Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-19 e-packetSPECIAL JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005 6:30 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City of South San Francisco City Council will hold a Special Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission on Wednesday, the 19th day of January, 2005, at 6:30 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call o Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 6:30 p.m. 4. Study Session: a) Joint meeting with Planning Commission: 1) Oak Avenue BRDGE Housing Project 2) Park Station Lofts Residential Project, 1410 E1 Camino Real 8:00 p.m. 5. Closed Session: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): conference with legal counsel - existing litigation, Kotobuki Trading Company, Inc., et al. v. City of South San Francisco, et al. 6. Adjournment CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 13, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Coun%i Plan~sion Assistant City Manager, Marry V~r~l~k~/n~_\~ Joint City Council-Planning Com 'rn~sion Study Session- ' This memorandum transmits two draft staff reports for the joint study session scheduled for January 19, 2005, at 6:30 p.m., to be held at the Council Chambers of the Municipal Services Building. The first item to be heard is the proposed development by BRIDGE Housing Corporation for the vacant site owned by San Mateo County and located at the corner of Oak and Grand Avenues. The City Council Housing Subcommittee has referred the revised design concept for this affordable 43 unit high density residential development to the joint study session for review and discussion. The second item on the agenda is the Park Station Lofts Residential Project proposed for 1410 El Camino Real, by Urban Housing Group. The purpose of the study session will be to introduce the proposed 99 unit high density residential project which is located in the BART Transit Village Zoning District and to provide comments. This packet contains staff reports for each project, drawings and other materials for your review in advance of the study session. At the study session, applicants will present their respective project and be available for questions from City Council and Planning Commissioners. Presentation boards will also be available at the study session with larger scale drawings for your review. No action is required to be taken by the City Council or Planning Commission at the study session. This is an opportunity to become familiar with the projects and to provide preliminary comments and direction. Each project will be scheduled at a later date for formal action by the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency or City Council as appropriate. Should you have any questions prior to the study session, please contact Norma Fragoso, Redevelopment Manager at 829-6620, regarding the BRIDGE project, and Tom Sparks, Chief Planner at 877-8535, regarding the Urban Housing project. StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #1 DATE: January 19, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor, City Council and the Planning Commission FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION: OAK AVENUE FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT AT SW CORNER OF GRAND AND OAK AVENUES Case Number: P04-0151:DR04-0089 & AHA04-0004 Applicant: Bridge Housing Corporation Owner: San Mateo County RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission conduct a joint study session on the proposed project and provide comments. BACKGROUND: This project is jointly sponsored by the City's Redevelopment Agency, the County of San Mateo and BRIDGE Housing Corporation. During 2003, the City and County agreed to pursue use of a piece of County property located next to the Mission Road courthouse to be developed for affordable rental housing for working families. During the summer of 2003, the City issued a Request for Proposals to select a developer for the proposed residential project. In January of 2004, the City Council accepted the Housing Subcommittee's selection of BRIDGE Housing Corporation (BRIDGE) as the developer for this project and authorized preliminary design work. On January 13, 2004, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution declaring the site surplus to County needs, and authorized the County Manager to negotiate a long term, nominal rate lease of the site to the City or to the selected developer. This formal action by the Board of Supervisors allowed BRIDGE to proceed with construction drawings, submit for entitlements from the City, and apply for construction funds from the State of California Multi-Family Housing Program and/or State Tax Credits. The project is targeted to be available and affordable to low and very low income tenants at forty to sixty percent of median income, for working families earning approximately $30,000 to $50,000 per year, for a Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Subject: Joint Study Session: Oak Avenue Housing Date: January 19, 2005 Page 2 family of four. This project helps the City meet its obligation to produce housing for all segments of the population as required by the Association of Bay Area Governments. A Redevelopment Agency Preconstruction Loan, approved in January 2004, allowed BRIDGE to proceed with environmental and geotechnical assessments, community outreach efforts, and preliminary drawings needed for the entitlement review process. BRIDGE has held one community meeting, in the spring of 2004, informing the neighborhood of its plans and presenting design options to solicit community input. The project sponsor and architect have attended a preliminary session with the Design Review Board and a meeting presenting the design concept to the Council's Housing Subcommittee. The Subcommittee has referred the project to the City Council and Planning Commission at this study session for review and comments regarding the design concept for the development. The project has also been scheduled for further consideration by the Design Review Board on January 18th, staff will provide relevant comments from that meeting at the study session. Proposed Project Bridge Housing has submitted an application to construct a 43-unit affordable family housing development on an approximately 1.14 acre parcel located at the southwesterly comer of Oak and Grand Avenue. The site has been used in the past for agricultural purposes but is zoned R-3-L Multiple Family Residential District. The R-3-L Zone designation allows a maximum of 35 units on the site (30 units/acre) plus a densitybonus of 25% (8 units) for a total of 43 units, in accordance with State Density Bonus Law and SSFMC Table 20.69.020 and Chapter 20.130. The project site slopes significantly from Grand Avenue to the south along Oak. The architect has designed the project around this feature by developing the site in three components. The northerly half of the site includes two levels of underground parking with units above as well as a "Commons Building". The mid- section includes an at-grade courtyard with units surrounding it. The southerly portion includes a surface parking lot. All levels are linked through a combination of stairways and ramps along a central landscaped core. Units along Oak Avenue are primarily ora two-story townhouse design with stooped entries to tie-in with the single-family home design across the street. Proposed Entitlements The proposed project application includes the following entitlements: · Design Review Approval (subject to Planning Commission confirmation) · Affordable Housing Agreement Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Subject: Joint Study Session: Oak Avenue Housing Date: January 19, 2005 Page 3 Environmental Analysis The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15280 of the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA does not apply to affordable housing projects of 100 or fewer units provided they meet various criteria, including: the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; the site is not more than 2 acres in size, contains no historically significant features, is surrounded by urban uses and can be adequately served by utilities; the site has no value as wildlife habitat; and the site does not contain hazardous contaminants. Next Steps BRIDGE will be holding a second community meeting after this study session to present the revised design to the community and solicit comments. It is hoped that the project could be forwarded to the Planning Commission for action at a meeting in February 2005. BRIDGE is planning to submit for State funding in the amount of $3.8 million dollars for the construction of the housing units. The State deadline for submittal is in mid March and BRIDGE is required to have received entitlements and a funding commitment from the Redevelopment Agency prior to submitting the application for State funds. If the project were to be approved by the Planning Commission in February it could return to the Redevelopment Agency for formal approval and funding commitment in late February, just in time for the State funding deadline. If BRIDGE is successful in keeping to this time schedule, and in securing construction financing, construction of the residential project could begin this summer, with potential completion of the project in the fall of 2006. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission conduct a joint study session on the proposed project and provide comments. Attachments: 1. Project Plans OAK. AVI::::NUE~ ELEVATION VICINITY MA~ ~ITE5 NOT TO ~,&J.-~ PLANNING DATA ~i~eArea: 4~,8:2& s.c. (= t.ld- acres) Current Zoning: ~llowoble Densi~"v: High Density ~sidencial DO Dwelling units ~er Acre (gU/A) 1.14. Acres x -~8 DU/A = 4.3 Dwelling Uni~ Allowable Uni~ Allowed: Uni~ Provided: 4.~ Dwelling Unbl~ 4.3 Dwelling Uni~ Parking Required: Porking ~tio: 8~ residen~iol stalls + 11 visitor $ stoff stalls d. stalls to be accessible Parking Previded: *N~: addianal accessible space toc~'ed on stree~ ~t ~rand Avenue podium entrance, Height Limit: Preposed Hr: 50 Peet Unit Count ~ Unit Type Distribution "E~I~ Flat Uni'~ :2 BR Flat 4. 880 :2 BR Townhouse 19 1,O:23 3 BR Ftc ~- 1,180 3 Bt~ Tawnhouse 11 1,211 T¢'/'~I .~ E42,¢ 1.5 ~ite Arco: Total Building Area: Building R~o~rlnt: 4~,82& s.c. (=1.14 acres) .~,O927 s.C. (nc~ including podium) 2,O33t ~.C. / 4.O% 0¢ tcfat site area Open ~pace: 30,55~ sC./~O% cF tatol site area' ~ite Parking: ~,~78 s.C. / 13% Podium Open ~pace: 4.,~07 s.~. / 9% Hardscape: ~,~35 ~.C. / 13% ~riv~ ~ec~/Pa~o~: 1,381 ~.C. / 2% Land¢c~pe: 11,3~5 ¢.C. / *lnclude¢ podium I~eI open epace A.0 COVER SHEET Pl~OJIECT I:DII~ECTOI~Y OWNE~: BRIID~E HOU~IN~, Inc. 34-5 ~oear ~mee~, ~ul*e 700 ~an Fr~nciscc, CA AI~CHITECT: VAN METIER WILLIAM~ POLLACK 18 De Boom ~rreet, First Floor ~an ~rancisco, CA 94.107 CIVIL EN~INEEI~.ING: ~ondis Humber Jones 17OO Broadway, ~,uite 3aa Oakland, CA 9~12 PH ~HIEF..T INDEX A.O COVER A.1 LOWER PA~KIN~ LEVEL ~ITE PLAN A.3 '~l~Y PODIUM _EVEb ~ITB ~N A.4 ~OOF ~N A.¢ ~PlCAL UNIT A.7 ~ITE BLBVATION~ C.1 BOUNO~Y $ TO~O~PHIC ~U~VEY Client BRID6E HOUSI~6, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-167:3 PH: 41 5-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 Architect: Van Meter Williams Pollack, LLP Architecture + Urban Design 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 pH: 415-974-535Z )ADI~ITIONAL E. LEVATOR. OI:~FION (IF FUNI~IN~ l~ AVAIL~ISLE) 1 ~ LOWF-.~ PAC..KING PLAN OAK AVENUE = A. 1 LOWER PARKING LEVEL SITE PLAN Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 PH: 415-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 Architect: Van Meter Williams Pollack, LLP Architecture + Urban Design 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 PH: 415-974-5352 ADIDITIONAL ELI::::VATO~ OI:::~'ION (IF FUN~IN~ 15 AVAI[-~BLB) 1"=20'-0~ ~OMMON~ ~L~ OAK AVENUE (~) ~IN~LE ~AMIL¥ HOME~ {~) ~IN~L~ FAMILY (1~) ~IN~L~ FAM L¥ HOME¢ /'7'~ % ~A!~KIN~ LEVEL I~LAN 1" = A.2 UPPER PARKING LEVEL SITE PLAN Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 PH: 4~ 5-49.5-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 Architect: Van Meter Williams Pollack, LLP Architecture + Urban D~sign 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 PH: 4~ 5-974-5352 AIDIDtTIONAL ELEVATOP. (IF: F:UNI~IN~ IS AVAIt-a~SLE) ,,~,T.~RADE COU~TYA~ OAK AVENUE ./ POIDIUM LEVEL SITE PLaN = A.3 *PRIMARY PODIUM LEVEL SITE PLAN Client BRIDGE HOU$1NO, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 PH: 415-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 Architect: Von Meter Willioms Pollock, LLP Architecture + Urban Design 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 PH: 415-974-5352 ADDITIO~L ~.LEEVATO~ OI~TION (IF: CUN~IN~ IS AV. AILA~LE) PLAN 1":20'o0" OA~ AV~NU~ 1"=20'o0' ALLOWS) A.4 ROOF PLAN Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 PH: 415-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 15, 2005 Architect: Van Meter Williams Pollack, LLP Architecture + Urban Design 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San FranCisco, CA 94107 PH: 415-974'5352 UNIT I=: 3 E~I~. TH, ~NO ~LI~.. UNIT I=: 3 B,P. TH, 1ST FI..~. UNIT E:I B,~-. FLAT 1/8,"=1'-0" UNITS UNITS C ,¢... 0:2 B~. TH, 1ST 1/'8,"=1'-O" UNIT B: 2 BI2-. FLAT A.5 lhtPICAL UNIT PlaNS UNITS C $ O: 2 BI!:2-. TH, 2NO FL~... UNITS C $ O.1:3 B~ TH, 1ST UNIT B,.I: -~ I~ FLAT UNIT A: 2 BI2.., TH, 2N0 UNIT A: 2 Bl:2., TH, 1ST UNIT A.I: 9 B,D TH, 1ST 1/,5"=I'-O" 1/&"=l'oO" Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 PH: 415-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 1 ;3, 2005 Architect: Von Meter Williams Pollock, LLI Architecture + Urban Design 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 PH: 415-974-5352 COMPOSITION SHINGLE - "ARCHITECTURAL" METAL LOUVER - PAINT STUCCO: INTEGRAL COLOR VINYL WINDOWS COMPOSITION SHINGLE - "ARCHITECTURAL" -- WOOD FAClA - PAINT -- METAL GU'I-rERS - PAINT -COMPOSITION SHINGLE OR METAL ROOF STUCCO: INTEGRAL COLOR VINYL WINDOWS A.6 OAK AVENUE ELEVATION Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 70~0 san Francisco, CA; 94105,1673 PH: 415-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 Architect; Von Meter Willioms Pollock, LLI Architecture + urb(~n Design 18 De 8~ Street, First Floor San Fra~isco, CA 94107 PH: 415'974:5:~52 STUCCO: INTEGRAL COLOR ALUMINIUM W1NDOWS "STOREFRONT" COMPOSITION SHINGLE - "ARCHITECTURAL" METAL LOUVER - PAINT STUCCO: INTEGRAL COLOR VINYL WINDOWS COMPQSITION SHINGLE - "ARCHITECTURAL" -- METAL GUTTERS ? PAINT GRAND AVENUE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A.7 SITE ELEVATIONS Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 PH: 415-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 Architect: Von Meter Willioms Pollock, LLF Architecture + Urban Design 18 De BOom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 PH: 415-974-5352 +1o6'-o" ~ +94'-0" ~; +e5'-0" ~ +75'-0" ~ +63'-0" ~;~ ~;~ + 5' FROM SIDEWALK SECTION AT PODIUM SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" +76'-0" ~ +67'-0" ~ +57'-0" FLAT 'E' SECTION AT COURTYARD SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" ~;~ +62'-0" ~;) +53'-0" A.8 SECTIONS Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc, 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 PH: 41 5-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 Architect: Van Meter Williams Pollack, LLI Architecture + Urban Design 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 PH: 415-974-535Z OAF-, AVENUE BELOW COMME~',C:;IAL AVENUE OAK, AVENUE BELOW COMME~,CIAL AVENUE OAK AVENUE AND ~ND AVE OAK AVENUE AND ~kN~ AVE A.9 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ~,~ 2 OAK AVENUE ~ 6 Client BRID6E HOUSINO, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 DH: 4'15-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 .Architect: Von Meter Willioms Pollack, LLP Architecture + Urban Design 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 PH: 41 5-974-5352 /A.~O~ AEIAIAL ~ITE PHOTOm~I~APH A. 10 AERIAL SITE PHOTOGRAPH Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700 San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 PH: 415-495-4898 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 January 13, 2005 Architect: Van Meter Williams Pollack, LLP Architecture + Urbon Desi~ 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 PH: 4t 5-974-5352 STATEMENT OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN INTENT There ere three pdmary landscape zones at Oak Avenue Housing. The first zone is along the street frontages where stoops face Oak Avenue, Lawn ~d street t~es are located between the sidewalk and the curb. VVithin the property boundary line walks lead up stoops to the froot doors of units are flanked with shrubs and small trees. Smati flowedng trees mark stairs that lead up into the interie~ of the project, off Oak Avenue. The grade goes up steeply from Oak Avenue to Grand Avenue and retaining wells thai step up the slope pinwheel off the cylindrical architectural mass at the comer of the building. Planting steps up the slope with the retaining walls. Along Grand Avenue planhng of shrubs and trees lie be~veen the sidewalk and building, The second landscape zone is the podium courtyard space. The Grand Avenue entrance to the podium level of the project has a prominent wave pattern in the paving that is carried through file intedor of the project in the path alignment and form of the planters. A generous, oo-podium planter with deciduous tree is located at the Grand Avenue entry. V~thin the oo-podium courtyard, built-in planters with wails approximately 24-inches high have shrubs and perennials in them while lower. 9-inch. planters contain rescue, a kind of grass, that is intended to be mown twice each year. Planters help define semi-private patio spaces associated with the unds and enclose two small seating areas one at each e~d of the podium The third zone is the oo-grede community open space at the southwest end of the property. Here there is a play area. lawn. tree planting and seat walls. This space will serve all the residents of Oak Avenue HOUSing. Patio spaces are defined adjacent to the units with planting. Planting will be used to screen the north and western edges of the property. The Plant List shows species suited to I~e windy and cool eenditiens common to South San FranCisco and provides species for the sunlight conditions expected on the perimeter and within the efmlosed courtyards of the project. The planting will be irrigated by an automated irrigation system that has code compliant bac~'flow praventie~. The state of the art control system will provide a range of features for water coflservatien and ease of adjustment. PLANT UST GROWTH SiZE AT SIZE 3-5 M~TURE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME RATE PLANTING YEARS SIZE Trees Arbutus Unedo Strawbeny Tree S - M 24" Box 6' - 8' To 35' Ca[piees betulus 'Fastigiata' Fasfigiate Hornbeam M 15 Gal 6' - 8' To 30' Gingko biloba 'Felrmount' Gingko S - M 24" Box 6' - 8' To 40' Lidodendron tulil~fera Tulip Tree S - M 24" Box 7' - 9' To 45' Meterosideros excelsa NZ Christmas Tree S - M 24" Box 7' - 9' To 35' Myngorurn laetum Myopomm F 15 Gal 8' - 12'To 30' Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' Ornamental Pear F - M 15 Gal 8' - 10'TO 40' Sfirubs Abufiloo x 'Mo~nchimes' FlOw~nng Maple M 15 Gal 3' 5' - 8' Brunfelsia pauciflora Yesten:lay Today Tomorrow M 5 Gal 4' To 6' Bush Anemooe S 5 Gal 2'-3' To 4' Cerpeetada celifomica Califomia Lilac F 5 Gal 4' - 5'To 7' Ceanothus 'Julia Phelps' Coprearna repens Mirror Platt M 5 Gal 4' - 5'To 6' Echium fastuosum Pdde of Madera F 5 Gal 4' - 5'6' - 8' Pitteapomm %Nl~eelers Dwarf Pittospornm M 5 Gal 3' 4' Rhodode~droo 'Snow Lady' White Rhododendron M 15 Gal 18" - 2' 2 1/2. Rosemarinus oflic~nalis ReaemaP/ M 5 Gal 3' 4' Westdng~a rosemanniformus Westdngla M 5 Gal 3' 4' Perennials and Grasass Anemooe hyixida 'Honodne Jobert' Anemone F I Gal 2' - 4'2' - 4' Carnx comans 'Frosty Cuds'NZ Hair Seage F I Gal 2' 2' Fescue Dwarf Tall Fescue F Sod 3" 3" Hemerocadus hybada Day Lily M I Gal 2' 2' Juncus eflusus Soft Rush m I Gal 2' Liriope spicate Creeping Lily Tuff M i Gal 8" - 9"8" Pennisetum alopemuriodes Fountain Grass F 1 Gal 2' - 4'2' - 4' Penstemon gtoxineldes 'Midnight' Penstemoo F I Gal 2' - 3'2' - 3' Stipa tenulslma Mexican Feather Grass M I Gal 2' 2' Vines Jasminurn patyanthemum Jasmine M 5 Gal NA NA Trachelospermum .lasminoides Star Jasmine k~ 5 Gal NA NA KEY: S, M, F - Slow Moderate or Fast Growth Rate. January 12, 2005 Client BRIDGE HOUSING, Inc. 345 Spear St., Suite 700; San Francisco, CA; 94105-1673 Oak Avenue Housing Oak & Grand Avenues South San Francisco, CA 94080 Architect: Van Meter Williams Pollack Architecture + Urban Design 18 De Boom Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 ~ (PARCEL 3 ~ T)~E REPORT) ~ ?~ ~~ xl ~l~kl ~, ,~ ~ ~ / % ~ ~ ' / / / '_ ~ ; -. / / p/I I ,,,~, ,,/o./o. .,, ...,o. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF ~5 Cosfro Sfr~f SEALE~ 1"=20' ..,o,,...~. ANDIS UMBER JONES .,~.o APN 011-311-070, 110 ~ ~ ~ .~w,.~ ~., c~ OF SO~ SAN FRA~ISCO CALI~IA Fox~ ~ 204181 ~t e~ by ~ H~, 204181~O1' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 13, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Coun%i Plann~ission Assistant City Manager, Marry Vfr~b,~'~~ Joint City Council-Planning CommiSsion Study Session This memorandum transmits two draft staff reports for the joint study session scheduled for January 19, 2005, at 6:30 p.m., to be held at the Council Chambers of the Municipal Services Building. The first item to be heard is the proposed development by BRIDGE Housing Corporation for the vacant site owned by San Mateo County and located at the corner of Oak and Grand Avenues. The City Council Housing Subcommittee has referred the revised design concept for this affordable 43 unit high density residential development to the joint study session for review and discussion. The second item on the agenda is the Park Station Lofts Residential Project proposed for 1410 El Camino Real, by Urban Housing Group. The purpose of the study session will be to introduce the proposed 99 unit high density residential project which is located in the BART Transit Village Zoning District and to provide comments. This packet contains staff reports for each project, drawings and other materials for your review in advance of the study session. At the study session, applicants will present their respective project and be available for questions from City Council and Planning Commissioners. Presentation boards will also be available at the study session with larger scale drawings for your review. No action is required to be taken by the City Council or Planning Commission at the study session. This is an opportunity to become familiar with the projects and to provide preliminary comments and direction. Each project will be scheduled at a later date for formal action by the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency or City Council as appropriate. Should you have any questions prior to the study session, please contact Norma Fragoso, Redevelopment Manager at 829-6620, regarding the BRIDGE project, and Tom Sparks, Chief Planner at 877-8535, regarding the Urban Housing project. Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #2 DATE: January 19, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor, City Council and the Planning Commission Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION: PARK STATION LOFTS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 1410 EL C.~vIINO REAL Case Number: P03-0092, GPA03-0001, PM03-0003, SA03-0001, UP03-0016, AHA04-0003 and MND03-0001 Applicant: Urban Housing Group Owaaers: Harmonious Holdings and SamTrans/BART RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and the Planning Commission conduct a joint study session on the proposed project and provide comments as appropriate. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study session is to introduce the proposed 99-unit residential project, which is located in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District, to the City Council and the Planning Commission. The developer will present the proposed project, provide specific information identif)ing the proposed architectural design and development standards and respond to questions and comments. Proposed Project Urban Housing Group has submitted an application to develop a 99-unit high-density residential project at 1410 E1 Camino Real and on a portion of the corner site owned by BART and SamTrans. The proposed project would consist of the following: 1) two four-story structures on a podium; 2) 99-units, comprising 52, one- and 47, two-bedroom units, and a community room; 3) one central courtyard area and two smaller courtyards; 4) an open space area adjacent to Colma Creek that would be used to link the project to the BART Station and the new Linear Park; and 5) a below-Fade parking garage with 128 resident and guest parking spaces. (see Attachment 4) Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Subject: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session: Park Station Lofts Date: January 19, 2005 Page 2 Urban Housing Review Process Since July 2003, Urban Housing Group has submitted several significant revisions to the site and elevation plans as follows: 1) Urban Housing Group submitted the original Planning Application, dated July 24, 2003, to construct 128 residential units on 2.42 acres; 2) On October 15, 2003, Urban Housing Group revised the application packet for construction of 128 residential units on 2.42 acres; 3) On January 30, 2004, Urban Housing Group submitted a revised Planning Application to construct 121 residential ua~its on 2.42 acres; 4) la~ March 2004, Urban Housing submitted revised site and elevation plans to construct 99 residential units for Planning Commission subcommittee review; and 5) In July 2004, Urban Housing Group submitted revised site plans and Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium purposes to construct 99 residential units on a 2.04 acre site, based on Planning Commission subcommittee comments. Prior to this joint study session, the applicant presented the proposed project to the Desig-n Review Board in May 2004 and two Planning Commission subcommittee meetings in summer 2004. City staff also attended a conununity meeting and authorized the environmental consultant to prepare the Initial Study based on the project description prepared by Urban Housing Group in August 2004. DISCUSSION: The proposed project is located in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District, immediately south of the BART Parking Garage. The Transit Village Zoning District contains several sub- districts that identify the appropriate use for a specific parcel, such as high-density residential, medium-density residential, commercial, and mixed-commercial and residential uses. The southern portion of the subject site is located in the "Residential, High Density (TV-HD)"sub-district, which is concentrated to the west of the BART fight-of-way and faces E1 Camino Real. The northern portion of the subject site, currently owned by BART and SamTrans, is not located in the Transit Village Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to incorporate the northern portion of the site into the Transit Village Zoning District. Transit Village Zoning District Development Standards Adopted in 2001, the Transit Village Plan implements the General Plan policies that promote the development of transit oriented development adjacent to the BART Station and are designed to promote a balanced mixed use development near the BART Station. The Plan provides specific design and development standards for alt future projects in the area. The Transit Village Zoning permits a mixed-use commercial and residential project, with up to 50-urfits an acre on the southern site. To support these developments, the Plan promotes the development of an active, urban pedestrian environment with commercial uses are allowed fronting the principal streets. The Plan permits reduced parking ratios and parking exemptions to accommodate small commercial spaces and encourage BART r/dership. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Plmming Commission Subject: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session: Park Station Lofts Date: January 19, 2005 Page 3 Proposed Entitlements The proposed project is located irmnediately south of the BART Parking Garage and consists of two parcels: (see Attachment 2) The southern portion of the project area consists of 1410 E1 Camino Real and is located in the Transit Village Zoning District. The parcel is subject to the design guidelines and standards of the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan. The northern portion of the project area consists of a portion of the South San Francisco BART Station, owned by SamTrans and BART, and currently located in the PCL Zone. The applicant is applying for both a General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the northern parcel into the Transit Village Zoning District. The proposed project application includes the following entitlements: Use Permit to construct a condominium complex over a podium garage on one site located in the SSF B_4aRT Transit Village Zoning District; General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the parcel owned by BART/SamTrans from public to mixed cormr~ercial and residential uses; · Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Map to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BART/SamTrans from PCL to Transit Village Zone; · Affordable Housing A~eement; and, · Vesting Tentative Map for Condominiums Purposes to merge two lots into a single parcel. Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, an Initial Study was conducted to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study analyzed potential visual impacts, air quality impacts, geology and soil impacts, hazardous materials, noise, public services, traffic, and utilities. On the basis of the Initial Study it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the project. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration commenced on Monday, September 20, 2004 and closed on October 20, 2004. The City distributed the "Notice of Availability for Public Review" to public agencies and interested parties on September 20, 2004. The City received nine letters from pubhc agencies and interested individuals. (see Attachment 3). Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Subject: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session: Park Station Lofts Date: January 19, 2005 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Com~cil and the Plaming Commission conduct a joint study session on the proposed project and provide comments as appropriate. By:/j /~.}~ l~larty Van Duyn~ - Assistant City Manager City Manager Attachments: Location Map Existing and proposed parcels Con'nnents from Residents and Interested Groups Site and Building Elevation Plans, dated January 11, 2005 Park Station Lofts Location Camino Court ATTACHMENT 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARCELS ¢. .BART/SamTrans: PCL Zone -130 o I'- (1) o Park Station Lofts Proposed Vesting Tentative Map ATTACHMENT 3 COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND PROMOTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES October 27, 2004 South San Francisco Planning Commission Chairman Rick A. Ochsenhirt and Honorable Commissioners 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: Park Station- SUPPORT Dear Chairman Ochsenhirt and Members of the Planning Commission: Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay Area's regional land conservation and urban planning nonprofit, endorses the Park Station development proposed by Urban Housing Group for 1410 El Camino Real Blvd. It earns our support by meeting or exceeding all of our criteria, which are designed to promote compact development patterns and livable, transiT-friendly communities that are affordable to residents at a range of income levels. The Park Station project is an appropriate use for this property, as it is located on an m~derutilized and odd-shaped lot. It has excellent proximity to BART and buses, and a forward-thinking 1:1 parking ratio, which will encourage mass transit use. Stores, restaurants, and other services are located nearby and are accessible by walking or biking. We enthusiastically support the proposed development's design. It uses space efficiently with design elements such as sub-grade parking and multi-story buildings. Trees, gardens, and a park adjacent to Colma Creek will be enjoyed by residents, commuters, and the greater community. The landscaped path at the rear of the property will provide an enjoyable walk for Pedestrians accessing the BART station, and will connect with a regional trail to the San Bruno Bart Station. The development will provide 99 for-sale housing units, contributing significantly to the City's housing needs. Nineteen of these units will be affordable to a range of income levels, from 50% to 110% of the area median income.' Greenbelt Alliance urges your approval of the Park Station project. It is a fme example o£urban infili development, which not only brings many benefits to the City, but also helps to prevent wasteful sprawl development and preserve the Bay Area's open space. Sincerely, -, ~ ~ /? ~----~ J~e Cummins Education Progran~ Coordinator Cc: Mike Lappen, Senior Pla~mer, City of South San Francisco Daniel Deibel, Director of Development, Urban Housing Group MAIN OFFICE * 631'I4oward Street, Suite 510, SanFrandsco, CA 94105 * (415)543.6771 * Fax (415)543-6781 SOLANO/NAPA OFFICE *, 725 Texas Street, Fairfield, CA94533 * (707) 42%2308 * Fax (707) 42%2315 SOUTH BAY OFFICE * 1922 The Alameda, Suite 213, San jose, CA 95126 * (408) 983-0856 * Fax (408) 983-1001 EAST BA¥OFFICE ~- 1601 North Main Street, Suite 105, Walnut Creel:, CA 94596 * (925)932-7776 * ~Zax (925)932-1970 SONOMA/MARrN OFFICE · 50 SanraKosaAvenue, Suite 307, - J~ - ~osa, CA 95404 { (707) 575-3661 * Fax (707) 575-4275 info@greenbeit, or~ ~: www. greenbek, org PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND PROMOTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES October 27, 2004 The Honorable Karyl Matsumoto, MaYor And Members of the City Council City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE: Park station- SUPPORT Dear .Mayor Mats:umoto and Members .of the City Councit:. Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay Area's regional land Conservation and urban planning nonprofit, endorses the Park Station development proposed by Urban Housing Group for 1410 E1 Camino Real Blvd. It earns our support by meeting or exceeding all of our criteria, which are designed to promote compact development patterns and livable, transit-friendly communities that are affordable to residents at a range of income levels. The Park Station project is an appropriate use for this property, as it is located on an underutilized and odd-shaped-lot. It has excellent-proximity to BART and ~bnses, and a forward-thinking 1:1 parking ratio, which will encourage'mass~transit.usel Stores, restaurants,'and:other services are located nearby and are accessible by walking or biking. We enthusiastically support the proposed development's design. It uses space efficiently with design elements such as sub-grade parking and multi-stow buildings. Trees, gardens, and a park adjacent to Colma Creek will be enjoyed by residents, commuters, and the greater community. The landscaped path at the rear of the property will provide an enjoyable walk for pedestrians accessing the BART station, and will connect with a re¢onal trail to the San Bruno Ban Station. The development will provide 99 for-sale housing units, contributing sigrfificantty to the City's housing needs. Nineteen of these units will be affordable to a range of income levels, from 50% to 110% of the area median income. Greenbelt Alliance urges your approval of the Park Station project. It is a frae example of urban infill development, which not only brings many benefits to the City, but also helps to prevent wasteful sprawl development and preserve the Bay Area's open space. Sincerely, ~ f -- -~ J~e Curmiiins- : .-. : ,- ...... - - Education Program Coordinator · C-c ~.. Mike'Lappen; :Senior-"Planner; City.-.of South'.San Erancisco :.Daniel Deibel; Director.of Developmem, Urban Housing Group MAIN OFFICE * 63i Howard Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, CA. 94105 * (415~ 543-6771 . Fax (415't 543-6781 SOLANO/NAPA OFFICE * 725 Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 · (707) 427-2308 * Fax (707) 427-2315 SOUTH BAY OFFICE . 1922 The .4Jameda, .Suite 213, San Jose, CA 95126 * (408)983-0856 * ]~a.'_' ~'408)9S3-1001 EAST EAYOFFICL * 1601 North Mare Street, Suite 105, Wakv..~ r'~eek, C.5; 94596 * (925) 932-7776 · ~ax (925) 932-1970 SONOIv~/~ OFF'ICl: · 50 Sa.ntaKosaAvenue, Suite 30% - 2 - Rosa, CA 95404 ~ (707) 575-366~ · I;ax (707) 575-4'._75 info@greenbek, org * www.greenbei:.org To: SSF Planning Commission From: Stephen Yale Re: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Station 1410 El Camino Real South San Francisco Preface Although I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Camino Court Home Owners Association, 1400 E1 Camino Rea/in South San Francisco, in these comments I am expressing my own opinions. General Concerns Park Station is supposed to be a condominium development, but the applicant is not obligated to adhere to this aspect of the plan. Some of the units could be reined as apartments, or the Park Station could be sold or managed as an apartment .complex. In any case, the proposed-Park Station has much more the configuration, average unit size and appearance of an apartment building than_ the usual condominium or townhouse development in South San Francisco. Park Station fits the concept of a Transit Village which is good in theory-, but the limitations o£ the particular :circumqtances.:~Jn::~South City should be kept in mind. These concerns magnify the issues:raised'in,thi, 's :response:'to,the?lnitial Study~figated-Negati~e D..eelaration? ~: ....-..::: ~- . Urban ,Housing Group had. made ,a .couple:-o£ipresentations~at~Camino,,-Cou~..HOA.Board .of Directors meetings in 2003, but-after September,they:-seemed'-to.disappear. :Concerned abont the accumulating debris,-dead trees, and.,abandoned cars at 1..4,10 E1 Camino Real, in ~August. of this year we eon'meted:the cia-and discovered that Urban Housing' Crroup.'was still workingon~their plan~ .Then t was :told that there had been.a comm~luity meeting, .with representatives of Urban Housing Group to discuss .their plan, bat :no one with whom I spoke at Camino Gourt .had been informed, of the meeting. Then members of the board ,met :.informally with Mr..Deibel of Urban Housing Group .on September 24. 2004. Zoning and_the General Plan The'applicant.is.requesting that :.the : city take several actions that :will permit au increase in the nmnber:of.,units .in their d-eveiopmen~: .a General..Plan.Amendment "m :change. the designation of -the.parcel owned, by BA_RT/SamTrans from public.to mixed commercial .and .residential uses"; amendment of the Zoning Ordinance .Map '~to..reclassffy a :.portion of the lot :owned by BART/SamTram :fxom PCL m Transit ¥illa~e Zone ,..and:.the merging of. two lots .into a. single parcel It does :not .appear ~that the.:.City of:South San :-Francisco . and the. neighb.oring,propenies receix~e any :.sufficient :benefit. /rom faese ;changes. '.:However~ the :applicant ~would.,thereby be enabled!~.t6'::neat!3r'id0~itSl~!themumber of units and overall mass of the development with minimal expansion required in the building footprint, using nearly all of the buildable land for b~idings and"access, :The ,impact.:.of:this.. expansion on,Camjno:.Court..~..be qu/re-~negative, as detailed ar severaLpoints:in..~kds..,response,. ~ · ':r : '::' :' ' ":~ .~ ', ............ -" . . .... : ' Design An earlier plan called for 160 units and an'industrial design. The facade of that design has been softened and the number of units reduced, but there are still problems that become obvious in a tally of the significant differences between of Park Station and Camino Court. Camino Court was built on 3.218 acres. It has a well-integrated design with three buildings around a large central courtyard and with parking outside, in garages, and under two of the buildings. Park Station would have one garage w/th a set of two elevators and a stairway in the middle of two somewhat separate buildings. In comparison with the proposed development, Camino Court has 96 units with average of less than 1.96 bedrooms per unit. Park Station would have 99 units with au average of more than 1.47 bedrooms per mt. The residential stmcrare of Park Station would be concentrated on approximately 1 acre of the total propert3~; most of.~the other, half is.covered..by, the PG&E substation, and ~arious easements and is unavailable for residential buildings. One sign of this concentration is the plan for 2 elevators and 3 stairways connecting all levels; some folks will have to walk about 200 feet just m get from their parking space to an elevator. Each the four floors of the rear building would have an approximately 200 foot corridor. Camino Court has 5 elevators and 16 stairways in various configurations. Emergency Vehicle Access The Planning Submittal and Initial Study show an EVA to Park Station on Camino Court .-property. It would be very difficult to eliminate deeded parking spaces and create au easement on Cam/no Court property. Another type of emergency access would be a pedestrian gate that would also give Csrnino Col.lrt residents easier access to BART. However, the Camino Court HOA Board of Directors is opposed to a Pedestrian gate. One alternative to emergency access fi:om Camino Court to Park Station would be to extend the Park Station driveway to the back of the property. ConsU-uction If piles are required, I would want some alternative structure that does not require piles. When the BART channel was excavated early in that construction project, cracks appeared in several of Camino Court condominiums when piles were driven. BART has not been willing to address this matter, and any further nearby pile driving is likely to exacerbate the cracking in several of Camino Court condominiumq, Enviroument Concern Having been involved recently in a lawsuit based on construction defects that have caused water inU'usion at Camino Court,.~ I sm very aware that Camino Court needs plenty of fresh air and SUl~qhine to promote evaporation. Although set back from most of our common property line by about 25 feet, the height and overall mass of the Park Station structure will restrict the amouut of fi:esh air and mm~hine that get to our property. The close approach of the proposed Park Station at the back of the development aggravates this problem, further reslricting the wind that would more fi:eely blow through an uuintermpted, larger space between the buildings and through Camino Court. This concern would be substantially meliorated by the elimination of one level o£Park Station and ex-tension of the driveway to the back of the property. -4- Parking Camino Court has 2 deeded spaces per unit (192 spaces) and 2 additional unassigned spaces inside the security gate(s). At the fxont ore,mine Court, there are 21 C~mino Court gtles~ spaces and 2 handicap spaces. Camiuo Court has a total of 217 parking spaces. Park Station would have 94 assigned spaces, 5 handicap spaces, and 3 open spaces. Park Station would have 3 more units and 115 less parking spaces than Camino Court. The difference is startling. Since there is no overnight parldug nearby on E1 C~mino Real, parking in nearby neighborhoods is restricted on weekdays to three hours for non-residents, and BART parking is restricted to those using BART while parked in BART parking, Park Station will have a parking dilemma. As the member of the Board of Directors of Camino Court who has handled parking enforcement for several years, I do not want to have to deal with cars of Park Station residents and guests parked on our property; Camiuo Court residents and ~maests would not appreciate .the mconvemence; Park Station residents and guests will not be happy to discover that their cars have been towed. Parkiug at Park Station could be expanded by eliminating the units at the eastern comer of the plan, ex-tending the driveway, and creating some additional parking spaces a~ the back of the property. Eliminating one or two ievels of Park Station also would reduce the need for more parking spaces. : Aesthetics The main floor at the most northerly comer on the top level is twenty feet off the ground which at that point is 65 feet above sea level. The closest structure in the proposed development is 5. feet from our common boundary. Camino Court's nearest builrling is 10 feet on the other side of the property line, directly adjacent to the Park station building at' that ~comer. At'that point the ~?0of eaves of Park Station would be 40 feet above the main floor on the top level. Five feet fi'om our common property line, there will be a building 65 feet mil. As planned Park Station would block all of the current view to the north from nearly all of the units in the nearest Camino Court building, including the view of the E1 Camino H_igh School campus, the military service memorial w/th flags at Holy Cross Cemetery, BART, and a substantial portion of San Bruno Mountain. The view is not only an aesthetic issue; substantially degrading the view will conu:avene one of reasons many people purchased their condominiums. Stephen Yale 1400 E1 Camino Rea/ #227 So. San Francisco, Ca 94080 -5- · 10/7/2004 11:¢4 PM FROM: Christ Family Church TO: 829-6639 PAGE: 002 OF 003 Page i ,3£2 Steve Hong From: Steve Hong [steve_c_hong@yahoo. com] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: ATTENTION THOMAS SPARKS CHIEF PLANNER - PLANNING DIVISION (650) 829-6639 October 7, 2004 SSF Planning Commission From: Steve and Cathy Hong, 1400 E1 Camino Real ~2!2 South San Francisco CA 94080 Re: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Station 1410 E1 Camino Real South San Francisco We feel that the loss of !icht and air circulation from the 4 story buildins is more than significant. We feel that a 3 story building would help mitigate this. We feel that the lack of sufficient parking and the absence of any auest Darkina spaces will have a sicnificant necative effect on our comD!ex~ as visitors will inevitably use our guest parking spaces. Reducing the number of units and providing sufficient guest parking spaces and 2 p@rking spaces per unit would mitigate this issue. When the BART channel was constructed, cracks appeared in several of Camino Court condominiums when piles were driven. Any further nearby pile drivinq is !ike!v to exacerbate the crackinc in several of Camino Court condominiums. The proposed development would block all of the current views to the north and west from most of the Camino Court buildings. When this proposed development is built, we feel it would not only substantially degrade the views that complex enjoys, but will inevitably reduce the Property value of our condominiums. We know this, because after we saw the plans, we immediately had %houahts of selling our condo and moving to a better location. Thank you for hearing our comments. 10/7/2004 ~0/7/2004 11:~4 PM FROM: Christ Family Church TO: 829-6639 PAGE: 003 OF 003 Page 2 of 2 Steve and Cathy Hong 1400 E1 Camino Real #212 South San Francisco CA 94080 l 0 -7- To: SSF Planning Commission From: Judy Oliphant Re: Planning Submittal Park Station t410 E1Camino Real SoUth San Francisco 'Preface: I am a resident of Camino Court. I moved into Camino. Court when Camino Court was. still selling and developing. I have been on the Board of Directors for this .complex and Crown Colony in Daly City for which 1' lived there for 14 yrs before moving to Camino Court. · I am concerned about the over all impact that this structure will do to Camino Court and the traffic, on:E!Camino: It has been reported to Camino Court Residences that Park Station is supposed to be a condominium development that the applicant !s not obligatcd,~o~rlhere to this ~sDect o_f ~ All of the units could be rented as ap~artments, Section 8 low income Welfare. Property could easily become .a'.target for a rise in crime, easily turned into a" Bay View District, Hunters Point if these:D-nits are not'sold as. Condom!ninm.~, "As a tong me resident of South San.Francisco I do'no want:to see this happen in my area. ! am opposedto a development, next store:to Camino Court. - .' In any case, the proposed Park Station has much more the configuration and appearance of an apartment building than the usual condominium or townhouse development in South 'San Francisco. I am concerned of the impact this will have on the re-sale value of our Units in Camino Court. If these units are rented out and not sold .as a Condominium project. The crime rate of the area and the risks to our complex and our units, "Not to mention the traffic load on E1 Camino. Traffic And in addition to this the traffic will increase as it has already since Costco and soon to be Trader Joes and additional housing complex.next to Bart. Traffic flow on E1 Camino Now is heavy mid day and impossible at hight to exit onto E1 Camino the additional amount of cars because of Park Station this will increase the .load onto E1 Camino Malting it impossible to exit and'to enter into our complex..I highly recommend that the plnnning committee look into .additional traffic lights and .a turnin~ only. lane into Cnmino Court a total redesign of the traffic situation .on E~ Camino Before deciding on this .new .construction. Contacts with the Urban Housing Group: . This Group has made several appointments to meet with our Board of Directors in 2003 but after September they seemed to disappear. They like us are concerned about the trash ne~ store to our complex the tall weeds the dead tree's that block sun light to our complex on that side. And the abandoned cars at 1410. Kecent!y one of our Board members contacted the city and discovered that this ~oup was working on a plan, and told there had been a corem!miry meeting Camino Court was not invited or attended this meeting. As planned Park Station would block all of the 'current view to the north and west from nearly all of the units in the nearest Camino Court building, including the view of the E1 Camino High School campus, .the military service memorial with flags at Holy Cross Cemetery, and a substantial .portion of San Bnmo Mountain The view is not only an aesthetic issue; 'substantially degrading the view will contravene one of reasons many people purchased their condominium~. The design for this complex has been changed (softened) the earlier plan called for 160 unitsand, au industrial._design and_.the__number ~f_ugi__'.t_ s_re.d,~_c_e__.b_u.t_th__er_e_~__sti~.~_.a_p_r_0_bJe,m_ ......................... a si?ficant different from the general design of Park Station and C~mino Court. Camino Court was built on 3.218 acres. We have three buildings around .a large central courtyard with parking outside, in garages and under two buildings. Park Station would have one garage with two elevators and a stairway in the middle of two somewhat separate buildings. To look at .the two complex's side-by-side Camino Court has 96 units with average of less then 1.96 bedroom per unit. Park Station would have 99 units with an average of more than 1.47 bedrooms per unit. And will be 4 story's tall. Blocking mmlight to our second building. Creating additional problems to Camino Court. For the past 5 yrs Camino Court has recently settled a Iength~ly costly lawsuit again~ our developer for construction problems defects. Mold, Dry rout, mildew, water damage inside and out of our units. 3~y Environment Concern. Is Park Station structure will restrict the amount of fresh air and sunshine to our property. The close approach of the proposed Park Station at the back of the development-aggravates this problem, further restricting the wind that would more freely blow through au uninterrupted larger space between the buildings. This will restrict the amount of fresh air and sunshine need to prevent mold and moss moisture standing creating additional problems my fellow neighbors. Although set back from most of our common property line by 25 feet, the height would overall mass of the Park Station stmcun'e will restrict all Light from entering our units on the side Of Park Station. This Will create Problems for our residence. Not to' mention noise problems, which the designer has not addressed. The planning submittal shows an EVA to Park Station on Camino Court property. It would be very difficult to eliminate deeded parking spaces and create an easement on Camino Court property. Another type of emergency access would be a pedestrian gate that would also g/ye Camino Court residents easier access to BART. However, a majority of the Camino Court Board of Directors and residence seems opposed m a pedestrian gate because of security concerns. Also additional cost factors that will maintain this gate. One alternative to emergency vehicle access fi-om Camino Court to Park Station would be to extend the Park Station driveway to the back of the propert3~. The applicant is requesting that the city take several actions that will permit an ~ncrease in the number of units in their development: a General Plan Amendment '~to change the designation of the parcel owned by BART/SamTrans from public to mixed commercial and residential uses"; amendment of the Zoning Ordinance Map '~to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BAKT/SamTrans from PCL to Transit V'fllage Zone"; and the merging of two lots into a single parcel. It does not appear that the City of South San Francisco and the neighboring properties receive any sufficient benefit from these changes. However, the applicant would thereby be enabled to nearly double the number of units and overall mass of the development with minimal expansion required in the building footprint, using nearly al! of the build able land. The impact of this expansion on Cainino Court will .be quite negative, as detailed at several points in this response. encourage the Planning Committee to Vote NO on this proposaL Sincerely Yours Judy Oliphant -10- t400 El Camino Real. #326 'South .San Francisco; CA 94080 . October..1 g, .2004 Tv'IA.FAX :6.5, 0-$77,853S .& .US.MAIL Mr..Ttiomas G..Sparks Planning Division City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Pai-k Station Lofts :'1410El"Camino 'Real ............................................ Dear Mr, Sparks: I am a homeowner at 1400 E1 CarnMo Real'adjacent to .the property being developed .at 1410: Lam deeply concerned about the development for.the following reasons: 1. Traffic. With the additional housing at this location, zogether with housing on the lots adjacent to Costco and the units on Mission Street, traffic is going to be heavily increased. South San Francisco.BART has not reached the projected ridership and when it does in future years, it would appear that the City would not be capable of hanaling the congestion of traffic. Since .moving m .. SSF., I..have. seen. the .completion of Costco .and the ':McClellan housing iievel~pment. "The traffic has increased 'considerably even with present .developments, and subsequently, seven traffic lights have .been installed from my location to the entry of 1-280. When Trader Joe's opens for business, ih.will draw alot of extra traffic. We do not want the debacle that was caused when the Masonic" Trader Joe's in .San Francisco was approved. It has inadequate parking and has caused traffic and parking problems in the immediate area. During peak hours, it is impossible to find parking at SSF Costco and when g as prices are high,, the · volume of cars increases. Trader Joe's is a very popular store and will draw.more .people who · will visit the same rime they visit Costco. The SSF Costco store no doubt has the highest revenue of any of their stores in the Bay Area. Customers come from afar as it is one o£the few of their outlets that sell gas. Once all the development in the area is completed, will the City be able to handle the additional congestion? 2. parking. Parking is going to be a potential problem. In Carnino Court, all .of the · owners have 2 parking spaces. There are a total of 217 parkiug spaces for a 96 unit complex. Even though all units have 2 parking spaces, many residents in the units have more than 2 cars. Even with that, owners are using our guest parMng in the front of the building, t happen to have only one car and many have asked to use my other parking space. Park Station would have 99 units. One park/ng space per umt is not adequate so where would all the extra cars be parked? When a representative made a presentation to us last year, he spoke about renting parking spaces from BART. That is never going to happen. ! know the idea is to encourage people to use mass transif but the fact is, the number of cars families are acquiring is not decreasing, so some allowance has to be made. Adquate parking is a MUST in the planning of a development. 3. Enviroumental Concerns. My unit is on the north side of the building and presently I can view trees and have ample natural lighting. With the new construction, my'view will be obstructed and no doubt the lighting Willbe affected. That is the reason I purchased this unit. The Camino Court Homeowners' Association filed a lawsuit for construction defects again.~t the developer and have settled the case. One serious problem was the mold in several units..If the height of the new development is as specified and the building is so close (although within legal limits), will the lack of sunshiue and circulation of air exacerbate the mold problem? As you are .aware, mold problems are hazardous to health, can result in lawsuits and very expensive to resolve. Perhaps J_fit were reduced by one storey, it would help the situation. 4. Damages to Unit. When BART was built, piles were driven and the beam in my unit separated. BART claims no responsibility and refused to take care of the problem. If similar procedures areused-by Park"Stafion-.and damage is. done, t-will hold Park. Station. accountable. 5. Aesthetics. The present plan resembles the complex opposite T~nforan. It is a monstrosity and looks like an apartment building. The difference between the two projects is that at least the Tanforau units are built a distance from E1 Camiuo. Park Station sits blatantly on E1 C~mino and is an eyesore. The representative led us to believe that it was to be a condominium complex but I understand that the units can be rented as apartments. '6. Emergency Access. Although Park Station is being built within the legal limits to our property, in the case of au emergency, is that really an adequate space for emergency :equipment and vehicles to access the property to deal with the number of people on each lot? If a parking lot or open space were available, it would make it a!ot easier. My final concern is that with all the potential problems, this project could slow down the desirability to live at Cam/no Court and the property value will decrease. It is au attractive design and Park Station is not in harmony with the surroundings and .good planning should be homogenous With the neighborhood. t am not against progress or development but the visual and env/ronmental imPact that big developments can have .on au area is great, unless precautions are taken to cover all the potential problems. As a resident of South San Francisco, I am requesting that the Planning Commission take into consideration all the concerns of the people who are directly affected by their decision, and in the name of progress, rule in a sensible, conscientious and responsible way for the .benefit of the City as well as the residents who pay taxes, for such services. Do not make the mistakes that many cities have made and the residents are .left to bear the brunt of their poor decisions. Thank you for your cooperation. 'Very truly yours, Y-~onne Ah You OCT I.,.9 · ' B4 0~: 49PR i"iOFO 2t5 1400 E1 Camino P, eal, #326 South San Francisco, CA 94080 October 18, 2004 . VIA FAX 650'.-Ig77,SS35 & US MAIL I~, Thom~ G, Sparks Planning Division City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711 South SmFnmeisco, CA 940~3 Pc: Park Station Lofts - 1410 El Camino Real Dom' Mr, Sparks: . . . . - I am a homeowner at 1400 El Cmo R. eal'adjaoent to ~e property being d~wlqpvd st 1410. I am deeply conc~:d about ~ dcvclopment for ~e following re~cm: ' - ' 1. Trifle. Wi~ ~e ~dition~ hou~g st ~is lo~sfion, tog~.~r wi~ housing on lots adjae~m to. Costoo md ~, ~t~ on Mission S~e~, ~affic i~. going to b~ heavily m~roased. Sou~ Sm Frm~sco BART has not reached ~e.pmj~,d fidcrshp md who'.it y~s, it would app~ lhat the City W0~d. no~ ~, .~abic Of hm~l~g ~ c0ng~stion:..0/lmffi~. Since moving ~o SSF, I have' scm ~e ~ompl~fion of Cosine md ,~e McCleB~ homing dewiq~mt Th~ :m~e .~s'. in~d .9onsid~y ev~ with prcsm,, d~l~mmm, subseque~y, sevm ,~. ~m ~ve. bern ~s~led ~om my location to.the .eg~ of .I,280., Whm Tradm loc% .opens far business, it wffi ~aw.a lot of-m~.~fic, ~o..d~.no~wmt :the al,boole ~at was oared when thc Masonia Trader Joe% ~. ~ ~rmciseo w~ ~pmvefi.. It h~ inadequate p~g ~d h~ .ca--ed ~fic ~d p~gg problems .~. ~C. }~diate ~es. DmBg pe~ ho~s,, it is ~Possible m ~d p~Mng at SSF :C0st~9 .md ~h~n'g.. as ..~C~ are h~, thc volta: of :~s ~:r~ases. Trader Joe's is a very p~ul~ store md.will ~w more peoPl, who ~11 visit the sine .~e ~e7 visit Castro. The SSF Costco ~tore no. ~ub~. ha~.~, hi~st of ~e~ outl~ ~a~ se~ gas, 'On*~ ~ ~c d~volopm:nt ih ~e ~e~ is $omplete~,. ~!1 ..~e.C~ be . · ornery'haw 2 .P~hgg 'Sp~s,:..:..Ther~ ~e. a mt~. of 217 .p~king apa~es for. a ~6. Even ~ou~ fl!emits, have 2.p~ng ~pao~s, many residenU in ~ mis. have mor~ Even wi~ ~:, ~m~rs ~e using n~.~,s~ p~ng ~ th, ~n~. 0f ~ building. I h~pp,n only one e~ md m~Y 'have a~ed ¢o .~se my o~.pe~ng space, .-:Park Stgtion would ha~e u~ts. OneP~g sp~e.p~'~it.i~.nol.~ua~e so whee would all the.¢x~a When a r~presentafive made a pm~emah0n m us last ~, h, ~oke.about mm~g p~k~ng spaces from B~T, That is n,wr going'to h~np~n. I ~ow ~ id~a is ro ~omge people to use mass ~sif but ~ foot' is, ~ nmb~ aC o~s .fmi~es ~e a~qu~g ~ not deer~asmg, ~lowmae has .to be made. Adq~te p~ng is ~ ~ST in th: p!~ing of ~ d~elopm:nt, : , ' - '~ '.. ' " ..~-h.'- ':'. '.':.:' ' ."' · ' ' ' ....... ' ' . -: .: · · . . . '. . - . ~ ' .- · [ ' . - . ~' . - -13- O~'T ~B ~04 0~:50PM MOFO 35 3, .Environmental Concerns, My unit i~ on the north side o£ the building and preB~ntly I c~n view.trees and have ~znple natural lighting, With the n~v construction, my view will be obstructed and no doubt; the hghting will be affected, That is.the reason.! purchased this umw, The Camino Corm Homeowner~' Asso~i,adon filed a lawiuit for .construction defects '~gams~ the developer and have sealed the case, One ~eriou¢ problem was the .mold in several units, If'the height of the new development is as specified and the building ii so ¢lo~e (although within legal ~rni:s), will the lat..to of sunshine and. circulation of ~ exacerbate the mold problem? As you are aware, mold uroblem.~ are hazardous to health, can result in lawsuits and very ~xpcnsiw to resolve. Perhaps if it were radioed.by one storey~ it would help the situation, 4, Damages ~o Unit. When BART was built, piles were driven and the be~n in my un/t. s~arated.- ..BA.R~ ~laims.-ne. responsibi!iM-.and -refused...to-.tP. ke-ea~e -of£the-proh!em,--~ similar procedures are use~I by Park $tation and ~'ther damag, e is done, I will hold Park Station acco~'atable, " '~""<' ' ......· "' ' '''"- ': ' ' ::' '-'": :" :"" ' : ' -:'..", '."'-'- ': .' ' .: '~-"" i ' ~.' '"-' ": ' Aesthetics. The pre~ent plan resemble~ the complex oppo~it~ Tan£oran,' It is a monstrosity and looks like an ap~'trnent building. The difference between the two !~ojects that at leatt the Tanforan units ar~ built a distance from E1 C,,~ino. Park Station 'sits blatantly on SI C~nino md is an eyesore. The r~res~ntstive led us ~o believe :that it was to be condominium complex but I understand that the units can be ~ented as apartments. . . :... ...... . . .. " .'. :. :'.i !: ;:ii' .".. :.i' '.!. '..i'..'/.i' './~'?' ;' :::~" "?.('" :.'. ' '. :"": ~..-' .... -6, · ~mergeney Ae:ess, Aith~u..gh ?ark Station is being built, within:the legal !'.m~jts to our pmperb,, in thc ~ase of.an em~geney, is that rea0.y an .a~uate space for .emergency equipmem and vehicles.to acc".ss the:pr.o, peaAr, y to deal. with the number of people.on each lot?. If a parking lot or open space wet= available, it would make it a lot easier, . My final concern is that w~th all the potcntialproblems, this project.could slow down the desirabiIity.m live .~ Cmain0 ..Court and the property, value will decrease..It .is an attractive design and Park Station ii no:~. m harmony with thp ~urroundings .and .go~, p! .annin.. g.:sh0u!d..be homogenous with the neighborhood .- ... - : -.... · ::' ' .... .'.: ' .... ~.'..." '... '" · ....' ?'! ..... ':'--.ii"2'. :.' "- i"'.:...'''/-.'/: ~:.'..'..'..'i.' '.: .'...".":.' ": :.... ! am not againss progress ~r development but the visual and environmental impact that .big developments can have on a~ are~ ii tp'eat, unless .precautions ar~ .taken to cover all the .potential problems .... As s resident of South.Sm l~rmcise0, I .~=~ re.gun, ting that th~..?lanning Coxmniasion take into consideration all .the con:erns o£ the people, who.are directly affected bY their.deci.s_i0n, .and in the name of pr.ogress, re!sin a sensible, cons¢i~tiot~ and re~.pons!ble way ~or.the benefit., of the City as well as the residents who pay t~es £o~ such se~ees, Do not make :the mistakes that m~y ~itie$ have made and the residents are left to bear the brunt of their poor decisions, -- . .... - .. ....... .". ".'i. :..... : .- ....... . . . /..". '.-.-' .'....' i'. ':' ~'. !"., ~' -. .'.'.'. '....: ..-. : . ~ ..... '.j..- . .. . . . .. ':~hank you :~or your cooperation, .... .-j :".-~.'. !'.'".. .. :'-i/~'.,"...' ._...',..'.....! .'...' ¥~y truly yours, ' :Ygonne Ah You · ..."- -.. · . -.. '..:. '~:--.: :. :...:' .-...' , -i4- ~C)/1S/200~ lO'31 ?AX ~OO1/O01 Subject: ATTENTION THOMAS SPARKS CHIEF PLANNER-PLANNING DIVISION VIA FAX (650) 829-6639 October 13, 2004 ffCE VED To: SSF Planning Commission From: Aslam and Savita Sheikh 1400 El Camino Real Unit 229 ......... ,..Sou~.San~Fran cis~o,~Ca 94080 Re; Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Station 1410 E1 Camino real South San Francisco We feel that the loss of light and air circulation from the 4 story building is more than significant. We ieel that a 2 stor7 building would help mitigate this. We feel that the lack of sufficient parking and the absence of any guest parking spaces will have a significant negative effect on our complex, as visitors will inevitably use our guest parking spaces and 2 parking spaces per unit would mitigate this issue. When the BART Channel was constructed, cracks appeared in several of Camino Court. condominiums when pile~ were driven. Any further nearby pile driving is likely to exacerbate the cracking in several of Camino Court condominiums. The proposed development would block all of the current views to the north and west from most of the Camino Court buildings. When this proposed development is built, we feel it would noi only substantially degrade the views that complex enjoys, but will inevitable reduce the property value of our condominiums. We know this, because after we saw the planst we immediately had thoughts of selling our condo and moving lo be~er location. Thank you for hearing our comments. Aslam and Savita Shaikh 1400 El Camino Real Unit 229 South Sa~ Francisco, Ca 94080 -15- Arnold S~hwarzenegger Governor STATE OF CA_IF.ORNIA Governor's Offic~ of Planning and ~cscarch State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit October 18, 2004 Michael Lappen ' City of South San Francisco 315.Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 R£CE v£D ?L NNING Jan Bo~l Agfing Director Subject ParkStation Lofts ..................................................... SCH#: :20040920?4 Dear Michael Lappen: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative.Declazafion.m selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed I~ocument Derails.Report please note' that.the Clearinghouse has iismd thc state agenctes that reviewed your documenz. The review period closed on'October 15, 2004, and thc co,,,n~uu from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. I_f this commen¢ package is not iu order, please notify. the State Clearinghouse immed/ately. Please re£er ~o the projccfs'ten-dig/t State Clearinghousenumbcr in furore correspondence'sc that we may.respond promptly. Please note. that S¢..c~ion 2I 104(c) cf the California Public Resources Code states tha~ -- ' ::'" :~ "~ r~sponsible or other.public agency shall oniy rn~ke substantive commenm regarding those acfiviues revolved in a project which are v~thiu an area of expertise o£the agency cz which are :required re.be carried out or approved by the agency, Those eommenrs shall be supported by specifi, c documentation." These comments are forwarded for use m preparing your final environmental documenu Should you need more information.or clarification.of the enclosed ¢orrtrnents, we recommend that you conm¢~ the comm~nJiug agency directly. This loner acknowledges that you h~ve complied with the-State Cteat4~ghouse review requirements for' draft environmental documents, pursuam.to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse a~ (glfi) 445-0613 ifyouhave any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Director, S. tat~'~e'~ghouse cc:. _Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 304~ SACP. AlvlENTO, CALIYORNIA 95812-3044 · T5% (9t6) 445-0613 FAX (916) 325-301S -!6- Document Details ~.eDort State CLearinghouse Data~,ase $CH# Prqiect Title Lead Agency 2O04O92074 -Park Station Lofts South San Francisco. City of Type Description Nog Negative Declaration Proposed construction of 99 'residential structures, associated parking and recreational amenities. The PG&E facility will remain. Lead. Agency Contact Name Michael Lappen · Agency City of South San Francisco 'Phone (650) 877-8535 email Address 315 Maple Avenue City South .San Francisco State' C ~ 7.Jp 94083 Pr. oject Location - County 'City Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township San Mateo South San Francisco -Cedar Boulevard / Central Avenue 010-292-260, 290 Range Section Base Proximity to:. .Highways Airpo~s Railways Waterways ;Schools 'Land Use SR 8?_; t-280 SFIA UPRR Colma Creek Sunshine Ga~ens Elementary, Alta .Loma Middle The project area nas been developed, with two residential dwellings containing five dwellings and'a PG&E ground mounted electrical substation. Project Issues AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeo 0gic-Historic; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption: Economics/Jobs; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universlties; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; .Toxic/Ha~'ardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; W.ater Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; ~,egional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Parks and Recreation; Native Amedcan'Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; Department of Heaith · 'Services; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and. Game, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Toxic Substances Control; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission -Date Received 09/16/2004 Start of Review 09/1612004 End of Review :10/1512004 Nots: Btanks in da[a fields result from insc - ~[ 7 -nfo,?nation provided by lead agency. ETATE OF P, AI,~ORNIA--BUSIITESS. TRANSPOi~TATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRAN$POETATION Ill GllAND AVENLIE P. O. BOX 2.3660 O~, CA 9~623-0660 PHO~ (510) 286-5505 F_~ (510) 286-5559 ~ (800) 725~2929 October 14, 2004 ECEIVED O 2 O ARNOLD SCI-i~VARZENrEGGER. Govarnor Flex your power/ ~e energy effic~nt/ SM-Og2-2t.5 SM082228 ....................................................... SCH2004092074 'Mr. Michael Lappcn City of South San Francisco Pls~ning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Lappen: .. Park Station Lofts - Initial Study / Mitigated Negaiive Declaration Thank vou for including the California Department of Tmusportafion (Deparanent) in the cnvirolq~nenml review process for the proposed .project. We. have reviewed .thc Initial Study / 'Mitigated Negative Declaration. Page 3, Parking .and circulation (Bullet #3), indicates that the proposed project will provide garage .parking access .ma a.smgle .access drive from.E1 cami~o .Real. With .the subject developmem located next ma signalized.intersection, the stopped vehicles waiting for.the :green signal on-northbound E1 Camino Real will .block the.access to the parking garage, especially during the peak hours. What mitigation is proposed m alleviate this situation? Please provide the .Traffic Analysis Report m Caltraus.for review. Please verify number-,of building stories on Exhibit 4a & 4b, which illustrates four story .buildings rather, than the" ...two stow buildings'.' mdicaied on _...~age.. 1~_. (-Proj em descriofion]'... .. Please clarify the correct title on Page 55, projects Impacts (Trip generation and distribution), whether 'the 'Iustirate of Highway Engineers" should actually .state '"InstiUrte of Trsn,~pormtion Engineers." Please note on Page 56, Project impacts (Item d), fi_the proposed driveway on BI C~mino .. m accordant,, to .Cakrans. desi.gn, st_..andards .since the Real.is approved, it .shall .be consm'ucted ' - ' driveway is within Caltrans R_ightrof-Way. What impact does ..the.project have .on the adjacent signalized BART Station south driveway ,and E1 Cam~uo Real .intersection along with other.~intersecfions onE1 Cmm/no!~eal? "Ca,frans improve~ mobility across CaZifornia" -!S- )gLo. Lappez~ OctoBer 14~ 2004 Pa~e 2 6. What is the project impact on SR-280 freeway and ramps? 7. Where .are the nroj ect entrances .lOcated .(with illustration)? ,:T.'~ae report.:shoMd: disCUS~t :acceSS. ¸8. Page 3, Parking and Circulation; in reference to Page 56: .Are the 99 on-site parking spaces · sufficient io meet the required spaces for the proposed 99 multi-dwelling project? We believe gnat you 'should .provide 1.5 parking spaces/unit for-1-bedroom and 2 parking spaces/mt for 2-bedrooms. Please refer to city & county re~!uirements. W/Il there be.any surface street parking along E1 Camino Real? . Encroachment Permit Please .note gnat'if there is any project-related work or traffic control that encroaches onto the State Right-of-Way (ROW), au encroachment permit issued'by the Department w/Il be required. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of.plan,% clearly indicating S~me ROW, must be submitted to gne address below. See the following web' site li~k for more information: http : / /www/ dpt/ ca/ ¢ o v /hq /traff ops/ dev el opserv /pennits/ Scan Nomad, District Office Chief Office of Permits · .California DOT,: District 4 ?.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Should you have any questions or .require further information .regarding this letter, please call Jsnine Abemathy of my staff at (510) 622-5487. Sincerely, TIMOTHY C. SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Phill'ip Crirnmin,~ (State .Clearinghouse) "Caltra~s improves mobilitv ¢cross California" 19- O~l:obez 14, 2004 Ivir. Michael L'~PP~n City of South San l=rancisoo ptamning'Division ' 315' Maple Avenue Sout. k San Francisco, CA. 940~3 Dear Mr.. L,,ppea: Park Station Lofts- Initial Stady /Mitigated Negative Declaration Tha..nk you for including the CaJSfomia Department .of .Transportation (DePartrn~nt) in. the environmental review process for.the proposed .projem. We have reviewed the Iniliat Study / lVlitig'a.ted NegatSve De~iaration. 1, -Page 3, Parking mad ~ircu~aSon (Bullet g3), indicates thaT'the Froposcd project will provide gm-age ~sarking a~cess via a single, access drive .from E1 Camino Real. With..the subject dev¢iopmenr tocat~d heX-; xo a ·signalized.intersection, .fao stopped vehicles wai~rtg for the green signat or; northbound E1 Camino P,.~al w/Il blook the access to the parldng garage, .especially dtu--/ng the peak hours. What mitigation is .proposed to al.keviam this re'marion? 'Please provide.the Traffic Analysis.'Report m..Caltrans for r~.vlew. s :Pt,ase veri2y numb~ of building stories on Exhibk 4a 3~ 4h, whioh [liusum~es four story buildings rather than the ?...tv~ story buildings mdicm-d on Page 13 (Project description). S. Please .olari.~ the correct title onPage 55, Proje,zs Impac;~ (Trip generation and distn'btttton), whether, the 'Imtim;e of Hi~awa. y 'W. ngineers" should aomalty state '¢instittr;e of Transportatmn Engineer. 4. Ploase note on Page 56, Project .Impacts (Item d), if.the propased driveway on E1 Cammo Real is approved, it shall be cons;rutted in accordance to Caltrans' design smnd~ds since me driveway is withh~ Cattrans ~dght-ofWay. 5. 'Wha~ 'ira.pact 'does the prOjeCt have on the. adjacent signe]i~ed ]3ART Station south driveway and E1 Cammo Real in~ers¢mion along wkh o~' intersections on .El Camino Be'a/". -20- 6. Wha~ is flit projec% kmpact on El%.2E0 freeway ~d 7. ~crc ~: ~e ~ojec~ ~ccs.iocated '(~ ~usXadoU)? .~: r~portfnoUid ~sc~s projee~ 8. Page :,.P~= ~d c~culadon; *~ refe~,ec ~o Page 56: ~r~ ~ 99 on-sit~ p~g ~ac~s s~cicn~' to me~ ~e req~ed Spaces for fl~e proposed 99 m~fi-dWc~g .p~0jcc~7 We behave ~e~ you should pro.de ~.5 p~.e~8~g, Sp~ces/u~ for;2-be~ooms. Plebe zefer.~o ciV & couu~ ]~ncroachmcn~ Permit p~= no~"~-i,~ m=~' is a~y ~03-~:~-~ ~,6~k '0~~ ~ ~0~0~:m~-~=~o~h= o~o Smzc ~ght-of'waY~o~ ~ ~croachmem *p~t i~sued 'by '~e Dep~¢n~ w~ be'requ~ed. To apply, ~. complied cncroaff~en~ per~ ~plicafion, ¢n~o~en~ doc~enmfio~ ~d five (5) sc~s ofp].~, ¢lc~iy ind~¢a~g Sm~-ROW, m~ be-subdUed m ~e ~ss below. See fo]long web s~f¢ ~ for more h~://~v/dp~cff~ov~o/=~on~/deve~.o~s¢~it~ S¢~No~ari, Dis~cf O~c:'CMef C~o~a DOT~ Dis~e~ 4 P.O. Box 23660 O~d, CA 94623-0660 Should ~u have ~y questions or req~e f~¢z ~o~a~on r:g~g ~is le~, plsas~ ~1 3m~: ~Abem~y.of my sm~az (510) 622~5497, c: PNl'iip cfimmin~. (Stat= Cl¢ariughous¢) -21- 10/20/0Z~ 15'19 [~'01703 NO:~6_~ pacific Gas and Electric Company 111 Almaden BDulevmd P.O, B(]× 15005 San Jos~:, CA 951 )5-0005 October 20, 2004 Planning Division Dept. of E&C Development City of South San Francisco P.O.Box 711 Sou~h San Francisco, CA 94083 Attn: Michael Lappen Fax: 650-829-6639 -RE: Review-of' the-Intent to adapt a-Miti~a~,~'d-' kieg~-tive--D~la~:~{i~n ............... For proposal of Genentech, Inc. to reclassify a single 14,1 acre parcel 510-1139 Grandview Drive, SSF City's file: P04,0099, RZ04-0003, and ZA04-0003 PG&E File' 40323966-y04.MR-182 Dear Sial Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, at the above referenced location. PG&E nas the following comments to offer: PG&E owns and operates gas and electric facilities which are located within and adjacent to the proposed project, To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operatmn of utility facilities, the California 'Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has man~ated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surroun(~ing objects or construction activities. To ensure coml~liance with these standards, project prol3onents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans, Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that migl3t impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. The recluesting party will be responsible for the costs associatecl with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development, Because facilities relocation's require long lead times and are not always .feasible, ti'la recluesting party should be encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible, Relocation5 of PG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts .anc~ above) c{3UJd also requIre formal apl3roval from the California Public Utilities Commission, If required, this approval orocess ccuid take up to two years to complete. Proponents with development plans wtqich could affect such electric transmission facilities shoutd be referred to P'G&E for additional information and assistance in the devempment of their ~)rojoc~ schedules. -2_2- 10/20/04 15'19~'02/03 N0:963 Pacific Ges and Electric Company ~0.8ox 15005 tan Jos~, CA 951 We would also like to note that continued development consistent with City of South San Francisco's General Plans will have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and may require on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the facility has capacity to connect new loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessa~ · consequence of growth-and developmenL-ln-additi~n-'t'6 '~ddih-{j-new the range of electric system ira. provements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their ultimate buildout caoacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas .system could include facilities such as regulator stations, oo~orizer.stations, valve Jots, distribution and transmission lines. We would like to recommend that environmental documents for proposed development projects include adequate evaluatio~ of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve .those developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project, This will assure the prO~ect's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project scheOule. We also encourage the Department of Planning to include information about the ~saue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the Negative Declaration. It is PG&E's policy to share information and eoucate people about the issue of EMF. Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exis~ wherever there is electricity--in appliances, homes, schools and offices, and in power lines, Them is no scientific consensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure, but Jt is an issue of bublic concern. If you have questions about EMF, ptease call your local PG&E office. A package of information which includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other groups will be sent to you upon your request. PG&E remmns committed to working with City of South San Franmsco to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and 'electric service to the planned area, We would also ao~)reciate being copied on future correspondence regarding this subject aa this project develops, 10/20/04 15:19~]:03/03 N0'96~ Pacific Gas and Electric Company Alil~acJcJ~ [~0ulevard 15005 Jo.sn, CA 95115-0005 The California Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities. Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or investor owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energy supply in compliance with the rules and tariffs of the CPUC. Should you require any additional information or have any questions, please call me at (408) 282-7401. Sincerely, Land Agent South Coast Area State of California - The Resourc~ Aaenc¥ ARNOLD 5CHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF-FISH AND GAME httD://www, dfcl.c~.aov POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE CALIFORNIA '945ggSetDtem]Der 22, (707') 944-5500 2004 -0 Mr. Michael Lappen Rlanning Diviszon City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue Sou~h San Francisco, CA 94083 oH. EC,EIYED ':~ ST~4TE{=LEA~IN~i HOUSE cteCr .I D' 15'~.~' Dear.-Mr..Lappen.: .......................................................................................... Park .Station Lots · 14!0 E1 camino Real SouS'h San Francisco, San Marco County 'SCH~ 2004'09207& The De~ar%ment of Fish :and:Game :(DFG) has .reviewed 5he document for the 'subDect projecs. We do no5 have specific commenms regarding the proposed .project and.ins .ef.f.ecns on biological resources. ~!ease be.advised this projec5 may result in dhanges %o fish and wildlife'resources as .described in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Secnion 753...5(d) (.!.) (A)_(G)'z Therefore, a de .minimis de~erminasion is no5 a~propriate, and an environmennal filing .fee as required under Fish and Game co.de Sec,.ion 7ll..A<d) should be paid 5o the San Masco .County Clerk on or before filing .of 5he Notice of Deserm~na%ion for %kis proDecs. 'zf you have any questions} please consact Mr..Scott Wilson, Habita5 Conservation Supervisor,-as (707.) Sincerely., ..(~Rober~ W. F!oerke f Re_~ional Mana_~er Central 'Coast Region cc-: .State Clearinghouse ATTACHMENT 4 SITE AND ELEVATION PLANS JANUARY 11, 2005 Entry Court Park Station David Baker + Partners ARCHITECT Urban Housing Group DEVELOPER The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT El Camino Real Elevation Park Station David Baker + Partners ARCHITECT Urban Housing Group DEVELOPER The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT L