major problem. Land assembly may also be necessary to achieve high-end commercial development. GUIDING POLICIES South Spruce Corridor 3.3-C,- I Establish use designations and design standards that recognize Spruce Corridor's role as a buffer between the industrial areas to the east and the /vla)q'air/Orange Park neighborhoods to the west. 3.3-G-2 Discourage new industrial uses and promote uses that maximize accessi- bility gains that will result from new street connections. San Bruno BART Station Area 3.3-C,-3 Develop the South San Francisco portJon of the area near the San Bruno BART station as a high intensity Business Commercial District. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES South Spruce Corridor 3.3-1-1 Establish design and development standards that recognize South Spruce's evolution as a Business Commercial corridor, and an important connect/on from Downtown to E/Camino Real. 3.3-/.2 Do not permit any new warehouse/distributJon, manufacturing or auto- related uses in the corridor. 3.3-1-3 Encourage building continuity along the corridor, with buildings oriented to the street, limitations on blank walls, parking tucked behind buildings, and landscape standards. 3.3-1-4 Undertake a South Spruce Corridor streetscape improvement program. This progr~ would include landscaping and signage, emphasizing the corridor'as an entrance to Downtown. Area A: North Corridor 3.3-1-5 Allow a range of'residential, live/work, and Business Com'mercial uses. Permit mixed-use office and residential developments. See also policy 3.2-I-3 relating to live/work overlay districts in the pre- ceding section. 3.3-1-6 Do not permit any new retail or eating and drinking establishments. 3.3-/-7 Maintain industrial uses northeast of the North Canal Street/South Spruce intersection. 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT The South Spruce Corridor streetscape improvement pro- gram would include landscaping and signage, emphasising the corridor as a link between Downtown and the San Bruno BART station. 3-19 SOL ... SAN ....... CISC... ..,,,NER;,- , ,.AN Low Den,itT Residential Medium Densi~ Resident~ HI~ Densi~ ~sl~nthl D~t~n Co~~~d B~ Co~ C~st~ ~rc~ M~Ind~ ~s~mtlon ~ter r**~-'-'.'""' Exlstin8 Re#onal/Arterial/Collector ----- Propoml Street .... Plannln8 Subarea ! Interdumge/Intersection StudyArea 10 Acres 2.5 Acres I/4 1/2 ! MILES 3-20 Development, Population, ane, ~-,,,,-,[,~y~nt,_,, ,~. _ under the General Plan for the South Spruce CorridodSan Bruno BART Station Area are included in the Lindenville, Orange Park, and El Camino sub-area tables. Construction is currentl? underway on the BART tracks and the San Bruno station along Huntington Avenues, just south of the South San Francisco City limits? When com- pleted in late 2001, this transportation system will be a tremendous asset to the city. 21 :T SC SAI~ _ ..~iCIS..-..~ENE,,,-,~ rLAN South Maple Avenue near the San Bruno BART station. Older industrial uses will be redeveloped with"transit-ori- ented" development, with an office or research and develop- ment orientation. 3-22 Area B: South and Ce~,~tral Corridor 3.3-1-8 Allow a full range alr Business Commercial uses, but no new retail estab- lishments. 1.'~ermit eating and drink/ng establishments, but no new drive- through operations. 3.3-/-9 Minimize n, ~.w curb-cuts along Spruce Street. 3.3-LI0 Encourage o~ce or other uses compatible with Business Commercial des- ignation for hie Zellerbach property. Contingent upon completion or secur- ing o~ funding .~'or the Mission Road extension to South Maple Road, allow designation for the s/re to change to Office (with corresponding increase in allowable FAR, o'~ stipulated in the land use classifications in Chapter 2). 3.3-L I I Recognize sites designated as Mixed Industrial (at Spruce/Mission and Spruce~FI Camir~o Real) as transitional manufacturing uses. Allow continu- ation and expa~sion of existing manufacturing operations, but require any new deve/opme,~t to be consistent with Business Commercial designation. San Bruno BART Station Area 3.3-1-12 Undertak~: a redevelol~ment program which phases out the industrial, ware- housing, and distribution uses in the area. 3.3-1-13 Ensure tt',,at development is "transit-oriented'; with an office or research and development orientation and retail only as a supporting use. 3.3-I-14 Prepare ,'~ focused land assembly and parcelization program that.' Resu Its in tmrcels at' a size (for example, between two and six acres) that can be readily marketed; Reli,.~s on Mission Road Extension, South Linden Avenue extension and a new street between Linden and Myrtle avenues as the armatures of' tmrcelization; Provides realignment at' the southern part of' South Maple Avenue to Noor Avenue, if' possible; and 3: PLANING §UB-AREA$ ELEMENT 3.3-1-15 · A connected street network, with another potential east-west local street Establish development standards that ensure that · New development has a minimum intensity of' 1.5 FAR; · Is built with a pedestrian-orientation, with active (non-parking) uses fronting South Idnden Avenue, Mission Road, and South Maple Avenue; · Maximum height limit of 80 feet; · Build-to lines, with step-backs for development over 25 feet in height; and · Bulk control. 3-23 .~ ?rsc _ ..: SAN .... NCIS~ .~ENE .... ~LAN Looking south on El Camino Real The corridor includes a variety of uses, ranging frora hotels and high-density hous- ing to fast food restaurants and shopping centers. 3.4 EL CAt41NO REAL E1 Camiqo Real (State Route 82), was the first highway and automobile route through the Peninsula. It developed parallel to the former Southern Pacific tracks (owned by Union Pacific) that linked the "railroad suburbs" of San Mateo County to San Francisco. The corridor continues to be an important movement route through the Peninsula. The downtowns of most of the County's cities--including San Mateo, Burlingame, Redwood City, Belmont, Atherton, San Bruno and Millbrae--are located on or adjacent to either E1 Camino Real or the Union Pacific tracks. Recent commercial development with a regional emphasis has occurred recently along E1 Camino Real, including Costco and Towne Center. El Camino Real, almost two miles long through its stretch in the city, is South San Francisco's most diverse area in terms of land use. Reflecting the regional heritage of the corridor, commercial uses such as hotels, fast-food restaurants, and shop- ping centers selling home furnishing and comparison goods predominate. Residential uses, offices, and service commercial uses are located in small pockets. E1 Camino Real is also a major neighborhood commercial center; all but one of the city's neighborhood shopping centers are located in the corridor. In addition, the area contains the See's Candies manufacturing plant, the Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility, the County Government Center, and the planned South San Francisco BART station. New housing developments along E1 Camino Real inclu& the Promenade and Greenridge. Policies for E1 Camino Real in the General Plan refer to the following five sub- areas: South San Francisco BART Station Area. This is the northernmost part of the corridor, and site for the planned South San Francisco BART station. Development is set-back from the streets and is extremely auto-oriented; there are no sidewalks or other pedestrian amenities and no on-street parking is allowed. Development opportunities are in the eastern half of the corridor, and in addition to the BART station, include the former Macy's Service Center and intensification of the Treasure Island Trailer Court. 3 -24 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3-26 Low Density Residential Medium Dmsit~ Residenthl High Density Residential Downtown Commercial Community Commerci.l Business Commercial Co~tsl Commercitl Mixed Industrial Business md ~]mology Park Transportation Center PuMic Park and Recreation Open Sptce Loft Over]ay District ~ ~.lst ins Region~l/Aflerial/Collect or umBmu ~ Street ------ Phnnln$ SubL,'~ Interchange~Intersection Study Colma Nile Radi ....... ,.,.~ · I 0 Acres 2.SAcru 1/4 1/2 MILES 3, ?LANING SUB-AREAS ELEMEI',,iT , . 0 . Kaiser Hospital Area. Kaiser Hospital is one of the city's principal employers. E1 Camino ponl in thiq nro~ iq qi¥ trnvol lnnoq wlclo lnnclccaporl moHi~n with l~l- turn lanes, and parallel parking on both sides of the street. On-street parking is competitive. This area is very stable, and unlikely to see many land use Buri Buri center Area. This area, with the intersection of E1 Camino/Chestnut as its focus, has the highest concentration of activity along the E1 Camino Real, and includes the northernmost point in the city where E1 Cam,.o can be crossed. Ei camino is fronted by non-residential uses throughout this stretch, including office plazas, banks, a funeral chapel, gas stations, motels, delis, and some fast-food establishments. Buri Buri Shopping Center, containing Bell Market, as well as the Municipal Services Building, Fairway Plaza, and area between El (;amino Real and Antoinette Lane. South San Francisco High School/Baden. Dominated by the High School, this ctrotch at' 1~.1 (-'.arnlnn ~nclllF]oc cnrno nftho nlrloct h~lnoalnw-¢tvlo hnllco¢ in tho city, part of the Baden neighborhood. Commercial uses in this area generally fall in two categories - comparison goods such as home furnishings, and a large number of fast-food stores catering to student clientele. Southwood Center is also located here and is one of the few examples of a shopping cen- ter outside of downtown built to the street edge. Any new development in this area will result from reuse. O~,Y, ~ ~,UnuI~/ lurtjul-urt. 11115 ttlCtt COlltttlll~ ootll 5OlllC Ol tile newest coiiiiiier- cial uses along E1 Camino Real and Huntington Avenue, as well as one of the oldeqt h~lqinocc oqtnhllchmontq in tho city- See's IT. nnrlloc, which iq n mn.jflr employment center. Also located here is a Safeway, Longs Drug Store, and the city's only multiplex movie theater. While redevelopment opportunities in this area are limited, the planned San Bruno BART station is within a walking dis- tance of much of this part of E1 Camino corridor. Development is currently underway on the Costco store (formerly Macy's Warehouse) north of the South San Francisco BART station. 3-25 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT T~ble 3.4- I El C~nlno Real: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Approved Add~onal (Housing Units/Floor Ama in Square Feet) Total Population/Employment Residential Low Density 180 - 180 530 Medium Density 30 I 0 40 120 High Density 520 520 1,530 Total 210 530 740 2,180 134,000 Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) Coastal Commercial Downtown Commercial Ofllce Business & Technology Park Industrial Community Commercial Total 134,000 160,000 145,000 305,000 160,000 279,G~0 439,000 412 610 1,022 3 -27 SOU ~ ~ 5AN I-KANClSCO GENERAL PLAN El Camino Real is one of the city's principal transportation routes and a main line for buses traveling to neighboring cities. The General Plan calls for streetscape improvements, including pedestrian amenities and trees. GUIDING POLICIES: EL CAMINO REAL Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard, that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that pray/de identL ty to the street. 3.4-G-2 Encourage development of' a m/x of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity that provide focii and identity to the d/f~rent parts of El Camino Real. 3.4-G-3 Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian- oriented center, w/th intens/ty and mix of'uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. Develop more east-west crossings El (,amino Real that connect the city's neighborhoods, and a continuous parallel street on the easts/de to pray/de akemative travel routes. II~IPLEI~IENTING POLICIES: EL CAMINO REAL Corr/dor Wide Policies 3.4-1-1 Develop, and in coordination with CalTrans, implement a streetscope plan for El Camino Real for ~ entire stretch through South San Francisco which includes: · Sidewalks, street lights and other pedestrian amen/ties in designated areas of pedestrian activity;, Consistent double row of median trees and trees on either side of' the street for the six-lane stretch of El Camino Real (generall~ Kaiser Hospital area and south); and · Consistent double row of trees for the two-/ane northern stretch (Kaiser Hospital to Calma). 3 -28 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Since El Camino Real is a State Route (SR 82), implementation of a plan will require CalTrans' cooperation. 3.4-1-2 Prepare and implement an El Camino Real over/ay district in the City's Zoning Ordinance that prov/des development standards that further El Camino's development as a m/xed-use use boulevard, accommodating the need for both auto-oriented uses as well as designated pedestrian-oriented centers. Regulations should include: Consistent maximum height alSO feet regard/ess of the underlying use, w/th a max/mum height of 80 feet in two areas: the BART station area, and the Chestnut~El Camino Real area (see F/gure 2-3); No minimum front setback requirements, provided active uses are located adjacent to streets, and performance-oriented building trans- parency and other standards spec//ied in the Zoning Ordinance are maintained; · Requirements for awnings, shade, building transparency for designated pedestrian areas; and · Landscape requirements. BART Station Area 3.4-1-3 In partnership with property owners, area residents, and BART and other agencies, develop the approximate/y eight-acre Hicke¥ 8oulevard Extension area (north of' the BART station between El Camino Real and A4ission 8oulevard; see Figure 3-4) as a pedestrian-oriented spine f'rc;;?~ed by active uses. 3.4-1-4 Permit big-box or other regional commercial a~vities north of' the pedes- trian-oriented center, but not in the center. 3.4-1-5 Establish transit-supportive development requirements for the opproxi- mamA/eight-ocre station area that include: 3-29 bru,~r'F SOU ~ H SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Proposed Costco Residential mi~imum ': :. Bh'd Strengthen pedestrian connections to El Camino Hish School Mixed-use: Retail and concessions at ground floor with a required minimum at 100 housing units at upper floors Retail along plaza to activate edges 30 Units/Acre'Residential Hickey Boulevard Extension Big Box Beyond '!~.. - ;.~ ~.~ .- · ~.~.~ ~".'; i:~ '~::' ~.. 'I~, ~.~ L , .:...:~ ......... :....:,..= .~. .............. ...:-..:......:::~.: ........ ..:.,........:..... .... .../....~ ................ .........,....... ............. = .......... ..~....; ........... ~.......,.... ~:....., .... . ......................... Pede~en~d S~ 3-30 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT I O0 Units of Housing BART Sc~cion Beyond 3-31 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3-32 3.4-1-6 3.4-1-7 · Designation of the area as a transit-overlay zone, with spec~c deve/- opment requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance; · Transit-oriented design and development standards that address pedes- trian 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 dr/ye-through establishments; and · Minimum density and development intensity requirements. Prepare a focused plan for public improvements that includes: · Streets and other infrastructure improvements; and · Sidewalk design and construction within a I/2-mile afthe BART station to integrate the station with the surroundings. Work with BART and other agencies to ensure that the proposed plan for station area improvements includes: · Direct pedestrian connections and access to the EJ Cam/no High School and direct pedestrian connection at the terminus of'Evergreen Drive to the terminal; These connections are currently not incorporated in the station- area layout. As currently designed, pedestrian connections will occur through a kiss-and-ride parking lot. · Continuation of the two-mile long bikeway (included in Sect/on 4-3: A/temat/ve Transportation Systems and Parking) at the surface of'BART tracks directly to the terminal building/bicycle parl~ng area; and · Concessions fronting the entire northern frontage (which faces the plaza) of the parking structure. 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.4-1-8 3.4-1-9 3.4-1-10 3.4-1-11 3.4-1-12 Require any new development/redevelopment w~in I /2-mile of the BART station at a density of no less than 30 un/ts per net acre for residential uses, or an FAR of I.$ for non-residential uses, or an appropriate combination of the two. Maintain higher intensities where spec/fled otherwise in the Genera/Plan. Ensure that the development program for the (approximately 2.$ acre) northwest part of the block that includes the BART station includes: · Mix of uses, with retail and other concessions at the ground floor, and a required minimum of I O0 housing units at upper floors; and · Active retail uses/concessions along the north, east, and south faces of the property. Ensure that the development program for the former Ma~,~ warehouse site includes: · Active retail/concession uses along Hickey Boulevard Extension (fronting the northern part of the street); · Intensive residential and/or o~ce uses at upper floors within 400 feet of Hickey Boulevard; and · A variety of commercial uses in the portion of the site that extends beyond 400 feet of Hickey Boulevard. Work with BART on the potential for joint development of the property east of the former Macy's warehouse site, and north* of Hickey Boulevard Extension and BART right-of-way adjacent, with transit-oriented uses. Explore the feasibility for joint development other areas. Encourage redevelopment of the Treasure Island Trailer Park as Medium Density Residential development; permit no more than 50,000 square feet of commercial uses at the site, fronting the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and El Camino Real. 3-33 Dt~AI-I' SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The shortage of on-site parking at Kaiser Hospital forces many workers and patients to park on El Camino Real. Safe pedestrian crossings are an issue as well 3-34 Kaiser Hospital Area 3.4-I-13 In cooperation with Kaiser Hospital, undertake a program to alleviate on- street parking shortage. Many workers and visitors to the hospitals park along E1 Camino Real, some several thousand feet north. Many park on the south side of the street as well; pedestrians crossing the six-lane state highway at non- designated crossings is also a safety hazard. Among the possible solu- tions to alleviate the parking shortage is to reduce the width of the median creating two additional parking lanes along the median (or at least one parking lane the north side of the median). This would also slow traffic near the hospital. 3.4-1-14 Work with Kaiser Hospital to explore the feasibility of a street conne~on fram the hospital to Mission Road. With approximately 1,200 employees, Kaiser Hospital is the city's sec- ond largest employer and the largest in the area west of U.S. 101. As a full service health care facility, the hospital also draws visitors, generat- lng much traffic. Currently, the only access points to the hospital are from E1 camino Real. A potential connection to Mission Road, espe- cially given the planned extension, of Mission Road southward (see Chapter 4: Transportation), would both improve accessibility to the hospital and provide some relief to traffic along E1 Camino Real. This connection would require traversing the BART right-of-way. A large site north immediately north of the BART right-of-way is currently vacant; thus, a street connection could be provided without disrupting any existing development. Buri-Buri Center Area 3.4-1-15 Connect Arroyo Drive to the west of El Camino Real With Oak Avenue to the east. This will provide a new east-west connection parallel to Chestnut Avenue. In addition to providing traffic relief, this connection will help 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT link Buri Buri and Sunshine Garden neighborhoods. 3.4.1-16 Maintain a plurality of uses in the area; permit m/xed-use development in the area southeast of Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real, provided no res/- dent~al uses am located at the ground level, and El Camino Real is f'mnted by act/ye uses. South San Fmndsco High SchoollBaden 3.4.1-17 Require that any redevelopment of the Iow-intensity commercial uses on the east side of El Camino Real in this area in the form o/m/xed-use develop- ment, with retail/office uses at the ground level and residential uses at upper levels. Require development be oriented to El Camino Real, and the street fronted by active uses. 3.4.1-18 Encourage lot consolidation in the ama, either through active redevelop- ment, or through owner part/a:ipation. 3.4-1-19 As part of the streetscape master plan for El Camino Real, undertake efforts to slow traf~ near the High School, and provide an adequate num- ber of crossings across El Camino Real. See's CandiedTanfomn 3.4-1-20 Recogn/ze See's Candies as a trans~onal use; permit it as a conforming use, allowing for expansion or contra~on as necessary. Req~;i~ any rede- velopment of the site to be non-industrial and sensit/we to the residential uses to the north. Intersections in South San Francisco should be improved to provide safe crossings for pedestrians crossing El Camino. 3-35 SOb I H ~AN FKANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The city's first office/industrial park, Cabot, Cabot Forbes, was built in 1963 in the East of 101 area. '3-36 3.5 EAST OF 101 The traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, the East of 101 area was originally developed with meat packing and heavy manufacturing activities. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some of the city's major establishments whose products helped build California's modem transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more attractive os a shipping terminal, and the city became the central distribution point for the entire Peninsula. In the post-war years the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attract- ing light industry to the city for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the newly-developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and performance provi- sions, and featured a 0.5 FAR, ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design. The park heralded South San Francisco's industrial future. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research and development and biotechnology, in part spurred by the success of the 72-acre Genentech campus, employing over 3,200 people at its 72-acre headquarters at the bayshore. While the East of 101 area is almost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active. Since the city's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's future. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maximize the poten- tial of undeveloped or underused properties in the city's traditional industrial area east of U.S. 101. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are ~ ?i. AI',lll',iG ..3~ iB ARE/-.S EL£1'IE:' LAND USE AND EMPLOYMENT CHANGE As South San Francisco's employment base, the East of 101 area is expected to accommodate a major share of South San Francisco's new non-residential devel- U~AAA~AA~e 9 · AAAA~ ~ ~A ~ MA ove~aH employment levels are e~ected to double (from 22,200 in ] 99T to 42,000 at Plan b~fldout), a~ low-intensity industfia4 warehousing and di~tfibm~on ~e~ are replaced by h~gher-~nten~ u~es. Both the General Plan and the Ha~t of ] 0 ] Area Plan wfl~ hdp grade the Ha~t of ] 0 ~ area thmHgh th~ transition. GUIDING POLICIES: EAST OF 101 AREA 3.5-G- i 3.5-G-2 Direct and actively participate in shaping the design and urban character of the East of I 01 area. 3.5-G-3 Promote campus-style biotechnology, research, and research and develop- ment uses. 3.5-G-4 Use the East of I01 Area Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan policies. Linlefield/East Grand. Older iow-intensity industrial, ware- housing, and distribution uses will be replaced by higher- intensity uses. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: EAST OF I 01 AREA 3.$-I-I Maintain the East of i01 Area Plan as the detailed implementing guide for the area; amend it as appropriate for consistency with the General Plan. This includes design review of projects in accordance with policies established in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan. 3.$-1-2 Update land use map and classifications of the East of I01 Area Plan to 3-37 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Low DeMity Red~entbl Medium Density Reddenthl HJ~h Delui~ Re~identbl Community cemmercbl Busine~ Commerc~ Coastal Commerchl Bmlness md Technolo~ l~rk Trampor~sflon Center Park tnd Recreation Lof~ Overhy District ~m~m Existin$ ae#onal/AflerLd/Collect or .... Phnnin$ Suhre~ Interchtnge/Intersection Study Area 0 114 I/2 MIL~ San J~iancisco Bay 3-38 PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Table 3.5- I East of I 01: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Approved Additional (Housing Units/Floor Area in Square Feet) Total Residential Low Density Medium Density High Density Total Non-residential '- - Business Commercial (Hotels) 817,000 308,000 I, 125,000 Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) 1,507,000 1,507,000 Coastal Commercial 164,000 164,000 Downtown Commercial - Office 516,000 516,000 Business & Technology Park 386,000 2,869,000 3,255,000 Industrial 332,000 (I,822,000) (I ,490,000) Community Commercial 150,000 105,000 255,000 Total 2,201,000 3,130,000 5,332,000 Population/Employment 2,679 23,966 410 1,588 7,233 U,5~) 510 I ~,825 39 L,,,,-,, [ SOu, n SAN rru~,qCISCu uENERAL PLAN Table 3.5-2 East of I 01: Existing and Projected Building Area and Employment Exist~rig Land Use Category Est/mated floor Employment area (square feet) Change Contemplated Under General Plan (including ai~proved development) Total Genera/Plan Buildout EstJmated floor) Employment Estimated floor) Emplayment area (square feet) area (square feet) Commercial/Retail (including 795,600 2,340 Service Commercial) Hotels/Visitor 689,600 1,660 Services Office and R&D 3,064,100 10,390 Warehouse/Industrial 7,486,400 7,850 Total 12,035,700 22,240 420,000 1,200 1,214, 100 3,540 I, 124,000 2,250 1,813, 100 3,910 5,278,000 17,590 8,342,100 27,980 (I,490,000) (I,560) 5,995,900 6,290 5,332~000 19,480 17,3&5,200 41,720 3.5-1-2 3.$-1-3 This includes design review of projects in accordance with policies established in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan. Update land use map and class~cat~ons of the East of I01 Area Plan to ,effect the Genera/Plan policy dire~on. This can be done by making physical changes to the plan document, or by incorporating the General Plan policies and maps by reference. Do not permit any non-residential uses in the East of I 01 area. This has been a long-standing City policy. Although virtually the entire East of 101 area lies outside the projected Year 2006 65CNEL airport noise contour, the area is nonetheless sensitive both from noise and safety perspectives. The 1991 Agreement for Aircraft Noise Mitigation between the City and the San Frandsco International Airport (SFIA) stipulates that if South San Francisco approves policies or new devel- 3-40 3.$-1-4 3.5-1-5 3.5-1-6 opment allowing noise sensitive uses to be established east of U.S. 101, despite any stated objections on the part of SFIA, the City will reim- burse all noise mitigation funding to SFIA. However, with the Agreement set to lapse in August 2001, South San Francisco could per- mit noise-sensitive uses to locate in the East of 101 area after this time without forfeiting the monies provided the airport for noise retro- firing in the city. However, residential uses are incompatible with the existing and emerging uses in the area. Unless otherwise stipulated in a spec./rfic plan, allow building heights in the East of' I01 area to the max/mum limits permissible under Federal Rviation Regulations Part 77. Airport-related height limits in South San Francisco are shown in Figure 2-2. The most stringent limit in the City is 161 feet (above mean sea level) over much of East of 101 south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville. Outside of those areas, height limits increase to 361 feet at a slope of 20:1. Some of the western parts of South San Francisco are within the airport approach zone, where height limits increase at a rate of 40:1 above the 361-foot limit, and where other safety guidelines apply. Height regulations have not posed any major constraint to develop- ment in the past. The limits have the greatest potential impact in the East of 101 area; however, even the most stringent requirements in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area still allow for development of buildings of up to 12 to 14 stories. Do not vary perm/fled maximum development intensities based on lot-size. Policy LU-Sc of the East of 101 Area Plan will need to be amended for consistency with this General Plan policy. Prepare a focused study to examine General Plan land use designations, perm/t/ed uses, m/xes and intensities, and transportation improvements upon approval of 4.5 million square feet of additional development follow- ing adoption of the General Plan. 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Gateway Redevelopment Area~ Although airport-related height limits constrain development in East of lO1, build- ings ma), be as tall as 12-14 stories even in the most con- strained areas. 3-41 SO,.., ,~, SAN rru,~lCISC.,..., ~ENEI~'~L r'LAN The Genentech Campus. Landscaping and lighting near business parks improves the character and safe~ of these 3 -42 3.5-1-7 3.5-1-8 The need for such a study is at least five to six years, if not longer, away. The intent is to establish a threshold to trigger a study if the pace of development is more rapid than anticipated. The General Plan contemplates 6.8 million square feet of additional building area (existing approvals and new development) in the East of 101 area; since much of this will result from redevelopment of existing low-intensity uses, the net space change is expected to be about 5.3 million square feet. With existing approvals for about 2.2 million square feet, this policy will permit remaining capacity of about 1.0 mil- lion square feet to allow for continued approvals while the study is completed. Prepare signage and streetscope plan for the areas designated as Business Commercial and Business and Technology Park on the Genera/ Plan Diagram, treat/ng the eat/re area as one large campus, with unified signage and orchestrated streetscopes that make wayfinding easy and pleasant. The initial location of biotechnology businesses in South San Francisco was due to the city's location as well as a combination of for- tuitous circumstances. The East of 101 area is under multiple owner- ship, with parcels ranging in size from 10 acres to several hundred acres. The need to treat the area as.one large campus for signage pur- poses has become apparent as many new high-technology and busi- ness park u.ses have moved into the area as a result of incremental rede- velopment. With General Plan estimates suggesting that employment in the area could double over the course of the Plan, the need to imple- ment a signage and.landscaping plan is even more critical. It may also be necessary if South San Francisco is to remain competitive against emerging campus-style biotechnology parks, such as at the Mission Bay in San Francisco. Polities DE-7 through DE-12 of the East of 101 Area Plan also include guidance on specific landscape treatments, and should be consulted as part of the streetscape plan. Undertake actJve efforts, including acquisition if necessary, to develop a Town Square/Campus Center at the terminus of East Grand Avenue at the 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.5-1-9 3.5-1- I 0 shoreline, with restaurants, cafes, support commercial establishments such as dry<leaners, to meet the needs of the employees in the East of I 01 area. The high-tech industry demands high amenity areas that offer parks, retail, commercial, and daycare advantages. Not induding the currently unmet lunch-time demand, the anticipated addi- tion of 20,000 new employees could support a building program of about 100,000 square feet. Thus, a development program in the range of 120,000 to 140,000 may be appropriate. Assuming an average FAR of about 0.35, an eight- to 10-acre site would be needed. This location Would provide the most accessibility to employees in the area. In addition, with the eastern extension of Railroad Avenue, this location would be convenient to residents as well, many of whom may patronize waterfront establishments in the weekends and evenings. The design of the center should maxi- mize views and waterfront accessibility. Sen Bruno Channel Provide a shoreline park, either in conjunction with the Town Center or in close proximity to it. This park will be funded through the standard of 0.5 acre of parkland per 1,000 employees established in the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element. Consideration should be given to meeting both active and passive lunch-time recreation needs of employees. Prepare a new Master Plan for the Oyster Point area. Work with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (B~DC) to reconcile the dif- fering designations for the area in the City's Genera/plan and BCDC's park priority use in the San Francisco Bay Plan. O ~'~i: Proposed · --~'..,.-- .... : Town i Squ re : ~j~J..;' Campus ~" Center BCDC carries out its regulatory process in accordance with the Bay Plan policies and maps, which guide the protection of the Bay and its marshes, managed wetlands, salt ponds, and shoreline. The Bay Plan San Francisco 120-140,000 sq. ft. of retail and services such as restaurants, cafes, and dry cleaners 3-43 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Oyster Point's restaurants and bed and breakfast will be complemented with additional coastal commercial uses. The recently approved Hilton Hotel will be built in the foreground. 3.5-1-11 was last updated in 1998, and retains a park priority designation for the site, reflecting a land use designation in South San Francisco's General Plan that was changed many years ago. The General Plan calls for the Oyster Point Marina area to be a combination of Coastal Commercial and park uses. Although BCDC's jurisdiction and per- mitring authority embrace only a 100-foot shoreline band, the City should work with BCDC to achieve consistent designations in the Bay Plan and the General Plan. Do not permit any new warehousing and distributJon north of East Grand Avenue or in areas designated Business Commercial. While warehousing and freight forwarding are important components of the local and regional economy, they tend to have high service costs and low revenue and employment generation. The location of freight forwarding has been an issue in South San Francisco throughout the 1990s. Inclusion of freight forwarding in the East of 101 Area Plan Planned Industrial (PI) land use classification was debated extensively during preparation of the East of 101 Area Plan, and freight forward- ing was ultimately induded as a permitted use. Recently the City has experienced an surge in applications for new freight forwarding uses, with a 55 percent increase in freight forwarding firms in the East of 101 area between 1993 and 1997. About half of the freight forwarding 3.5-i- i 2 3.5-1-13 operations are located in the PI area north of East Grand Avenue, lim- iting the availability of this land for expansion of the R&D and office uses for which the district was created, and potentially making the area less attractive to such firms. After proposing an amendment to the East of 101 Area Plan that would limit expansion of such operations, the City reached a compromise with freight forwarding operators where- by warehousing uses may not expand or convert to a freight forward- ing use after 2000. This policy would make this interim understanding a perlnunent OlltC. Explore mechanisms to help warehousing and distribution establishments, located in Business Commercial or Business and Technology Park districts, that are unable to convert to conforming uses due to parl~ng requirements, to attain conformity. Many warehousing buildings in these districts are fairly new, and many would convert to conforming uses if parking standards were not an impediment. Options to facilitate this that should be explored as part of the implementation process include reduced parking standards for such uses, or in lieu fee contributions to a City-established parking program to provide off-site parking at select locations. Facilitate waterfront enhancement and accessibility by'. Establishment of uses that would bring people to the waterfront (see policies 3.5-1-8 and 3.5-1-9); Establishment of a bayshore design review area as part of the Zoning Ordinance; and The integration of water access and waterfront enhancement into new bayshore development is a major issue. Specific design criteria for the bayshore area should be established, either as p~:rt of the East of the Warehousing and freight forwarding will be limited to the areas south of the East Grand Avenue. 3-45 3: PLANING SUB AREAS ELEMEN ! 3.5-1-12 3.5-1-13 operations are located in the PI area north of East Grand Avenue, lim- iting the availability of this land for expansion of the R&D and office uses for which the district was created, and potentially making the area less attractive to such firms. After proposing an amendment to the East of 101 Area Plan that would limit expansion of such operations, the City reached a compromise with freight forwarding operators where- by warehousing uses may not expand or convert to a freight forward- ing use after 2000. This policy would make this interim understanding ~t pc~,nanent one. Explore mechanisms to help warehousing and distribution establishments, located in Business Commercial or Business and Technology Park districts, that are unable to convert to conforming uses due to parking requirements, to attain conformity. Many warehousing buildings in these districts are fairly new, and many would convert to conforming uses if parking standards were not an impediment. Options to facilitate this that should be explored as part of the implementation process include reduced parking standards for such uses, or in lieu fee contributions to a City-established parking program to provide off-site parking at select locations. Facilitate waterfront enhancement and accessibility by: Establishment of uses that would bring people to the waterfront (see policies 3.5-1-8 and 3.5-1-9); Establishment of a bayshore design review area as part of the Zoning Ordinance; and The integration of water access and waterfront enhancement into new bayshore development is a major issue. Specific design criteria for the bayshore area should be established, either as p~rt of the East of the Warehousing and freight forwarding will be limited to the areas south of the East Grand Avenue. 3-45 L)RAi'I 5OUIH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAl PI AN Industrial uses will be allowed to continue south of East Grand Avenue in the East of 101 area. A Materials Recover~'/Transfer Facility will be built on the vacant lot bordering the BaX on the left. 101 Area Plan or elsewhere, and design review for the area should be conducted as part of design review for other aspects of the develop- ment, as per the process laid out in the East of lO 1 Area Plan. Ensuring that the Park Recreation and Open Space Master Plan include specific improvements for shoreline enhancement and accessi- biiity, as spelled out in the East of i0i Area Plan. See policy RE-3 in the plan. 3-46 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.6 AVALON This 492-acre area consists of the Avalon, Southwood and Brentwood single-fam- ily subdivisions developed in the 1940s and 1950s, as well as approximately 800 multiple-family units. With the exception of these acres of commercial develop- ment, the remaining land is occupied by residential, public, and open space uses. The area includes the unincorporated Country Club Park area and the California Golf and Country Club. Two schools serve this neighborhood, and Rotary Plaza-- a nonprofit-managed senior housing apartment project--is located here. No land is vacant within City limits, and reuse or intensification is not expected. GUIDING POLICY:AVALON 3.6-C,-I Maintain the existing character and uses of the Avalon area. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: AVALON 3.6-1-1 Do not annex any part of the Country Club Park area unless the entire area is annexed. 3.6.1-2 Retain the rural character of'the Country Club Park, with minimum lot sizes being three-quarters (3/4) of'an acre per housing unit. 3.6-1-3 Do not permit any add~onal religious institutions in the Country Club Park neighborhood or in the immediately adjoining area. 3.6.L4 Annex the unincorporated islands in the area only after improvements to deficient utility and roadway systems are made or otherwise guaranteed by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and/or by the affected prep- erty owners. 3 -47 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Medium Den~ty Zeddent,*t HJsh Density ResidentM Downtown Conunerchl Bmineu Commerchd jo~ ~ Industrial Bmlne# snd 'ltechnolosy hrk ~msporteflon Cente~ Public hrk and Recreation LOf~ 0~'~ Dbtrict mmmllm l~stiflg Regionsl/Aflerhd/Collector PIsnnln$ Suberee Interchange/Interaction StudyArea I 0 Acres 0 ZSAcms I/4 1/2 MILES 3-48 PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMEN'? The existing character and uses of Avalon will remain. The rural character of the unincorporated residential areas is continued in the General Plan land use designations. 3-49 ~~~iiii .d'~''''''~' ~'?' ...... . !~ ....' .............. ~ ....... Over 150 single-family homes are currently under construc- tion near Orange Park at Parc Place. Small older homes abound in the area - many are in need of upgrading. 3.7 ORANGE PARK Located at the center of South San Francisco, Orange Park has some of the City's main public services including Orange Memorial Park, the City's Corporation .ou,oo,. ~amer uses are primarily single fami iviayra]r vmage and Francisco 'lerrace neighborhoods. The Town of Baden is a unique subdivision, developed at the turn of the century, even before the City's incorporation, with a dense single-family res- .' -1 _ __ ~_.' _1 _ ,, ]ucnua; pattern, now in need of extensive upgrading. Mayfair Village and Francisco Terrace developments were completed in the 1940s and 50s. Park Place, a single-family residential development is currently under construction on an 18- acre parcel adjoining Orange Park. 3.7-G-I Maintain the location and distribution of uses in the Orange Park neigh- borhood while undertaking specific programs to improve smaller deterio- /Utt~U IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: ORANGE PARK 3.7-1-1 Extend Orange Avenue Memorial Park to Chestnut Avenue and develop additional play fields and open space areas. 3.7-1-2 Explore the feasibility of undertakin~ redevelopment for the "Tnwn n£ Baden"subdivision to encourage new infi!! development, concentrated reha- bilitation, and code enforcement. 3.7-1-3 Do not permit the industrial uses located on the south side of Railroad Avenue to expand or substantially change in use unless these properties are upgraded with additional parking, landscaping, improved sign programs, and exterior building remodeling. Policies f,~r Lindenville are included in Section 3.3. 3-50 3.8 PARADISE VALLEY/TERRABAY This area includes the subdivisions north of Sign Hill and the new %rrabay pro- ject on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. it also includes Peck's Subdivision located north of Linden Avenue and east of the PG&E utility corridor which is an older development with narrow streets, insufficient parking, and homes showing signs of dilapidation and deferred maintenance. The area includes two schools; however there are no large grocery stores in the neighborhood. T!-,.= T .... !-,.~:: q.~.o.,-;H.-- Dian (¢~ o¥.+onf in Uio::ro 9-6) ~=~m~_ nrloln.ql!v nre.n, nred in 1982 to address development of one of the last remaining unbuilt areas in South San Prancisco - the lower south slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Development in this area was extremely controversial, and the plan eventually led to the prepara- tion of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for protection of endangered butter- · rlfl /%ll~l/.Jr ~zi1/-Ji 16-metz. 1111 ~,L.4111 I~'~111111~ IvIIIIIIli.-'~lll I lit- ,IliK'-i iiiC' I imlll I,~11 t.ill it. iiflit being amended, but may include 745 housing units (including 135 single-family homes), a hotel, high tech space, offices, restaurants, and a health club. 132 acres of open space, including an archaeological site, are to be dedicated to the San Bruno Mountain HCP area. Phase I was recently completed and includes 293 single-fam- ily homes and townhouses. GUIDING POLICIES: PARADISE VALLEY/TERRABAY 3.8-G- I Allow limited new development that is in keeping with the character of the rl___J:__ II_ll_..IT .... I.. ,,.i ;+~. .,,,-,+,..,.,,..,I e'A++;.,'~ /"U I C/ C/13 t~ YUII~I It~l~U/JU)f U~C:U u~u ~L~ ~Jutu~u~ accuJ~. Undertake seleaive improvements to upgrade older Improve accessibility' to neighborhood shopping The Southwest face of San Bruno Mountain is the site of future commercial development at Terrabay IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: PARADISE VALLEYITERRABAY 3.8-1-1 In consultatJon with neighborhood residents, undertake a program to upgrade Peck's Subdivision, with an emphasis on housing rehabilitation, street improvements, increased off-street parking, and improved street lighting. Phase I of the Terrabay residential development w~s recent- ly completed and the units have sold successfully. 3-51 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3-52 ~ll ~e~tai Cemm,~c~l ~ o~s~e lnterdumg~'lnter~ct ion StudyAmt I 0 Acres 2.5 Acres I/4 1/2 MILES 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Table 3.7- I Orange Park: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Approved Add~onal (Housing UnitslRoor Area in Square Feet) Residential Low Density 153 Medium Density - 50 High Density 2 79 Total 155 129 Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) 64,000 Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) 230,000 Coastal Commercial Downtown Commercial Office 1,000 Business & Technology Park Industrial Community Commercial 31,000 Total 600 325,000 Colme ~ Total 64,000 230,000 1,000 31,000 326,000 Population/Employment 44O IS0 230 82O 152 605 3 62 82 3-53 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN I 0 Acres ZSAcms 1/2 MILES I Downtown Low Demtty Residential Downtown Medium Density Downtown Conunerdal J Mixed Indmtrhl ~ Bmineu ~nd Technology Pork ~ 3x~porttflon Cen~ ~1 Park and Recreation ~ Loft Ove~ Diotrict aueammu Existing RegJonaJ/Ar ter h]/Collector mmmuu Proposed Steer Planning Subare~ lnterchanse/lntereection StudyArea 3 -54 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Table 3.8- I Paradise Valley/Terrabay: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Al~pmved Add~onal Total (Housing Units/Floor Area in Square Feet) Residential Low Density 575 4 579 Medium Density - High Density - Total - Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) 300,000 Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) Coastal Commercial Downtown Commercial Office 397,000 Business & Technology Park 286,000 Industrial Community Commercial Total 18,000 1,001,000 300,000 397,000 286,000 18,000 1,001,000 Poi~ulatJon/ Employment 1,760 714 1,222 636 36 2,608 3-55 ~!~.~:~. '~ "? . ..................... ':Z:'~ '~ ~ile the Paradise Valley/Terrabay contains small markets population of this area is unflers~vefl by these services. Recent residential development at Terrabay has spread to the base of San Bruno Mountain. Any future development on the city's hillsides, including Sign Hill, shall be clustered at the foot of the hi[[. 3.8-1-2 Ensure that any new housing development on the north face of Sign Hill is in keeping with its Open Space des~nation, in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan for Sign Hill, results in minimal grading, and is clustered at the foot of the hi!l. Permit residential development at a density no greater than one hnu~ing unit hor 1t2 ncro~ hrnvidod thnt nn~ hn~cln~ ~nlf mm/ N~ ........................ r-' ' · r ........................ ~ ......... ! ,.,v built on erich le~nl hnrcel 3.8-1-3 Do not annex Juncus Ravine and any other portion of the south slope of San Bruno Mountains. Support retention of the South Slope as open space. 3.8-!-4 Ensure that any redevelopment of the site on the north of Hillside Boulevard at the terminus of Linden Avenue includes a supermarket, or a grocery store at least I0,000 square feet in area. Require any new devel- obment, on the site to be built to the edge of the .... ·hrnh°rtv- _· _. -/ along ......... b-lilkid~ Boulevard, with transparent storefronts and awnings for pedestrian comfort. This site is large enough to support a full-size supermarket, which is sorely needed in the area. Mixed-use commercial/residential Supermarket to be built to property Ill It~ along Hillside glvd with tran sparen t storefronts and awnings for pedestrian comfort 3-56 3.9 SIGN HILL This area contains the Sign Hill Park and the residential areas north of Downtown, as well as the muitifamiiy Stonegate development. The new Heather Heights sin- gle-family homes are located in this area on the western flank of Sign Hill. The old- est development in this area is Parkway Terrace subdivision, built in the 1920s. GUIDING POLICY: SIGN HILL 3.9-G-i /Viaintain the current land use pattern and charaaer of Sign Hill. IMPLEMENTING POLICY: SIGN HILL See al,~n pniicie,~ f'nr Sion Hill Park in Chapter =~: Parks. P~hiic Facilities. Services. 3.9-1-1 Require all new developments along Chestnut Avenue to be set back from the street and grant easements to the City to allow for possible widening of the street to four lanes. 3.9-1-2 Prior to the recordation of any additional Subdivision map for Stonegate Ridge, require dedication of the 7. I-acre slope area located adjacent to Sign Hill Park Sign Hill is a prominent historic landmark visible from many areas in the city. Z"ne south face will remain a park. 3-57 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN mmsmm lbbtin8 ltegionol/Ar terlal/Cofle~tor mmmmm PropoJed Street ~- Phmnln$ Subarea 3-58 lnterchanse/lntersection StudyAret I 0 Acres 2.5 Acres 0 I/4 I/2 MILES 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Table 3.9- I Sign Hill: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Approved Additional (Housing Units~Hoot Area in Square Feet) Residential Low Density 30 Medium Density - High Density - Total - Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) Coastal Commercial Downtown Commercial Office Business & Technology Park Industrial Community Commercial Total } PhnnJng Sub-Area Total 3O Pol3ulat~on/ Employment 9O 3-59 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3.10 SUNSHINE GARDENS This largely single-use area contains the Sunshine Gardens subdivision developed in the 1930s and 1940s. Multifamily housing is concentrated in the triangle between Chestnut Avenue and Willow Avenue. The area is well served by two schools and is the site of some new single-family residential development at Chestnut Estates and Heather Heights. Development opportunities are limited to a vacant site between Mission Road and E1 Camino Real. A rehabilitation program has been approved for the Willow Gardens apartment complex, which may also be included in the El Camino Redevelopment Area. GUIDING POLICY: SUNSHINE GARDENS 3.10-G.I Maintain the character of the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood and pro- mote new development in remaining vacant s/tes at intensiOes su/table to proxim~/ to transit and employment centers. IMPLEMENTING POLICY: SUNSHINE GARDENS 3.10-1-1 Require development of the vacant site between Mission Road and the future linear park on the BART right-of-way to: Be at a density no less than 20 units per net acre (maximum density shall be in accordance with the land use classification in Chapter 2). · Maximize access from individual un/ts to the linear park and trails on the BART tracks. · Not include any perimeter walls (including sound walls). 3 -60 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.1 I VYESTBOROUGH Developed after Interstate 280 was built in the 1970s, Westborough contains a large concentration of townhomes. It also contains one of the city's main concentrations of local-serving commercial uses, with some establishments particularly oriented toward the Asian community. Although there is some vacant land in the area, steep slopes and the nearby San Andreas fault are obstacles to development. GUIDING POLICY:WESTBOROUGH 3.11-G-I Maintain the established land use pattern of Westborough, and require new development to meet specified urban design and steep slope conservation criteria. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES:WESTBOROUGH 3.1 I-I-I Require development of the vacant Oakmont-Westborough property to be Low Density Residential zither single-family detached or cluster develop- ment---and designed to be compatible with the adjacent single-family dwellings. Do not permit direct vehicular access from the site to Westborough Boulevard. 3.1 I-I-2 Require all new development and any rehabilitation of existing development along Gellert Boulevard north of Westborough/Gellert to adhere to the Urban Design Plan dated October 23, 199 I. Undertake a design review of any proposal in the area for conformance with the recommendations and guidelines contained in the plan. 3. I I-I-3 Require that a Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council, shall be required for the development of the property on the west side of Gellert Boulevard. Ensure that any new development on this property is based on geotechni- cai and engineering geology reports by a C/ty-opproved geologist, is clus- tered near Gellert Boulevard, is away from slopes greater than 30 percent, results in no net increase of runoff' from the property, and minimizes visual impact from Gellert Boulevard. 3-61 DI~FT SOUTH SAN FIL~NClSCO GENEI~L PLAN 3 -62 es~mum ~,btin$ llegiontl/Ar terhl/Collect or umsmu Propooed Street ...... Pl~nln$ Subor~ Iht erchanse/Intetsecflon Stedy Rx'ee I 0 Acres 2.5 Acres 0 1/4 1/2 MILES PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Table 3. I 0- I Sunshine Gardens: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Approved Additional Total (Housing Units/Floor Area in Square Feet) Population/Employment Residential Low Density 20 20 60 Medium Density - - High Density 380 380 I, 120 Total 400 400 I, 180 Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) - Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) - Coastal Commercial - Downtown Commercial - Office - Business & Technology Park - Industrial - Community Commercial 8,000 8,000 Total 8,000 8,000 16 16 3-63 DF~FT SOUTH SAN FPu~NCISCO GENEF~L PLAN :. : Pacifica Exbtin$ Re~iona]/Ar terbl/C, oflector pbnnin8 Sub~r~ Interchn~/Interfecfloe SmdyAr~ IO~:res o I/4 I/2 I~IILES 3 -64 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Table 3. I I - I Westborough: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan · Approved Add~onal (Housing Units/Floor Area in Square Feet) Total Residential Low Density Medium Density 130 40 170 High Density - - Total o - 71,000 71,000 Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) Coastal Commercial Downtown Commercial Office Business & Technology Park Industrial Community Commercial Total Population! Employment 142 142 3-65 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN .3. I I-I-4 3. I I-I-5 Do not perm/t any driveway openings/mm Westborough Boulevard to com- mercial properties on west side of' Gellert Boulevard. Do not perm/t any new drive-through establishments. Single-family homes and townhomes dominate the residen- tial neighborhoods in 14restborough. 3-66 3.12 WINSTON-SERRA South San Francisco's largest residential neighborhood is almost entirely devel- oped with single-family homes, mainly the Winston-Serra and Buri Buri subdivi- sions. Developed between 1946 and 1955, the area is also well served by several neighborhood shopping centers along E1 Camino Real, small stores at Serra Drive/Felipe Avenue, public facilities, and schools. GUIDING POLICY:WlNSTON-SERRA 3.12-G-I Maintain the residential character of Winston-Serra. IMPLEMENTING POLICY:WINSTON-SERRA 3.12-1-1 Maintain in Open Space designation the County of San Mateo's "Button Property;" located on the northeast corner of Westborough Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard. 3.12-1-2 Work with County to seek annexation of the "Button Property;" consider ~l-',~,~ln~rn~nt f ¢it~ ne nn n~-tiu~ r~rr~tinn nr~upon nnn~ntinn ...... r ....... o the ............................................. 3.12-1-3 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District on reuse of the closed Serra Vista School. Require any new development to be Low Density Residential. 3. i 2-i-4 Undertake a study to examine the feasibility and appropriateness of acquir- ing a four- to six-acre portion of the closed Serra Vista School site for park- IUI ILl. Section 5.1' Parks and Recreation points to the need for additional parkland in residential areas. The primarily use in the Winston-Serra area is single-fami- ly homes. 3-67 DR, AFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN m Bxistin$ Regiona~Arteria~Collector Planning SuJmea lnterch~seflntersection StudyA~e~ I 0 Acres 2.5Aorta I/4 I/2 HILES :3 -68 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT Table 3.12- I Winston-Serra: Development, Population, and Employment Under the General Plan Approved Additional (Housing UnitslRoor Area in Square Feet) Residential Low Density 60 140 Medium Density - High Density - Total - Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels) Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) Coastal Commercial Downtown Commercial Office Business & Technology Park Industrial Community Commercial Total 200 Popula~onl Employment 59O 3-69 TRANSPORTATION Transportation has long played a key role in shaping South San Francisco. Like much of the rest of San Mateo County, South San Francisco initially developed as a "railroad suburb" to San Francisco. The Caltrain service that now uses the Southern Pacific tracks continues that early commute pattern; the earlier train route is paralleled by E1 Camino Real (State Route 82), the first highway and auto- mobile route through the Peninsula. Since World War II, these early commute routes have been replaced by freeways- first, U.S. 101 (the Bayshore Freeway) east of E1 Camino Real and Caltrain and, later, 1-280, which defines much of the west- ern edge of the City. South San Francisco has extraordinary access to all transportation modes, includ- ing air, water, rail, bus, and automobiles, though capacity and access to the princi- pal route--U.S. 101--is constrained. With the currently underway BART exten- sion, the soon-to-be-constructed Airport Rail Transit (ART) System, and plans for ferry service on the horizon, access to the City will be enhanced even further. The Transportation Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to further an integrated multi-modal transportation system that encourages transit and meets the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as programs to help reduce transportation demand. Issues from a citywide to a neighborhood- and block-level scale are addressed. The rela- tionship between the local and the regional system and agencies is also examined. The element contains policies to ensure that existing uses and neighborhoods are not unduly impacted as the city grows. The Transportation Element identifies future circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon. Many of the improvements identified will be studied later in greater detail, and funding and implementation sources will be identified. Some of these projects, in order to be funded, must be part of local and regional programs, including the City's Capital Improvement Program and the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). 4-1 Policies related to the physical framework for development that the circulation sys tem is rledonerl tn ~erve ~re incl~rlerl in (~.hsntpr 9' I sn~l [ lop ~]pm~nt ~n~ ~hont~r 3' Planning Sub-Areas Element. Included in these elements are policies to promote Light congestion on Miller Avenue, an alternative route to Grand Avenue in Downtown. 4-2 4: TRANSPORTATION 4.1 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS AND REGIONAL FRAMEWORK CONMUTE NODES Residents and workers use a variety of modes for travel. Census data from 1990, presented in Table 4-1, show most people traveling to jobs in South San Francisco using single-occupant vehides (77 percent), with carpools garnering the second highest mode share at 16 percent. Approximately four percent of South San Francisco workers used transit as their mode of travel to work. Bicycles accounted for only 0.5 percent of travel while walking represented a 1.5 percent share in 1990. These figures represent an increase in single-occupant vehicle travel and a decrease in carpool and transit usage from 1980. A 1998 survey of employees by the Multi- city Transit System Management Agency (MTSMA) of 375 employees in South San Francisco found a higher transit use, with about 30 percent of South San Francisco employees using non-drive alone commute modes. The reported increase in bus and rail usage is a reflection of the improved shuttle bus service from the Caltrain and BART stations to area employment sites. Table 4. I - I l~odal Shares of South San Francisco Residents and Employees and North San I~ateo County Employees Transporta~on Share (%) Mode 1990 19983 Res/dents I Workers2 Workers2 Drive Alone 69.7 77.0 70.5 Carpool/Vanpool 16.6 16.0 15.8 Bus and Rail 9.2 4.0 14. I Bicycle 0.3 0.5 (included in other) Walk 2.0 1.5 (included in other) Other 2.2 1.0 2.4 I Residents of South San Francisco 16 and over; may work in the City or elsewhere. 2 People employed in South San Francisco; may live in the City or elsewhere. 3 Motorcycle 0.5%; worked at home 1.2%; other 0.5% 4 Survey of South San Francisco employees by the Plulti-cityTSM Agency (MTSMA) Source: U.~. Census, 1990;. 1990 CTPP Statewide Element, Part C; MT~MA 4-3 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 4. I-2 South San Francisco Residents and Workers (in percent of total) Tof~ Places of Top Places of Residence of Work of Sout~ South San Francisco Workers San Frandsc0 Residents 19901 1990I San Francisco 35 19 South San 23 18 Francisco San Bruno 5 6 San Plateo 4 7 Burlingame 4 3 Daly City 4 9 I Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2 Multi-city Transportation Systems Management Agency 19982 23 7 4 10 4 6 WORKTRIP PATTERNS While South San Francisco is part of the larger Bay Area commutershed, in 1990 over half of the city's residents worked in either San Francisco (35 percent) or South San Francisco (23 percent). However, as city residents continue to take advantage of emerging job opportunities in other San Mateo County cities, the proportion of residents working in the city or in San Francisco has declined by ten percent since 1980. Most city workers live in distant locations, partly due to the presence of large high-technology employers such as Genentech (the largest employer in the North County region, with 45 percent of the workforce residing outside of San Mateo County), that attract employees from a wide region. In effect, more San Francisco and San Mateo residents work in South San Francisco than South San Franciscans. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City- operated traffic signals. The freeways, freeway ramps, and State routes (such as E1 Camino Real) are under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (CallYans). The transit service providers have jurisdiction over their services. These include San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) fixed- route bus service and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) commuter rail service (Caltrain). There are several regional agencies that oversee and coordinate transportation improvement programs affecting South San Francisco, including: San Mateo County Transportation Authority, which oversees improvements contained in the County Measure A Strategic Plan. Improvements affecting South San Francisco include auxiliary lanes on U.S. 101; e The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), which is the Congestion Management Agency that sets State and federal fund- ing priorities for improvements affecting the CMP Roadway System. The CMP roadway system components in South San Francisco include U.S. 101, 1-280, 4-4 4: TRANSPORTATION and SR 82 (El Camino Real). C/CAG also reviews transportation impact analy- ses included in environmental dearance documents for land use applications prepared by jurisdictions in San Mateo County to ensure that impacts to the CMP Roadway System are adequately addressed. State law no longer requires congestion management programs. San Mateo County, like all other counties in the Bay Area, has opted to continue with its CMP; and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is the regional dear- inghouse for both State and federal funds for transportation improvements. DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Grand Avenue in Downtown is a minor arterial 4-6 4.2 STREET NETWORK, CLASSIFICATION,AND OPERATIONS Two north-south freeways, U.S. 101 and 1-280, form the backbone of the street sys- tem in South San Francisco, carrying regional traffic between San Francisco and Santa Clara County. 1-380, an east-w~st connector between these two freeways, lies just south of the city. A network of arterial, collector, and local streets provides mobility within South San Francisco. STREET CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Figure 4-1 illustrates the street system serving South San Francisco and identifies the roadway classifications. This classification system indudes: Freeways. Freeways are limited-access, high-speed travelways included in the State and federal highway systems. These roads carry regional through traffic and access is provided by interchanges at intervals of one-mile or greater. No access is provided to adjacent land uses. There are two freeways in South San Francisco - U.S. 101 and 1-280.' Arterials. Arterials are major streets that primarily serve through traffic and provide access to abutting properties as a secondary function. Arterials are generally designed with four to six travel lanes and major intersections are sig- nalized. In South San Francisco, there are two types of arterials: major arteri- als and minor arterials. Major arterials are typically divided (have raised medi- ans), have more travel lanes, and carry more traffic than minor arterials. Major arterials in the city include El Camino Real, Sisters Cities Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue. Minor arterials include Mission Road and Orai,§e Avenue. Collectors. Collectors connect arterials with local streets, and provide access and circulation within neighborhoods. Collectors are typically designed with two travel lanes, parking lanes, planter strips, and sidewalks. Examples of col- lectors in South San Francisco are Commercial Avenue and Del Monte Avenue. 4: TRANSPORTATION City Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector ..................... Other Streets 14,300 Daily Volume (1997) ~ Current Roadway Congestion '! San Francisco Bay AIRPORT Figure 4- I Street Cl~ssific~dons 4-7 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-8 · Local Streets. Local streets provide direct access to abutting properties as their primary function. Local streets have no more than two travel lanes. STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE Traffic service levels for intersections and roadway segments are characterized by examining peak period and daffy operations. The standard used for evaluating traffic flow is called level of service (LOS) ( Table 4.2-1). Levels of service are alas- sifted by a letter grade that describes the quality of flow, ranging from the best con- dition (LOS A) through extreme congestion associated with over-capacity condi- tions (LOS F). One measure of level of service is volume-to-capacity (or demand- to-capacity). Traffic demand modeling assumes that travel demand is a response to the patterns of land use activity in a city and surrounding region. The transportation analysis process for the Transportation Element uses existing and projected land use to evaluate transportation system improvement and demand management needs. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Existing Operations The 1995 Congestion Management Program for San Mateo County reports 1-280 operating at LOS F and U.S. 101 operating at LOS D in the vicinity of South San Francisco during peak. commute hours. Levels of service were calculated for the city's roadway segments with current daffy volume counts. The resulting volume- to-capacity ratios are presented in Table 4.2-2. Current congestion on South San Francisco streets occurs along the Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard corri- dors, and on Westborough Boulevard near the 1-280 interchange and the Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection. Other locations with congestion include the inter- section of El Camino Real with Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and the Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/U.S. 101 interchange. During the evening peak commute period, East Grand Avenue under the U.S. 101 overpass has some back up. 4: TRANSPORTATION TABLE 4.2- I Traffic Level of Service Definitions Level of Service (LOS) A Traffic How Conditions Free flow: speed is controlled by drivers' desires, stipulated speed limits, or physical roadway conditions. B Stable flow: operating speeds beginning to be restricted; little or no restrictions on maneuverability from other vehicles. C Stable flow: speeds and maneuverability more closely restricted; occasional backups behind left-turning vehicles at intersections. D Approaching tolerable speeds can be maintained but unstable flow: temporary restrictions may cause extensive delays; little freedom to maneuver; comfort and Iow; at intersections, some convenience motorists, especially those making left turns, may have to wait through one or more signal changes. Approaching capacity: unstable flow with stoppages of momentary duration; maneuverability severely limited. Forced flow: stoppages for long periods; Iow operating speeds; delays at intersections average 60 seconds or more. Maximum Volume to Capacity Rat/o 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 >1.0 4-9 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 4.2-2 Roadway Segment Analysis Roadway Segment Major Arterials Hillside Boulevard/Sister CitJes Boulevard Holly Ave. to Dolores Way Stonegate Drive to S. San Francisco Drive S. San Francisco Drive to Hillside Boulevard Hillside Boulevard to Airport Boulevard El Camino Real South of Hickey Boulevard North of Westborough South of Westborough Junipero Serra Boulevard North of Hickey Boulevard South of Hickey Boulevard North of Westborough Boulevard Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue East of Skyline Boulevard East of Junipero Serra Boulevard West of W. Orange Avenue South of Commercial Avenue Between Hiller Avenue and Sunset Avenue Oyster Point Boulevard U.S. 101 to Gateway Boulevard Gateway Boulevard to Eccles Avenue East Grand Avenue Gateway Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 60,000 60,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Existing Volume 15,400 18,300 15,000 5,000 24,700 33,500 45,500 22,100 13,700 14,300 14,300 33,500 38,000 15,100 13,800 23,000 18,100 33,100 Existing VIC 0.38 0.46 0.38 0.12 0.62 0.56 0.76 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.84 0.95 0.38 0.69 0.58 0.45 0.83 Projected Volume 16,100 23,S00 20,200 12,600 33,100 38,400 45,000 22,900 14,900 15,500 15,600 39,900 39,400 13,600 14,000 41,200 28,500 31,300 Projected VIC 0,40 0.59 0.51 0.31 0.83 0.64 0.75 0.57 0.37 0.39 0.39 1.00 0.99 0.34 0.70 1.03 0.71 4-10 4: TRANSPORTATION TABLE 4.2-2 (Continued) Roadway Segment Analysis Roadway Segment East of Forbes Boulevard Forbes Boulevard Between Allerton Avenue and Gull Rd Grandview Drive North of E. Grand Avenue South of Forbes Boulevard Railroad Avenue Extension Minor Arterials Mission Rd West of Holly Avenue Extension Grand Avenue Mission Rd to Chestnut Avenue Orange Avenue to Spruce Avenue Hickey Boulevard Hilton Avenue to Camaritas Avenue Orange Avenue N. Canal St to Commercial Avenue Spruce Avenue East of El Camino Real South linden Avenue ' N. Canal St to Commercial Avenue S/O Victory Callan Boulevard At Greendale Drive S. Airport Boulevard Utah to 1-380 Ramps Ca~ac/~ 40,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 36,000 36,000 18,000 18,000 36,000 18,000 36,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 40,000 Existing Volume 26,700 4,800 4,800 3,400 9,700 9,700 13,300 16,200 9,700 18,200 12,900 9,000 6,600 22,000 ~s~n~ VIC 0.67 0.12 0.24 0.17 0.27 0,54 0,74 0.45 0.54 0.51 0.72 0.50 0.37 0.55 Pro/e~ Volume 24,900 12,500 11,900 9,300 20,800 11,500 14,900 I1,100 14,000 19,900 10,900 23,800 14,100 12,200 7,500 25,000 Projected V/C 0.62 0.31 0.60 0.4 0.53 0.32 0.41 0.62 0.78 0.55 0.61 0.66 0.78 0.68 0.42 0.62 4-11 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 4.2-2 (Continued) Roadway Segment Analysis Roadway Segment Hillside Connection Oak Avenue/Arroyo Drive Connection Collectors Greendale Drive Callan Boulevard to Gateway Drive Baden Avenue Orange Avenue to Spruce Avenue West of South Linden Avenue Commercial Avenue Orange Avenue to Spruce C:apac~y 18,000 18,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 Existing Volume 2,300 3,600 13,400 4,500 Existing V/C 0.16 0.26 0.96 0.32 Projected Volume 5,800 5,000 2,500 4,600 10,400 8,600 Projected V/C C 0.32 0.28 0.18 0.33 0.74 0.61 4-12 4: TRANSPORTATION Projected Operations The Countywide Transportation Plan projections, recognizing the effects of two major transportation infrastructure improvements-the proposed BART and Caltrain extension projects--show projected operations of LOS F on U.S. 101 and LOS E on 1-280. Within the City, the transportation system can adequately serve existing travel demand, provided improvements outlined in the General Plan (Figure 4-2; also see Policy 4.2-I-2) are implemented. In general, with the improve- ments, existing service levels along most roadway segments are expected to be maintained. However, portions of Westborough Boulevard, E! C, amino Real, East Grand Avenue, and Oyster Point Boulevard are expected to continue operating at congested levels. (See Table 4.2-2) The East of 101 Area Plan prepared in 1994 presents several intersections operat- ing at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E and F) under future conditions with growth and development in that area. The plan identified improvements to accom- modate the traffic generated by the anticipated growth. A transportation analysis of the East of 101 area is currently being prepared to assess land use revisions of the 1994 plan. The results of this updated analysis will be a set of transportation system improvements to accommodate current growth projections in that area of South San Francisco. For a full evaluation of projected traffic operations, the Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan should be consulted. Because existing development limits the City's ability to undertake improvements in some neighborhoods, a con- tinued emphasis on alternative transportation modes will be needed to maintain mobility in future. GUIDING POLICIES: STREET SYSTEN AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE Also see Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Element, for policies related to streets in specific areas. Truck movement issues in Lindenville are addressed in Section 3.2: Lindenville. 4-13 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-14 Street System 4.2-G.I Undertar, e efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and emerging employment areas such as in the East of I 01 area. 4.2-G-2 Improve conne~ons between d/ff'erent parts of the city. These would help integrate different parts of the city. Connections between areas west and east of U.S. 101 (currently limited to streets that provide freeway access) would also free-up capacity along streets such as Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard that provide access to U.S. 101. Connections are also critical across El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard and from Westborough to Downtown. 4.2-G-3 Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of-way and the BART right-of-way to establish new streets. 4.2-G-4 Use Figure 4-I: Street Classifications, to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements. 4.2-G.5 /Hake efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced inte- grot/on of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, sty/ye to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. 4.2-G-6 Coordinate local actions with regional agencies, and undertake active efforts to undertake transportation improvements. 4.2-C,-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements. Traffic Operations and Service Standards 4.2-C,8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersectJons, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. 4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that: /i'~ I I~/~1~l;}rvnln' '--' ' pacifica Street Improvements Lanes Interhan~e! Intersection Improvement Source: Dye~ & Bhatia o/ San Bruno Figure 4-2 Major Street Improvements 4-1S DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-16 · There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and · The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. 4.2-G-I 0 Exempt development within one-quarter mile ora Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: STREET SYSTEM AND STAN- DARDS OF SERVICE Street System ana" Improvements 4.2-1-1 Continue using the Capital Improvement Program to program and imple- ment needed improvements to the street system. 4.2-/-2 Undertake street improvements ident~ed in figures 4-I and 4-2. Improvements identified include: Connection between Hillside Boulevard and E1 Camino Real near the BART station (see Chapter ~ for policies for pedestrian-orient- ed nature of the segment near the BART station). Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue connection. This short connection will relieve pressure off the Chestnut Avenue/E1 Camino Real intersec- tion. Signal coordinatiOn will help to ensure that E1 Camino Real traffic flow is not impeded. Mission Road extension from Chestnut Avenue to South Linden Avenue extension. This will be on the BART right-of-way. The General Plan proposes additional uses for the right-of-wayma bikeway and a linear park as wellma coordinated design strategy and joint efforts by the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments will be needed. 4: TRANSPORTATION Myrtle Avenue extension to South Linden Avenue. This will run parallel (on the north side) of the former Zellerbach Paper plant. Alignment study will be needed, and some small existing struc- tures may need to be removed. Maple Avenue extension to Noor Avenue at Huntington Avenue. While this connection is short and within the City limits, it may be viable only at the time of redevelopment of the site along Browning Way (designated for high-intensity office development, as it is adjacent to the San Bruno BART Station). This connection should be a condition of redevelopment of sites in the area. South Linden Avenue extension to Sneath Lane. This would dra- matically increase access to Lindenville and enable trucks to get to 1-380 without going through Downtown. This connection is also extremely critical to ensure connection between Downtown and the (San Bruno) BART Station. Railroad Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue, following the general alignment of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. This would be the first non-freeway related connection between the areas east and west of U.S. 101. The street will go under U.S. 101. Either a depressed intersection at Railroad Avenue or an elevated section that goes abov,~ the Caltrain tracks would be needed. This will probably be an expensive improvement ($15~20 million), requiring detailed studies. However, it is expect- ed to accommodate more than 20,000 trips per day and existing structures will not need to be removed. Consideration should be given to providing a bikeway in conjunction with the street design. Victory Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to S. Airport Boulevard. This will need to be undertaken in conjunction with development Of the regional commercial facilities designated on the General Plan Diagram. Spruce Avenue looking tmvards Downtoven. DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PI_AN El Camino Real, a major arterial, will undergo major development in the future, adding trips and increasing parking demand. 4-18 4.2-1-3 4.2-1-4 4.2-1-S New interchange at Victory Avenue and U.S. 101. This will provide direct connection between Lindenville and U.S. 101, and be the primary truck ingress/egress point in South San Francisco, obviat- ing the need for trucks to negotiate Downtown streets. As with Victory Avenue extension, development will need to occur in con- junction with development of regional commercial facilities. · Produce Avenue extension to Shaw Road. This will run parallel to U.S. 101 on the western side. Undertake studies to establish precise alignments for streets in order to identify future right-of-way needs. Locate future arterials and collectors according to the general alignments shown in Figure 4-2. Minor variation from the depicted alignments will not require a General Plan amendment. Establish prior~es for transportation improvements, and prepare an a~on program to implement/dent/fled street improvements. This would require working with other agencies, including BART for the Mission Road extension on the BART right-of-way, CalTrans on the new U.S. 101 interchange, and with C/CAG on several other pro- jects. Establish accessibility requirements for all streets designated as arterial or collector on Figure 4-I. As part of development review of all projects along these streets, ensure that access to individual sites does not impede through traffic flow. The General Plan anticipates development along several arterial and collector streets, including in much of Downtown, and along E1 CaminOReal, Gellert Boulevard, Arroyo Drive, Victory Avenue exten- sion, Hillside Boulevard, Mission Road extension, and East Grand Avenue. Accessibility requirements should ensure that ingress/egress from sites along arterial and collector streets is limited to a few loca- tions, and residential developments do not have driveways lined up 4.: TRANSPORTATION 4.2-1-6 4.2-1-7 4.2-1-8 4.2-1-9 along the streets, which would represent a safety hazard and impede traffic flow. Update the Transportat/on E/eme'nt, if so necessarF including list of improvements, upon comp/et/on of'the East of I01 traffic study. Improvement proposals for the area, indUding Railroad Avenue exten- sion from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue and a new interchange at Victory Avenue extension/U.S. 101, are being examined as part of the traffic study. Cont/nue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs or street and other traffic and transportat/on improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of estab- lishing impact fee, especially for improvements required East of I01. Feasibility of impact fee for the East of 101 area is being assessed as part of the area traffic study that is currently underway. Develop and implement a standard method to evaluate the tro~c impacts of individual developments. Currently, the City does not have an adopted LOS calculation method or a traffic analysis procedure. Therefore, it is difficult to ensure that impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are identified and that developers pay their fair-share of the transportation system improve- ment costs. Where appropriate, consider upfront/ng port/ons of improvement costs where the City's economic development interests may be served. This technique may be appropriate for improvements such as the Victory Avenue extension and U.S. 101 interchange to facilitate devel- opment of a regional "power center", sales tax revenues from which (potentially in excess of $1 million per year) could help retire the improvement debt. 4-19 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Level of Service 4.2-1-10 Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS standards. 4,2-1- I I Implement, to the extent feasible, circulation system improvements illus- trated in figures 4-1 and 4-2 prior to deterioration in levels of'service below the stated standard. 4-20 4: TRANSPORTATION 4.3 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND PARKING See Section 4.5 for transit. Shuttle buses, vanpools, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and informal car- pools, also serve the travel needs of South San Francisco. These modes provide an alternative to the single-occupant automobile. These modes, plus programs to pro- mote their use, are discussed in this section. BICYCLE FACILITIES Classification System Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes: Bike Paths (Class I facilities) are paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways used by motor vehides by space or a physical barrier and are designated for bicycle use. Bike Lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of bicycles, so designated with special signing and pavement markings. Bike Routes (Class III facilities) are roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes are designated with signs. Existing and Proposed Bikeways The are few existing bicycle facilities within South San Francisco. Figure 4-3 depicts the locations of the existing and proposed bike lanes and bike paths. General Plan proposals indude: Bike Path on linear park on the BART right-of- way, extending between the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations; Paths or lanes along proposed Bay Trail; and Bike Lanes along the proposed 4-21 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 4.3- I Bikeway Classifications Bike Paths (Class I facilities) Bike Lanes (Class II facilities) Bike Routes (Class III facilities) Func~on Provide exclusive right-of-way for bicyclists with cross flows by motorists minimized. To provide preferential use of the paved area of roadway for bicyclists by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and motorists. Facilities shared with automobiles and other vehicles. Roadways demarcated by signage. Access Control Where crossing or access from the bicycle path is required, the crossing should be grade-separated or occur at pedestrian CroSSIngS. Mid-block crossings should assign right-of-way through signing or signalization. Access is similar to that recommended for roadways. At intersections where there is a bike lane and an actuated signal, it is desirable to install bicycle-sensitive detectors. Push button detectors force the bicyclists to stop and actuate the push button. Because most accidents for bicyclists occur at intersections, clear bikeway design at intersections should be implemented through the use of signing and striping. Access is similar to that recommended for roadways. Rift-of-Way Minimum of 8 feet for a two-way facility. The minimum paved width for a one-way bike path is 5 feet. A minimum 2-foot wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement, but a 3-foot graded area is recommended. Where pedestrian activity is expected, a minimum of 12 feet for a two-way facility should be provided. Class II bike lanes are one-way facilities. On roadways with parking, the bike lane is located between the parking area and the traffic lane with 5-foot minimums for the bike lane. Where parking is permitted and not marked, minimum width is 12 feet. On roadways where parking is prohibited, a minimum of 5 feet is required, including a 2-foot gutter. No exclusive right-of-way. 4-22 4: TRANSPORTATION Daly City Paclfica Itl San Francbco ~~ Bay ............. Existing Bike Lane imm Exivdng Bike Path .......... Future Bike Lane . m m. Future Bike Path Bik~e Route Figure 4-3 Bicycle Facilities 4-23 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-24 Railroad Avenue extension. Additional facilities, induding those connecting por- tions of the city either side of E1 Camino Real, will be delineated as part of the City's Bikeway Master Plan. Future bicycle facilities will focus on abandoned rail- road tracks, located in the East of 101 area and throughout the city, which can be converted to bicycle paths as part of a rails-to-trails program. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, pedestrian bridges, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and resting areas. Streets in much of the city and the Downtown have sidewalks on both sides, and pedestrian signals and crosswalks at the signal- ized intersections to accommodate pedestrian circulation. Many streets in the East of 101 area and in Lindenville do not have sidewalks. Pedestrian facility improve- ments will improve safety for pedestrians and also encourage the use of alternative modes. SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE Another alternative mode is the shuffle bus system. The MTSMA coordinates with SamTrans to ensure adequate funding for the shuttle buses. There are three shut- tle bus routes that serve employees of the East of 101 area: the Gateway/Genentech Shuttle, the Oyster Point Shuttle, and the Utah/Littlefield Shuttle The service is fixed-route, fixed schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. Currently, the shuttles carry 700 riders per workday. They are free to the riders. The operating costs are borne by the JPB, SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). TRANSPORTATION DEPIAND MANAGEMENT Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are provided by employ- ers to reduce the amount of peak period traffic by encouraging their employees to use modes other than the single-occupant automobile for transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. According to MTSMA, South San 4: TRANSPORTATION Francisco hosts the region's largest employers and the best-developed TDM pro- grams. The largest increases in work-related trip diversion to alternative modes are likely to be through carpooling and employer shuttle programs, on which TDM efforts should be focused. While mandated requirements for TDM programs have been overturned in the State legislature,~ the General Plan establishes an incen- tives-based land use intensity program with bonuses for projects meeting identi- fied TDM objectives (see Table 2.2-3) that does not discriminate between small and large employers. PARKING The City's Zoning Ordinance has parking requirements to ensure that adequate numbers of parking spaces are provided on-site for most uses. Downtown has a parking district as well. Instead of individual property owners providing their own parking, parking is consolidated into 13 City lots. These lots contain approximate- ly 420 spaces, of which 270 are available for long-term employee parking. In gen- eral, the amount of parking in Downtown is sufficient; however, there are a few locations with capacity shortages. The industrial areas of the city experience on-street truck parking. The parked trucks and loading/unloading activities associated with many industrial uses'inter- fere with vehicular circulation. G U I DIN G POLIC I ES: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 4.3..G-I Deve/op a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 4.3-G-3 In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. 4.3-G-4 In partnership with the local business community, deve/op a transportation 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Regulation 13, Rule 1, requiring employers with over 100 employees to decrease the average vehicle ridership was overturned. However, the City can encourage TDM programs and require TDM measures as mitigation measures to transportation and air quality impacts. 4-25 DP.AFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-26 systems management plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while contin- uing to maintain a pos/t/ye and supportive business environment. IMPLEMENTING POLICI ES:ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Bikeways 4.3-1-1 Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objec- tives, a list or map of'improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. A Bikeways Committee that includes citizens, officials, and staff may be appointed for the purpose. The Bikeways Master Plan should be consistent with the General Plan; if necessary, the General Plan can be amended at the time of adoption of the Bikeway Master Plan to ensure this consistency. An approved Bikeway Master Plan is needed to be eli- gible for State and federal funding programs. 4.3-1-2 As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements identified in Figure 4-3 in the General Plan, and identify additional improvements that include abando.ned railroad rights-of-way and other potential connections. improvements identified on Figure 4-3 include: Bike Path on linear .park on the BART right-of-way, extending from the South San Francisco BART Station to the San Bruno BART station; · Paths or lanes along proposed Bay Trail, with continuous shoreline access; and Bike Lane along the proposed Railroad Avenue extension, which would provide the first bikeway connection linking the eastern and western parts of the city and provide shoreline bikeway access from residential neighborhoods west of U.S. 101. 4: TRANSPORTATION 4.3-1-3 /Vlake bikeway improvements a funding pr/or/ty by: · Continuing to consider financing bikeway design and construction as part of the City's annual construction and improvement fund; · Incorporating bikeway improvements as part of Capital Improvement Program; and · Pursuing regional funding and other sources for new bikeways to the extent possible under federal and State law. 4.3-1-4 Require provision of'secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses. Secure parking means areas where bicycles can be secured to a non- movable rack to prevent theft, Pedestrian Circulation 4.3-1-5 As part of redesign of South lfinden Avenue (see Section 3.2), provide con- tinuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, extending through the entire stretch of the street from San Bruno BART Station to Downtown. 4.3-1-6 As part of any development in Ifindenville or East of I01, require project proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development and redevelopment projects. 4,3-L7 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations--South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station--and the surroundings. Components of the program should include: · Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improve- ments are being installed; · ConstructJng wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use; 4-27 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-28 Providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking distances across streets in Downtown, across E/Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas; · Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facili- ties at all signalized interse~ons; and · Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. Transportation Demand Management 4.3-1-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limned to, the following components: · Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses for TDM programs identJfied in the Land Use Element; · Procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that resuk in intensity bonuses; Requirements for off.site improvements (such as bus shelters and pedestrian connections) that are direct/y necessary as a resu/t ofdeve/- opment; Exemptions or reductions in any transportation impact fee that may be established in the future for projects that meet specific trip-reduction goals; and Reduced parking requirements for projects in proximity to fixed-guide- way transit or those with demonstrated measures that would reduce trip generation. 4.3-1-9 Favor TSM programs that limit vehicle use over those that extend the com- mute hour. This would have added air quality benefits. 4~3-!-! 0 Parking 4.3-1- I I Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and fi_,rther · A designated commute coordinator/manager; · A coroonl/vnntbnnl mntt-h hrn~rnrn' -- - I- ........ I- ........... I-' ~ ..... ~ Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools at City Hall; ~LUI U~C~ On-site shower facilities at City Hall for employees; commitment to future shuttle service to BART stations; · Guaranteed ride home program; · Transit subsidies; · On-site transit pass sales; and · in~ntiwcl~d~ntinnnl hrnnrnrn Establish parking' standards to support trip reduction goals by: Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such aS paid parking, and for mixed-use devei- opments; and Requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. See also Section 2.2 and the Land Use Classifications. Parking is limited in many areas of the city - especially industrial areas with auto repair facilities or freight for- warding. 4-29 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FI~A, NClSCO GENERAL PLAN 4.3-1-12 4.3-1-13 4.3-1- Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include minimum parking requirements based on proxim/ty to transit stations and development intensity. These standards should be examined as transit service changes. Parking above a minimum amount should be allowed only if addi- tional amenities for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit and/or landscaping are provided. Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required. Potential for this exists for the area near the South San Francisco BART Station. Establish off-street truck parking standards for industrial developments. While the City maintains loading requirements for industrial and warehousing uses, truck parking on streets continues to be a problem in many areas. Some neighboring cities, such as Buflingame, maintain off-street truck parking standards. Stricter enforcement of on-street parking measures, especially during the peak hours, would also further mobility. 4.30 4: TRANSPORTATION 4.4 TRANSIT AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Figure 4-4 shows existing and planned transit improvements in South San Francisco. SAMTRANS BUS SERVICE SamTrans operates six express routes and ten local bus routes in South San Francisco. The local bus routes have an average weekly ridership of approximately 3,220 people. These bus routes serve areas of South San Francisco west of U.S. 101. Areas east of U.S. 101 are not served by fixed bus-route service but by shuffle buses. SamTrans bus routes in South San Francisco will be modified to provide feeder bus service to the new BART station at Hickey Boulevard. This will improve accessi- bility to the station and help reduce the amount of automobile traffic in the vicin- ity of the station, but may result in reduced service on local residential routes. Current plans do not include expanding fixed-route service to the East of 101 area. CALTRAIN The South San Francisco station is located on the east side of U.S. 101 on Dubuque Avenue, under the East Grand Avenue overpass. Caltrain, operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), has 68 weekday trains between San Francisco and San Jose/Gilroy. Currently, 55 trains serve the South San Francisco Station each weekday. Approximately 1,000 passengers use the station daily. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the station is difficult due to its location. SamTrans fixed bus route service does not serve the station, as the standard buses cannot negotiate the fight curve on the driveway from Dubuque Avenue to the station. Connection between Downtown and the station is extremely poor and there is also no direct eastern access to the station. In 1998, the City prepared a concept plan to move the station and the platforms further south, move track sidings, provide shuffle drop-off on the eastside and direct bus and pedestrian connection on the west (Figure 4-5). A detailed study by JPB is underway to examine the viability of the concept plan. 4-31 DR~FT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN BART EXTENSION The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system provides rail service between San Francisco, East Bay locations, Daly City, and Colma. BART will be extended from its current terminus at the Colma Station to the San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae. The tracks will be underground through their stretch in South San Francisco. The South San Francisco Station will be located between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road to the south of the new Hickey Boulevard Extension. The San Bruno BART Station will also be within a few hundred feet of South San Francisco, and about a mile south of Downtown. ART SYSTEM An Airport Rail Transit (ART) System, to move people and luggage between build- ings, terminals, major employment locations, and parking areas within San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) is being designed as part of the current SFIA Expansion Plan. The ART system would loop around the main terminal and garage area and extend approximately four miles north along McDonnell Road to the future rental car facility. Phase II will extend from McDonnell Road to South Airport Boulevard (near the United Airlines maintenance facility) and terminate along the North Access Road. Construction of Phase I started in September 1997. These routes are illustrated in Figure 4-6. The potential for extending ART to Downtown South San Francisco along Airport Boulevard was examined as part of the General Plan sketch planning process. Costs are prohibitive ($60 to $85 million for capital and $10 to $15 annually for operations), and currently not justifiable based on expected ride~ship. FERRY SERVICE While there is no scheduled ferry service to South San Francisco, potential for a terminal at Oyster Point Marina exists. The recently released Bay Ferry Plan by the Bay Area Council identifies Oyster Point as a site for a potential ferry terminal. 4-32 Pacifica" -=::-~:~:-~ Future BART Extension ::::::s CalTrain ~ SamTrans Bus Route Source: ~ty of South San Francisco, Fehr & Peers Future BART Station Existing CalTrain Station Potential CalTrain Station Itl 4: TRANSPORTATION San Prancisco Figure 4-4 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements 4-33 // Future Public/ Ci~ Use Figure 4-$ Caltrain/Multimodai Station Preferred Concept 4-34 4: TRANSPORTATION San Bruno SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BART CalTrain Station (existing) Future Station Figure 4-6 Airport Li~:ht Rail System 4-35 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-36 GUIDING POLICIES:TRANSIT For policies related to shuttle service, see Section 4.3. 4.4.G-I Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco. 4.4-G-2 Explore mechanisms to integrate various forms of transit. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES:TRANSIT 4.4-1-1 Develop a Downtown multi-modal transit center southeast of the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection, with a relocated Caltrain Station as its hub. 4.4-1-2 Ensure that detailed plans for the multi-modal center include: · Direct pedestrian access from Downtown; · Shuttle drop-offs and pedestrian access from businesses east of the sta- tion; · Bus/taxi drop-offpatrons from bus routes alongAirport ~ulevard; and · Clear visibility from Downtown and Grand Avenue. 4.4-1-3 Explore the feasibility a shurde system between the Downtown/multi-modal station and South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations. Explore mechanisms to provide the shuttle service free to riders. The San Bruno BART station is located about one mile from Downtown, while the South San Francisco Station is two miles away. 4.4.1-4 Encourage SamTrans to provide bus-service to East of I 0 I. This area is a major employment center and has the largest employers in North San Mateo County. SamTrans has been reluctant to provide 4: TRANSPORTATION 4.4-1-3 service because of a lack of perceived ridership, which may change as the area Continues its growth and employment intensities increase. As part of' any revisions to the Oyster Point Marina Spec~c Plan, explore the feasibility of'providing or reserving site/or a ferry terminal. 4-37 PARKS, PU BLI C i:: & t"' I I ITl C:(: I r'~.~ I El I I SERVICES This chapter outlines the policies and standards relating to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facilities. While this is an optional element of the General Plan, parks, recreation programs, schools, water, and wastewater treat- ment are directly related to the physical development of South San Francisco. The framework for development provided by this Plan must be well served by these programs, facilities, and services. Oyster Point Marina Park provides residents and visitors with a trail along the San Francisco Bay and picnic areas. The extension of the bay trail along other portions of the city's bayshore would provide continuous access to the city's valuable natural resource. 5-1 Play areas at Orange Park provide young residents with places to exercise and socialize. 5.1 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Parks and recreational open spaces provide opportunities for both active recre- ation, such as organized or informal sports, and passive recreation. Despite the rel- atively small quantity of parkland in South San Francisco, a broad range of out- door recreation opportunities exist, each reflecting the variety of the city's land- scape and pattern of development. These range from shoreline open space on San Francisco Bay, to Sign Hill Park, situated at an elevation of more than 600 feet. In resource and prominent visual landmark--lies directly north of the city. The General Plan provides for new parkland in South San Francisco by maintain- ing the existing parkland standard for new residents and setting a new standard for !!g.v~r. ~!!! !L.I rr.~ I ili:'~ [lilivi:~illil i~, iii..tlir wiiii liir iliililii iiiai iill~- · .iiI ....... [ to provide these facilities may be limited since the city is largely built out. The Plan also seeks to increase shoreline accessibility and foster the creation of an integrat- ed network of parks and open space. EXISTI'"' "'"" '"""" PLANS m~a r~,,-,, ,ca.. , AND rr~u~ Park and Open Space Inventory South San Francisco currently includes 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents, for public use, as shown in Figure 5-1. This includes 70 168.5 acres of open space, and 81.2 acres of school lands. ~%fle ~e overall amount of par~and appears adequate to meet &e community's needs, closer analysis [IOIIU) CALIUUlII~ bgllUUI parks anu U~CII space, is available per !,000 residents= %b!e 5=1-1 provides an inventory of ~e City's parks and open spaces. Recreation Facilit;es and Programs Community and recreation centers provide space for many of the classes and ser- vices that are central to South San Francisco's recreation programs. The City has six community/recreation buildings, some of which are used for specialized ser- 5-2 Playfields in the city are used for recreation and organized sports. Table 5. I - ! Existing Parks and Open Spaces Park Name Existing ~ommumty rar~ Alta Lama Park 6.8 Orange Park 21.0 Westborough Park II .3 Subtota! 39. ! Neighborhood Parks Avalon Park 3.8 Brentwood Park 3.0 Buri Bud Park 6.5 Callan Park 2.5 Paradise Valley Park 1.2 Se!!ick Park 6.8 Subtotal 23.8 Mini Parks Avalon Memorial Park !.2 City Hall Totlot 0. I Clay Avenue Playlot 0.8 Cypress and Pine P!ay!ot 0.3 i::: .... ;...~ T ...... DI-,,,I,-,,- /'1 '2 i i QII~.I,.~.U l~,,I I fl~,,~., I Ifl~'lU~, Gardinec Lot ~ ~ 12r~ Drago P2r~ ~ ~ Wind Harp/Point San Bruno 0.5 Winston Manor ~ I 1.8 Winston Manor ~3 (Newman/Gibbs) 0.3 Winston Manor g5 (Dundee/Mansfield) 0.3 Zamora Playlot 0.8 Sports Play Picnic r--:: :-. A ruc,h taca Areas · · Subtotal 7. I Total Developed Parkland Acreage 70.0 Acres per 1,000 residents2 1.2 · · · · · 5-4 PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES Colina ¢ttr Pacifica School Existing Park Pl~ned P~k ~s~g Open Space Proposed Open Space '*Sen Brunp, .* ,. ~ Special Facility ! 1/4 Mile Radius ~' .... ! Park Planning Area Boundary Source: South San Francisco Unified School District; South San Francisco Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan .ii San francisco International Airport Figure 5- I Schools, Parks and Open Space 5-3 S: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES Table 5.1-1 Existing Parks and Open Spaces Park Name School Parks Alta Loma I~liddle School Baden/Southwood High School Burl Burl School El Camino High School Hillside School Martin School Parkway Middle School Ponderosa School South San Francisco High School Spruce Elementary School Sunshine Gardens School Total Schools Acreage Open Space Open Space Common Greens Bayfront Linear Park Oyster Point Marina Park Sign Hill Park Subtotal Total Park and Open Space Acreage I Includes acreage under development. Existing Sports Play Picnic Acreage' Facilities Areas Areas 10.8 · 7.3 · 5.8 · 8.5 · 8.0 · · 3.0 · · 6.8 · 6.0 · · 8.5 · 5.0 · · 11.5 · · 81.2 Acres per 1,000 residents2 4O 54 29 18.5 27 168.5 319.7 Acres per 1,000 residents2 2 Based on a population of S9,208, as estimated by the California Department of Finance, 1998. Source: 1997 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, Dyett & Bhatia, 1999 1.4 e e 5.4 5-5 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 5-6 vices such as senior programs at the Magnolia Center, public meetings at the Municipal Services Building, and Boys and Girls Club programs at the Paradise Valley Recreation Center. The City also has an indoor public pool at Orange Park. Outdoor pools at South San Francisco High School and E1 Camino High School supplement Orange POol in the summer. A new public gymnasium was construct- ed in 1998 as part of the Terrabay project. The City offers a variety of recreation and special programs, ranging from pre- school day care to senior activities. Both indoor and outdoor recreational pro- grams occur in a combination of school and City facilities. The types of programs offered range from recreational and competitive swimming to classes and perfor- mances in the cultural and performing arts: The City offers programs geared toward specific age groups, such as teenagers or seniors, and day camp, preschool, and after-school programs for children. Park Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Under the direction of its 1990 and 1997 Park, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Master Plans, the City is addressing the specific deficiencies in park and recreational opportunities. Present efforts are focused on improving and expand- ing the city's major community park, Orange Memorial Park, as well as develop- ing and improving two newly acquired park sites. The City also intends to improve bayfront access at new shoreline development, enhance bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the city in a system of linear parks, and continue its ongoing safety and accessibility upgrade program. PARK AND RECREATION DEFICIENCIES Deficiencies in park and recreation facilities stem from both the amount and the distribution of parks and community centers. The 1990 and 1997 PROS Master Plans identified major deficiencies within neighborhoods: A lack of community and neighborhood parks in downtown, home to 20 per- cent of the city's population. The PG&E easement between Armour and Linden, improved in 1997, is partly helping to alleviate this shortage; 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES · Inadequate Bayshore access and public parking; Lack of traditional park facilities in the Sign Hill/Paradise Valley Area. Development in Terrabay will help alleviate this situation. Access to Sign Hill is also limited; · The Sunshine Gardens/Mission Road area is served by schools but lacks park- land, with no apparent opportunities for park acquisition; The Avalon/Brentwood and Buri Buri/Winston Serra neighborhoods both have neighborhood parks at the edge of the neighborhoods, reducing their accessi- bility for many neighborhood residents. Acquisition of surplus school land at Avalon and Alta Loma Schools has helped address this problem. Development and improvement of the park sites will be accomplished in 1999; and Park facilities have been upgraded (1997-99) to address deferred maintenance and for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) Handbook for Public Playground Safety.1 Also, the need for parks and recreation opportunities in employment areas has recently emerged as a concern. The 1994 East of 101 Area Plan calls for establish- ment of specific standards for parkland in employment areas. .CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS Classification System The General Plan defines six classes of parks and recreational open space areas: Community Parks. Community parks serve a citywide population and usually include sports facilities, such as lighted fields, courts, swimming pools, recre- ation buildings, and other special use facilities. Restrooms and off-street park- ing are generally provided. Although community parks have a much larger ser- vice area than neighborhood parks, they often serve a neighborhood function as well. South San Francisco owns and maintains three community parks. I California Senate Bill 2733 requires all public playgrounds to conform to the guidelines described in the CPSC hand book by January 1, 2000. 5-7 ~l"b~l-- ~ 5L)UIH 5AN H%'A.N(ZI~(ZC) GI=NP..I"tAL HI_AN The City Hall Tot Lot is a mini park that is heavily used by provided through the General Plan. 5-8 Ne~hborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks are devoted primarily to serving a small portion of the city, usually within easy walking and biking distance from residences. These parks are designed for unorganized and u_n_supervised recre- ation activities. Play eouinment, nnen turf area.~, and picnic tahle.~ may he nrn- vided, although restroom.~ and off-.~treet n~rkino m,v nat ....... ' ......................... r ....... o .... l ....... parks typically measure between three and seven acres in South San Francisco. There are five existing neighborhood parks designated in the city. I [' . ' 13_ __1__ I i_' _ _' __ 1 11 I 11 iVlttl~ t'btltk.~, tVllllI pdlKb dlU 5111alii play a~-ca~ ot grCCll spaces, USUally less than three acres in size, designed for small children or for visual purposes. In addi- tion to play equipment, these parks may provide active recreation opportuni- ties, such as handball or basketball. There are 12 mini parks scattered through- out Sou~ San Francisco. Linear Parks. Linear geographic features, such as watercourses and shorelines, public utility and transportation rights-of-way, provide unique opportunities for parks. These corridor.~ often provide fe~rmal acce.g.~ tn the feah~ro~ thoy mir- ror, and provide the basis for a network of formal trails that link other parks ational pursuits, play equipment, open turf areas, and picnic tables may be provided, depending upon ~e wid~ of ~e corridor. There is currenOy one linear park in Sou~ San Francisco, lUkatkU Ua~ liUllt, A second linear park is in development along the Colma Creek be~een Orange and Spruce avenues. o _ 1 £_ __'1 ochoo~ Parks. o~.homp~aygroundtacnitles' ' - are available-' ' for public" use. The City maintains a Joint Powers Agreement with the School District for the use of ! ! .... 1 I . 1_ P'.l I 1 anu ~nool ~ports and "" recreation programs. School piayncluS for ~lty playgrounds account for approximately....vt r*"-'-'*'"°r"°"t of the park and open space area in South San Francisco, measuring between 3 and 11 acres in size. These areas significantly enhance the City's complement of neighborhood parks and athletic fields. Recreational Open Space. These lands are most often used for passive recreation activities, such as walking or hiking. Improvements are generally not provided. South San Francisco's unusual geographic features provide numerous oppor- PUBLIC tunities for unique open space areas, such as the Sign ! !il.! Park. Over the years, tUlllUt;3, CklIU 1;3 kUIILIIIU 11~ tU auvalita~ uppui effort into improvin~ access to the bay~ont and the hills. Standards General Plan park standards are established in %ble 5.1-2. These include standards for parks in residential areas (3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents), supported by residential development, and in employment atccta, WiUl llcw_Pai~anu Lo be iunueu by. requirements .... based on employment aen- erated (0.5 acres per 1,000 new employees). With the expected addition of 8,200 residents and 27,500 employees over the plan horizon, approximately 38 acres of new parkland will be needed. Additional opportunities will result from creation of new linear and mini-parks, for which no specific standards are established in the Table 5. I-2 Facility Typical Size Service Example ResidentJal Employment Area e.~_.~_~ ~.__~__J otu~ ~uu~ u otu.uu~u Communky Up ~o City Orange Park 3.0 acres of 0.5 ~cres per Parks 20 acres community or 1,000 new neighborhood employees parks per 1,000 new residents Neighborhood 3-7 acres 3/4 mile Sellick Park Parks radius . Mini-Park Up to 3 acres Zamora Lot Linear Park Sufficient width City Bayfront to protect resource and provide maximum use Open Space Varies 'varies Sign Hill Wind Harp Park at Point San Bruno Knoll in the heart of the City's high-technolog? district offers 270' vistas. The Wind Harp is a visually prominent feature in East of 101 and i¢ alert vi¢ibl~ frn~ ¢~.~ml nthor Inentin~¢ ;. ~lso ~;t~, including Ciw Hall General Plan. While new parkland should generally conform to size and service area standards outlined in Table 5.1-2, because opportunities for new parkland are extremely limited, size and service area adherence is not required. General Plan Park Proposals The General Plan proposes several new parks to meet the needs of new residents and employees, as well as linear parks along old railroad spurs and above the underground BART tracks. While some of these proposals recognize direction established in the City's PROS Master Plan, others are located to inaximize oppor- tunities resulting from change in redevelopment. Parkland proposals are discussed in detail in policies that follow: GUIDING POLiCiES: PARKS AND RECREATION Colma Creek - looking north west towards Kaiser (in back- 5. I-G-i Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas lacking these £nrilitio~ tn moot tho ~tnndnrd~ n~r ron, drod hark ncronao ~nr now ro~idont~ and employees. 5. l-G-2 Improve bayfront access along its entire length and endorse the prorninence of this important natural asset. 5. l-G3 Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open space; improve access to existing facilities where feasible. c I-G-4 Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing public utility, and transportation rights-of-way. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: PARKS AND RECREATION 5. I-I-I Maintain the PROS Master Plan as the implementing tool for General Plan park and recreation policies and proposals. Park proposals and standards in the General Plan should be reflected in the next update of the PROS Master Plan. 5-10 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 5. I-I-2 5.14-3 5. I-I-4 Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of commun/ty and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and of O.$ acres of'parkland per 1,000 new emplorees, to be located in employment areas. The standards set out in this policy will generate a need for 13.5 acres of new parkland in employment areas, and 24.6 acres of new parkland in residential areas, as shown in Table 5A-3. The residential standard is in compliance with the Quimby Act. While park facilities are currently required for new residential development, the City's implementing regulations will need to be amended to incor- porate park standards for employment uses as well. Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on Figure 5- I. Opportunities for park dedication with new residential development are limited. In-lieu fees are intended to give the City flexibility to pur- chase available parkland elsewhere in the city. Develop new parks in locations and sizes shown on Figure 5-I. The General Plan proposes several new parks in existing residential and employment areas that would meet this need, as indicated in Table 5.1- 4. These include: Table 5. I-3 New Pm'k Need Standard Community and 3.0 acres/ Neighborhood 1,000 new Parks residents Parks in 0.5 acres/ Employment 1,000 new Areas employees Population Increase to ~uildout 8,200 27,500 I Ba~ed on a buildout population of 67,400 in the city. Acres Needed ~ 24.6 13.5 38.1 Residential Areas e Southwood School This site, recently closed by the South San Francisco Unified School District, provides an ideal opportunity for the City to acquire all or a part of this surplus school property under the Naylor Act. Measuring four acres, the site is located near the E1 Camino Real and is adjacent the California Golf and Country Club. This proposed park is in an area with parkland deficiency and located within a half-mile of several new residential development 5-11 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table S. 1-4 Proposed Parks Parkland Proposed in General Plan Parks in Residential Neighborhoods Southwood School Colma Creek Linear Park Downtown Park Subtotal Parks in Employment Areas Campus Center Railroad Avenue Linear Park Lindenville Linear Park Subtotal Linear Parks and Open Spaces BART Linear Park PG&E linear Park SFPUC Linear Park Bayfront Linear Park (extension) Subtotal Total 5-12 Acres 4.0 8.0 2.0 24.6 4.0 7.5 2.0 13.5 29.0 5.5 6.0 29.0 69.5 107.6 sites in the El Camino Real corridor. A child care facility could be included on the site, possibly utftizing existing facilities. Colma Creek Linear Park. While the stretch of Colma Creek between Orange Memorial Park and Spruce Avenue is currently being developed as a linear park, the eight-acre corridor from Spruce Avenue to the Bay is not. This park would provide a key linkage to the bayfront from Orange Memorial Park and the downtown neighborhoods. Downtown Park. A two-acre park in the downtown area would provide important aesthetic benefits to the area. Benches, paths, and an open turf area should be included. Although a specific loca- tion for this park has not been designated in the General Plan Diagram, this should be established in the future through the PROS Master Plan process. Employment Areas Campus Center Park. This four-acre park facility would be located on the bayfront at the terminus of East Grand Avenue. This park would serve as a meeting place on the bayfront for employees in East of 101. The bayfront should be the focus of this park, with benches and paved paths sited to take advantage of the views. Grassy areas and facilities such as basketball and volleyball courts and a child care center should be provided. Parking should be located nearby. Railroad Avenue Linear Park. This rail-to-trail conversion, stretch- ing from U.S. 101 to East Grand Avenue would significantly improve access to East of 101 area and the bayfront. Measuring 7.5 acres in size, this park should be of ample width to support the placement benches, paved pathways, and exercise stations. This park is part of the Railroad Avenue Extension proposed in Policy 4.2-I-2 of the Plan. · Lindenville Linear Park. Another raft-to-trail conversion, this park 5. I-I-.5 $. I-I-6 measures 2.0 acres in size and is located between South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue near the City boundary with San Bruno. This park should provide picnic facilities and benches for nearby office workers. These provisions should allow the City to more than double its devel- oped parkland acreage to 177.6 acres (see the chart to the right). Likewise, the 2.3 acres of parkland provided for every 1,000 residents represents an increase of more than one acre for every 1,000 residents. The current ratio is 1.2. Use the PROS/Haster Plan process to achieve additional parkland acreage, as necessary, to meet the residential parkland need at Genera/Plan build- out. As indicated in Table 5.1-3, the 27,500 new employees and 8,200 new residents expected at Plan buildout create the need for about 38 acres of new parkland. Park sites shown on the General Plan Diagram meet the entire need for parkland in employment areas, providing 13.5 acres. Park sites on the General Plan Diagram provide 14.0 acres of the 24.6 acres required in residential areas at buildout. The PROS Master Plan process should be used to provide the remaining 10.6 acres required, as necessary. Sites for these are not shown on the General Plan Diagram. Work with Bay Area Regional Transit (BART), Pacific Gas and E/ectric (PG&E), and the SFPUC to lease and develop linear parks on existing pub- lic ut#ity and transportation rights-of-war in the city, where appropriate and feasible. The proposals for potential linear parks are shown on the General Plan Diagram; some of these proposals are not new, and are included in the 1997 PROS Master Plan as well. These indude: BART Linear Park. The City will need to work dosely with BART to make the linear park on the surface right-of-way for the BART extension to San Francisco International Airport a reality. This 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES Existing and Buildout Parkland 2OO 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 4O 20 0 E3dstln~ Buildout Existing Buildout ll~ Parkland Acres per 1,000 Residents 3.0 2.0 1.0 5-13 ~r.)p.~.FT S~Ii.i'TH ~AN FRAN( i~( () (~FNEi~Ai i"q AN The Bay Trail at Oyster Point provides recreation opportu- nities along the San Francisco Bay for residents and visitors. 5. I-I-7 two-mile long corridor would provide about 30 acres of passive recreation space, paved paths, a bikeway, and open turf areas. This linear park could become a primary greenway linkage in the city's central area. Pacific Gas and Electric Corridor. Located in the northeast portion of the city, this 5.5 acre right-of-way would link the new Terrabay residential development with a new City park established at Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard. The varied terrain of this site makes it ideai as a passive recreation area. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Corridor. This right-of- way is located in the Winston-Serra area of the City. This corridor is already under development as a linear park from the city's west- ern boundary to Hickey Boulevard. The PROS Master Plan pro- poses the extension of this park to the Alta Lama School site. Opportunities for this extension may be limited by the fact that proD~sa! should be explored. Bayfront Linear Park. Several portions of the bayfront in South San Francisco have already been developed as linear parks, and include developed, the provision of a continuous shoreline band o~ open space will become a reality. The area of existing par~and is 29 ~UIIJ~IUUUiI acres,WHICH WOUIQ ~OUDI¢ LO DO ~lCb U~UII . ~ii- vately owned, it is under the jurisdiCtion of ~e San Frands¢o Bay Conservation ~nA Devel~nment C~mmi~ion (~CDC]. which l[Olll must approve new development ' on lanu uu plans i mean rog,, tide~ ~ u~;o+; ..... u~.a has ~o0. established by requiring open space dedication along the shoreline. Develop a network of linkages, as shown in Figure $-I, to connect existing andproposea ...............par~s and open space. ~c.uu~'- - -' faci,iues-'""u,,u-- features to the greatest extent possible. 5-14 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 5. I-I-8 The parkland proposals of the General Plan and the PROS Master Plan provide the basis for a continuous network of linkages to connect existing'parkland and open space areas, school facilities, the bayfront, and San Bruno Mountain. This network would facilitate movement between these features, improve actual and perceived access, and bet- ter incorporate more distant landmarks. Linkages would comprise landscape features--such as existing and proposed linear parks and open spacemand hardscape featuresmsuch as existing and proposed city streets and connections. This network of linkages would also provide the basis for a bicycle and pedestrian route system in South San Franclsco. See Section 4.3: Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking. Improve the accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill Park and the bayf'ront. Sign Hill Park and the bayfront are the City's most significant parkland resources; however, access to these features is difficult due to the loca- tion and the perception that these areas are off limits. Sign Hill While Sign Hill is clearly visible from most locations in the city, it is surrounded by residential development and access is limited to one point at Poplar Avenue and Rocca Avenue. This access should be enhanced to provide trailhead facilities, such as signage, a map board, an interpretive display, waste receptacles, etc. Opportunities to formal- ly establish other access points should be explored, and access points should be indicated on approach roads and on bicycle and pedestrian route system maps. Ba?front The bayfront is South San Francisco's most significant natural feature. Three formal public access points currently exist, induding Oyster Point Marina, Oyster Point Business Park, and at SamTrans. While access will improve over time as shoreline sites are redeveloped, U.S. 5-15 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 5-16 5.1-1-9 101 significantly hinders residents to the west from accessing the bayfront. The General Plan proposes three solutions for increased bayfront access: The creation of two new east-west street crossings of U.S. 101 at Railroad Avenue andVictory Avenue (Policy 4.2-I-2). The Railroad Avenue extension will be further enhanced by a linear park along its length in East of 101, and the proposed extension of the Colma Creek Linear Park (Policy 5.1-I-4) will provide a direct parkland linkage to the bayfront. The location of activities on the bayfront, such as a Campus Center and park that will draw people to the shoreline (policies 3.5-I-8, 3.5-I-9); and · A shoreline overlay zone for design review ofbayfront proposals to promote improved access (Policy 3.5-I-13). Rev/ew the current regulations for the dedication of parkland in subdivisions to ensure that requirements are adequate to meet the standards of the General Plan at Plan buildout. The City's regulations apply population density, determined to be the average number of persons per household, to calculate the appropriate dedication of parkland in subdivisions. The current requirement is the dedication of 3.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 new residents. According to Department of Finance estimates, the current average number ef persons per household in South San Francisco is 3.07. According to ABAG projections, this number is expected to increase slightly through 2005 to 3.12, and then fall again to 3.07 by 2020. In addition, the trend toward higher density residential development-due to smaller households and the fact that South San Frandsco is generally built out and most new residential development will be in the higher density ranges--means that more parkland per housing unit will be required to maintain the parkland standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 resi- dents. 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 5.2 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD or the District) operates all public schools serving South San Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno. The District is the largest school district in San Mateo County. Three elementary parochial schools are the only schools in the city that are not under the jurisdiction of the District. The current focus of the District is the modernization and renovation of its exist- ing facilities. Since all of schools in South San Francisco were built between 1935 and 1970, many are in need of repairs and upgrades. The District has issued a $40 million general obligation bond for school renovation to be matched by the State, enabling the needed restoration work. In addition to educational services, school facilities provide recreation opportuni- ties for all residents of the city. In fact, school parks represent 25 percent of the park and open space area in South San Francisco. While all but two schools currently operate within student capacity, projections indicate that this capacity is not likely to be reached or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential developmentwand recent State-directed dass size reduction efforts--are likely to add new students, an aging population and a trend toward smaller families in South San Francisco will reduce the student population. Some schools have recently been dosed since they are no longer needed, and additional schools may need to be dosed in coming years for the same reason. SCHOOL FACILITIES AND ENROLLMENT The District conducts its own planning efforts and recently completed a five-year facility plan. School capacity and needs are important considerations of the General Plan due to the dose interactions of growth, school funding, and school capacity. However, SSFUSD operates independently of City government. 5-17 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table S.2- I Current School Enrollment and Capacity Schools Enrollment ~999 Capac/ty' Elementary Schools (K-S) BurI-Buri 704 775 Hillside 363 405 Junipero Serra 403 427 Los Cerritos 363 434 Martin 424 456 Monte Verde 504 514 Ponderosa 370 410 Skyline 579 613 Spruce 630 596 Sunshine Gardens 385 480 Total Elementary Schools 4,725 5,110 Middle Schools (6-8) Alta Loma 721 86 I Parkway 809 1067 Westborough 716 797 Total Middle Schools 2,246 2,725 High Schools (9-12) El Camino 1,464 1500 South San Francisco 1,555 1544 Baden Continuation II 8 236 Total High Schools 3,137 3,271 Total 10,108 I I,I 15 I Estimated from class loading standards and classrooms listed in the Five- Year Facility Plan. Source: South San Francisco Unified School District, Dyett & Bhatia School Facilities SSFUSD operates 15 schools, induding ten elementary (K-5), three middle (6-8) and two high schools, as shown in Table 5.2-1. Other facilities include a continua- tion high school, an ~dult school, and several child care centers. The District owns two dosed schools, Serra Vista, and Southwood. A Facilities Use Study is being undertaken to determine future uses for these sites. These schools are currently used by the County for special education programs. Current Enrollment and Capacity Approximately 10,100 students were enrolled in South San Francisco schools in January 1999. With a district-wide capacity of dose to 11,115 students, enrollment exceeded capacity at only one elementary school and one high school. The District regulates school capacity based on class size rather than school size, and there is no upper limit on enrollment in each elementary, middle or high school. The current class size standard is 29 students per classroom for grades K- S, and 28 students per class for grades 6-12. Since school facilities have been built to meet this standard, the State 20:1 elementary school class size reduction pro- gram may create the need for additional portable classrooms at elementary school sites. While only two schools are currently over student capacity, several elemen- tary schools are approaching the standards set by the District. Table 5.2-1 outlines current enrollment and capacity for each school in the District. FUTURE SCHOOL NEEDS Buildout of the General Plan will result in the addition of 2,800 housing units, or an increase in population of about 8,200. Based on State Department of Finance projections by age dass and San Mateo County enrollment projections, a decrease in enrollment in the South San Francisco Unified School District of 9,t0 elemen- tary, 250 junior high, and 680 high school students, or a total of 1,870 students compared to current enrollment will result over the General Plan horizon. This forecast is consistent with the low-medium projections of the SSFUSD which were · 5-18 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES only computed through 2010. Table 5.2-2 outlines current and projected enroll- ment by school type within the District. It should be noted that these projections are approximate numbers and actual numbers may vary based on future popula- tion demographics. In order to accommodate projected decreased enrollment, approximately three or four existing elementary schools may need to be dosed and existing portable class- rooms removed at junior high and high schools. The dosed facilities could be used for a variety of purposes, including new parks, residential projects, and childcare centers or reserved for future school uses. The District will need to determine the use of these facilities. FUNDING The availability of high quality schools is an important factor in the attraction of new residents and businesses. Consequently, adequate funding for schools is a pri- mary concern. Development impact fees are an essential source of revenue in the provision of additional school resources needed for development. Fee proceeds may be used for construction or reconstruction of schools. Although it is not like- ly that any new schools will be built, existing facilities will need to be renovated. The current fees are $1.50 per residential square foot and $0.15 per commercial square foot, neither of which are at the maximum levels permitted by State law.2 GUIDING POLICIES: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 5.2-G-I Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to main- tain and improve educational facilities and services. 5.2-C.-2 Work with the SSFUSD on ap'praprJate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational purposes. $.2-C-3 Continue to coordinate with the District the joint use of'school recreational f'acilitJes for community-wide use. Table S.2-2 Current and Projected School Enrollment at Buildout Grade Current Projected Enrollment Enrollment (Jan. 1999) at Genera/ Plan Buildout Change in Enrollment Elementary (K-6) 4,725 3,784 -94 I Junior High (7-8) 2,246 1,996 -250 High (9-12) 3,137 2,460 -677 Total I 0,108 8,240 - 1,868 Sources: South San Francisco Unified School District, Eh/mt & BhatJa 2 Government Code ~65995(b)(3) establishes $1.50 as the maximum residential school impact fee, to be increased in 1990 and every two years thereafter commensurate with inflation, as determined by the State Allocation Board. 5-19 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN II~IPLENENTING POLICIES: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 5.2-1-1 Work with the SSFUSD on appropriate land uses for school s/res no longer needed for educational facilities. Acquire closed school sites for recreation facilities and childcare purposes where appropriate. The Naylor Act allows cities and counties to acquire surplus school properties for recreation purposes. Since projections reveal that sever- al schools will close as enrollment declines, the City should establish criteria for invoking this law. While the General Plan Diagram already shows a park on the Southwood School site, other opportunities should be explored under the City's PROS Master Plan process (Policy 5.1-I-5). This will allow the City to relate new opportunities to antici- pated park needs. 5 -20 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 5.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES The existing and as-planned capacity of the water and sewer systems in South San Francisco will be able to accommodate the buildout of this General Plan. The most important infrastructure improvement that will occur during the horizon of this Plan is the expansion of the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant. This expansion will increase the maximum allowable capacity to lB million gallons per day (MGD) from the current 9 MGD and will accommodate future development, WATER South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San Francisco's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water alloca- tion among these communities. The Company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entities the City to 42.3 MGD per year. An additional 1.4 MGD can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of 1-280, an area not targeted for growth in this General Plan. Table S3.1 Historical Water Use in South San Francisco (MGD) Year ResidentJal Commerdal ~dusgi~ Other Total 1991 1,162 780 296 131 4,360 1992 1,255 819 316 158 4,540 1993 1,343 882 317 172 4,707 1994 1,411 933 267 184 4,789 1995 1,442 986 262 176 4,861 1996 1,491 1,009 277 184 4,957 Average 1,351 902 289 167 4,702 Source: CalifornlaWater Service Company, Westborough CountyWater District Historic Use As indicated in Table 5.3-1, water use has increased steadily, and at a rate faster than increases in the number of users. Water use has rebounded significantly from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down considerably. While residential users comprise approximately 90% of the water accounts in South San Francisco, less than half of the total consumption may be attributed to these users (Table 5.3-2). On the other hand, industrial users comprise only 0.46% of the water accounts but use 11% of the total water. The yearly average sales for each industrial user between 1986 and 1996 was 3.65 million gallons. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in South San Francisco is the predomi- nance of biotechnology firms in the city. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires Table 5.3-2 Water Users byType and Consumption Land Use Proibortion Proportion Consumption of'Total of Total per user~ Accounts Consumption (gallons) Single Family 75% 42% 78,726 Residential Multi-Family 14% 5% 55,219 Residential Commercial 10% 37% 528,132 Industrial 0.46% I 1% 3,646,790 Other 0.S4% 5% 1,052,326 I Yearly Aver-~e S~les (I 986-1996). Source: Czllfornla W~ter Service Company 5-21 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 5-22 extremely pure water, and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water purity levels. Projected Use As indicated in Table 5.3-2, water consumption varies considerably by land use, making future consumption projections difficult. While projecting water con- sumption for residential uses may be relatively straightforward, projecting indus- trial consumption is not, since each industrial activity is different and consumes varying quantities of water. The California Water Service Company bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five-year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 millions gallons per day to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remain- ing contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest pro- jected demand. GUIDING POLICIES:WATER SUPPLY 5.3-G- I Promote the orderly and ef~cient opera,on and expansion of'the water sup- ply system to meet projected needs. 5.3-G-2 Encourage water conservatJon measures for both existJng and proposed development. 5.3-G-3 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of' associated with providing water service to new development. IMPLEIqENTING POLICIES:WATER SUPPLY 5.3-/- I Work with California Water Service Company and Westborough County Water District to ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and t~ming of'growth. 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 5.3-1-2 5.3-1-3 Establish guidelines and standards rot water conservation and actively pro- mote the use of' water-conserving devices and practices in both new con- struction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. These can be established at two levels: 1) As part of the City's function- al plans relating to water supply; and 2) Requiring the use of water- conserving devices as part of project approvals. The drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in the imple- mentation of water conservation measures in South San Francisco. These measures effectively reduced water consumption, particularly for residential and commercial uses. Since that time, the average year-over- year increases in consumption for these uses was five percent. As these consumption levels approach pre-drought levels, and as General Plan buildout expects 2,800 new residential units and almost nine million square feet of new non-residential development, conservation mea- sures should play an increasingly significant role in the cost-effective provision of water service. Conservation measures as they relate to industrial uses should also be explored. While residential and commercial water consumption declined during the drought in South San Francisco, industrial con- sumption did not. The number of industrial accounts in the city con- tinues to fall; however, new industrial activities, such as biotechnology, tend to use more water than their traditional predecessors. With approximately 2.9 million square feet of additional Business/Technology Park space expected at Plan buildout, even limited measures could yidd significant results. Industrial conservation measures could also help limit the demand for treatment plant capacity. Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associat- ed w/th providing water service to new development in South San Francisco. 5-23 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 3.3-3 WastewaterTreatment Plant Flow Year Average Average Maximum Dry Weather Annual Monthly now (/~ao) (/~o) Now (/~o) 1991 6.39 7.03 9.37 1992 6.86 7.34. 9. I 5 1993 7.4.7 8.09 11.46 1994. 7.62 8.09 9.99 1995 8.33 9.20 12.90 Source: South San Francisco/San BrunoWastewaterTreatment Plant Facilities Plan 5 -24 WASTEWATER An adequately and properly maintained wastewater system is an important part of environmental and public health protection, and an essential infrastructure com- ponent for any urban area. As with other public facilities in South San Francisco, varying degrees of maintenance and upgrading will be necessary to accommodate new development. The wastewater treatment plantwjointly-owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno--is currently undergoing expansion designed specifically to provide the treatment capacity needed for growth. Collection and Treatment The South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant was constructed in the early 1970s and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The sewage of both cities is treated, as is wastewater from Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. The Westborough Water District coordinates sewage treatment for Westborough portion of South San Francisco under contract with Dab/City. The current design capacity of the treatment plant is 13 MGD and an actual capac- ity of 9-MGD average dry weather flow. The plant expansion, begun in the fall of 1998, will increase the dry-weather operational capacity to 1:5 MGD. The first phase of the expansion began in early 1998 and should be completed by the end of 2001. The expansion will add three new primary darifiers, an additional secondary darifiers, and will remove obsolete equipment. The 47 million dollar project is financed through State revolving fund loans. Historic Use As indicated in Table 5.:5-4, average dry weather flows to the treatment plant have increased on average by 0.5 MGD every year since 1991, or the equivalent in waste- water generation terms of 6,000 new residents annually. South San Francisco gen- erated about 4.95 MGD of the 8.33 MGD average dry weather flow handled by the plant in 1995. Just as industry in SoUth San Francisco is a heavy water user, it is a heavy genera- 3 Carollo Engineers, South San Francisco/San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan January 1996, p. 1-8 to 1-10. tar of wastewater as well. Of the 4.95 MGD average dry weather flow contributed by South San Francisco in 1995, 25 percent can be attributed to industrial sources.3 Projected Use At buildout, the average flow is expected to reach 13.1 MGD, from South San Francisco's contribution alone. The approved and additional development is pro- jected to generate approximately 2.4 MGD of wastewater. The addition of Biotech companies who generate large amounts of wastewater, could result in higher flows. GUIDING POLICIES:WASTEWATER 5.3.C-~ Promote the orderly and ef~cient operation and expansion of the waste- water system to meet projected needs. 5.3-G.5 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing wastewater service to new development. 5.3-G-6 Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management prances. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES:WASTEWATER 5.3-1-4 Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. The need for capital improvements to the wastewater system will nec- essarily be linked to the extent and timing of growth, if sufficient capac- ity is to be provided. This requires the continuous monitoring of very dynamic trends in both development and system capacity. 5.3-1-5 Ensure that future res/dents and bus. inesses equitably share costs associat- ed with providing wastewater service to new development in South San Francisco. 5.3-1-6 Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, State, and regional standards; treatment costs should remain affordable. 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES Table S.3-4 Average Wastewater Flows, 1998-Buildout Year Average Flaw (MGD)~ J998 10.71 Projected Flow from Approved 2.42 and Additional Development2 Buildout Flow 13. I I Figures include sewage flow from the entire westewater treatment plant system, including South San Francisco, San Bruno, Calma, and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. 2 Based on averase generation rates for housing units and non-residen- tial floor space In Table 2.4- I. 5-25 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 5.3-1-7 Discharge from the City's wastewater treatment plant is closely moni- tored for quantity and concentrations of pollutants. Noncompliance with various numerous federal, State, and regional regulations could result in the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge permit to be revoked. Because increased industrial growth may make it difficult to achieve the standards for BOD and TSS concentrations over time, linkages between pollutant levels and land uses need to be established. Industrial discharges also place enormous treatment costs on the City. The cost cf providing this service should also be dosely monitored to ensure that the continuation of this service remains cost-effective. Encourage new projects in East of I01 that are likely to generate large quant~es of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pre- treatment, or other means as necessary. This will aid water pollution control efforts as well. 5-26 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT South San Francisco's notable competitive locational advantages within the region, a positive business environment, and a resurgent Northern California economy position it well to capture significant new development with resultant economic benefits for the City. The City's location is highly strategic, between between two world-class universities---Stanford and' UCSF--and three major centers of eco- nomic activity: (1) the rapidly expanding San Francisco International Airport (SFIA); (2) downtown San Francisco; and (3) the Silicon Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area's primary economic engine, which is producing tremendous growth in business and employment activity. The Silicon Valley, once synonymous with Santa Clara County, has expanded into southern San Mateo County. South San Francisco's economy was historically based upon manufacturing and processing industries, many of which slowly gave way to warehousing and distrib- ution businesses. Growth in recent years has focused on the information-based economy, as more high-technology and service firms have located to the eastern portion of the city. With Genentech serving as a major high-technology/biotech- nology anchor in East of 101, a significant duster of bio-technology establish- ments exists today. The ability of the City to attract uses that generate economic benefits will depend on maintaining a positive business climate and availability of land, particularly sites suited to the needs of large office or research and develop- ment campuses, or regional-scaled commercial centers. Although not required by State law, the Economic Development Element is includ- ed to provide a policy framework for ensuring South San Francisco's long term competitiveness in the region. This Element--based on the analysis of recognized business trends and available resources--outlines the City's economic develop- ment objectives, serves to ensure that economic decision-making is integrated with other aspects of the city's development, and provides a framework for detailed implementing actions. 6-1 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 6-2 6.1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY'S ROLE With demand for land vastly outstripping supply, and with transportation capaci- ty a potentially major constraint, the need to prioritize the type and the location of developments that provide the greatest economic benefit to the City is greater than at any other time in South San Francisco's history. While most economic development activity occurs in the private sector, the City can work to: ensure City policies do not impede the needs of businesses to move or expand; facilitate and act as a catalyst for development in strategic market segments; coordinate and ~ro- vide for infrastructure improvements; and generate revenue to support economic development activities. A coordinated economic development strategy is also essential for the City to sup- port its community development objectives - such as providing and maintaining parks, protecting open space, and maintaining high levels of municipal services. A managed program of fiscal development, strategic public improvements, and bal- anced land use will help maximize resultant community benefits. Thus the Economic Development Element envisions three central roles for the City: Promoting development that results in fiscal benefits to the City. Central to this is an understanding of the benefits or burdens of various land uses on the City's General Fund. The relative benefit or burden on the City is an important consideration in the allocation and prioritization of future development in South San Francisco. Such an analysis was completed as part of the General Plan process. Table 6.1-1 illustrates, on an average cost basis, the relative net fiscal impact of various land uses. In the case of South San Francisco, these impacts on an annual per acre basis range from negative $3,000 for high-den- sity residential development, to more than $112,000 for hotels. An understanding of these considerations can allow the City to ensure that each new development pays its fair share of the costs to service it. Perhaps equally critical, it can allow the City to proactively facilitate fiscally beneficial development with upfront costs defrayed by enhanced future revenue returns. 6: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Table 6. I - I Fiscal Impact of V~rious Land Uses, Per Acre Land Use Revenues Costs Hotel $132,290 $19,785 Re~il (big box) $32,550 $2,974 Re~il (neighborhood) $24,108 $2,974 Office (high rise with structured pkg.) $24,067 $6,682 R&D (biotechnology-relat- $ I 1,285 $3,046 ed) Office (mid-rise business park) $12,163 $4,406 R&D (high technology-related) $ I 1,027 $3,710 Residential Low Density $6,917 $3,872 Residential Medium Density $8,024 $6,285 Warehouse/Distrib- ution $3,835 $2,408 Industrial/Light Manufacturing $4,351 $3,83 I Freight Forwarding $1,943 $2,408 Residential High Density $7,732 $10,716 Net Impact $ I 12,505 $29,576 $2 I,I 34 $17,384 $8,239 $7,757 $7,317 $3,046 $1,739 $1,427 $520 -$465 -$2,983 6-3 DEAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Financing public improvements. The financing of public improvements is a key element of any municipal economic development effort. Such improvements may indude road widening or extension, sewer and water upgrades, utility undergrounding, etc. In many cases, these improvements provide the neces- sary incentive for subsequent private sector investment in the revitalization or redevelopment of an area. In others, these improvements are made in an effort to retain or expand existing business, or to attract new business. Since the City's ability to finance public improvements is in part determined by its fiscal health, these roles are closely intertwined. Improvements can be targeted to facilitate or expedite certain developments, or to ensure that infrastructure capacity does not become an impediment to growth, as was the case in the 1980s when sewage capacity constrained devel- opment in East of 101. Maintaining Land Use Balance. Maintaining a balanced supply of different land uses~based on economic and community development objectivesmis critical to the City's financial health. This balance is also necessary to attract business- es seeking quality housing opportunities and retail services, in addition to ensuring that existing transportation capacity can be used more effectively. Chapter 2: Land Use, of this Plan sets the policy direction in this area for South San Francisco. 6-4 6: ECONOPIIC DEVELOPPIENT 6.2 LAND USE BALANCE: NEED AND GENERAL PLAN PROVISION As noted in Chapter 2: Land Use, a small inventory of sites--totaling 167 acres, or less than four percent of land within the Planning Area--is currently vacant. Market assessment conducted as part of the General Plan forecasts that demand for all land uses will exceed 1,400 acres during a 20-year hor;zon, necessitating redevelopment and intensification of land uses. Thus, prioritizing development and reserving sites for designated uses will be essential to maintain economic development and to maximize available transportation capacity. Table 6.2-1 indicates how the provisions of the General Plan will meet the land use needs in South San Francisco to buildout. While overall non-residential floor space in the city is expected to increase by about 30 percent at buildout, employment could soar by as much as 80 percent or 32,500 additional jobs (see Section 2.4). A great majority of these new jobs will be in the services sector in R&D establishments and offices, although significant growth will also result in hotel/visitor services industry. Major sites targeted for employment growth are located in East of 101 and Lindenville, both of which are unsuitable for residential uses. 6-5 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 6.2- I: Land Use Need by Use and General Plan Provision Land Use Land Need (I 999-2000) Office North San Mateo County has a projected space absorption of 4.0 to 4.6 million square feet. South San Francisco could capture between 2.0 and 2.3 million square feet of this. Sites at locations that match the criteria of prospective office users would be instrumental in achieving these capture rates. Research and Development (R&D) Genentech, with about 1.7 million square feet of occupied space, has served as a magnet. As development sites in south county become increasingly scarce, R&D firms have been seeking sites farther north to secure larger, more economical space. VVhile biotechnology firms anchor the R&D market in the city, software, telecommunications, and other computer-related businesses are also strongly represented. Potential demand could be I.S to 2.0 million square feet or more. Hotel PIore than 1,600 hotel rooms are approved or culi ently under review by the City. The need for additional space is likely to be moderate. Retail Industrial The retail market in South San Francisco could absorb a new regional "power center." This demand could diminish if another center outside South San Francisco opens. South San Francisco may experience increasing pressure for industrial development based on demand. Residential Substantial regional market exists due to severe regional imbalance between supply and demand, specifically for affordable housing. Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 1999. General Plan Provision 3.6 million square feet of office space, most of which will require redevelopment, and 2.0 million square feet of space in Business Commercial settings East of I 0 I. This includes 1.2 million square feet of space with current approvals. 3.5 million square feet, including 0.7 million square feet with current approvals. Sites for hotels are not provided separately, but are permitted as of right in the Business Commercial category. Ample inventory should be available for projected demand over the General Plan horizon. I. I million square feet, including 0.5 million square feet "power center" adjacent to U.S. I 0 I. While new sites are not provided, the Generel Plan increases existing permitted intensities to accommodate growth. However, there is likely to be a net loss of industrial space as these uses are succeeded by others. Despite this, industrial uses will occupy greater floor space (about 9 million square feet) than any other non- residential use at the maximum intensity of development. 2,780 housing units, including I, 150 housing units with varying levels of approval. 6-6 6: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 6.3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY The economic development implementation strategy outlined here provides a framework for ensuring South San Francisco's long-term regional competitive- ness. The strategy is based on the analysis of business and market trends and of available resources. While the strategy seeks to attract new businesses, build on existing dusters of high technology and biotechnology, and nurture start-ups in new market segments, it also outlines measures to retain and expand existing busi- ness establishments. GUIDING POLICIES: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 643-1 In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. 6-G-2 Establish economic development priorities and undertake targeted invest- ments to facilitate expansion, retention, and attraction of' businesses that meet the City's economic development objecthtes. 643-3 Maintain and enhance an attractive climate for conducting business in South San Francisco. 643-4 Undertake a leadership role in the coordination and completion of' inf.ra- structure improvements, and in facilitating environmental remediation, par- ticularly where the City can provide these services more effectively than the private sector. 643~5 Establish land use priorities based on economic criteria and sound fiscal planning;, reserve sites for designated uses rather than accepting any deve/- opment. 643-6 Maintain a centralized economic development and land information sys- tem, and actively promote economic development opportunities. 6-7 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 6-8 IMPLEI~IENTING POLICIES: ECONOMIC DEVELOPPIENT STRATEGY Programs 6-1-1 Establish an economic development implementation program that specifi- cally outlines tasks to be undertaken, timeframes for completion, resource allocation, monitorin~ and annual evaluation and progress reporting to ensure the success of' the overall economic development strategy. Whereas the General Plan provides the overall framework, the imple- mentation program will determine the specific tasks to be undertaken, set the task deadlines, allocate the necessary resources, and provide the means for monitoring, evaluation, and regular reporting. The program format could be similar to that of the City's Capital Improvement Program, with a five-year program horizon and annual budgeting and updates. Specific components should at least include: · Target investment and strategic improvements; · Target industries; · Revenue enhancement; · Small business incubation; · Redevelopment; · Land acquisition and assembly; · Development tracking; · Land availability; · Business climate; and · Marketing. The program will allow the City to demonstrate its commitment to the expansion, retention, and attraction of business through specific actions and investment decisions. The program should actively involve 6-1-2 6-1-3 6-1-4 business and community groups, and r~rnnertv nwnorc in Francisco to accei~ cnmml~nitv ~nm,AoA.o in the city's future. Continually monitor Inncl ,mo in tho ri~ t~ ~,~,,,~ a ,9,..I ....................................... ,~ inventory commercial nod ro.~idontini Innd Thlc nnnfi,cle nF InnN ..... development intensities in strategic locations. If needed, undertake ~egic land assemb~ and impmvemenm ~ pm~de s~es adequate in size and at oppmprime ioca~ons to meet ~e needs of b~sinesse.~ tho ~ , .................. Currently, there is a greater demand for all land uses than there is land available over the longer term. For the first time, the City is in a posi- tion to prioritize the type and location of developments that generate the greatest economic benefit for the community. In order to capital- ize on this situation, the City must maintain a balanced land use inven- tory. Create and update a detailed five-year Economic Development Budget out- I;,.,;,,,,.. +i., ....... ~' t:. ._ d ..... L ,,,,,,,g ,,,~ u~c~ ul lu,,u~. ~uc,, os briori~ pmje~ and de~nrtm~ntni nhprnt_ ing cos~, ond sources o~ ~unds, including increoses in ~e tronsient occu- poncy tox dedicoted to economic development South San Francisco's transient-occupancy taxes (TOTs) are towards the lower end of the range for peninsula cities. A portion of the TO% ,o ,,~,, a~t a~,uc thc ~mltcrence t~enter. Mechanisms to direct some of these resources to economic development activities should be explored. Establish a computerized central information system {'or the City to be linked with development permitting and the Geographic Information System (GIS). A computerized central information system could be a key element of *he~.- ,-,.-~-,~,.,,.,-;' ut.,doFn,cnt ~uatcgy. lne system coma provide instant site-specific information for every municipal address, including prop- Several re_~identlal nrniart¢ ar,, currently ,,-~ ..... * ..... :~- in the city such as the Parc Place single family homes along -,',-,-~. of! .... ,~ inventory an ~vzulntumzng a oatancea d uses will be central to meeting the City's econornic develop- ment objectives. 6-9 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 6-10 6-1-5 erty ownership, lot dimensions, General Plan designation, current zoning, business activity (SIC or another federally-recognized code), development history, environmental status, relevant City programs, etc. Such a system could offer significant advantages to the City by provid- ing it with the ability to: Monitor sites that are of strategic importance for redevelopment. Monitoring of progress in environmental remediation or status of environmental clearance is possible; Coordinate strategic improvements for redevelopment, such as infrastructure upgrade and extension, environmental remediation, etc.; · Identify development trends and monitor land capacity; · Identify sites for acquisition or assembly in support of economic development initiatives; and · Generate reports for marketing key development sites. Others benefiting from such a system include permit applicants, prop- erty owners, and prospective locators. For permit applicants, the sys- tem could make necessary property information and application requirements instantly available at the development counter. Tracking status could also be available once the application is filed. For proper- ty ownez~, this information could be used to determine the environ- mental compliance of their property. Finally, for prospective locators to South San Francisco, the system could provide the ability to electroni- cally search and identify sites in the city that best meet their needs. Establish a one-stop shop for information on environmental cleanup, which could be integrated with the City's exi~ng one-stop shop for development permits. Assume a leadership role in enhancing environmental quality in the city by coordinating the remediation of' former industrial and commercial sites and by facilitating their redevelopment, and considering undertaking 6: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT permitting authority for brownfield development. Employment growth in the city will result from redevelopment of existing areas. The City can foster redevelopment by acting as a cata- lyst and facilitator of former industrial and commercial sites, particu- larly where upfront private sector investment is unlikely due to per- ceived or actual environmental constraints or liabilities, referred to as brownfields. The city should work with the California Environmental Protection Agency's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to deter- mine the eligibility of these lands for the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The VCP offers a streamlined process whereby the DTSC reviews, maintains oversight of, and signs off on specific remediation activities for voluntary participants. Successful projects receive a reme- dial action certification at the end of the process. While the State does not offer any financial inducements for the upfront costs associated with site assessment or remediation, the City could use tax increment financing to undertake the work and facilitate redevelopment. Several Bay Area cities have launched innovative programs to facilitate brownfields redevelopment. In Oakland, the City's Urban Land Redevelopment Program streamlines the approval of cleanup activities for new projects by tracking the development permits and remediation procedures of completed projects. Based on local hydrology and soil conditions, the cleanup procedures of completed projects can be quickly adopted for new projects of similar conditions and use. In Emeryville, the Redevelopment Agency will become the main permit- ting authority for brownfield development in the city, coordinating actions with the DTSC and the RWQCB. Emeryville also plans to implement a risk-based approach that defines groundwater manage- ment zones that would allow development without having to totally cleanup the underlying groundwater. Some of these approaches may be appropriate to South San Francisco as well since many of the contaminated sites are on fill, where contam- ination can spread rapidly and form plumes that extend beyond indi- 6-11 SOU ! ~i SA,.'.~ ?.~.A,~c.~iSr";.9 ,"-:E.NE,~d-,.L PLA.~ Extension of the BART line to SFIA is underway along Huntington Avenue. The new stations will provide addi- employees. 6-12 6-1-6 vicmm property Douncmrlcs. t ms situation be p cu ar wm arti i relevant in the redevelopment of sites in the East of i0i area and around the San Bruno BART Station. The City could also consider assembly of brownfi,.!d lands where upfront private sector investment is unlikely, and the use of transit funds for the redevelopment of sites near transit centers. Create a task force of biotech/R&D industry leaders to work toward the creation ora carntms environment in the East nf I O I oran and tn t~rnrnnto ........... F --.r- ...............................~ The biotech/R&D industry is South San Francisco's largest industrial cluster..While the provisions of the General Plan permit a doubling of m~rrent emnlnvmont nt Plan h~ildm~t rnnnv other rltio¢ ara alcn t~r- geting similar development. The most likely source of competition is likely to be the Mission Bay project in San Francisco, which includes the new UCSF biotech/R&D campus. it is vital that the City strives to create an environment that is benefi- cial : ...... "-: .... '-: ......... '-' '~" ' m rcanzmg uns potenum and maintains the toltys competitive edge The creatinn of a campus envirnnment in tho Fact nf Ifil urea would not only enhance the prestige of South San Francisco as the biotech/R&D capital, but also promote the City as a high amenity loca- tion for these activities. This concept would include a high level of landscaping and design, a unified signage and wayfinding system, orchestrated streetscapes, nearby services including child care pro- grams, and access to parkland or open space. Policy 3.5-I-7 of this Plan addresses this concept specifically. As a means of specifically defining and implementing such a concept, a task force of biotech/R&D industry leaders, City officials, Chamber of Commerce, and others should be created. Matters to be addressed may include design guidelines, infrastructure improvements, parking, transit, parkland and open space, bayfront access, marketing and pro- motion, etc. A partnership in the pursuit of common goals will ensure the success of this concept in East of 101 and identify South San Francisco as a formidable force in the pursuit ofbiotech/R&D locaters. 6-1-7 Undertake a streetscape and signage improvement pr2~ram in the East of I01 area to promote a unified, campus-like environment in the area. A unified streetscape and signage system would promote the affiliatinn of East of 101 firms with the area itself. As a collection of individ,~al campuses drawn to~ether by a common de.~i~,n theme, V.a~t nf lfll could become an entity for which the City can market the privileges of membership. 6-1-8 Complete a planning and market feasibility study, of the development of a regional-serving retail center in the South San Francisco, as indicated on the Land Use Diagram, and if feasible facilitate the required infra- structure improvements. The Land Use Diagram designates the area west of U.S. 101 along San Mateo Avenue as Regional Commercial. This site has excellent visibil- ity and with improvements would provide excellent highway access. While South San Francisco has regional retail facilities, and the north- v~opcu a~ et ~o5t¢O~ a power center" currently does not exist in South San Francisco_ ^ prolimlnary assessment conducted as part of the South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues (1997) indicates that the market area could most likely absorb such retail development in the future. The lack of such a facility in South San Francisco means that city residents must drive to San Bruno, Calma, San Francisco, San Mateo, or Palo Alto to shop. This parking lot along San Mateo Avenue is currently .... ~ .... ~.-'T.'--- J * '1 cc_ ,,~ · · would provide revenue to the City, create jobs, and reduce the trips made by residents. A regional retail facility at the location designated on the Land Use Diagram would require the extension of Victory Avenue to U.S. 101, and the construction of a Victory Avenue/U.S. 101 interchange. The cost of the Victory Avenue extension is estimated at $17 million; the U.S. 101 interchange at $25-$35 million. In total these improvements would cost $42-$52 million, a major share of which would likely have to be borne by the City. 6-13 Detnand for the South San Francisco Conference Center will increase with the planned expansion of SFIA and sig- the region. 6-14 6-1-9 The net revenue generated by a big-box retail development on this site would be approximately $1.2 million per year, which is retained by the City, assuming a sales tax revenue of $29,600 per acre for a 40 acre site. Additional jobs and sales tax revenues would also result. Because Lindenville businesses would also benefit fi.om direct access to U.S. 101, the City could encourage their participation as well. Work with hotel establishments in the East of I01 area to establish a Hotel nation, conference promotion, and complementary activity attraction to encourage a diverse and vibrant activity area; identify any infrastructure improvements necessary to enhance the economic strength of the District c'~'?h ga. ' ly · ,A ........ ~ Fra,;,.~..,.,, c~rrent h~, -- -,, .~.~.,,,, y, ~ , ut ...... I e,~,~ _,_,,_,,__ ~ - - - - ....... )DUU ivv.ll~-- the majority of which are located in the East of 101 area~and a visi- tor services employment base of around 1,800. By Plan bufldout, ~e number of rooms could reach 4,000 and employment more than dou- ble to 3,900. Interest in South San Francisco hotel development is high. This interest is ~e result of the ci~'s proximity tn gan Franci.~cn international Airport (SFIA) and the expansion of that facility, as well -- : :~ I 1_~_,_ _1_ /nn ~ · I , ,1 a~a. The clustering of hotel facilities in the East of 101 area is ideal for the - establishment of a Hotel Di.~trict Prn~rarn_ ~ch a.~ fnr l-lntol ~Jv,"lo in San Diego. The program should include: Joint markeling of District re~mlrce~ and aclvantnoo~ tn nntonti~l visitors, including an Internet presence; Centralized reservations for the District and Conference Center, including online booking or links to individual hotel sites; Coordinated visitor services, such as a District shuttle system to SFIA and Downtown, discount programs, promotion of District resources for guests, visitor information center, etc.; 6d-lO Identification of complementary activities to serve District visitors such as Oyster Point Marina; Design criteria to promote high quality, pedestrian-friendly devel- opment, unified signage to direct visitors to nearby serviCes and facilities, and extensive landscaping; Joint funding of Conference Center expansion and child care pro- grams to serve hotel employees; and · Identification of necessary infrastructure improvements to enhance the District. Given the high fiscal revenue-generating potential of hotels---S112,500 per acre per year for the General Fund on an average cost basiswthe City should work closely with the hotel industry to promote growth by reserving key parcels in the District that offer high levels of highway accessibility and visibility. The City and industry should also work to encourage a wide variety of complementary activities, including restaurants, retail and convenience stores, business and personal ser- vices, banks, theaters, fitness centers, etc. The combination of high quality, pedestrian-friendly development and concentrated comple- mentary activities will ensure a vibrant and diverse Hotel District that is attractive to guests, East of 101 employees during the day, and city residents in the evenings. Establish an inventory of industry dusters in South San Francisco in order to identify locational characteristics and determine the effects of City policy and regulation on the operation and continued success of these dusters; work closely with industry contacts to identify specific expansion and land use needs to be addressed. Industry dusters may be described as the vertical and horizontal inte- gration of firms. In other words, the clustering of certain activities is largely a function of locational characteristics: some advantage must exist for clustering to occur. For instance, the proximity of like 6-15 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FPu~NCISCO GENERAL PLAN 6-16 6-1-11 activities may be advantageous in some industries; the proximity of complementary activities may be advantageous in others. The identifi- cation of industry clusters could result from the implementation of the computerized central information system program outlined in policy 6-I-4. The clusters could then be mapped as part of the system inte- gration with the City's GIS. The identification of industry dusters would make it possible to evaluate City policy and regulation to determine their effect on the operation and continued success or phased elimination of these clus- ters. Such an evaluation should include the General Plan, as well as the various regulations and standards included in the Zoning Ordinance, such as conformity, lot area, parking and loading, etc. Identification of industry dusters would also help the City determine which clusters should be targeted for economic development, based on their current contribution to the local economy and potential for growth in the future. Targeting of certain dusters could result in the creation of a specific planning, infrastructure improvement, or marketing program to retain and expand existing duster businesses, or to attract new businesses to the cluster. The City must work closely with industry contacts to ensure the program meets the needs of the industry. Ident~/ new industry clusters, such as multimedia, and work to encourage startups by 'promot/ng Iocational advantages and favorable City policy and regulation. This should be pursued through the Enterprise Development Center outlined in policy 6-/-12. Proximate to San Francisco's "Multimedia Gulch;' centered at South Park, South San Francisco is in a position to capture some of the growth of this industry segment for two reasons: 1) As multimedia startups continue to locate in the "Gulch" the primary advantages for locating thereminexpensive and plentiful space--are reduced. This trend has already begun with many firms beginning to move other Bay 6: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 6-1-12 6-1-13 Area locations, induding to the East Bay. 2) The city's workforce already consists of great number of San Francisco residents (in effect, in 1990 there were more San Franciscans than South San Franciscans who worked in the city). Thus, the city should be able to draw from an established labor pool. Needed will be small ready-to-go spaces (induding loft-style development) with room to expand quickly. Establish an Enterprise Development Center to promote and assist in small business startup. As an incubator for small business, the Enterprise Development Center would serve to promote small business startup in South San Francisco and provide technical assistance to small businesses. The Center could provide permit and license information, relevant resource materials, Internet access for research purposes, o~ce space for short-term lease, training workshops, guest lectures, and a mentoring program to con- nect startups with similar firms already established in the city. The Center could be linked with the City's computerized central informa- tion system to facilitate the identification of appropriate locations for startups, and assist the City in its tracking of business trends, identifi- cation of industry dusters, and targeting for economic development. New industry dusters should be the main focus of the Enterprise Development Center. The Center could operate half-time and be located in an existing City facility. Similar programs exist in Daly City and San Jose. Adopt a home occupation ordinance in support of home-based business in South San Francisco. As home-based businesses become more and more common, the rev- enue they generate and the employment they provide has become significant. A home-based business ordinance would permit business- es of limited size and intensity to locate in some or all residential areas. 6-17 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 6-18 Acquisition, Land Assembly, and Redevelopment 6-1-14 Establish an inventory of' read-to-go sites, complete with zoning, infiastmc- rare, and environmental clearances. If' necessary, acquire or assemble sites to ensure availability of sites of adequate size to attract industry clusters that meet the C/ty's development objectives. 6-1-15 Establish criteria for the assemb/y of land by the City where redevelopment and revitalization would support community development goals, maximize economic benefit, and promote private sector investment it would not otherwise be possible. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas, of the General Plan identifies the opportunities for redevelopment and revitalization in South San Francisco and provides a policy framework for the inclusion of these areas in the achievement of Plan buildout expectations. These areas-- East of 101, Downtown, South Spruce Corridor/San Bruno BART Station Area, and the E1 Camino Real Corridor--present a variety of challenges. With careful planning, municipal incentives, and private sector involvement, the opportunities that would result from redevelopment and revitalization are tremendous. While the City should engage in land acquisition, assembly, and re- parcelization only sparingly, such action may be justified if: · Sites are in a strategic, one-of-a-kind location (such as adjacent to a BART station); · Needed to create an inventory of ready-to-go sites to attract targeted industry clusters; · Facilitate reuse of brownfield sites; · Minimize adverse environmental impacts or contribute to envi- ronnaental remediation; · Overcome short-term market inefficiencies; or 6: ECONOMIC DEVELOPIqENT 6-1-16 6-1-17 Where necessary to achieve development of a size (such as for res- idential development in downtown) that would allow for quality development, attainment of higher intensities, and professional management and upkeep. Acquire property at a selected site in East of I01 and develop a bayfront Campus Center and park in support of the promot/on of a campus envi- ronment in the East of I 01 area. The high-tech industry demands high amenity areas that offer physi- cal (parks and open space) and service (retail, commercial, childcare) advantages. As part of the efforts of this Plan to create a campus envi- ronment in East of 101, the City should actively pursue the develop- ment of a high amenity Campus Center and employment park at the terminus of East Grand Avenue on the bayfront. An eight- to ten-acre site would be necessary to provide between 120,000 and 140,000 square feet of retail and commercial floor space. The Center would offer a variety of services to meet the needs of employees in East of 101. This concept is outlined more specifically in policy 3.5-1-8. The park would be funded through the standard of 0.5 acre of park- land per 1,000 new employees established in the Policy 5.1-I-2. Consideration should be given to meeting both active and passive lunchtime recreation needs of employees, and park design should maximize views and waterfront accessibility. Policies 3.5-I-9, 5.1-1-4, and 5.1-I-8 of this Plan address this concept specifically. Maximize the Gty's public financing tools and consider opportunities for enhancement in order to fund the various economic development in~atives outlined in this Element. The City derives revenues from several sources. The top revenue-gen- erating general fund sources are sales taxes, property taxes, and tran- sient occupancy taxes respectively. These three sources are projected to comprise 66 percent of the total General Fund in the 1999-2000 fiscal year. The most flexible source of revenue the City could use to fund 6-19 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN South San Francisco Operating Revenues, i999-2000 - Other Revenue Sources City. Storm W, ter Serv~ Measure A Sales. ~/·~ · Tax 2%~ ~1 Plaintenance \ ~~l · Districts Community Dev. Block Grant I% Transfers In I% Use of & Property 2% City Services 7%' Fines & Forfeitures / ' I% Property Taxes 14% Taxes 27% Transit Occupancy Taxes 8% Licenses & Permits 4% economic development initiatives is the TOTs and development impact fees. An increase in the TOT could provide substantial capital for achieving economic development goals, without adversely impacting project feasibility. The increased TOT rev- enue could potentially be used as debt service for a tax-exempt bond to finance capital projects. The chart to the left shows the City's operating revenues from the General Fund and other revenue sources. General Fund Revenue Sources The City's TOTs, pegged at 8 percent, has been an increasing source of revenue; contributions from TOTs to the City's General Fund were $3.4 million during the 1996-97 fiscal year and are projected to reach $4.2 million--11 percent of the City's General Fund revenues--in 1999-2000. The City should consider raising the TOT rate by one to two percent to nine to ten percent. There are two reasons for this. One, revenues from TOTs in South San Francisco have increased almost 24 percent over the past three years due to increased room inventory, occu- pancy rates, and average daffy rates. In addition, a $2.50 per night surcharge is applied to finance the South San Francisco Conference Center. Two, most other cities in the vicinity of SFIA already charge a TOT of 10 percent, and San Francisco charges 14 per- cent. While the increase in the TOT rate is minimal, it would generate nearly $1.1 million in additional revenues each year, revenues that could be earmarked for the economic development initiatives of this Element. Business Climate and Marketing 6-1-18 Maintain efficient licensing and permitOng procedures and regulations. Regulation should be appropriate to accomplish the City's goals with- out being unnecessarily burdensome or time-consuming. The City 6: ECONOMIC DEVELOPHENT 6-1-19 6-1-20 6-/-21 should strive to maintain this delicate balance so that appropriate development is expedited. Opportunities to further streamline proce- dures should be continuously pursued. While the City's new one-stop permit application program is good start, a periodic review of the system with user input can also help identify problem areas. Actively market South San Francisco at organized trade fairs and other forums of target industries. Produce a handbook of permi~ng procedures and fees for new and exist- ing businesses. An attractively laid-out handbook of permitting procedures and fees will be a good marketing tool, and of great assistance to any potential applicant. The handbook should be offered in a variety of formats, including as a page on the City's webpage, for easy access. Work with the Chamber of Commerce to promote local business successes and ventures in all parts of the c/ty. Include the handbook as part of the City's Homepage. 6-21 OPEN SPACE AND C O N S E RVAT ! O N This element outlines policies relating to habitat and biological resources, water quality, air quality, and historic and cultural resources conservation. Background authority over environment~ resources wi~in the city is shared amon[ various agencies; ~e City itself offers protection of natur~ resources through its land use and development policies, particularly in areas nnt ~ lelislation. In addition, t~e City can also participate actively ed habitat areas. The risks and opportunities presented by various environmental factors~such as seismicity and biotic habitats~would necessitate different ~nds of assessments and reviews. These requirements are consolidated and presented in South San Francisco's bayshore, near Point San Bruno. The South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant can be seen in the background. 7-1 DRAFT SOUTI Io~.,. .... FRANCISC© CENERAL p', ..a~,.,, (',~1,~,~ ('rag, lc tiaa elt~?c lnrt~,ct waterway, meanders throueh cross it, including San Mateo Avenue. 7.1 HABITAT AND BiOLOGiCAL RESOURCES C O NS E RVATI O N The natural environment in South San Francisco has undergone drastic change a,,ri,,o itc hi~tnry of ~rhanization. Although virtually the entire city is developed with urban uses, the city and the immediate surroundings are known to support remnant areas of high biological value, notably San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetlands. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Historic vegotatlnn in .qcn~th gan Francisco included native grasslands, coastal scrub, nak wnndlands, riparian communities, and coastal salt and brackish marsh- es. Human intervention and development have ~tered ~e landscape, restricting natur~ vegetation to isolated, scattered parcels. Sou& San Francisco's vegetative communities include annual grasslands, seasonal wetlands, fresh and sal~ater marshes, mud fiats, disturbed grasslands, and significant stands of trees. Much of weuan~ nm]re~ cnanncnzcu the vegetative area is landscaped. Fresh emergent is to portions of ~om~a ~¢¢~, anu putr~t~a~ aaJnJc c~J~t~nt v,~u~x,u ................. the tidal cult marshes ~ong the Bay kinge. Primary threats to vegetative communities in the city include: Further intrusion of urban development into wildlife habitats; Non-native vegetation originally introduced as landscaping, such as French broom, eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress, which currently threaten habitat for threatened and endangered plant and animal specles; and Toxic contaminants from · Ior' ' ' ' ' commerclm industrial IaClllLleS tlltit coulu in risks to sensitive waters and nearshore communities of the Bay. The vegetative communities support habitat for a wide range of animal species, including those under federal and State protection. The best-known of these spe- cial status species are the threatened and endangered butterflies on San Bruno 7-2 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION Mountain and Sign Hill, induding the special status Mission Blue, Calippe Silverspot, San Bruno Elfin, and Bay Checkerspot butterflies. San Bruno Mountain supports many threatened or endangered plant species, and the city's salt marshes provide foraging habitat for seven special status bird species and may include red- legged frogs and two species of protected plants. Grassland and scrub habitat in the area attract a variety of reptile, amphibian, and bird species for breeding and for- aging. Some reptile and amphibian species, as well as birds and small mammals, such as raccoon, skunk, and fox, may use wetland habitat. The nearshore tidal fiats of San Francisco Bay, as well as the open waters, provide habitat for many species of plankton and other invertebrates, birds, fish, and mammals. HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS (HCP) South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species: the southern base of San Bruno Mountain within the city limits, and the portion of Sign Hill currently designated parkland by the City. The purpose of the HCPs is to conserve and enhance as much of the remaining natural habitat on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill as possible. The plans allow for limited development in strict accordance with the provisions of each HCP, ensuring enhancement of habitat through the transfer of privately held lands to the public, and through the provision of funding for conservation and enhance- ment activities outlined in each HCP. GUIDING POLICIES: HABITAT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION Z I-G.I Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are State or federal/y listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare. New development projects in ecologically sensitive areas should con- sider impacts on valuable and sensitive natural habitats. Z I-G-2 Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and 7-3 serve as habitat [or several species. wetlands. Although much of South San Francisco's saltmarshes and wetlands have been severely degraded through years of fih; they could be restored along portions of the city-s southern bayshore. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: HABITAT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION Special Habitat Areas 7. I-I-i Cooperate with State and federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantiallv affect st~ecial status soecies aOOearin~ on anv State or fed- ................~ _ I_! .... .r - - .r ! f 0 -~ ! eral list for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assess- ments of biological resources prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive habitat, as depicted in Figure 7-I. lne city contains ' ' . c r~aoltat naoltat: two types K_~UII~CI ViltlUll ~I C:~1.5 i:{.llU WCLIi;IlIU:). 01~11 Illll dllU Odll DI unu al grassland-Coyote Brush series vegetative community that has the potential to support many special status species. The marshes and sea- sonal wetlands concentrated along the city's southern shoreline and Coima Creek also could support protected species. Conservation will provide for the perpetuation of threatened, endangered, and other rare species, as well as the protection of the unique and diverse ecology of these areas as a whole. Development located in these ecologically sensitive areas must com- plete a site-specific assessment of biological resources as part of the development review process, if development is located outside these ecologically sensitive regions, no site-specific assessment of biological resources is necessary. The City's environmental review process would be utilized to impose appropriate mitigation measures on develop- ment to reduce impacts on sensitive habitats and special status species. Figure 7-2 shows special environmental studies required for develop~ 7-4 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION So, roe: F. nvlrnnmenta| Science A.~soclate~ \ Figure 7-1 General Plan Policies for Sensitive Biological Resources 7-5 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 7-6 7. I-/-2 ZI-I-3 ment proposals. Development of the northern region of Sign Hill currently designated open space is subject to a residential density limitation of one dwelling unit per 10 acres under Policy 3.8-I-2 in Chapter 3: Planning Sub- Areas. Housing units should be clustered along the edges of the lot near existing residential development to preserve the large, unbroken block of Sign Hill. Grading and filling should be minimized to prevent erosion and increased run-off. AS part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update, institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive areas, including Sign Hill Park, Co/ma Creek Linear Park, Bayfront Linear Park, and other C/p/owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1. Non-natr, e vegetation originally introduced as landscaping indudes French broom, eucalyptus, Star Thistle, and Pampas Grass. Removal of invasive species from public parks and open space in designated wet- lands or habitat conservation areas is required only where these species are known to threaten habitat for special status plant and animal species. Removal of invasive species may also be required if they are a notable fire hazard in the parks or open space. As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require instPmtion of'an on-going program to remove and prevent the re-establishment of the invasive species and restore the native species. Development projects on ecologically sensitive lands at Sign Hill and wetlands along the bayshore and Colma Creek must consider the impact of invasive species on native plant communities in the assess- ment of biological resources. This program would be required only if the invasive species are found to be degrading to the habitat for special status plant and animal species. Table 7.1-1 presents a list of non- native invasive plant species that should be evaluated. 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION Pacificn ~x%%%%%x~ Assesments of Biological Resources Required ~ Geotechnical and Engineering Geology Reports Required Source: Environmental Science Associates It4 Itl NIII~ Figure 7-2 Special Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals 7-7 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 7-8 Table 7.1-1: Non-Native Invasive Plant Species that Should be Evaluated in Assessments of Biological Resources Acacia (Acacia spp.) Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Giant reed (Arundo donax) Bamboo (Bambusa spp., et al) Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosa) French broom (Cytisus monspessulanus) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) English ivy (Hedera helix) Ice plant (Mesembryanthemum chilensis) Tall rescue (Festuca arundinacea) Mattress vine (Muelenbeckia complexa) Tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) Pyracantha (Pyracantha angustifolia) Castor bean (Ricinus communis) Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) German ivy (Senecio mikianoides) Spanish broom (Sparteum junceum) Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) Gorse (Ulex europaeus) Periwinkle O/inca major)Purple fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) Wetland Conservation 7,14.4 Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-1 to complete assessments of biological resources. The assessments of biological resources would consider the impacts on wetlands and special status species. Appropriate mitigation measures may be required as a condition of approval for development that fig- nificanfly impacts wetland habitat or special status species. If any development is permitted within wetlands or to fill currently sub- merged portions of the Bay, mitigation measures must be required. This mitigation may indude providing wetland habitat of the same type as the lost habitat, equal to or greater than existing conditions. Off-site mitigation of wetland impacts should be required in cases where on-site mitigation is not possible. Off-site mitigation sites should be as dose to the project site as possible. 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh prote~on and restoration projects. Since the City ability to fund these projects is limited, funding for restoration projects should be sought from a variety of sources. Alternative sources of funding may include development projects impacting Bay wetlands and habitat outside of South San Francisco that require wetland restoration as a mitigation measure, such as the expansion of the San Francisco International Airport. This will also enrich the overall visual quality of new shordine parks that are being created. 7-9 DI~kFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERA, L PLAN 7-10 7.2 WATER QUALITY Water quality is a part;cular area of concern because of the ease of water pollution and the effects of pollution on nearshore wildlife habitat. Point sources of pollu- tion are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. Permits are required under NPDES for all publicly oper- ated treatment plants and for surface-water runoff in tirban areas. These permits specify the discharge limits for certain pollutants and ensure that local industries pretreat the pollutants they discharge into treatment plants. For the purposes of administering NPDES, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has jurisdiction over nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) in California. South San Francisco falls under the authority of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which is responsible for implementing State policy through the preparation of basin plans for water quality control and the regulation of all activities affecting water quality. The quality of groundwater and water flowing into Colma Creek and the Bay is most likely to be affected by nonpoint pollution sources in South San Francisco, simply because they are not as rigorously regulated as point sources. Development can potentially pose a threat to surface and groundwater quality through con- struction sediment, materials used on-site, and related increases in automobile use. SURFACE WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION Since the city is largely developed, there is a high proportion of impermeable sur- face area. Also, the day soils typical of the hills surrounding the city are relatively impermeable, resulting in significant runoff with very little ground infiltration. Stormwater and irrigation runoff is collected in the City's storm system and dis- charged to Colma Creek or San Francisco Bay. Colma Creek is particularly susceptible to water quality problems due to nonpoint sources of pollution. These sources indude general pollutants picked up by runoff from streets, open areas, and urban lands. In most urban areas, nonpoint pollution indudes sediment, oil, debris, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, volatile organic com- 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION pounds, herbicides and pesticides, and fertilizers. Industrial areas may have a vari- ety of other toxic and hazardous substances as well. Any pollution in Colma Creek affects the immediate habitat and is ultimately discharged into San Frandsco Bay near sensitive mudflat habitat areas. In order to control nonpoint source pollution, which is generally difficult to man- age, the City joined the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) in 1991. STOPPP functions under a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit for stormwater quality management, as authorized by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The program indudes pollutant source identification and water quality measurement, and elimination of illicit discharges; structural and nonstructural controls for commercial and residential areas, and controls for industrial facilities; and, controls for new development and construction sites1 and other elements. The program also calls for the preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for each municipality. The City has selected a variety of best management practices (BMPs) for adoption into its plan. These practices include street sweeping, storm drain stenciling, spill cleanup, and annual catch basin mainte- nance. Since much of Colma Creek flows through private property, the'City has also adopted a number of BMPs aimed at private land owners to control litter, gain compliance from industrial dischargers, reduce pollutants at commercial sites, minimize construction sediment, and dean and maintain privately-owned watercourses. GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION Much of the alluvium that underlies the lowland areas of the City is capable of transmitting groundwater, especially in the southwestern portion of the City which is underlain by a portion of the San Mateo Groundwater Basin. With the exception of industrial areas or locations with underground storage tanks where high levels of nitrate and manganese have been detected, the quality of this water is considered good. However, contamination may be present in existing or former industrial areas of unconfined waste disposal, or in the areas of high groundwater levels. 1 Under the regulations promulgated by EPA, construction disturbance on sites greater than five acres requires a separate NPDES permit. 7-11 DIL~FT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The quality of surface water resources will be improved through continued participation in regional programs. 7-12 GUIDING POLICIES:WATER QUALITY 7.2-G-I Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. 7.2.G-2 Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contam/- nation. 7.2-G.3 Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances with- in the city. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES:WATER QUALITY 7.2-1-1 Continue worl~ng with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementa- tion of'the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the protect/on of'surface water and groundwater quality. The NPDES and STOPP have and will continue to be successful in improving surface water quality in the city. The City has already identified a variety of best management practices to minimize construction sediment in its Stormwater Management Plan. Construction disturbance on sites greater than five acres also requires a separate NPDES permit. 7.2-1-2 Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the C/ty and in STOPP as needed. The BMPs were last updated for STOPP in 1991 when the program was established. Additional City BMPs may be updated if necessary. 7.2-1-3 Prepare and disseminate information, including a page on the City's web- s/te, about the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe alternative measures, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for home and garden use. 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION 7.3 AIR QUALITY Whae air quality is largely a regional issue, the protection of air quality is vital to the overall health of the environment and the attractiveness of any locality. South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality, due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in pol- lutant exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the U.S. 101,1-280, and E1 Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concen- trations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. In addition, wind blowing out of the south and southeast exposes the city to emissions from the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin South San Francisco is located within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional network of air pollu- tion monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for crite- ria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can classify an air basin or a portion thereof, as either in "attainment" or "nonat- tainment." This classification is based on whether or not the basin meets national ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a basin is classified under the California Clean Air Act with respect to the achievement of State ambient air quality stan- dards. The Bay Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered "nonattainment" for State standards for ozone and suspended particulate matter (PM-10). In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated twice, in 1994 and 1997, with the continued goal of improving air quality through fighter industry controls, cleaner fuels, and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. 7-13 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA has established national standards for six criteria air pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM-10, and lead. In addition, under State law, the Air Resources Board has estab- lished State standards for ambient air quality that are more stringent than the cor- responding national standards. The Air Resources Board also sets standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride, pollutants for which no national standards have been set. While no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, BAAQMD samples local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco. Monitoring station measurements indicate that air quality in the vicinity of South San Francisco performs well against State standards for criteria air pollutants. No violations of the State standard for ozone occurred between 1993 and 1997, although locally generated emissions of ozone precursors, reactive gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides (NOx), affect downwind areas where violations do occur. With respect to carbon monoxide, again the State standard was not exceeded. However, since 71 percent of the carbon monoxide emitted in the Bay Area comes from on-road motor vehicles, concentrations in the vicinity of congested intersec- tions and highway segments would be expectedly higher than the monitoring data indicates. Ambient PM-10 concentrations do violate the State standard on occasion in the vicinity of South San Francisco. PM-10 in the atmosphere is the result many of dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, construction, fugitive sources (such as roadway dust), and atmospheric photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. 7-14 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS Unlike criteria air pollutants, ambient air quality standards have not been estab- lished for toxic air contaminants. These pollutants are typically carcinogens, muta- gens, or reproductive toxins. Regulation of toxic air contaminants is achieved through federal and State controls on individual sources.2 The preferred technique for reducing toxic air emissions is source reduction, and as part of a local control strategy in the Bay Area, all applications for new stationary sources are reviewed to ensure compliance with required emission controls and limits. BAAQMD maintains an inventory of stationary sources of toxic air contaminants in the Bay Area. There are 17 such sources listed within South San Francisco, 14 of which are dry cleaners. The remaining sources include the South San Francisco San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Shell Oil Company Distribution Plant, and the Superior Aluminum Body Corporation. Many other commercial/industrial facilities in South San Francisco are sources of toxic air contaminants, but none result in a substantial risk to the public. As noted, BAAQMD regulates toxic air contaminants from stationary sources through a per- mit process. Mobile 'sources of toxic air contaminants are regulated indirectly through vehicle emissions standards and fuel specifications. Sensitive Receptors Some people are more sensitive than others to air pollutants. Heightened sensitiv- ity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and duration of exposure to air pollutants. Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollution. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. Residential areas are con- sidered sensitive to poor air quality as people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods. 7-15 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 7-16 GUIDING POLICIES:AIR QUALITY 7.3-G-I Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reduc/ng the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. While South San Francisco's air quality is generally good due to cli- matic conditions, local concentrations of toxic air contaminants, odors and dust are relatively high around certain uses and transportation corridors. In addition, the City has a responsibility to contribute to regional air quality improvement efforts. 7.3-C,-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use ofa/ter- natives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. Motor vehides, regulations of whose emissions is preempted by State laws, are the major source of criteria air pollutants in the Bay Area Air Basin, accounting for the vast majority of carbon monoxide and par- ticulate matter and over a quarter of the reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides in the region. A majority of automobile emissions in the city result from regional through-trips. Thus, while reduced traffic congestion or vehicle miles traveled in South San Francisco will only minimally impact the Bay Area's air quality, the City's planning deci- sions can help to moderately reduce motor vehicle use, contributing to cumulative reductions in emissions across the entire Bay Area. Increased use of transit and carpooling, coupled with land use and cir- culation patterns that promote walking and bicycling, can lead to a decrease in daily trips, less emissions, and improved air quality. The Transportation Element (Section 4.3) includes policies for bicycle and pedestrian drculation, and Transportation Demand Management designed to reduce emissions and alleviate traffic congestion. The Land Use Element includes policies that encourage pedestrian and transit travel between home and work, reducing negative air quality impacts. 2 Federal environmental laws refer to "hazardous air pollutants" and California environmental laws refer to "toxic air contaminants: Each of these two terms encompasses the same constituent toxic compounds. 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION 7.3-G-3 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by d!s:~ncing them from one another. Development of sensitive receptors in close proximity to the South San Francisco San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant and other potential emissions sources is restricted by land use policies in Chapter 2: Land Use. Residential uses, as well as most other types of sensitive receptors except hotels, are not permitted east of 101. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES:AIR QUALITY 7.34-1 Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-I O, by implementation of air pol- lution control measures as required by State and federal statutes. 7.3-!-2 Use the Oty's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEO. fi) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumu- lative effects of new development on air quality. The BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines could be used as the foundation for the City's review of air quality impacts under CEQA. The City should continue to include responsible agencies in the review of proposed land uses that would handle, store, or transport any poten~ tial air pollutant sources such as, but not limited to, lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, benzene, asbestos, beryllium, and all fuels. 7.3-1-3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAO..MD's CEQA Guidelines. These measures would reduce particulate emissions from construction and grading activities. 7.3-1-4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-burning fireplaces and wood stoves. 7-17 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 7.3-1-5 Residential woodburning is a growing source of localized air pollution. Woodsmoke released from fireplaces and wood stoves contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM-lO. Pollution can be reduced by installing gas fireplaces or EPA certified wood heaters and operating existing fireplaces and wood stoves more efficiently. In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban for- est management program that consists of planting new trees and main- taining existing ones. South San Francisco has few street trees compared to other Bay Area cities. Trees growing in urban settings provide environmental benefits including energy carbon-dioxide absorption, reduced air and noise pollution, and erosion control. Trees also beautify, shade, and mitiga- tion the 'urban heat island effect' by shading pavement and other dark surfaces and through the cooling effects of their evapotranspiration. Funding should be sought from a variety of sources. Businesses or new development should also be encouraged to plant more trees in parking lots and building landscaping. 7-18 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION 7,4 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES South San Francisco's growth is notable for the dose relationship between industry and community. The development of a residential town in support of new indus- trial plants was the calculated strategy of local industrialists. With the success of the city's industries, South San Francisco earned an important role as "The Industrial City" of the region. The conservation of this unique history is the objective of historic and cultural preservation in South San Francisco. In addition to Sign Hill, designated resources in South San Francisco include several residential and commercial buildings in the downtown area. The City's Municipal Code and State and federal law, protect these local, State, and national historic resources from alteration and demolition. The Historic Preservation Commission oversees the protection of these resources. As such, designation is an important tool for preserving reminders of the past that contribute to the City's identity. Equally central, and perhaps more difficult, is the broader goal of conserving the city's unique industrial heritage. Western Meat Company, East Grand Avenue, 1922. The city's industrial history is significant, although no industrial buildings or sites are currently designated historic resources. 7-19 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 7-20 HISTORIC LANDMARKS South San Francisco's only national historic landmark Sign Hill--is also its best- known feature. Sign Hill has proclaimed the City's identity since 1891 when the J. Dunn Real Estate Company, South San Francisco's first realtor, initially installed the sign. After a period of several years during which the sign was absent, the Chamber of Commerce had the words "South San Francisco The Industrial City" whitewashed onto the hillside. The concrete letters were installed in 1929. The sign has become a regional landmark, dearly visible to travelers on nearby freeways and to those flying into and out of San Francisco International Airport. LOCAL LANDMARKS South San Francisco's older buildings display a wide range of architectural styles, emblematic of the shifting styles that characterize the periods of the city's growth. Queen Anne, Victorian, Neoclassical, Craftsman, Spanish and Mission Revival, Moderne, as well as contemporary styles, are all represented in the city's central neighborhoods. The city has several historic homes and commercial buildings. Most are located along Grand Avenue near the Civic Center, and around the intersection of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. In addition, many of the structures in downtown along Grand, Linden, Baden, and Miller avenues were identified as potential his- toric resources in a comprehensive survey completed in 1986. These buildings are representative of an architectural period, are of local historic prominence, or are well- restored examples of vei'nacular architecture. Regardless of their role, these buildings contribute to the overall scale and character of the area, and are included on the City's list of potential historic resources, giving the Historic Preservation Commission an opportunity to review all requests for demolition permits in the area. Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco's history, no indus- trial buildings or sites are currently designated historic resources. While buildings representing various historical styles are present in numerous communities in the Bay Area, few communities have manufacturing buildings, and those that remain are disappearing rapidly. The lack of designated industrial buildings puts the corn- 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION sou., Designated Historic Site o 114 MILE Source: South San Francisco Historic Resources Inventory Figure 7-3 Designated Historic Resources 7-21 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN munity in danger of losing these reminders of its past as new industrial and com- mercial uses expand. However, the need to preserve the city's history must be bal- anced with the economic considerations of industrial operations. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native American village sites and shell mounds scattered around the city. Known resources include: A Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA-299) located within the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area that contains household items, projec- tile points, dietary debris, and human burials. A large shell mound (CA-SMA-40) and two small shell middens (CA-SMA-40 and CA-SMA-234) near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain in the Terrabay project area. The shell mound is considered a significant archaeolog- ical resource. South San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of additional prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. While the city is essentially built out, archaeological surveys may be appro- priate as part of large project redevelopment activities. GUIDING POLICIES: HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 7.5-G- I Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco's identity and quality of life. 7.5-G-2 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appredation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archoeologicai resources. 7-22 7: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 7.5d-; ~,¥plore the feasibility, of ~tob?'~i.~ c 7'o~vntown South San Francisco ;-iistcrical Commercial District, as Oesignated in figure 7-3, to promote the revitalization and redevelopment of the area. The 1986 Historic Resources Inventory recommended designation of the Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District. The proposed district extends along Grand Avenue from Airport Boulevard to Maple Street, just below City Hall and also includes Linden Avenue to a distance of one block from Grand Avenue. The dis- trict is composed of late 19th and early-mid 20th century one-, two-, and three-story commercial buildings, with a pattern of large or archi- tecturally prominent buildings at street corners. Several structures have residential apartments above the street level. Formal designation of the Historical District would be an important economic development initiative in generating interest and support for efforts to revitalize the commercial area. Z5-1-2 Institute downtown urban design guidelines, and require a design review of developments in the proposed Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District to ensure that the height, massing, and design of build- ings furthers Downtown's character (see also policies 3. I-I-4 and 3. I-I-5). Z5-1-3 Explore mechanisms to incorporate South San Francisco's industrial her- itage in historic and cultural preservation. An inventory of industrial buildings in the city would identify impor- tant reminders of South San Francisco's industrial history. Without historic designation, these buildings are at risk of being demolished as new industrial and commercial uses expand. The adaptive reuse of these buildings would encourage an architecturally diverse and historic texture in South San Francisco's industrial areas. However, the need to preserve the city's industrial history must be balanced with the eco- nomic considerations of industrial operations. 7-23 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 7.5-1-4 7.5-1-5 Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the city by requiring a records review for any development proposed areas of known resources. South San Francisco's known archaeological resources are located within areas undergoing development: Terrabay and the E1 Camino corridor. The East of 101 area, which is a likely location for new devel- opment, has the potential to contain additional resources due to the extensive marshlands that existed prior to landfill activities. Adequate policies and measures for protection of known and unknown archae~ ological resources that can supplement CEQA requirements may need to be incorporated into future plans and development activities. In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitiga- tion plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered. CEQA requires the evaluation of any archaeological resource on the site of a development project. State law also protects these resources. City involvement in the identification, mitigation, and monitoring of project impacts on these resources will ensure the protection of South San Francisco's cultural heritage. 7-24 HEALTH AN D SAFETY Like most of the Bay Area communkies, South San Francisco is located in a seis- mically active region. Environmental, seismic and topographic conditions, and the patterns of urban and industrial development in South San Francisco pose risks to human health and property. The purpose of this element is to acknowledge and mitigate the risk posed by hazards. These indude seismic and geologic, flooding, hazardous materials and waste, and fire. 8-1 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8. I GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS Seismic and geologic hazards are significant concerns in South San Francisco. Not only do these hazards pose risks to life and property, but also they represent con- straints on development. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS South San Francisco is comprised of three distinct topographic zones, each with its own soil compositions and hazards to development (see Figure 8-1: Slope). Lowland Zone A large portion of the city, primarily east of U.S. 101, is underlain by deposits of Bay mud up to 80 feet deep in some places. Associated development hazards include shrink-swell, settlement, and corrosivity. Seismic hazards include earth- quake wave amplification and liquefaction. Development in the lowland zone often requires engineering solutions to address soil constraints and the increased risk of geologic and seismic hazard in this area. Upland Zone Soils in this zone are mostly developed, covered by urban land and cut-and-filL The cut-and-fill in some areas has superimposed the alluvial soils of the Colma Creek floodplain. The difficulty in this zone is the varying nature of the fill, which was laid with varying attention to engineering practices. There is a moderate potential for shrink-swell and/or erosion hazard here. Hillside Zone The Hillside Zone includes some slopes of over 30 percent. The native soils of this zone are characterized as various sandy and gravelly loams with generally high to very high erosion potential, low strength and stability, and shallow depth. These areas are susceptible to soil creep and small landslides. 8-2 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY ...... Colma Pacifica Slope over 30 percent Slope 15-30 percent Slope less than 15 percent 1/2 MILES '~o Canal San Francisco Bay Source: USGS Digital Elevation Model, San Francisco South Figure 8- I Slope 8-3 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8-4 SEISPIlCITY South San Francisco is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. There are approximately 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earthquakes; eleven of these are within 40 miles of the city. The Peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault, the predominant fault system in California, passes through the westernmost corner of South San Francisco, commonly referred to as the Westborough area. This area was developed after Interstate 280 was built in the 1970s and contains a large concentration of townhomes. It also contains one of the city's main concentrations of local~serving commercial. Although there is some vacant land in the area, steep slopes and the nearby San Andreas fault are obstacles to development. The San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire city, creating potential for ground rupture and high levels of ground shak- ing. It has generated some of the largest, most destructive earthquakes in the Bay Area, including the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 8.3) and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (magnitude 7.1). Most of the city would experience an intensity level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7. ! magnitude. Portions of the city with unstable soil conditions, particularly the fill areas in the east, would experience particularly strong ground shaking. Other faults in the region may also generate earthquakes that affect South San Francisco. While most of South San Francisco is comprised of fiat to gently sloping areas, steep hillsides surround the northern and western portions of the city. Seismic and other structural hazards are related to two geologic conditions found in South San Francisco: Soils in the fiat lowland areas, comprised largely of Bay mud overlain with fill in the eastern portions of the city, have high shrink-swell potential, high water table, and low strength. These soil conditions amplify earthquake waves and groundshaking, and are subject to liquefaction. · Steeply-sloping hillside areas have soils with shrink-swell hazards, high erosion 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY hazard, and low strength. Some of these soils have severe limitations for bear- ing dwellings without basements and for local roads. In addition, substantial portions of the south flank of San Bruno Mountain are classified as a high landslide risk area. SEISMIC RISKSTO DEVELOPMENT Within South San Francisco, earthquake damage to structures can be caused by ground rupture, near-field effects, liquefaction, landsliding, ground shaking, and possibly inundation from seiche or tsunami. The level of damage in the city result- ing from an earthquake will depend upon the magnitude of the event, the epicen- ter distance from the city, the response of geologic materials, and the strength and construction quality of structures. Buildings constructed prior to the 1970s in most cases would not meet current design provisions in the Uniform Building Code for earthquake forces. The most severe hazards are presented by unreinforced masonry buildings constructed of brick or concrete block. Under strong intensity ground shaking, many of these structures may be expected to collapse or require demolition. The City has devel- oped a list of unreinforced masonry buildings to assess their potential to meet Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) requirements through retrofit. Other types of buildings that may also be severely damaged are older buildings of steel and concrete framing that were not designed to resist earthquake vibrations and older reinforced brick and masonry structures. Ground Shak/ng The distribution of earthquake wave amplification as related to geologic materials has been mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with input from the U.S. Geological Survey. Areas subject to extremely high or very high lev- els of wave amplification include the hills west of Callan Boulevard, adjacent to the San Andreas Fault zone, and the alluvial lowlands surrounding Colma Creek, between Orange and South Linden Avenues. ABAG has also mapped the intensi- ties created by a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault regis- tering 7.1 on the modified mercalli intensity scale in the South San Francisco area. Only the southeastern and eastern portions of the city, including much of the area 8-5 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8-6 east of U.S. 101, would experience an intensity level VIII (Moderate); damage is expected to be nonstructural in other areas. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose, fine-grained sediment to a fluid-like state because of earthquake ground shaking. Most of the lowland areas of South San Francisco potentially have liquefaction hazards, with moderate liquefaction potential in the alluvial fan of Colma Creek and in a narrow strip of land south of Sister Cities Boulevard. Lateral spreading (lurching) also may be pre- sent where open banks and unsupported cut slopes provide a free face, or where artificial fill overlies Bay mud. Ground shaking, especially when inducing liquefac- tion, may induce lateral spreading toward unsupported slopes. Landsliding The strong ground motions that occur during earthquakes are capable of inducing landslides, generally where unstable soil conditions already exist. The parts of the San Francisco Bay region having the greatest susceptibility to landsliding are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock units of slope greater than 15 percent. In South San Francisco this hazard is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the Terrabay development and near Skyline Boulevard. InundaOon Earthquakes can cause tsunami ('tidal waves') and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay. As portions of the city are located adjacent San Francisco Bay, and are low-lying, tsunami or seiche inundation is a possibility. Wave run-up is estimated at approximately 4.3 feet (msl) for tsunami with a 100- year recurrence and 6.0 feet (msl) for a 500-year tsunami. Earthquake damage inflicted on structures and infrastructure within the city is not only a function of the seismic risks outlined above, but also of the form, structur- al design, materials, construction quality, and location of the structure. Since the 1970s, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) in California has incorporated mini- mum strength standards to which a building must be designed. New construction in South San Francisco is required to meet the requirements of the 1994 UBC, and buildings of special occupancy are required by the State to meet more stringent design requirements. 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDING POLICY: GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS 8. I-C--I Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS 8. I-I-I Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community, in areas identified in Figure 8-2. Although the State requires special occupancy buildings to meet more stringent seismic strength requirements than the 1994 Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC), these facilities should not be located in areas that are seismically sensitive. Since the city already contains adequate hospitals, schools, fire stations, and public build- ings, very few, if any, special occupancy buildings will be sited in the city. Existing special occupancy buildings located in seismically sensi- tive areas should be monitored and reviewed to ensure structural compliance with seismic safety standards. 8./4-2 Require geotechnical and engineering geology reports as part of the devel- opment review process prior to approval of any development on sites with- in seismically sensitive lands, as indicated in Figure 8-2. The geotechnical assessment would consider the seismic hazards of the site with regards to the type of structure, its material, and construction quality proposed. Seismic hazards addressed in this report should include, but not be limited to: evaluation of and recommendations to mitigate the effects of ground shaking, landslides, surficial debris flows, expansive soils, subsidence and settlement, and fault displace- ment. The report must be completed by a consulting Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Geotechnical Engineer. Appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the hazard risk may be 8-7 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8.1~1-3 required as a condition of approval for development. Professional inspection of foundation and excavation, earthwork and other geoto echnical aspects of site development during construction on seismical- ly sensitive sites should be required. Explore programs that would build incentives to retrofrt unreinforced masonry buildings. These buildings are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes and pose a high risk to human safety as they can collapse in earthquakes. Programs to encourage retrofit include additional transfer taxes on property sales which can be used by the owner to pay for seismic retrofit work, reduced permit fees, grants to offset retrofit costs, or loan programs. In addition, information should be disseminated to the public on ways to reinforce buildings to reduce damage from earthquakes. 8-8 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY : ;~ Policies 8.1-I-1 & 8.1-I-2 $~n BrUno Canal S~ ~sczsco / Francisco Bay Source: Environmental Science Associates Figure 8-2 General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands 8-9 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Channelized portion of Colma Creek near Orange Park. Improvements were recently completed under the Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project. 8.2 FLOODING Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek. Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city; since South San Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. The principal flooding problem in the city is an inadequate culvert and channel system where Colma Creek runs under the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line. Peak flood flows in Colma Creek back up and pond east of the tracks, and water moves away from the creek along city streets. Flood depth during a lO0-year storm is two to three feet in the ponding area at the tracks. Many homes in South San Francisco may be exposed to this hazard as they were constructed with insufficient elevation to remain above even shallow flood- waters. New development west of the SPRR right-of-way may be constrained by potential flooding, but careful design could minimize flooding hazards and damage. FLOOD CONTROL The San Mateo County Flood Control District (SMCFCD) is responsible for flood control and stream channel maintenance in South San Francisco. The SMCFCD has developed a Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project. Improvements have already been completed in the vicinity of Orange Memorial Park and Mitchell Avenue. In addition, reaches of the creek in the vicinity of Hickey Boulevard, Kaiser Permanente, and between Spruce Avenue and the creek mouth, will be improved and/or realigned to reduce flooding and to complement the County's existing tide gate at North Access Road. These projects, to be completed by 2002, will reduce flood hazard to a 50-year storm recurrence interval plus two feet of freeboard. As a result, the area con- strained by flood hazard will be greatly reduced, and may be eliminated, once these improvements are made. Once complete, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will remap the 100-year floodplain for the purposes of the South San Francisco Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 8-10 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDING POLICY: FLOODING 8.2-G- I Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: FLOODING 8.2-1-1 Continue working with the RegionaIWater Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the implementation of the San Mateo Count~vide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP). The City should comply with the Performance Standards for Control of Stormwater Pollutants from Development and Construction Activities that were part of the RWQCB's Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Stormwater Programs. These Recommendations incorporate the mandates of EPAs stormwater regulations as well as the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments. Policy 7.2-I-2 in Section 7.2: Water Quality directs the City to review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in STOPP as needed. The BMPs were last updated for STOPP in 1991 when the program was established. Additional City BMPs may be updated if necessary. The BMPs for the design and installation of the stormwater drainage systems could include use of a 25,year storm cri- teria for design of stormwater drainage systems to prevent increased flooding potential in the redevelopment subareas. All stormwater drainage system designs should incorporate the Department of Public Works stormwater design standards for urban areas. Additional measures to reduce the risk of localized and downstream flooding could include: The City of South San Francisco should recommend as guidance the use of high infiltration measures within the Planning Area to reduce stormwater discharge into the regional storm drain system. These measures could include ponds built into landscapes, Unchannelized portion of Colma Creek dividing North and South Canal streets in Lindenville. 8-11 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8.2-1-2 8.2-1-3 unlined runoff channels and dispersion points into landscaped areas. In addition, the amount of permeable landscape should be maximized. Landscaping in parking lots and around building perimeters can reduce the initial generation of stormwater runoff. The City of South San Francisco should strongly recommend that dispersed stormwater be directed into landscape, or natural vege- tation where feasible. Surface runoff should be diverted into open areas that have high infiltration capabilities. Where possible and technically feasible, roof tops and paved areas should drain into underground dispersal pipes or vegetated percolation beds. By increasing the amount of permeable surfaces around impervious structures, rainfall infiltration rates would increase and thus decrease concentrated runoff. Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed devel- opment subject to the I O0~year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards, in areas identified in Figure 8-3. Encourage FEMA to update the I O0-year floodplain boundaries to reflect the new limits of flood hazard constraint to be determined by the comple- tion of the Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project. Completion of the Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project will significantly reduce the area constrained by flood hazard in South San Francisco. Remapping will be undertaken by FEMA for the pur- poses of updating the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the city. Once completed, the City should update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the new boundary. 8-12 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY ~ 100-year flood - Policies 8.2-I-1 & 8.2-I-2 It4 saw ~,.~c~sco / San Francisco Bay Source: Leighton & Associates Geotechnical Engineers, Geotechnical Hazards Synthesis Map for San Mateo County, 1976 Environmental Science Assodates Figure 8-3 General Plan Policies for Flood Protection 8-13 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING San Mateo County's Integrated Waste Management Plan was recently approved by the county and is under review by the state. This Plan complies with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requiring local agencies to implement source reduction, recycling, and composting activities to reduce solid waste generation by 50 percent by the year 2000. State law requires that each city and county is required to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), and Non-disposal Facilities Element. Together, these three elements comprise the City's IWMP. Household hazardous wastes within San Mateo County are addressed in the San Mateo County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, rather than a HHWE. The IWMP for each city in the County, the County's IWMP, and the countywide siting element will comprise the countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. SOLID WASTE Collection and Recycling Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then . processes at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer sta- tion (MRF/TS). Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, has a permit for forward expan- sion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon will be expanded further or Apanolio canyon will be opened for fill. The new Scavenger MRF/TS, which was approved in April 1999, will be permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tones per day of wastes and recyclable mate- rials. This facility will give the Scavenger Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge. The Blue Line Transfer Station has a recycling center for news- 8-14 paper, cardboard, glass, mattresses, and waste oil. The City of South San Francisco coordinates recycling of newspaper, aluminum, glass, and waste oil. There are also certified reCyCling centers at South San Francisco's two Safeways, Bell Market, and Reynolds Aluminum. 1 Sewage sludge produced at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant is composted by combining the dry sludge with sawdust and rice hulls, pro- ducing a commercial soil conditioner. Household Hazardous Waste Hazardous waste is generated in homes and businesses alike, and includes prod- ucts ranging from used motor oil to infectious compounds to dioxins. Management of hazardous waste in San Mateo County occurs under the 1991 Hazardous Waste Plan. Although most hazardous waste is generated by larger commercial and industrial enterprises, wastes generated by households and small businesses are of particular concern, since these wastes are more likely to be handled improperly and disposed of in a landfill or sewer. Although the amount of household and small business hazardous waste is relatively small, these wastes are of particular concern because they are more likely to be handled improperly, such as disposed of in a landfill or sewer. The County operates a household hazardous waste education program and established a household hazardous waste transfer station for county residents in 1989. General Plan Buildout With an expected buildout population of 67,400 residents in South San Francisco, the city will generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the assumed generation rates used by the County (Table 8.3-1). HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT Numerous industrial and commercial operations, both past and present, have manufactured, handled, stored and disposed of hazardous materials in South San 1 Solid Waste Management Plan, p. VIII-5-6 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY Table 8.3- I: Per Capita Solid Waste Generation Per Day Per Year Pounds 3.1 1,130 Gallons 2.5 913 Cubic Feet 0.3 120 Source: 1989 Solid Waste l~anagement Plan, San Plateo County Depending upon the success of current source reduction and recycling programs, this amount could be much lower. 8-15 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8-16 Francisco. Hazardous material sites include manufacturing operations, active and abandoned landfills, facilities with leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), per- mitted dischargers, and generators of hazardous waste. The presence of hazardous materials or hazardous waste in soil or groundwater in the city's commercial and industrial areas could constrain development of certain areas due to the actual or perceived threat to human health and the costs associat- ed with site cleanup. The actual health threat at a given site depends upon a num- ber of factors such as the quantity and toxicity of contaminants, exposure, and the available pathways for contaminants to affect human health. Cleanup of hazardous waste sites is mandated by law and enforced by the appropriate regulatory agencies in order to protect human health, resources, and the environment. Cleanup is usu- ally expensive and can be a significant factor in the viability of land development. Generation Many hazardous waste sites are identified on the Cal/EPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). The Cortese list indudes 114 known sites in South San Francisco with leaking USTs (as of December 1994). These sites are con- centrated in the industrial area East of 101. The East of 101 Area Plan EIR identified 67 permitted generators of hazardous waste in the project area. In addition there are ten companies east of 101 that are permitted to emit toxic pollutants. In addition, four sites in the East of 101 area have major hazardous materials concentrations, including the Koll, Gateway, Shearwater, and Wildberg Brothers sites. These sites are in various stages of study, remediation, and redevelopment. The East of 101 and Lindenville areas are known to have a high water table, increasing the risk that on-site contamination will leach into groundwater and spread to other properties or to the Bay. Storage and Disposal San Mateo County is responsible for issuing hazardous material storage permits, and a Throughout San Mateo County, Hazardous Materials Managenaent Plans must be prepared for the County by businesses that use or store hazardous mate- rials. The County provides copies of Business Plans to the local fire department. HEALTH AND SAFETY The San Mateo Coun~ Health Services Department (HSD) issues permits for installation of USTs. The County HSD and the South San Francisco Fire Department regulate the removal of USTs. Before a tank may be removed, the applicant must prepare a closure plan and submit it to the County HSD. Upon approval of the plan, the County HSD issues a permit for tank removal. While USTs are primarily associated with service stations, they may also be found in con- nection with hospitals, companies with a backup power supply, and older industries. Transport Transport of hazardous waste and hazardous materials is regulated by federal and state agencies, primarily the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation. South San Francisco h~s no ordinances that address the transport of hazardous materials in the city. Kaiser Permanente Medical Center is known to receive shipments of radioactive substances on a reg- ular basis. The County is responsible for issuing hazardous material storage per- mits. GUIDING POLICIES:WASTE PIANAGEMENTAND RECYCLING Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recy- c~e those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 8.3-G-2 Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous substances as established by federal (EPA), State (DTSC, RWQCB, Cai OSHA, Cai EPA), and locaL(County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations. 17 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8-18 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING 8.3~1 Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recyclin$ and complying with the San Morea County Integrated Waste Management Plan. South San Francisco has a responsibility to meet regional source reduction and recycling initiatives in order to achieve State-mandated waste reduction targets and extend the useful life of existing landfill facilities. Builders should be encouraged to incorporate interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables into new or remodeled buildings (both residential and commercial) to make recycling activities more convenient for those who use the buildings. The City should explore the feasibility of installing recycling receptacles for plastic and glass beverage containers and papers in parks, Downtown, and other public areas. Furthermore, commercial and business parks should be encour- aged to install recycling receptacles on their premises. The City should explore incentives for businesses to establish recycling programs. 8.3-1-2 Continue to maintain hazardous waste regulations in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The existing Zoning Ordinance and General Plan prohibits intensive industrial facilities and industries producing substantial amounts of hazardous waste; prohibits industrial uses involving the permanent storage of hazardous materials; and, limits lighter industrial uses that produce hazardous waste, such as auto repair and auto painting busi- nesses, to the Light Industrial land use classification. 8.3-1-3 Prepare a Geographic Information sYStems (GIS) coverage for the sites included in the Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. The establishment of a GIS system is addressed in Policy 3.4-I-3. The GIS would be used to assist in the development approval process. The City should use an address matching program to identify the sites on the Cortese list. A database including detailed site information should 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY 8.3-1-4 be linked to the digital map. Redevelopment of these sites must com- ply with myriad regulations at both the federal and State levels. However, the identification of contaminated sites will allow the City to better identify opportunities for redevelopment and funding. As most contaminated and affected sites are situated in the city's key redevel- opment areas (East of 101 and Lindenville), it is important for the City to quantify the levels of constraint and opportunity, and prepare an areawide remediation plan. This program should explore programs or incentives to remediate hazardous waste contamination on private lands. Sites with contamination that is known to be spreading to other properties or affecting groundwater quality should be prioritized. Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transportJng hazardous materials. These routes should not pass through residential areas or other sensi- tive areas. Specific time periods for transport should be established to reduce the impact and accident risk during peak travel periods. 8-19 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8-20 8.4 FIRE HAZARDS Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding resources. Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, two factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations: Vegetation. Accumulations of vegetation serve as fuel for wildland fires; large concentrations of fuel, particularly where fires can spread from ground level to the tops of trees, can create conditions where wildland fires spread rapidly. Vegetation on both public- and privately-owned land in South San Francisco is generally poorly maintained and overgrown. Nonnative vegetation in and near open spaces such as French broom, eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress, currently pose the greatest threat of wildland fire. Defensible fire breaks around structures and residential properties in particu- lar are generally poor or nonexistent. Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the City's ability to respond to fire. Poor access and inadequate local water supply can increase the loss of life and property in a fire. While most of the areas near open spaces have good access and water supply, access is poor near Sign Hill and along Dundee Drive. The Sign Hill area also has limited water supply. Eight fire hazard management units are identified in areas that need vegetation management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for successful fire suppression. Each management unit is designated as high, medium or low priority in recognition of the relative need for risk manage- ment. Sign Hill, the Hillside School area, and the area along Dundee Drive have the highest priority due to the combination of fuel characteristics, infrastructure and adjacent uses. Management approaches are recommended for each unit. Access for fire and other safety personnel is good in areas other than the Sign Hill and Dundee management units, with the exception of the currently undeveloped Koll property on Sierra Point. This site can presently only be reached by passing through the portion of Sierra Point that is within Brisbane. It is expected that development on the Koll property will require access improvements. Pacific~ :' '-. san Bruno High Priority Management Units Medium Priority Management Units Low Priority Management Units Source: Environmental Science Associates, 1997 II~I'E~$TAT~ ]8O Itl MIL~ 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY San Bruno Canal san Francisco Bay Figure 8-4 Fire Hazard Management Units 8-21 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 8.4- I: Summary Of Fire Hazard Reduction Recommendations Management Unit Recommendations Sign Hill Hillside School Dundee Gallen San Bruno Mountain Alta Lama School Skyline Westborough Combination of hand and mechanical to clear a 100-foot buffer around residences. Hand applied and targeted use of herbicides may be considered. Where possible, all French broom should be removed. Eucalyptus and other trees should be regularly maintained and pruned. Young saplings should be removed or controlled. Maintain and expand existing road system. Implement a comprehensive public education and facilitation program. These actions are consistent with the Sign Hill Habitat Conservation Plan. Prune trees of Iow hanging material and clear debris and leaf litter. Combination of hand and mechanical labor to clear a 100-foot buffer around residences. Hand-applied and targeted use of herbicides may be considered. Eucalyptus and other trees should be regularly maintained and pruned. Maintain and expand existing road system. Implement a comprehensive public education and facilitation program. Broadcast burn during the winter or spring, or hand removal of debris and Iow hanging branches Combination of hand and mechanical labor to control shrubby material. Hand-applied and targeted use of herbicides may be considered. Buffer strip between vegetation and residential structures. No treatment recommended. Continue regular pruning and maintenance of eucalyptus and other trees. Regularly prune trees and woody plants. Combination of hand and mechanical labor to clear a 100-foot 'buffer around residences. GUIDING POLICIES: FIRE HAZARDS 8.4-G-I Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco. 8.4.G-2 Provide fire protection that is responsive to dtizens' needs.~ IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: FIRE HAZARDS 8.4.1-1 Institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards on public lands in those management units identified in Figure 8- 4 and Table 8.4- I. 8-22 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY 8.4-I-2 8.4-1-3 8.4-1-3 City efforts to reduce fire hazards in these areas should include regu- larly scheduled pruning of overgrown grass, shrub, and canopy vege- tation and the removal of debris and leaf litter. Fuel modification tech- niques may include mechanical removal, hand removal, prescribed burning, or chemical treatment. Explore incentives or programs as port of the comprehensive tire hazard management program to encourage private landowners to reduce tire haz- ards on their property. Programs may include free property risk assessments, educational workshops, and literature, etc. In particular, owners of property abut- ting management units should be encouraged to reduce the fire haz- ard. Consider future access and water supply infrastructure improvements in the Dundee and Sign Hill areas to reduce tire hazard risk. Improvements necessary to reduce fire hazard risk in the Dundee and Sign Hill areas--both of which are identified as High Priority Management Units--are expensive, longterm capital projects. The City should consider establishing these improvements as part of its Capital Improvement Program. Require site design features, tire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of tire within the City. New construction is required to meet the requirements of the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Fire potential of buildings could be further reduced through the addition of defensible buffers, the use of type'W' roofing materials, and residential fire protection devices. 8-23 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8.5 LAW ENFORCEMENT The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. Two unincorporated pockets, including the California Golf and Country Club, are under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff's off~ce. As of 1999, the Department had a total of 122 employees, with 80 sworn officers and 37 police units. The current ratio of officers is 1.4 per 1,000 residents. The Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation departments share facilities within the City's Municipal Building. The Police Department also has one station, located in the Municipal Building at 33 Arroyo Drive. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the department's response time goals. The entire city is patrolled except for the undeveloped Sierra Point area. The Department typically works a four-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one-officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap. GUIDING POLICIES: LAW ENFORCEMENT 8.$-G-I Provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. Although the police can not be solely responsible for controlling and limiting crime and interpersonal conflicts, they will continue to be the primary agency capable of immediate response and crisis intervention. 8.5-G-2 Assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community design. 8-24 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY IPIPLEHENTING POLICIES: LAW ENFORCEMENT 8.5-1- I Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. Actions that could be taken to ensure rapid and timely response to all emergencies include: · Maintain a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents; Analyze and monitor factors affecting response time (population growth, police staffing, community policing programs) and aver- age response times as guidelines based on past experience; · Maintain, train, and equip special response teams for extraordi- nary or extremely hazardous emergency incidents; and Develop and/or use the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) for analysis of issues including crime location trends and response routes (see policy 2-I-14). 8.5-1-2 Control and/or intervene in conduct recognized as threatening to life and property. Actions the Police Department maintains on an on-going basis to implement this policy include: · Providing on-scene services to restore the peace and prevent fur- ther injury to life or property; · Maintaining a "Directed Patrol" approach, when appropriate, to focus on prevention; and 8-25 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8-26 8.5-1-3 8.5-1-4 Identifying evolving crime patterns, particularly those involving career criminals, and study methods to further enhance communi- ty-oriented policing. Reduce crime by strengthening the police/community partnership. The underlying socioeconomic conditions conducive to crime and dis- order can be affected by City actions directed at preserving and enhancing a strong sense of community. Actions the Police Department could take to strengthen relationships with the community include: Continue and enhance neighborhood-based crime prevention activities (Neighborhood Watch) and programs designed to rein- force positive juvenile behavior, prevent juvenile delinquency and encourage citizen involvement; · Continue and enhance loss prevention programs in the commer- cial and industrial sectors; Continue and enhance programs designed to prevent and reduce drug and alcohol abuse, including joint education programs with City schools; and Identify geographical areas or population groups experiencing noticeable crime victimization in order to improve effectiveness of crime prevention efforts and commit resources, as appropriate, to these areas to help them. Assess community needs and expectations on an ongoing basis and report periodically to the City Council on c/t/zen complaints and citizen commen- dations received. As part of the comprehensive update of the City's Zoning Ordinance, ensure that design standards and guidelines reflect the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY 8.5-1-5 Cont/nue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, State and federal plans. Actions that could be taken to improve coordination with other pub- lic agencies include: establishing and maintaining liaison relationships and, as appropriate, agreements for mutual aid; participating in major disaster preparedness planning at all levels of government; and estab- lishing and maintaining agreements for private security use. 8-27 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 8-28 8.6 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT In 1995, the City prepared an Emergency Response P1an, integrated with the San Mateo Area/ County Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. Consistent with state law requiring updates at four-year intervals, the County is currently revising this plan. The City's plan is in compliance with existing law. The objectives of the plan are to reduce life, injury, and property losses through effective management of emer- gency forces. The City's plan: Establishes and defines the duties of the Operations, Planning, Logistics and Finance Units, and defines the roles of the South San Francisco Emergency Operations Center and other emergency services organizations; and Describes the operations and procedures that should occur during the pre- emergency, emergency, and recovery periods; and establishes rules affecting registration and use of volunteer disaster service workers. GUIDING POLICIES: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 8.6-G-I Use the City's Emergency Response Plan as the guide for emergency man- agement in South San Francisco. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 8.6-1-1 8.6-1-2 Maintain and update the Oty's Emergency Response Plan, as required by State law, to minimize the risk tO life and property of seismic and geologic hazards, flooding, hazardous materials and waste, and fire. Prepare and disseminate information, including as a page on the City's web- site, about emergency preparedness. This information should include pre-fire and earthquake plans identi- fying how emergency response will be coordinated and how evacua- tion of residents will proceed. 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY 8.6-1-3 8.6-1-4 Coordinate regular emergency drills with emergency organizations, includ- ing City and County Fire, Police, Emergency Medical Services, and Public Works; San Francisco International Airport; and California Environmental Protection Agency. Ensure that special occupancy buildings, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community, remain oper- ative during emergencies. Insure that all hospitals, schools and other pub- lic building have been adequately retrofired for seismic shaking in accor- dance with State regulations. 8-29 NOISE Noise is an important and complex issue in South San Francisco. Almost every part of the city is susceptible to noise impacts, due mainly to the presence of major noise generators. Significant sources of noise in the city include San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), major transportation corridors such as U.S. 10! and 1-280, and extensive industrial uses. The city's land use pattern generally accom- modates these conditions with industrial uses dustered dose to the airport, sepa- rated from relatively noise-sensitive uses by U.S. 101. This element is intended to ensure compliance with State requirements and promote a comprehensive, long- range program of achieving acceptable noise levels throughout South San Francisco. 9-1 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 9. I NOISE MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING Noise can be defined as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise varies widely in its scope, source, and volume, ranging from individual occurrences such as a barking dog, to the intermittent disturbances of overhead aircraft, to the fairly constant noise gen- erated by traffic on U.S. 101. Many uses are noise sensitive, such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. Noise needs to be controlled around other uses as well, although levels rarely exceed the recommended maximum. The known effects of noise on humans include hearing loss, communication interference, sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. When noise levels are reported, they are expressed as a measurement over time in order to account for variations in noise exposure. Levels also account for varying degrees of sensitivity to noise during daytime and nighttime hours. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn) both reflect noise exposure over an average day with weighting to reflect this sen- sitivity. The CNEL is the reference level for State noise law and is used to express major continuous noise sources, such as aircraft or traffic. 9-2 9.2 NOISE SOURCES AND PROJECTIONS For the purposes of this Plan, sources of noise are categorized as being either air- craft-generated or locally-generated. Existing and projected noise levels are depict- ed on noise contour maps. Each contour reflects linear bands subject to similar average noise levels. Figure 9-1 depicts existing and projected aircraft-generated noise levels in South San Francisco. NOISE SOURCE SEXISTING CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS Aircraft-Generated Noise Aircraft overflight noise is a particularly important issue in South San Francisco due to the city's proximity to San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Aircraft noise continues to receive considerable attention in the city, due in part to the mas- sive current terminal expansion project and to significant expected increases in average dally aircraft operations. Existing Noise Levels Average aircraft noise levels measured in 1997 indicate that areas in the south- western part of the city experience noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL. A small- er area in the vicinity of E1 Camino Real near the San Bruno border has noise lev- els in excess of 70 dB CNEL. Existing and projected noise contours, as well as the Noise Insulation Program area, are shown on Figure 9-1.1 Assuming no change in SFIA's runway configuration, aircraft noise contours are projected to shift gradually eastward by 2010. As a result, areas east of the current flight path may experience an increase in average noise levels. At the same time, the 70 dB CNEL contour are expected to shrink, no longer impacting South San Francisco. Single Event Flyover Noise Noise contours are based on average noise levels. Single event noises such as air- craft flyovers need to occur frequently and at very high volumes in order to bring average noise levels to 65 dB CNEL. Even areas outside the 65 dB CNEL contours 1 Environmental Science Associates, SFO Runway Reconfigurafion Study (1998); Figure 2.3.8-2. 9: NOISE Aircraft overflight noise is a particularly in the city due to close proximity to San Francisco International Airport. 9-3 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 9-4 are impacted by flyovers. Thus, even the 65 dB CNEL noise contour is expected to shift eastward, flyovers will still expose areas throughout the southwestern part of the city to high. noise levels. ALUC Noise Standards and Related Requirements ALUC's 1995 SFIA Land Use Plan establishes the 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFIA, consistent with noise restrictions in the California Administrative Code, Title 21, Subchapter 6 "Noise Standards." Local plans, policy actions, or development' activities that affect areas within that boundary must receive ALUC approval or have a finding of overriding consideration prior to local permit issuance. ALUC determines the 65 dB CNEL boundary by examining both federal and State noise impact boundaries: · Federal Impact Boundary. The federal 65 dB CNEL boundary is based on the Noise Exposure Map (NEM),2 as accepted by the FAA under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. This 65 dB contour serves as the basis for FAA determination of local agency eligibility for federal grant money for noise insulation projects. · State Impact Boundary. The State boundary is the 65 dB CNEL boundary as defined by the required airport noise monitoring system. The monitoring sys- tem consists of 27 off-site noise monitors, plus two additional monitors near the runway ends. The noise contour is updated each calendar quarter and sub- mitted to San Mateo County and the State Division of Aeronautics. ALUC uses the latest SFIA quarterly noise report to determine the compatibility of land use plans. · ALUC is now completing an updated land use plan for the airport, which is expected in early 1999.3 The updated Plan will be based on the 1995 Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) that were approved by the FAA. The 1995 noise con- tours--65 dB and 70 dB--are shown in Figure 9-1. Large portions of the city. fall within the 1995 federally accepted 65 dB CNEL noise contour. The 70 dB CNEL contour impacts a small portion of the City's eastern industrial area 2 Although the 1995 SFIA Land Use Plan was adopted with the 1983 NEM, the FAA subsequently approved the 1995 NEM and 2000 projected N-EM. The updated version of the Land Use Plan, expected in early 1999, is based on the 1995 NEM, which will need to be considered in preparation of the Specific Plan. 3 County of San Mateo Planning and Building Division, Senior Planner David Carbone, personal communication, December 30, 1998. ..¢ 9: NOISE Paci£ica '~'' 1995 FAA-Approved Noise Contours (in dB CNEL) · · · · · 2000 FAA-Approved Noise Contours (in dB CNEL) , 1993 65 dB Noise Contour (in dB CNEL) ~ -. -. -- 2006 Projected Noise Contours (in dB CNEL) Retrofit Project Area Source: San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan; San Trancisco International Airport San Francisco International Airport Master Plan Draft EIR '?0 AiR Sa" Franc~co Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area 9-5 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 9.2- I Land Use Criteria For Noise-Impacted Areas Land Use CNFL Range General Land Use Criteria Residential Less than 65 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 65 to 70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed over 70 Development should not be undertaken Commercial less than 70 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 70 to 80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed over 80 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided Industrial less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 75 to 85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed over 85 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided Open less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements over 75 Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals Source: ~ of'South San FranrJsco Genera/Plan Noise F_/ement, SFIA Airport Land Use Plan 9-6 near the San Bruno border. Local plans, policy actions, or development activities within the 65 dB CNEL boundary requires the approval of the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prior to local permit issuance. To assist this process, the ALUC has established noise/land use compatibility standards as the basis of plan review (see Table 9.2-1). The City also applies these standards in its review of development applications located within the 65 dB CNEL boundary. The City's General Plan will be subject to ALUC review. All local land use plans within the designated noise impact area (NEM 65 dB CNEL contour) must receive explicit ALUC approval, and all plans within the larger ALUC planning area must be compatible with the SFIA Land Use Plan. ALUC uses established noise/land use compatibility standards (Table 9.2-1) as the basis for plan review. According to these standards, commercial uses would be acceptable within the 65 dB CNEL FAA-approved contour, and residential uses would be acceptable with noise insulation. In addition, according to the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding between SFIA and San Mateo County jurisdictions, residences con- structed after 1992 within the 65 dB CNEL contour are required to be insulated to meet the 45 dB interior noise standard.4 Residential noise insulation would also be required pursuant to any separate agreement between the City and SFIA. Locally-generated noise The primary sources of noise generated within South San Francisco itself are streets and highways, rail, and industrial uses: Traffic Noise. One of South San Francisco's most important locational advan- tages is its excellent road access; however, this access also results in fairly high noise impacts over much of the city. Traffic noise depends primarily on traffic speed--high frequency tire noise increases with speedmand the proportion truck traffic--which generates engine, exhaust, and wind noise. The proximi- ty of freeways and major streets, and the large amount of truck traffic serving industrial, warehousing, and freight forwarding uses in the city, make South San Francisco susceptible to traffic noise. Figure 9xxx illustrates roadways in 4 Memorandum of Understanding between the Director of Airports of the City and County of San Francisco, San Mateo County jurisdictions, the C/CAG, and the Airport/Community Roundtable, October 23, 1992, Section D-E. 9: NOISE the city producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. Railroad Noise. The Southern Pacific Railroad line is heavily used and gener- ates relatively high average noise levels in surrounding areas. Caltrain runs 68 commuter trains each day through South San Francisco, and Southern Pacific freight trains also use the line. Since the line runs adjacent U.S. 101 and is gen- erally surround by industrial and commercial land uses, rail operations have a negligible impact on land use in South San Francisco. Industrial Noise. Industrial uses in the city are an important part of the noise environment in South San Francisco. Industrial noise is generated from onsite activities or from associated truck traffic offsite. While industrial uses in East of 101 and south of Railroad Avenue do generate noise, impacts on noise-sen- sitive uses is minimal. In any case, these industrial areas are largely located within the 65 dB CNEL contour for aircraft noise. This element prohibits industrial development that will result in noise levels of 60 dB CNEL or greater at noise-sensitive uses, a situation that could occur in the industrial areas west of U.S. 101, that border on residential uses north of Railroad Avenue and within the Mayfair Village subdivision. 9-7 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Table 9.3- I Aircraft Noise Projections, 1990-2006 Annual aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) Average daily operations Impacted populationI 1990 2006 % change 427,475 538,464 26 833 1,029 36 14,980 6,600 (56) I Population exposed to noise level of 65 dB CNEL or greater. Source: Environmental Science Associates, SFIA Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report 9-8 9.3 NOISE PROJECTIONS It is important that this element address not only the existing noise conditions in South San Francisco, but also the projected conditions over the horizon of this Plan. It is possible to project future levels of both aircraft- and locally-generated noise. Aircraft-generated Noise The 1989 SFIA Master Plan outlined significant expansion and improvements to airport capacity, including a new international terminal, modified parking and cir- culation, and additional maintenance and support facilities. These improvements are underway and will result in the annual aircraft operations indicated in Table 9.3-1. Table 9.3-1 indicates thate projected decrease in the population impacted by over- flight noise is expected to decrease, even though the overall number of flights to and from SFIA will increase. This decrease is a function of a smaller 65 dB CNEL contour that will result from the elimination of Stage 2 aircraft (see Figure 9-1). SFIA is currently preparing new contours as part of the analysis of aircraft opera- tions expansion. These studies, which are expected to be formalized soon, indicate that the currently projected noise contours (see Figure 9-1) represent a conserva- tive estimate, and the contours are likely to shrink, improving aircraft-related noise conditions in South San Francisco. Although the elimination of Stage 2 aircraft will result in a net reduction in aircraft noise, much of this reduction has already occurred. Overall noise levels are actual- ly projected to increase by one-half dB by 2006, with nighttime levels expected to increase by 1.2 dB due to increased operations. These increases are not considered perceptible or significant. While overall average noise levels will be reduced, single-event flyover noise will continue to be problematic in South San Francisco. With the increased number of flights, single-event flyover noise is expected to become more frequent. SFIA will implement mitigation measures to reduce flyover noise, including the potential revision of departure routes over San Mateo County and the potential reduction in use of Runway 28, which points in the direction of South San Francisco.5 5 Environmental Science Associates, SFIA Master Plan Draft£lR, p. 424-425. 9: NOISE 65 60 Pacifica 75 dB CNEL , 70 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL 60 dB CNEL San Francisco Figure 9-2 Proiected Road and Rail Noise 9-9 9: NOISE Locally-generated noise It is possible to project future levels of locally-generated noise over the horizon of this Plan simply by considering current and projected land use trends. Figure 9-2 depicts future locally-generated noise levels in the city. · Traffic Noise. Traffic noise depends primarily on traffic speed and the propor- tion truck traffic. Traffic volume does not have a major influence on traffic noise' levels; a doubling of traffic volume results in a 3 dB to 5 dB increase in noise levels. As a result, projected traffic increases on U.S. 101, Interstate 280, and major arterials within South San Francisco should have not have an appre- ciable impact on noise levels in the city. And as traditional industrial uses make way for less intensive research and development activities, it is expected that truck traffic will decline in South San Francisco, particularly in areas east of U.S. 101 and south of Railroad Avenue. · Railroad Noise. The number of trains passing through South San Francisco on the Southern Pacific Railroad line is not expected to .change significantly. While CaltTrain ridership is expected to increase through 2010, it is unknown if this will result in any increase in the number of trains. In any case, the impacts of railroad noise are negligible due to the proximity of the line to U.S. 101, and the fact the line is generally surround by industrial and commercial land uses. · Industrial Noise. It is expected that industrial activity in South San Francisco will continue its shift away from traditional manufacturing and warehousing toward biotech and high-tech activity. This transition toward office-based uses will result in reduced levels of industrial noise in East of 101 and south of Railroad Avenue. Associated truck traffic and noise should also be reduced. These industrial areas will also largely remain within the 65 dB CNEL contour for aircraft noise. · BART Extension. The BART extension to SFIA will pass through South San Francisco. The route will descend underground from the South San Francisco station, and ascend to the surface at the San Bruno station at the Tanforan Shopping Center. Since BART will remain underground through South San Francisco, airborne noise impacts are expected to be minor, provided mitiga- 9-10 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FI~,NClSCO GENERAL PLAN Ho tel in East of 101 along South Airport Avenue, about a mile from the San Francisco International Airport. There are many hotels in the city due to the proximity to the SFIA. tion along surface lengths is implemented as planned. Ground-borne noise and vibration impacts have also been determined by BART to be minor, as sev- eral mitigation measures (floating trackbeds, etc.) are available. This assess- ment is based on standards set by BART for both airborne and ground-borne noise. GUIDING POLICIES: NOISE 9-Gl Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. 9-G2 Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: NOISE 9-1-1 Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. The simultaneous increase in aircraft operations at SFIA and decrease in average noise levels resulting from improvements in jet engine tech- nology presents a challenge for South San Francisco. The current 65 dB CNEL boundary represents an average noise level and provides the basis for FAA noise abatement funding and land use planning controls. As quieter jets cause this boundary to become smaller, FAA funding for retrofitting homes within the 65 dB CNEL boundary will also dedine. At the same time, expected increases in air traffic will result in increased single-event noise occurrences in the city. As a result, residents in some areas of South San Francisco not includ- ed in the 65 dB CNEL noise contour will be increasingly impacted by the single-event flyover noise. Homes in these areas would not be eli- gible for noise abatement funding under the current standard. The 9-11 9: NOISE 9-1-2 9-1-3 City should consider adopting a single-event noise standard to com- plement the existing 65 dB CNEL standard to mitigate the impacts of noise in these areas through land use planning and noise abatement programs. Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls. A lower average noise standard for aircraft-based noise mitigation and land use controls would address the impacts of aircraft flyovers in areas outside the existing 65 dB CNEL boundary. The current 65 dB CNEL boundary provides the basis for FAA noise abatement funding and land use planning controls limiting noise-sensitive uses. The City should work with the FAA and SFIA to determine if the current aver- age noise standard is adequately mitigating the impacts of aircraft noise in South San Francisco. A lower average noise standard could be used in conjunction with the single-event noise standard proposed in Policy 9-I-1. Pursue additional funding sources and programs for the noise insulation retrofit of homes not completed before the expiration of the Memorandum of Understanding in 2000. The Memorandum of Understanding between SFIA and San Mateo County jurisdictions, and the specific 1991 Agreement for Aircraft Noise Mitigation between the Airports Commission and South San Francisco establishes the parameters for the City's retrofit program. This agreement requires the City to seek federal grants (to be matched by SFIA) to retrofit noise-impacted homes constructed prior to 1983 with noise insulation. The Agreement runs out in 2000 and between 1,200 and 1,500 homes will still require retrofitting. This program is beneficial and has significantly reduced noise-related impacts in residential areas. The City should begin to pursue the exten- 9-12 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 9-1-4 9-1-6 9-1-7 9-1-8 sion of the current agreement and possible boundary adjustments to include homes impacted by aircraft noise beyond the 65 dB CNEL limit. Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impa~'ng sensitive recep- tors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL (Figure 9-3), incor- porate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas sub- ject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a tech- nical analysis and design of mit/gat/on measures. Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of' visible sound walls, where practical. Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of' operation, and other techniques, for new develop- ments deemed to be noise generators. Work with BART to ensure that its extension of' the transit line to SFIA through the c/ty results in minimal impact from noise and ground-borne vibration. DI:~FT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Francisco Bay m Potential Infill Residmtlal Development* m 1995 FAA-Approved Noise Contours (in dB CNEL) · · · · 2000 FAA-Approved Noiae Contours (in dB CNEL) *Defined as areas where the General Plan u~late would result in incr~ed resldm~ht dem~ty (~towtns ~tion) oc would ~low new residential development. 9-14 65 ~'°65 ' 70 070 Figure 9-3 Potential Inflll Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours GLOSSARY OF TERMS 100-Year Flood. That flood event that has a one- percent chance of occurrence in any one year. Acoustical Engineer. An engineer specializing in the measurement and physical properties of sound. In environmental review, the acoustical engineer measures noise impacts of proposed projects and designs measures to reduce those impacts. Acoustics. The physical qualities of a room, enclosure, or space (such as size, shape, and amount of noise) that determine the audibility and perception of sound. Acre, Gross. Area of a site calculated to the centerline of bounding streets and other public rights-of-way. Acre, Net. The portion of a site that can actually be built upon. Not included in the net acreage of a site are public or private road rights-of-way, public open space, and flood ways. Ambient Conditions. Initial background concentration sensed/measured at a monitoring/sampling site, as in air quality or noise. Aquifer. A natural underground formation that is saturated with water, and from which water can be withdrawn. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). A federal agency responsible for the design and implementation of publicly supported engineering projects. Any construction activity that involves filling a watercourse, pond, lake (natural or man-made), or wetlands (including seasonal wetlands and vernal pools), may require an ACOE permit. ART. Airport Rail Transit system. Light rail to move people and luggage between buildings, terminals, major employment locations, and parking areas within San Francisco International Airport. DP, AFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Arterials. A vehicular right-of-way whose primary function is to carry through traffic in a continuous route across an urban area while also providing some access to abutting land. Major arterials are typically divided (have raised medians), have more travel lanes, and carry more traffic than minor arterials. Major arterials in the city include E1 Camino Real (State Route 82), Sisters Cities Boulevard, ]unipero Serra Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue. Minor arterials do not have divided or raised medians; examples include Mission Road and Orange Avenue. ADT. Average daily traffic.. Attainment Area. An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than federal or State air quality standards as defined in the federal Clean Air Act or the California Clean Air Act. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a non-attainment area for others.. Auto-oriented Uses. Land uses designed to accommodate customers who use autos to travel to the site, including automobile sales and service, building supplies and materials and drive-up or drive-through uses. Average Daily Traffic (ADT). The number of vehicles passing a given point on a road going in a direction during a 24-hour period. BART. Bay Area Rapid Transit. Bike Lanes (Class II facilities). Lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of bicycles, so designated with special signing and pavement markings. Bike Paths (Class I facilities). Paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways used by motor vehicles by space or a physical barrier and are designated for bicycle use. Bike Routes (Class III facilities). Roadways are roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes are designated with signs. Biotic Diversity. Species diversity - i.e., number of different species occurring in a location or under some condition. GLOSSARY Bufldout. Level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all devel- opable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum probable level of development envisioned by the General Plan under specified assumptions about densities and intensities. Buildout does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations. CAI. California Archaeological Inventory. CalTrans. California Department of Transportation. Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The multi-year scheduling of public phys- ical improvements based on studies of fiscal resources available and the choice of specific improvements to be constructed. Carbon Monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless gas, formed by the incomplete com- bustion of fuels, which is toxic because of its tendency to reduce the oxygen-carry- ing capacity of the blood. CMP. Congestion Management Program, San Mateo County Collectors. Streets that connect arterials with local streets, and provide access and circulation within neighborhoods. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). A 24-hour energy equivalent level derit prove catastrophic. Culvert. A drain, ditch or conduit not incorporated in a dosed system that carries drainage water under a driveway, roadway, railroad, pedestrian walk or public way. Culverts are often built to channelize streams and as part of flood control systems. Curb Cut. The opening along the curb line at which point vehicles or other wheeled forms of transportation may enter or leave the roadway. Curb cuts are essential at street corners for wheelchair users. Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn). The A-weighted average sound level in decibels during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB weighing applied to nighttime sound levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). This exposure method is similar to the CNEL, but deletes the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) as a separate factor. iii DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN JV Dedbd '~-Weighted" (dBA). The scale for measuring sound in decibds that weights or reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. See also Decibel. Dedbd (dB). A unit used to express the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear. The decibel measuring scale is logarithmic. Zero (0 dB) on the scale is the lowest sound level that a normal ear can detect under very quiet ("lab- oratory") conditions and is referred to as the "threshold" of human hearing. On the logarithmic scale, 10 decibels are 10 times more intense, 20 decibels are 100 times more intense, and 30 decibels are 1,000 times more intense than 1 decibel. See also Decibel "A-Weighted." Density, Gross. The number of dwelling units per gross acre of developable resi- dential land designated on the General Plan Diagram. Design Capacity. The capacity at which a street, water distribution pipe, pump or reservoir, or a wastewater pipe or treatment plant is intended to operate. Development Fees. Direct charges or dedications collected on a one-time basis for a service provided or as a condition of approval being granted by the local gov- ernment. DOF. California Department of Finance. Easement. A right given by' the owner of land to another party for specific limited use of that land. An easement may be acquired by a government through dedica- tion when the purchase of an entire interest in the property may' be too expensive or unnecessary. EMF. Electric and magnetic field. Emission Factor. The rate at which pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere by one source or a combination of sources. Endangered Species, California. A native species or sub-species of a bird, mam- mal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant, which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range, due to one or more fac- tors, including loss in habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, or disease. The status is determined by the State Department of Fish GLOSSARY and Game together with the State Fish and Game Commission. Endangered Species, Federal. A species which is in danger of extinction through- out all or a significant portion of its range, other than the species of the Class insecta determined to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended, would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to humans. The status is determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior. Environment. The physical conditions in an area, including land, air, water, min- erals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance, which will be affected by a proposed project. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Equivalent Noise Level (Leq). A single-number representation of the fluctuating sound level in decibels over a specified period of time. It is a sound-energy average of the fluctuating level. Erosion. The process by which material is removed from the earth's surface (induding weathering, dissolution, abrasion, and transportation), most common- ly by wind or water. Fault. A fracture in the earth's crust forming a boundary between rock masses that have shifted. An active fault is a fault that has moved recently and which is likely to again. An inactive fault is a fault which shows no evidence of movement in recent geologic time and no potential for movement in the relatively near future. Federal Candidate Species, Category I (Candidate 1). Species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient biological information to support a pro- posal to list as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Candidate Species, Category 2 (Candidate 2). Species for which existing information indicates that these species may warrant listing, but for which sub- stantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking. V DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN vi Federal Flood Insurance. Affordable flood insurance offered by the federal gov- ernment to property owners whose communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Floor Area, Gross. The total horizontal area in square feet of all floors within the exterior walls of a building, but not including the area of unroofed inner courts or shaft enclosures. FIRM. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The ratio between gross floor area of structures on a site and gross site area. Thus, a building with a floor area of 100,000 square feet on a 50,000 square-foot lot will have a FAR of 2.0. For the purposes of this General Plan, building area devoted to structured or covered parking (if any) is not includ- ed in FAR calculations for non-residential developments. However, parking garages are included in FAR limitations for residential uses. GIS. Geographic Information Systems. Groundwater. Water under the earth's surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Groundwater Recharge. The natural process of infiltration and percolation of rainwater from land areas or streams through permeable soils into water-holding rocks that provide underground storage (i.e. aquifers). Habitat. The natural environment of a plant or animal. Hazardous Material. A material or form of energy that could cause injury or ill- ness to persons, livestock, or the natural environment. Hazardous Waste. Waste which requires special handling to avoid illness or injury to persons or damage to property. Includes, but is not limited to, inorganic miner- al acids of sulfur, fluorine, chlorine, nitrogen, chromium, phosphorous, selenium and arsenic and their common salts; lead, nickel, and mercury and their inorgan- ic salts or metallo-organic derivatives; coal, tar acids such as phenol and cresols and their salts; and all radioactive materials. GLOSSARY Household. Person or persons living in one housing unit. Housing Unit, Multifamily. Units with two or more housing units in one structure sharing a common floor/ceiling. Housing Unit, Single-Family Attached. Single family units that are attached to other units with adjoining walls extending from ground to roof that separate it from other adjoining structures and form a property line. Each unit has its own heating system. Housing Unit, Single-Family Detached. Single family units that are detached from any other house with open space on all four sides. Hydrocarbons (HC). These gases represent unburned and wasted fuel. They come from incomplete combustion of gasoline and from evaporation of petroleum fuels. Impervious Surface. Any material which reduces or prevents absorption of water into land. Indirect Source. Any structure or installation which attracts an activity which cre- ates emissions of pollutants. For example, a major employment center, a shopping center, an airport, or a stadium can all be considered to be indirect sources. Infdl. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant lots in a built-up area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits. Infiltration. The introduction of underground water, such as groundwater, into wastewater collection systems. Infiltration results in increased wastewater flow lev- els. Infrastructure. Permanent utility installations, including roads, water supply lines, sewage collection pipes, and power and communications lines. Intersection Capacity. The maximum number of vehicles that has a reasonable expectation of passing through an intersection in one direction during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. JPB. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Operates Caltrain. DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN viii Jobs-Housing Balance. Total jobs divided by total housing units. A more appro- priate measure is the jobs/employed resident ratio, which divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of employed residents (i.e. people who live in the area, but may work anywhere). A ratio of 1.0 typically indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net out-com- mute. LAFCO. Local Agency Formation Commission of San Mateo County. Landslide. The downslope movement of soil and rock. Land Use. The purpose or activity for which a piece of land or its buildings is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is oCCupied or maintained. Level of Service (LOS). The different operating conditions which occur in a lane or roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes. A qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors such as special travel time, interruptions, free- dom to maneuver, driver comfort, and convenience, and indirectly, safety and operating cost. Levels of service are usually described by a letter rating system of A through F, with LOS A indicating stable traffic flow with little or no delays and LOS F indicating excessive delays and jammed traffic conditions. Liquefaction. A sudden large decrease in the shearing resistance of a cohesionless soil, caused by a collapse of the structure by shock or strain, and associated with a sudden but temporary increase of the pore fluid pressure. Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). A permitted solid waste facility which sorts or separates, by hand or by use of machinery, solid wastes or materials for the pur- poses of recycling, composting, or transformation. Maximum Credible Earthquake. The largest Richter magnitude (M) seismic event that appears to be reasonably capable of occurring under the conditions of the presently known geological framework. Mitigation. A specific action taken to reduce environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are required as a component of an environmental impact report (EIR) if significant impacts are identified. Mitigation Measure. Action taken to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts. GLOSSARY Mitigation includes: avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitat- ing, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance during the life of the action; and compen- sating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environ- ments. Mobile Home. A structure, transportable in one or more sections which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit, with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. Mobile Sources. A source of air pollution that is related to transportation vehicles, such as automobiles or buses. Neighborhood Shopping Centers. A small retail center with up to 120,000 square feet of space on an eight-12 acre site serving a trading area population of 5,000 to 15,000. The principal tenant typically is a supermarket. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). A reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of the combus- tion process and is a key to the ozone production process. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Chemical compounds containing nitrogen and oxygen; reacts with volatile organic compounds, in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone. It is also a major precursor to acid rain. Noise Contour(s). Isolines (a line on a map or chart along which there is a con- stant value) representing noise, measured in decibels. See also Community Noise Equivalent Level. Non-point Source. A pollutant source introduced from dispersed points and lack- ing a single, identifiable origin. Examples include automobile emissions or urban run-off. NPDES. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Open Space. Any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use as defined in the General Plan or designated on ix DI;~,FT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN X a local, regional, or state open-space plan as one of the four types of open space defined by state planning law. Oxidant. The production of photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen. Ozone. A compound consisting of three oxygen atoms, that is the primary con- stituent of smog. It is formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. Ozone can initiate damage to the lungs as well as damage to trees, crops, and materials. There is a natural layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere, which shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. PM-10. The current standard for measuring the amount of solid or liquid matter suspended in the atmosphere ("particulate matter including dust"). Refers to the amount of particulate matter over 10 micrometers in diameter. The smaller PM- 10 particles penetrate to the deeper portions of the lung, affecting sensitive popu- lation groups such as children and people with respiratory diseases. Peak Hour Traffic. The number of vehicles passing over a designated section of a street during the busiest one-hour period during a 24-hour period. Pedestrian-oriented Development. Development designed with an emphasis on the street sidewalk and on pedestrian access to the building, rather than an auto access and parking areas. Percent Slope. A common way of expressing the steepness of the slope of terrain, which is derived by dividing the change in elevation by the horizontal distance tra- versed. For example, an increase of 20 feet elevation over a 100-foot distance is a 20 percent slope. Planning Area. The City and the land outside its boundaries that bear relation to its planning. See Figure 1-2 for a graphic representation of South San Franciscofs Planning Area. Plume. The volume of air, surface water,' or groundwater space containing any of the substance emitted from a point source. Point Source. A source of pollutants which may be traced to a discrete point of GLOSSARY emission. Precursor. A chemical compound that leads to the formation of a pollutant. Reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides are precursors of photochemical oxi- dants. Rare Species. A condition in which a species or subspecies, although not current- ly threatened with extinction, exists in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if the quality of its environment worsens. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Classes of hydrocarbons (olefins, substituted aro- matics, and aldehydes) that are likely to react with ozone and nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere to form photochemical smog. Reclaimed Wastewater. Treated sewage or excess irrigation water with chlorine or other chemical disinfectants added. Recycling. Any of a variety of processes whereby waste is separated for reuse or reprocessing into a useful form. Response Time. The amount of time for an emergency service response, measured from the time of the distress call until arrival on the scene. Retention Area. A pond, pool, lagoon, or basin used for the storage of water runoff. Richter Sc.~le. A logarithmic scale developed in !935136 by Dr. Charles E Richter and Dr. Beno Gutenberg to measure earthquake magnitude by the amount of ener- gy released, as opposed to earthquake intensity as determined by local effects on people, structures, and earth materials. Right-of-Way. A strip of land acquired by reservation, dedication, forced dedica- tion, prescription or condemnation, and intended to be occupied or actually occu- pied by a road, crosswalk, railroad, electric transmission lines, oil or gas pipeline, water line, sanitary storm sewer or other similar use. Riparian. Pertaining to the bank of a natural course of water, whether seasonal or annual. Riparian habitat is defined by the surrounding vegetation or presence of known wildlife movement pathways; it borders or surrounds a waterway. xi ~.,~r:T SOu ~ r~ SAN rKANCISrC(J GENEI~L PLAN xii Sedimentation. Process by which material suspended in water is deposited in a body of water. Sensitive Receptors. Members of the population who are most sensitive to air quality include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. The term "sensitive receptors" can also refer to the land use categories where these people live or spend a significant amount of time. Such areas include residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. SFIA. San Francisco International Airport. Siltation. The process of silt deposition. Silt is a loose sedimentary material com- posed of finely divided particles of soil or rock, often carried in cloudy suspension in water. SMARA. California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. SMCFCD. San Mateo County Flood Control District. Solid Waste. Unwanted or discarded material, including garbage, with insufficient liquid content to be free flowing. Source Separation. A process in which solid waste materials are produced as an autonomous waste product which are stored separately at the site of generation, or are physically separated from all other solid wastes into recyclable, compostable, or other fractions at the site of generation. Sphere of Influence (SOI). The ultimate service area of the City of South San Francisco as established by San Mateo County LAFCO. SSFUSD. South San Francisco Unified School District Stationary Source. A source of air pollution that is not mobile, such as a heating plant or an exhaust stack from a laboratory. STOPP. San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. Subdivision. The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into two or more lots, tracts, parcels, or other divisions of land for sale, development, or lease. GLOSSARY Subsidence. The gradual sinking of land as a result of natural or man-made caus- es. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). A heavy, pungent, colorless air pollutant formed primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels. It is a respiratory irritant, especially for asthmat- ics and is the major precursor to the formation of acid rain. Threatened Species, Galifornia. A species of animal or plant is endangered when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy form one or more causes, induding loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, preda- tion, competition, disease, or other factors: or when although not presently threat- ened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers that it may become endangered if its environment worsens. A species of animal or plant shall be presumed to be rare or endangered as it is listed in: Sections 670.2 or 670.5, Tide 14, California Code of Regulations; or Tide 50, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 17.11 or 17.12 pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act as rare, threatened, or endangered. Threatened Species, Federal. A species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. TOT. Transient Occupancy Tax. Levied on those staying in overnight facilities such as hotels, to help defray provision of City services related to the occupancy. Trip Generation. The number of vehide trip ends associated with (i.e., produced by) a particular land use or traffic study site. A trip end is defined as a single vehi- cle movement. Roundtrips consist of two trip ends. Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Measures designed to reduce demand for automobile trips, typically focused on peak-periods. Transportation Systems Management (TSM). Measures designed to reduce peak- period 'auto traffic by making a more efficient use of existing resources, and emphasizing transit, signal coordination, ridesharing, and non-automobile alter- natives. TDM is a subset of TSM. URM. Unreinforced masonry buildings or structures. xiii IJKAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENEI~L PLAN Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). A measure of both the volume and extent of motor vehicle operation; the total number of vehicle miles traveled within a specified geo- graphical area (whether the entire country or a smaller area) over a given period of time. Viewshed. The geographic area from which a site is visible. A collection of view- points. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOcs). A group of chemicals that react in the atmosphere with nitrogen oxides in the presence of heat ,and sunlight, to...form. ozone: does not include methane and other compounds determined by EPA to have negligible photochemical reactivity. Examples of VOCs include gasoline fumes and oil-based paints. Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (V/C). In reference to public services or transporta- tion, ratio of peak hour use to capacity. Wetlands. An area at least periodically wet or flooded; where the water table stands at or above the land surface (bogs and marshes). Also those areas that are inun- dated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration suffi- cient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands general- ly include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wildlife Corridors. A natural corridor, such as an undeveloped ravine, that is fre- quently used by wildlife to travel from one area to another. Zoning District. A specifically delineated area on a zoning map within which reg- ulations and requirements uniformly govern the use, placement, spacing, and size of buildings, open spaces, and other facilities. Zoning Ordinance. The City ordinance which divides South San Francisco into districts and establishes regulations governing the use, placement, spacing, and size of buildings, open spaces, and other facilities. xiv EXHIBIT B CHAPTER 2: LAND USE 2.2 LAND USE FRAMEWORK (Page 2-5) The land use framework of the General Plan is guided by several key principles: Conservation of the existing land use character of the city's residential neighborhoods. Promotion of Downtown as the focus of activity, including through increased residential oppommities. Policies that promote development standards that build on Downtown's traditional urban pattern are identified. Integration of land use with planned BART extension, by providing a new transit-oriented village around the South San Francisco BART station, to take advantage of regional access that will result from extension of BART to the city. Provision of selected areas in the city where industrial uses, many of which fulfill a regional objective and are related to the SFIA, can continue and expand. Encouragement of mixed-use redevelopment along principal corridors, such as E1 Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Encouragement of a new mixed-use neighborhood center at Linden Avenue/Hillside Boulevard to increase accessibility of Paradise Valley/Terrabay residents to convenience shopping. Designation of new Business and Technology Park district to provide oppommities for continued evolution of the city's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/ distribution to high technology and biotechnology. Encouragement of employee serving amenities to provide identity and cater to the lunchtime and quality of life needs of the growing high technology and biotechnology employment base in the East of 101 area. Provision of a new live/work overlay district adjacent to downtown to provide a broader mix of housing oppommities and promote small-business and multimedia incubation. ~ Designation of a new Business Commercial district, that will include hotels principally serving airport clientele, and regional commercial uses clustered along Dubuque Avenue, Oyster Point, South Airport and Gateway boulevards. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DOWNTOWN (Page 2-16) Downtown Residential Downtown Low Density Residential. Single family (single and detached) residential development with densities ranging from 5.1 to 15.0 units per net acre. Multifamily development is not permitted. OFFICE (Page 2-17) This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices in locations proximate to BART or CalTrain stations. Support commercial uses are permitted, subject to limitations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Site planning and building design shall ensure pedestrian comfort, and streets shall be fronted by active uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. These bonus standards are shown in Table 2.2-2. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instances where existing buildings are rehabilitated for office use and are unable meet the structured parking or specified design standard criteria. However, the maximums (with incentives, is stipulated in Table 2.2-2) shall not be exceeded. COMMERCIAL (Page 2-18) Business Commercial This category is intended for business and professional offices, and visitor service establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional commercial centers, restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropriate standards. This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards, and South Spruce corridor. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments with low employment intensity, or for development meeting specific transportation .demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria. GUIDING POLICIES (Page 2-32) 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES (Page 2-33) 2-1-4 Examine the potential for establishing specific criteria to implement development intensity bonus standards, as established in Table 2.2-3. 2-I-5 Elements of this include Transportation Demand Management (TDM) standards, off-site improvements, and design standards to be elaborated upon in the Zoning OrdinanCe. In addition, incentives to promote structured parking for the Office district should also be established. Examine the potential for establishing performance-based standards for industrial development to minimize resulting impacts. These would address issues such as noise, glare, odor, air quality, and screening of parking and loading areas. Establishment of these is especially critical where industrial uses come in contact with other uses, such as the Mayfair, Orange Park, and downtown neighborhoods near Lindenville. 2-1-12 Undertake comprehensive efforts to promote development of childcare facilities. Efforts should include: Permitting childcare centers in all districts; Developing criteria for incentives for childcare facilities, as part of bonuses for specified TDM programs (Policy 2-1-5); Exploring the feasibility of assisting child care providers and developers to identify and develop potential sites; and Preparing a childcare start-up guide. , Regulations would also need to be in accordance with criteria for family day care homes established in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.6, Division 2 of the California Health and Safety Code. 2-I-18 Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade .should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum. Most of the level properties in the City have already been developed. Many of the remaining vacant properties contain steep slopes which exceed 30 percent grade. Many of these steep slopes are visually prominent and have unstable conditions. Such slopes should, therefore, be substantially preserved in the natural state. 2-1-19 Senior Citizen housing projects may be allowed to be constructed to a maximum density of 50 units/acre and off-street parking may be provided at a ratio lower than that which is otherwise required. 2-1-20 The benchmark density (units per net acre of land) shall be the number of dwelling units proposed on a Specific site for each 43,560 square feet of raw land exclusive of land allocated for streets (public) and submerged land. When the average slope of a site is between 20% and 30%, the City may reduce the net density in order to of a residential project up to fifty percent (50%) of the benchmark density in order to discourage grading and the destruction of natural hillside environment. Residential Land Use Category Maximum Benchmark Density (Units~Xlet Acre) Comparable Zoning District Low Density 8 R- 1 Medium Density 18 R-2 High Density 30 R-3 2-1-21: 2-1-22: "Initiate a nexus analysis with the intent of creating a revenue source or improvements to be used to provide new child care facilities and programs." "Initiate a study to increase provision of public art throughout the community through imposition of either on-site improvements or in-lieu fees." CHAPTER 3: pLANNING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.1 DOWNTOWN GUIDING POLICIES: DOWNTOWN (Page 3-6) 3.l-G-1 Promote Downtown's vitality and economic well-being, and its presence as the city's center. 3.1-G-2 · 3.1-G-3 3.1-G-4 Encourage development of Downtown. as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use actiVity center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types and densities Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized sites. Enhance linkages between Downtown and transit centers, and increased street connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: DOWNTOWN (Page 3-7) Policy Revisions: 3.1-I-6 Work with the Peninsula Joint Corridors Board and other agencies to develop a new multi-modal transportation hub on the southeast side of the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. Encourage the inclusion of a child care facility near the multi- modal hub. See Figure 4-5 of Chapter 4 for a conceptual plan of the multi-modal hub. 3.1-I-12 Explore the feasibility of expanding the Downtown Central Redevelopment District boundaries to encompass sites designated Downtown Commercial, and Downtown' High and Medium Density Residential. This will require ektension of the current redevelopment boundaries west to. Orange Avenue, and expansion along the northern Linden Avenue corridor. CHAPTER 3' PLANNING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.2 LINDENVILLE For policies related to the Spruce Corridor and the San Brtmo BART Station area, see Section 3.3. GUIDING POLICIES: LINDENVILLE (Page 3-14) 3.2-G-1 Maintain the industrial character in the area from roughly the Spruce Avenue corridor in the west to San Mateo Avenue in the east, and south of Railroad Avenue to the. San Bruno BART station. 3.2-G-2 Develop new streets and through connections to facilitate truck movement; improve access to U.S. 101, and provide better connectivity between the proposed San Bnmo BART station and Downtown. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: LINDENVILLE (Page 3-14) Land Use 3.2-I-3 Establish a loft-style live/work overlay district for the area within the P-I and M-1 zones west of U.S. 101, subject to environmental and land use compatibility. Establish specific performance-based requirements and use compatibility standards for the district to ensure that such development does not limit or impinge upon uses consistent with the underlying zoning. 3.2-I-5 Recognize the Golden Gate Produce Terminal as a conforming use within the General Plan Regional Commercial designation. Ensure that existing airport-oriented parking facilities located on Produce Avenue, as well as office, manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses located on the east side of San Mateo Avenue continue to be recognized as conforming uses in the Zoning Ordinance. 3.2-I-6 Ensure that any future retail uses in the Regional Commercial area at the Victory Avenue/U.S. 101 interchange do not compete with Downtown establishments by permitting only a limited number of smaller stores, restaurants, and offices that could otherwise be located in Downtown. Parking, Loading, and Streetscape 3.2-I-9 Explore the feasibility of creating a Lindenville Parking District to help alleviate problems of on-street track parking. Require existing uses to conform to parking, loading, and landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance by either meeting the standards outright, or participating in the Parking District program. 3.2-I-10 Prepare and implement a streetscape improvement plan for South Linden Avenue and South Spruce Avenue that recognize the streets' role as the connector between the San Bnmo BART Station and Downtown. The San Bruno BART station, south of Lindenville, will be exactly one mile away from the center of downtown, whereas the South San Francisco station will be at a two-mile distance. Thus, Lindenville streets, especially South Linden and South Spruce Avenues, are likely to become important gateways into the city in general, and downtown in particular. These considerations should be reflected in streetscape, signage and other urban design aspects. Components of the streetscape plan could include emphatic street trees that help visually link Downtown with the BART station, street lighting to ensure pedestrian safety, under-grounding of overhead utilities, construction of sidewalks, pedestrian crosswalks, and bike lanes if feasible. 3.2-1-11 Do not permit any track parking along the new Victory Avenue extension, and along South Linden, Victory and South Maple Avenues. Transportation and Goods Movement 3.2-1-12 Minimize any new curb-cuts on South Maple, Victory and South Linden Avenues; encourage site access from side streets wherever possible. 3.2-I-13 Establish design and development standards for frontage along South Linden, South Spruce and Victory Avenues that include: · Requirements for landscaping; · Visual buffeting of loading and parking areas; · Requirements for windows; and · Setbacks. 3.2-I-15 Explore the feasibility of requiring new development in the Lindenville area to pay its fair share for any interchange, and other improvements in the area. 3.3 SOUTH SPRUCE CORRIDOR/SAN BRUNO BART STATION AREA Area A: North Corridor (Page 3-19) 3.3-I-6 Do not permit any new eating and drinking establishments. Area B: South and Central Corridor (Page 3-22) 3.3-I-8 Allow a full range of Business Commercial uses. Permit eating and drinking establishments, but no new drive-through operations. San Bruno BART Station Area (Page 3-22) 3.3-I-12 Explore the feasibility of undertaking a redevelopment program which phases out the industrial, warehousing, and distribution uses in the area. 3.3-I-12A Encourage mixed use development (including residential) on sites designated for Business Commercial or Office uses near the San Bnmo BART Station area that are within the 65 dB CNEL comour, provided the interior of a structure meets the standard 45 dB noise requirement. CHAPTER 3: PLANNING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.4 EL CAMINO REAL (Page 3-24) El Camino Real (State Rome 82), was the first highway and automobile rome through the Peninsula. It developed parallel to the former Southern Pacific tracks (owned by Union Pacific) that linked the "railroad suburbs" of San Mateo County to San Francisco. The corridor continues to be an important movement route through the Peninsula. The downtowns of most of the County's cities--including San Mateo, Burlingame, Redwood City, Belmont, Atherton, San Bruno and Millbme--are located on or adjacent to either E1 Camino Real or the Union Pacific tracks. GUIDING POLICIES: EL CAMINO REAL 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 POLICIES: EL CAMINO REAL (Page 3-28) BART Station Area (Page 3-29) 3.4-1-3 In partnership with property owners, area residents, and BART and other agencies, develop the approximately eight-acre McLellan (formerly Hickey) Boulevard Extension area (north of the BART station between El Camino Real and Mission Boulevard; see Figure 3-4) as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses. 3.4-1-4 Permit big-box or other regional commercial activities north of the Pedestrian-oriented center, but not in the center. 3.4-1-5 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. 3.4-1-6 Prepare a focused plan for public improvements that includes' · Streets and other infrastructure improvements; and Sidewalk design and construction within a 1/2-mile of the BART station to integrate the station with the surroundings. 3.4-1-7 Work with BART and other agencies to ensure that the proposed plan for station area improvements includes: Direct pedestrian connections and access to the E1 Camino High School and direct pedestrian connection at the terminus of Evergreen Drive to the terminal; These connections are currently not incorporated in the station-area layout. As currently designed, pedestrian connections will occur through a kiss-and-ride parking lot. Continuation of the two-mile long bikeway (included in Section 4-3' Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking) at the surface of BART tracks directly to the terminal building/bicycle parking area; and Concessions fronting the entire northern frontage (which faces the plaza) of the parking structure. 3.4-1-8 Require any new development/redevelopmem within 1/2-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 imensities where specified otherwise in the General Plan. 3.4-1-9 Ensure that the development program for the (approximately 2.5 acre) northwest part of the block that includes the BART station includes: Mix of uses, with retail and other concessions at the ground floor,, and a required minimum of 100 housing units at upper floors; and Active retail uses/concessions along the north, east, and south faces of the property. 3.4-1-10 Ensure that the development program for the former Macy's warehouse site to includes: Active retail/concession uses along McLellan (formerly Hickey) Boulevard Extension (fronting the northern part of the street); Intensive residential and/or office uses at upper floors within 400 feet of McLellan (formerly Hickey) Boulevard; and A variety of commercial uses in the portion of the site that extends beyond 400 feet of McLellan (formerly Hickey) Boulevard. 3.4-1-11 Work with BART on the potential for joint development of the property east of the former Macy's warehouse site, and north of McLellan (formerly Hickey) Boulevard Extension and BART right-of-way adjacent, with transit-oriented uses. Explore the feasibility for joint development other areas. South San Francisco High School/Baden (Page 3-35) 3.4-1-17 Encourage any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses on the east side of E1 Camino Real in this area in the form of mixed-use development, with retail/office uses at the ground level and residential uses at upper levels. Require development be oriented to E1 Camino Real, and the street fronted by active uses. CHAPTER 3: PLANNING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.5 EAST OF 101 (Page 3-36) GUIDING POLICIES: EAST OF 101 AREA (Page 3-37) 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses. 3.5-G-2 Direct and actively participate in shaping the design and urban character of the East of 101 area. 3.5-G-3 Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology and research and development uses. 3.5-G-4 Use the East of 101 Area Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan policies. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: EAST OF 101 AREA (Page 3-37) Policy revisions: 3.5-1-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area. This has been a long-standing City policy. Although virtually the entire East of 101 area lies outside the projected Year 2006 65CNEL airport noise contour, the area is nonetheless sensitive both from noise and safety perspectives. The 1991 Agreement for Aircraft Noise Mitigation between the City and the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) stipulates that if South San Francisco approves policies or new development allowing noise sensitive uses to be established east of U.S. 101, despite any stated objections on the part of SFIA, the City will reimburse all noise mitigation funding to SFIA. However, with the Agreement set to lapse in August 2001, South San Francisco could permit noise-sensitive uses to locate in the East of 101 area after this time without forfeiting the monies provided the airport for noise retro-fitting in the city. However, residential uses are incompatible with the existing and emerging uses in the area. 3.5-I-8 Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, support commercial establishments such as dry-cleaners, to meet the needs of the employees in the East of 101 area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or technology campuses. 3.5-1-9 Examine the feasibility of developing a shoreline park at the terminus of East Grand Avenue. This park will be funded through the standard of 0.5 acre of parkland per 1,000 employees established in the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element. Consideration should be given to meeting both active and passive lunch-time recreation needs of employees. 3.5-I-10 Prepare a new Concept Plan for the Oyster Point Marina/Park. Work with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to reconcile the differing designations for the area in the City's General plan and BCDC's park priority use in the San Francisco Bay Plan. BCDC carries out its regulatory process in accordance with the Bay Plan policies and maps, which guide the protection of the Bay and its marshes, managed wetlands, salt ponds, and shoreline. The Bay Plan was last updated in 1998, 'and retains a park Priority designation for the site, reflecting a land use designation in South San Francisco's General Plan that was changed many years ago. The General Plan calls for the Oyster Point Marina area to be a combination of Coastal Commercial and park uses. Although BCDC's jurisdiction and penrdtting authority embrace only a 100-foot shoreline band, the City should work with BCDC to achieve consistent designations in the Bay Plan and the General Plan. CHAPTER 3: PLANNING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3.6 AVALON IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: AVALON 3.6-I-5 In the evem that the Country Club area is annexed, allow existing conforming animal uses to continue. This can be accomplished by creating and applying a zone to the area or by other appropriate means. 3.8 PARADISE VALLEY/SIGN HILL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: PARADISE VALLEY/TERRABAY (Page 3-56) 3.8-I-2 A Substantial portion of the north side of Sign Hill should be preserved as public or private open space. 3.8-1-3 The amount of development allowed on the north side of Sign Hill should be limited (discretionary at 1 unit per acre maximum). Excessive grading of this portion of the hill or clustering of development should not be permitted in the furore. The north side of Sign Hill contains more than sixty acres of steep sloping land. A recem study indicates that the endangered Mission Blue Butterfly may exist there. The south side of Sign Hill is being improved as a city park with trails, picnic areas and landscaping. 3.11 WESTBOROUGH (Page 3-61) GUIDING POLICY: WESTBOROUGH 3.1 l-G-2 Designate Westborough Boulevard near Skyline Boulevard as a City "Gateway" area into the city and encourage development the type of development that would enhance a gateway image. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: WESTBOROUGH 3.11-I-2 Require all new development, and any rehabilitation of existing development along Gellert Boulevard north of Westborough/Gellert to adhere to the Urban Design Plan dated October 23, 1991. Undertake a design review of any proposal in the area for conformance with the recommendations and guidelines contained in the plan. Exceptions may be made to exempt minor projects from this requirement if such proposals do not conflict with the overall goals of the Urban Design Plan and are found to further specific goals of the City's General Plan, subject to the approval of the City Council. 3.11-I-3 A Specific Plan, or a similar comprehensive plan which encompasses the remaining vacant properties, adopted by the City Council, shall be required for the developmem of the property on the west side of Gellert Boulevard. Exceptions may be made to exempt minor projects from this requirement if such proposals do not conflict with the overall goals of the Urban Design Plan and are found to further specific goals of the City's General Plan, subject to the approval of the City Council. CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: STREET SYSTEM AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE (Page 4-16) Street System and Improvements 4.2-I-2 Undertake street improvements identified in figures 4-1 and 4-2. Improvements identified include: Connection between Hillside Boulevard and E1Camino Real near the BART station (see Chapter 3 for policies for pedestrian-oriented nature of the segment near the BART station). Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue connection. This short connection will relieve pressure off the Chesmut Avenue/E1 Camino Real intersection. Signal coordination will help to ensure that El Carnino Real traffic flow is not impeded. Mission Road extension from Chestnut Avenue to South Linden Avenue extension. This will be on the BART fight-of-way. The General Plan proposes additional uses for the right-of-way--a bikeway and a linear park as well--a coordinated design strategy and joint efforts by the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments will be needed.. Myrtle Avenue extension to South Linden Avenue. This will mn parallel (on the north side) of the former Zellerbach Paper plant. Alignment study will be needed, and some small existing structures may need to be removed. South Maple Avenue extension to Noor Avenue at Huntington Avenue. While this connection is short and within the City limits, it may be viable only at the time of redevelopment of the site along Browning Way (designated for high- intensity office developmem, as it is adjacent to the San Bruno BART Station). This connection should be a condition of redevelopment of sites in the area. South Linden Avenue extension to Sneath Lane. This would dramatically increase access to Lindenville and enable tracks to get to 1-380 without going through Downtown. This connection is also extremely critical to ensure connection between Downtown and the (San Bruno) BART Station. Railroad Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue, following the general aligmnent of an abandoned railroad fight-of-way. This would be the first non-freeway related connection between the areas east and west of U.S. 101. The street will go under U.S. 101. Either a depressed intersection at Railroad Avenue or an elevated section that goes above the Caltrain tracks would be needed. This will probably be an expensive improvement ($15-20 million), requiting detailed studies. However, it is expected to accommodate more than 20,000 trips per day and existing structures will not need to be removed. Consideration should be given to providing a bikeway in conjunction with the street design. East Grand Avenue extension from its existing terminus near the Fuller O'Brien property to the southern end of Point San Bnmo near Genentech. Victory Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to S. Airport Boulevard. This will need to be undertaken in conjunction with development of the regional commercial facilities designated on the General Plan Diagram. New interchange at Victory Avenue and U.S. 101. This will provide direct connection between Lindenville and U.S. 101, and be the primary track ingress/egress point in South San Francisco, obviating the need for tracks to negotiate Downtown streets. As with Victory Avenue extension, development will need to occur in conjunction with development of regional commercial facilities. Produce Avenue extension to Shaw Road. This will mn parallel to U.S. 101 on the western side. 4.2-1-7 4.2-1-9 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for improvements required in the East of 101 and the Lindenville areas. Feasibility of an impact fee for the East of 101 area is being assessed as part of the area traffic study that is currently underway. Where appropriate, consider upfronting portions of improvement costs where the City's economic development interests may be served. This technique may be appropriate for improvements such as the Victory Avenue extension, the Railroad Avenue extension and U.S. 101 interchange to facilitate development of a regional commercial center, sales tax revenues from which (potentially in excess of$1 million per year) could help retire the improvement debt. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: TRANSIT (Page 4-36) 4.4-I-2 Ensure that detailed plans for the multi-modal center include: Direct pedestrian access from Downtown; Shuttle drop-offs and pedestrian access from businesses east of the station; SamTrans bus and taxi drop-off patrons from bus routes along Airport Boulevard; and Clear visibility from Downtown and Grand Avenue. 4.4-1-4 Encourage SamTrans to increase the shuttle or bus-service to the East of 101 area to better serve the area's growing employment base. This area is a major employment center and has the largest employers in North San Mateo County. SamTrans has been reluctant to provide service because of a lack of perceived ridership, which may change as the area continues its growth and employment intensities increase. CHAPTER 5: PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICES IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: PARKS AND RECREATION (Page 5-10) Residential Areas Southwood School (Baden Continuation High School). This site, provides an ideal opportunity for the City to jointly use all or a part of this property. Measuring four acres, the site is located near the E1 Camino Real and is adjacent the California Golf and Country Club. This site is in an area with parkland deficiency and located within a half-mile of several new residential development sites in the El Camino Real corridor. A Head Start program facility could be included on the site. Colma Creek Linear Park. The stretch of Colma Creek between Orange Memorial Park and Spruce Avenue is currently being developed as a linear park. 5.1 5.1-I-8 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Improve the accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill Park and the bayfrom. Appropriate departments in the City should study issues of access, safety, and protection of surrounding neighborhoods in conjunction with enhanced access programs to assure greater use of Sign Hill Park does not creme unacceptable impacts to surrounding areas. 5.2 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES GUIDING POLICIES: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (Page 5-19) 5.2-G-2 Work with the SSFUSD and local neighborhoods on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational purposes. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES (Page 5-20) 5.2-I-2 Investigate creation and application of a single-purpose school zone to all school sites. CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (Page 6-8) Programs Target Strategies and Investments (Page 6-13) 6-I-8 Complete a planning and market feasibility study of the development of a regional- serving retail center in the South San Francisco, as indicated on the Land Use Diagram, and if feasible facilitate the required infra-stmcture improvements. The Land Use Diagram designates the area west of U.S. 101 along San Mateo Avenue as Regional Commercial. This site has excellent visibility and with improvements would provide excellent highway access. While South San Francisco has regional retail facilities, a regional commercial center does not exist in South San Francisco. A preliminary assessment conducted as part of the South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues (1997) indicates that the market area could most likely absorb such retail development in the future. The lack of such a facility in South San Francisco means that city residents must drive to San Bruno, Colma, San Francisco, San Mateo, or Palo Alto to shop. A regional commercial center at the location designated on the Land Use Diagram would require the extension of Victory Avenue to U.S. 101, and the construction of a Victory Avenue/U.S. 101 interchange. The cost of the Victory Avenue extension is estimated at $17 million; the U.S. 101 interchange at $25-$35 million. In total these improvements would cost $42-$52 million, a major share of which would likely have to be borne by the City. The net revenue generated by a regional commercial development on this site would be approximately $1.2 million per year, which is retained by the City, assuming a sales tax revenue of $29,600 per acre for a 40 acre site. Additional jobs and sales tax revenues would also result. Because Lindenville businesses would also benefit from direct access to U.S. 101, the City could encourage their participation as well. 6-I-9 Work with hotel establishments in the East of 101 area to establish a Hotel District Program for the purposes ofj oint marketing, visitor services coordination, conference promotion, and complementary activity attraction to encourage a diverse and vibrant activity area; identify any infrastructure improvements necessary to enhance the economic strength of the District. South San Francisco currently has an inventory or over 1,500 rooms~the majority of which are located in the East of 101 area~and a visitor services employment base of around 1,800. By Plan buildout, the number of rooms could reach 4,000 and 6-1-10 employment more than double'to 3,900. Interest in South San Francisco hotel development is high This interest is the result of the city' s proximity to San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) and the expansion of that facility, as well as significant growth in the biotech/R&D industry in the East of 101 area. The clustering of hotel facilities in the East of 101 area is ideal ~%r the -establishment of a Hotel District Program, such as for Hotel Circle in San Diego. The program should include: Joint marketing o f District resources and advantages to potential visitors, including an Interact presence; Centralized reservations for the District and Conference Center, including online booking or links to individual hotel sites; Coordinated visitor services, such as a District shuttle system to SFIA and Downtown, discount programs, promotion of District resources for guests, visitor information center, etc.; Identification of complementary activities to serve District visitors such as Oyster Point Marina; Design criteria to promote high quality, pedestrian-friendly development, unified signage to direct visitors to nearby services and facilities, and extensive landscaping; Joint funding of Conference Center expansion and child care programs to serve hotel employees; and Identification of necessary infrastructure improvements to enhance the District. Given the high fiscal revenue-generating potential ofhotelsm$112,500 per acre per year for the General Fund on an average cost basis--the City should work closely with the hotel industry to promote growth bYreserving key parcels in the District that offer high levels of highway accessibility and visibility. The City and industry should also work to encourage a wide variety of complementary activities, including restaurants, retail and convenience stores, business and personal services, banks, theaters, fitness centers, child care facilities, etc. The combination of high quality, pedestrian-friendly development and concentrated complementary activities will ensure a vibrant and diverse Hotel District that is attractive to guests, East of 101 employees during the day, and city residents in the evenings. Establish an inventory of industry clusters in South San Francisco in order to identify locational characteristics and determine the effects of City policy and regulation on the operation and continued success of these clusters; work closely with industry contacts to identify specific expansion and land use needs to be addressed. Industry clusters may be described as the vertical and horizontal integration of frans. In other words, the clustering of certain activities is largely a function of locational characteristics: some advantage must exist for clustering to occur. For instance, the proximity of like activities may be advantageous in some industries; the proximity of complementary activities may be advantageous in others. The identification of industry clusters could result from the implementation of the computerized central information system program outlined in policy. 6-I-4. The clusters could then be mapped as part of the system integration with the City's GIS. The identification of industry clusters would make it possible to evaluate City policy and regulation to determine their effect on the operation and continued success or phased elimination of these clusters. Such an evaluation should include the General Plan, as well as the various regulations and standards included in the Zoning Ordinance, such as conformity, lot area, parking and loading. The industry cluster evaluation should determine industry site selection and expansion requirements. The high-tech industry demands high amenity areas that offer physical (parks, common areas, plazas, and open space) and service advantages. As part of the efforts of this Plan to creme a campus environment in East of 101, the City should actively encourage the development of a high amenity campus-like developments. The type of amenities incorporated in a campus-like development could include local serving convenience stores, ATM machines, eating and drinking establishments, child care facilities, fimess centers, and laundry services. The location of commercial uses in the East of 101 area should not have a negative impact on Downtown business. Identification of industry clusters would also help the City determine which clusters should be targeted for economic develoPment, based on their current contribution to the local economy and potential for growth in the future. Targeting of certain clusters could result in the creation of a specific planning, infrastructure improvement, or marketing program to retain and expand existing cluster businesses, or to attract new businesses to the cluster. The City must work closely with industry contacts to ensure · the program meets the needs of the industry. Acquisition, Land Assembly, and Redevelopment (Page 6-18) 6-I-16 Maximize the City's public financing tools-and consider oppommities for enhancement in order to fund the various economic development initiatives outlined in this Element. CHAPTER 8: HEALTH AND SAFETY GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS 8.1-I-2 Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. 'Grading should be kept to a minimum. 8.7 AIRCRAFT SAFTEY GUIDING POLICIES' AIRCRAFT SAFETY 8.7-G-1. Minimize the risk of life and property from aircraft accidents in South San Francisco. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: AIRCRAFT SAFETY 8.7-I-1. Do not permit land uses that pose potential hazards to air navigation in the vicinity of' SFIA. These land uses include the following: Any use that would direct a steady or flashing light of white, red, green, or amber color toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in straight final approach toward a landing, other than FAA-approved navigational lights; Any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following take off or engaged in a Straight f'mal approach toward a landing; Any use that would generate smoke or rising columns of air; Any use that would attract large concentrations of birds within approach and climbout areas; and Any use that would engage electrical interference that may interfere with aircraft · ' n" communications or aircraft ~nstmmentat~o .