Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-19 e-packet@6:30Wednesday, August 19, 2020 6:30 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA TELECONFERENCE MEETING Joint Special Meeting City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda August 19, 2020Joint Special Meeting City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-25-20 AND N-29-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Addiego, Mayor Garbarino, Planning Commissioners and essential City staff will participate via Teleconference. Members of the public may submit their comments on any agenda item or public comment via email or during the meeting. PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE. The public may view or comment during this meeting from a computer, laptop, tablet, or smartphone: Joint Special City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Time: Aug 19, 2020 06:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82308425737 or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0282 Webinar ID: 823 0842 5737 Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the Zoom webinar, join the meeting from your computer or mobile device, enter your name, and request to comment through the “raise your hand” function and a staff person will add you to the queue for comments and unmute your microphone during the comment period. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/15/2020 August 19, 2020Joint Special Meeting City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda Call to Order. Roll Call. Agenda Review. Remote Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. Remote Public Comments Received1. Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 19th. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up. Emails received before the meeting start time will be emailed to the City Council, posted on the City’s website and will become part of the public record for that meeting. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting. If a comment is received after the set time or during the meeting but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting. The Clerk will make every effort to read emails received but cannot guarantee such emails will be read during the meeting, subject to the Mayor’s discretion to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Comments that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum may be summarized for the record. Email: [email protected] Public comments can be made on items not on the agenda, or must clearly identify the Agenda Item Number in the SUBJECT Line of the email. The length of an email comment shall commensurate to the three minutes customarily allowed per individual comment, approximately 300 words total. City Council Hotline: (650) 829-4670 Please limit your voicemail to comply with the 3-minute time limitation for public comment. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding the General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives (Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 2. Adjournment. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/15/2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-565 Agenda Date:8/19/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Remote Public Comments Received City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/14/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-553 Agenda Date:8/19/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Report regarding the General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives (Lisa Costa Sanders,Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive a presentation and provide input on the General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION A General Plan is the local government’s long-term blueprint for the community’s vision of future growth.Each city is required by California law to have a General Plan to guide its future land use decisions.South San Francisco’s last comprehensive General Plan update occurred in 1999,with the last significant amendment in 2015 to incorporate the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The City Council initiated South San Francisco’s General Plan update process by forming a General Plan Community Advisory Committee (GPCAC)and selecting the Raimi +Associates consultant team to guide the effort.The update process includes a comprehensive General Plan update,Climate Action Plan update,Zoning Code update,and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.The process includes substantial community engagement and meetings with the GPCAC, Planning Commission, and City Council. The consultant team has completed background reports and community outreach on the vision,guiding principles and land use alternatives.The process was kicked-off with a joint City Council and Planning Commission study session on April 29,2019.Staff and the consultant team then held a series of community meetings during August/September of 2019 to engage residents and businesses in the General Plan update process.Next,a series of community workshops and meetings were held during December 2019-January 2020 to discuss priority community issues and draft vision and guiding principles.An online visioning survey was launched in June 2020 and over 200 comments were provided on the statement.The revised Vision and Guiding Principle document is included as Attachment 1.The GPCAC also hosted three community educational forums that discussed emerging trends in mobility,housing affordability,and regional and local economic trends. Building on the community input,staff and the consultant team prepared draft land use alternative maps.The land use alternatives were reviewed at a Planning Commission study session,with the GPCAC and at a series of community meetings. The purpose of the meeting this evening is the following: 1.Receive feedback on the Vision and Guiding Principle document included as Attachment 1; 2.Review the General Plan land use alternatives maps included as Attachment 2; 3.Provide City Council and the Planning Commission with initial background analysis on the impacts of each of the alternatives included as Attachment 3; and 4.Receive City Council and Planning Commission input for the development of a preferred General Plan land use alternative. City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/14/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-553 Agenda Date:8/19/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Following this meeting,staff and the consultant team will prepare the preferred General Plan land use map.The preferred land use map will be discussed by the GPCAC and with the community at a series of outreach meetings.Staff and the consultant team will return to present the preferred land use map to the Planning Commission and City Council in Fall 2020 for acceptance and direction to initiate the CEQA review process. CONCLUSION Staff requests that the City Council and Planning Commission provide input on the General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives. Attachments 1.Draft Vision and Guiding Principles 2.Land Use Alternatives Maps 3.Land Use Alternatives Background 4.Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/14/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Berkeley 1900 Addison Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510.666.1010 Los Angeles 706 South Hill Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213.599.7671 Riverside 3600 Lime Street, Suite 216 Riverside, CA 92501 951.801.5350 www.raimiassociates.com Memo To: City of South San Francisco From: Raimi + Associates Date: July 29, 2020 Re: Revised General Plan Vision Through sub-area meetings, pop-up events, and discussions with community stakeholders, the Community Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and City Council, we explored how individuals envision the future of South San Francisco, what makes South City unique and special, and what things residents and businesses would like to change. Building off that community engagement, the following memorandum summarizes a draft vision statement, cross-cutting community values, and key General Plan outcomes (guiding principles). Community Vision for the Future South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Cross-Cutting Community Values Throughout the General Plan process, community members identified many shared values and beliefs. These cross-cutting community values, include: diversity and inclusion, livability, sustainability, and innovation. While each guiding principle, goal, policy, and action outline what the City wants to achieve and plans to do, these values describe how future actions should be implemented. Equity + Inclusion We celebrate our diversity. We proactively promote diversity and inclusion for all races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, abilities, ages, religions, and cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. We strive to ensure equitable access to services and resources for all, build collaborative partnerships, and promote civic engagement. Berkeley 1900 Addison Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510.666.1010 Los Angeles 706 South Hill Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213.599.7671 Riverside 3600 Lime Street, Suite 216 Riverside, CA 92501 951.801.5350 www.raimiassociates.com Innovation We encourage innovation, creative thinking, and state-of-the-art solutions. We pilot new tools and technologies and forge public-private partnerships that improve the well-being of residents and the efficiency of City operations and businesses. Sustainability We strive to build and maintain a healthy and safe city. Our actions reduce climate pollution, adapt to climate disruptions, preserve natural resources, foster a prosperous and just economy, and meet the needs of current and future generations to ensure all people have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Livability We cherish our high quality of life. Residents of all ages, income levels, and abilities are able to comfortably live in a variety of housing options and can easily access quality parks, recreational facilities, libraries and community services. We can travel via safe and reliable transportation options, including walking, biking, and public transit. Key Community Outcomes (or Guiding Principles) The City of South San Francisco seeks to achieve our community’s vision by making decisions and taking actions across these six key community outcomes: Affordable, Safe, Attractive, Amenity-Rich Neighborhoods The City of South San Francisco ensures a high quality of life for all residents by providing a diverse supply of housing affordable to all income levels and people living with disabilities. The City promotes housing options for households with distinct needs, including multigenerational families, empty nesters, and younger and older adults. The City of South San Francisco encourages new housing production while also preserving affordable housing and protecting vulnerable residents from housing instability and displacement. The City focuses new housing in complete neighborhoods with access to retail and services, parks and open space, and transit. In promoting the production of new housing, the city will make progress to achieving a balance of jobs and housing. The City of South Francisco enhances the safety and aesthetics of all neighborhoods. High-Quality and Accessible Services, Facilities, and Amenities for Residents at All Stages of Their Lives Berkeley 1900 Addison Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510.666.1010 Los Angeles 706 South Hill Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213.599.7671 Riverside 3600 Lime Street, Suite 216 Riverside, CA 92501 951.801.5350 www.raimiassociates.com The City of South San Francisco provides high quality and accessible services, facilities, and amenities for residents at all stages of their lives. As a “smart city”, South San Francisco leverages high-speed internet technology and connectivity to improve engagement, transportation, utilities, education, public health and safety, environmental quality, energy, and the quality and efficiency of City operations. The City ensures digital equality by promoting internet connectivity in all neighborhoods to bridge access to reliable and affordable information. The City increases access to and quality of parks and open spaces and invests in the expansion and modernization of its parks and open space system. The City supports the creation of pedestrian and bicycle linkages to Sign Hill, the San Francisco Bay Trail, schools, and community parks. The City provides educational and recreational opportunities and programs for all ages, including childcare, preschool, after-school activities, special needs programs, aquatics, senior services, art, theater, music, libraries, and STEM and STEAM learning opportunities. The City supports well trained, community-centered Fire, Police, and Emergency Response that provide compassionate service, follow practices and standards for safe interactions, continually improve department practices and community relations, and respond to incidents in a timely manner. A Safe, Convenient, and Accessible Transportation Network Well-Connected to the Region The City of South San Francisco prioritizes a safe, convenient, and accessible transportation network that is well-connected to the region. South San Francisco has “complete streets” that provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities that invite people of all ages and abilities. Anyone can access public transportation to get anywhere in the city or around the Bay Area. The City embraces and prepares for emerging transportation innovations and micro-mobility, such as scooters, bike share, and electric buses and vehicles. A Vibrant Downtown that Reflects the City’s Diversity The City of South San Francisco’s Downtown celebrates the city’s history and cultural diversity through community events, arts, and programming. Downtown is a destination for all, with a diversity of retail, public open spaces, services, institutions, religious facilities, entertainment, housing and a public library. The City invests in streetscapes, sidewalks, landscaping, and façade improvements and maintenance to improve safety and walkability in Downtown and create visual interest. The City provides resources to preserve and nurture local businesses that make Downtown special. The City prioritizes improvements that make Downtown accessible via public transit, including Caltrain. A Resilient Community Berkeley 1900 Addison Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510.666.1010 Los Angeles 706 South Hill Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213.599.7671 Riverside 3600 Lime Street, Suite 216 Riverside, CA 92501 951.801.5350 www.raimiassociates.com South San Francisco takes a leadership role in the region in creating a cleaner, healthier, and more economically viable future through conscious investments and regulatory measures. The City adopts innovative practices and partnerships aimed at climate pollution reduction, efficient energy and water use, and clean air. At the same time, the City prepares for the effects of climate disruption to protect people, habitat, and our built environment. Housing, transportation, employment areas, and community-serving facilities and infrastructure are all at risk from warmer temperatures, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather days. The City prioritizes resources for its most vulnerable communities and increases the capacity for the most disadvantaged residents and workers to withstand hazards and adapt to climate disruption. A Prosperous Local Economy The City of South San Francisco nurtures a thriving and diverse local economy, capitalizing on the city’s strategic location near Silicon Valley, San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport , and strategic locations along critical transportation corridors. The City supports local businesses, including retail, grocery, dining, entertainment, and arts and cultural uses, while simultaneously strengthening its role as the worldwide hub of the biotech and life sciences industries and attracting more jobs in the Technology sector, professional office sector, and other sectors with lon g-term growth potential and the ability to diversify the City’s supply of high -wage jobs. The City embraces its legacy as “The Industrial City” and supports a diversity of light industrial, manufacturing, and maker businesses to maintain a core of middle-wage jobs in the city. The City builds career pipelines to match residents to local jobs in the life sciences, industrial, and civil sectors through education and training, creating opportunities for social mobility, ever adapting to a changing world. The City believes its long-term economic vitality depends on having high quality, well-resourced public education and workforce training, and the City will continue to foster educational partnerships with the local school district, community college district, and other organizations. The City supports Universal Pre-K and childcare, striving to ensure every child has an opportunity to attend pre-kindergarten. Citywide Alternative 1 Citywide Alternative 2 Citywide Alternative 3 Citywide Alternative 1: changes only Citywide Alternative 2: changes only Citywide Alternative 3: changes only Land Use Alternatives Background Planning Commission + City Council Study Session August 19, 2020 Purpose of Alternatives Test different land use and urban design patterns Understand the trade-offs between the alternatives Make informed choices about the future Pivot towards the policies and implementation mechanisms needed to make these happen PlaceTypes Urban Mixed-Use / Transit Core Average Height –12-15 stories Residential Density –~180 units per acre Commercial Intensity –2.5 FAR High-Density Mixed Use Average Height –6-8 stories Residential Density –~80-120 units per acre Commercial Intensity –1.0 FAR Medium-Density Mixed Use Average Height –4-5 stories Residential Density –~60 units per acre Commercial Intensity –1.0 FAR Low-Density Mixed Use Average Height –2-3 stories Residential Density –~40 units per acre Commercial Intensity –1.0 FAR Business + Technology Park High Average Height –6-10 stories Residential Density –N/A Commercial Intensity –2.0 FAR Business + Technology Park Average Height –3-5 stories Residential Density –N/A Commercial Intensity –1.0 FAR Office Average Height –3-6 stories Residential Density –N/A Commercial Intensity –2.5 FAR Mixed Industrial High Average Height –2-4 stories Residential Density –N/A Commercial Intensity –1.0 to 2.0 FAR Residential High Average Height –6-8 stories Residential Density –up to 80 units per acre Commercial Intensity –N/A Medium Density Residential Average Height –3-5 stories Residential Density –up to 60 units per acre Commercial Intensity –N/A Residential Low Average Height –2 stories Residential Density –varies; up to 20 units per acre Commercial Intensity –NA Residential Transitions Citywide Alternatives Big Ideas Maintain the City as an economic engine for the region Produce workforce and affordable housing Reinforce Downtown as the heart of the community Create mixed-use transit-oriented community near the Caltrain Station connected to Downtown Improve multimodal mobility Address sea level rise Transform Colma Creek Alternatives Summary Current General Plan Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Getting Worse MoreLess Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Improving MoreLess Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance About the Same MoreLess Alternative 1 Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Getting Worse MoreLess Alternatives Summary 40,000 98,000 2.5 3 103,000 13.9m 50% Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 total housing units total jobs jobs per housing unit greenhouse gas emissions per service population (MTCO2e)* total population square feet of industrial space % walk, bike, transit 43,000 100,000 2.3 3 110,000 15m 52% Existing Current GP 26,000 85,000 3.3 3 85,000 16m 46% 35,000 98,000 2.9 3 94,000 13.8m 49% 22,000 57,000 2.6 6.4 64,000 15.5m 44% *service population = population + jobs East of 101 Proposed Vision + Policy A well-connected innovation district with a diverse mix of uses that serves as a model of sustainability, resilience, and economic opportunity Preserve the cluster of life science as an economic engine for the City and an international hub while blending new emerging industries into the district Maintain a well-connected district with high-quality transit, walking and biking paths, and high-speed internet Create places and programming to inspire creativity and social interaction in hubs of activity Diversify the mix of uses in the district, concentrating the highest-intensities adjacent to Caltrain and along transit corridors (South Airport, Gateway, Oyster Point, E Grand) Proactively build long-term resilience to sea level rise Connect residents and employees to the Bay Harness the creativity of the district to create collaborative solutions to complex district challenges, such as sea level rise and traffic Alternative 1 Creates a commercially-focused, mixed- use transit-oriented community at the Caltrain Station Maintain current business / technology park intensity Allows business / technology park anywhere south of E Grand Ave Maintains commercial, hospitality pattern along S Airport Blvd Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 1 Business + Technology Park Commercial High Density Mixed Use Transit Core Alternative 1 Changes Only Alternative 2 Creates residential-focused, mixed-use transit-oriented community at the Caltrain Station Creates mixed-use corridor on S Airport Blvd Allows higher intensity business / technology park Preserves and allow higher-intensity industrial Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 2 Business + Technology ParkHigh Density Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use Industrial High Density Business + Tech Park High Density Alternative 2 Changes Only Alternative 3 Expands higher-density, residential- focused, mixed-use transit-oriented community at the Caltrain Station Expands higher-density mixed-use corridor on S Airport Blvd Allows higher intensity business / technology park Preserves and allow higher-intensity industrial Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 3 Business + Technology Park High Density Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use Industrial High Density Business + Tech Park High DensityTransit Core Alternative 3 Changes Only Create commercial- focused mixed-use center at Caltrain Allow business / technology park Maintain current business / technology park intensity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternatives Comparison Maintain commercial mixed- use pattern Create mixed-use transit-oriented community at Caltrain and mixed- use corridor on S Airport Blvd Allow higher- intensity industrial Allow higher intensity business / technology park Allow business / technology park Expand higher-density transit-oriented community at Caltrain and mixed-use corridor on S Airport Blvd Allow higher- intensity industrial Allow higher intensity business / technology park Allow business / technology park Expand higher- density mixed-use corridor on S Airport Downtown Discussion Questions Do you agree with this updated vision statement and policy direction for the area? Specific questions: Should Grand Ave be maintaining as a mixed-use corridor with higher densities (illustrated in all Alts)? Should the area adjacent to Caltrain be a transit-oriented community with higher densities (illustrated in all Alts)? Do you agree with allowing a new Colma Creek residential neighborhood to emerge over time (illustrated in all Alts)? Should Airport be a mixed-use gateway to Downtown (illustrated on all Alts) with a neighborhood center at Linden Ave (Alts 2 and 3)? Do you agree with higher densities on Linden Ave (Alts 2 and 3)? What is your preferred alternative for the area? Why? Do you have other ideas that are not illustrated in these alternatives? What are the priority area improvements or strategies for the area? Examples include public open space, housing, affordable housing, small business preservation. Promote presence as the city’s center A pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse Enhance linkages Implement Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Current Guiding Policy Alternative 1 Builds on the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Maintains mixed use Downtown core along Grand Ave Creates mixed-use, transit-oriented community near the Caltrain Station Allows mixed-use to Colma Creek to support Downtown Creates mixed-use gateway along Airport Blvd Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 1 High Density Mixed Use Grand + Transit Core Medium Density Mixed Use Low Density Mixed UseMedium Density Residential High Density Residential Alternative 1 Changes Only Alternative 2 Builds on the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan(DSASP) Maintains mixed use Downtown core along Grand Ave Creates mixed-use, transit-oriented community near the Caltrain Station Creates mixed use center at Airport Blvd and Linden Ave Allows higher-density mixed-use along N Linden Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 2 High Density Mixed Use Grand + Transit Core Medium Density Mixed Use Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Alternative 2 Changes Only Alternative 3 Builds on the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Maintains mixed use Downtown core along Grand Ave Creates mixed-use, transit-oriented community near the Caltrain Station Allows higher-density mixed-use to Colma Creek to support Downtown Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 3 High Density Mixed Use Grand + Transit Core Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Medium Density Mixed Use Alternative 3 Changes Only Maintain mixed use Downtown core Allow mixed- use to Colma Creek Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternatives Comparison Allow medium density, mixed use along N Linden Ave Create mixed use center @ Airport and N Linden Allow mixed use gateway along Airport Create mixed- use, transit- oriented community at Caltrain Allow medium density, mixed use along N Linden Ave Create mixed use center @ Airport and N Linden Allow mixed- use to Colma Creek Allow higher- density mixed- use to Colma Creek Create mixed- use, transit- oriented community at Caltrain Create mixed- use, transit- oriented community at Caltrain Lindenville Current Guiding Policy Maintain the industrial character in the area Develop new streets and through connections Improve buffering between industrial areas and surrounding neighborhoods Proposed Vision + Policy An enhanced mixed-use district that maintains a base of middle- wage jobs and promotes the creative economy, while capitalizing on access to Downtown and BART Preserve a core area of light industrial and service uses that provide middle-wage jobs for South San Francisco residents Proactively support the industries, artists, institutions, and programs that spur the creative economy Sustain a diverse mix of uses with higher intensities close to Downtown, the San Bruno BART station, and along S Spruce Ave and Highway 101 Proactively build long-term resilience to sea level rise and Colma Creek flooding Maintain a well-connected district with high-quality transit, walking and biking paths, and high-speed internet Alternative 1 Maintains a mixed-industrial core area Allows residential-focused mixed-use south to Colma Creek Allows business technology park along Highway 101 corridor Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Medium Density Mixed Use Business + Technology Park Low Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed UseCommercial Office Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Changes Only Alternative 2 Creates residential-focused mixed-use centered to Colma Creek Creates mixed-use corridor on S Spruce Ave Allows additional office area Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Medium Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use Low Density Mixed Use Office Industrial High Density Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Changes Only Alternative 3 Create higher-density, residential- focused mixed-use centered to Colma Creek Preserves and allow higher-intensity industrial Creates mixed-use corridor on S Spruce Ave Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 3 Low Density Mixed Use Office High Density Mixed Use Industrial High Density Alternative 3 Changes Only Maintain mixed industrial core area Allow business / technology park Allow mixed- use to Colma Creek Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Lindenville Comparison Allow mixed use along S Spruce Ave Allow office Create higher-density, mixed-use core around Colma Creek Allow higher- intensity industrial Allow mixed-use south of Colma Creek (to Victory) Allow residential- focused mixed use Allow mixed use along S Spruce Ave El Camino Current Policy Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center Develop more east-west crossings El Camino Real Implement the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non-residential uses Proposed Vision + Policy A dynamic and re-envisioned boulevard that is a safe and healthy place for transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists, with a diverse mix of commercial and residential uses Improve travel along and across El Camino Real for all modes with Improved sidewalks, street trees, and crosswalks for pedestrians Improved access to city and regional destinations for cyclists Well-managed parking and traffic flow Accessible BART and bus service Create pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use centers with pockets of concentrated activity at South San Francisco BART station The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area The South El Camino area Create visual transitions and improve transportation connections to adjacent neighborhoods Transform Colma Creek into a public amenity Alternative 1 Creates 3-mixed use centers, including transit-oriented communities at the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations Maintains a mixed-use corridor between centers Maintains allowable heights along El Camino, in Chestnut area Allows low density residential in unincorporated county Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 1 Medium Density Mixed Use Low Density Mixed Use Medium Density Residential High Density Mixed Use High-Density Mixed Use Alternative 1 Changes Only Alternative 2 Creates 3-mixed use centers, including transit-oriented communities at the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations Maintains a mixed-use corridor between centers Reduces allowable heights along El Camino Allows residential on former Serra Vista / Fox Hills Schools Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 2 Medium Density Residential High Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use Low Density Mixed Use Medium Density Residential Alternative 2 Changes Only Alternative 3 Creates 3-mixed use centers, including transit-oriented communities at the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations Maintains a mixed-use corridor between centers Reduces allowable heights along El Camino Allows residential on former Serra Vista / Fox Hills Schools Housing Units Jobs MoreLess Alternative 3 Medium Density Residential High Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use Low Density Mixed Use Medium Density Residential Alternative 3 Changes Only Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 El Camino Comparison Allow more density @ BART Allow residential on County- owned site Allow low density residential in unincorporated county Allow residential adjacent to Safeway Reduce allowable heights Allow transitional mixed-use area Allow residential on former Serra Vista / Fox Hills Schools Create a mixed-use center Create a mixed-use center Allow low density residential in unincorporated county Reduce allowable heights Allow transitional mixed-use area Allow residential on former Serra Vista / Fox Hills Schools Create a mixed-use center Create a mixed-use center Maintain El Camino designations with allowable heights Land Use Alternatives Discussion City Council + Planning Commission Study Session August 19, 2020 Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting Discuss vision + guiding policy and land use alternatives Provide an overview of the input received on the land use alternatives Receive direction on the preferred land use Highlight what’s happening next (Virtual) Land Use Alternatives Meetings City Council Briefings -June Citywide Kick-Off –7/14 Planning Commission Study Session –7/16 East of 101 Sub-Area –7/20 Downtown Sub-Area –7/20 Community Advisory Committee –7/23 Lindenville Sub-Area –7/28 El Camino Sub-Area –7/28 Community Advisory Committee –8/11 Youth Advisory Commission –8/15 Downtown Sub-Area (in Spanish) –8/17 Other Ways to Engage Alternatives Webpage (English and Spanish) Meeting materials Primer videos Alternatives maps and descriptions Links to the surveys Planning Surveys (English and Spanish) Citywide Downtown El Camino Lindenville East of 101 Ask a SSF Planner (virtual office hours) Citywide Engagement Workshop + Survey: Most Live in Downtown sub-area *44% Declined to state in survey Workshop: 237 Survey: 126 Ask a Planner: 14 Total: 377 Workshop + Survey: Most between the ages of 31-64 10% 22% 35% 6%1% 25%21%26% 50% 1%2% 41% 34% 19% 5%2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Asian Hispanic White Other Black Decline to State Race/Ethnicity Engagement and City Demographics Surveys Workshops Citywide Census *Results as of August 12, 2020 Alternatives Overview Purpose of Alternatives Test different land use and urban design patterns Understand the trade-offs between the alternatives Make informed choices about the future Pivot towards the policies and implementation mechanisms needed to make these happen Big Ideas Maintain the City as an economic engine for the region Produce workforce and affordable housing Reinforce Downtown as the heart of the community Create mixed-use transit-oriented community near the Caltrain Station connected to Downtown Improve multimodal mobility Address sea level rise Transform Colma Creek East of 101 Proposed Vision + Policy A well-connected innovation district with a diverse mix of uses that serves as a model of sustainability, resilience, and economic opportunity Preserve the cluster of life science as an economic engine for the City and an international hub while blending new emerging industries into the district Maintain a well-connected district with high-quality transit, walking and biking paths, and high-speed internet Create places and programming to inspire creativity and social interaction in hubs of activity Diversify the mix of uses in the district, concentrating the highest-intensities adjacent to Caltrain and along transit corridors (South Airport, Gateway, Oyster Point, E Grand) Proactively build long-term resilience to sea level rise Connect residents and employees to the Bay Harness the creativity of the district to create collaborative solutions to complex district challenges, such as sea level rise and traffic Create commercial- focused mixed-use center at Caltrain Allow business / technology park Maintain current business / technology park intensity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternatives Comparison Maintain commercial mixed- use pattern Create mixed-use transit-oriented community at Caltrain and mixed- use corridor on S Airport Blvd Allow higher- intensity industrial Allow higher intensity business / technology park Allow business / technology park Expand higher-density transit-oriented community at Caltrain and mixed-use corridor on S Airport Blvd Allow higher- intensity industrial Allow higher intensity business / technology park Allow business / technology park Expand higher- density mixed-use corridor on S Airport East of 101 -Vision + Guiding Policy Emphasize residential community Emphasize amenities for residents and employees Mix of biotech and small industrial businesses Emphasize sustainability and resilience Focus on better connections to residents and other businesses in the rest of the city Improve public transportation and bike networks 65% agree on the vision statement East of 101 -Land Use Alternatives Need higher-density mixed use to have more residential, allowing more commercial to become high-density mixed use Need to plan for sea level rise Strong preference for housing (63% chose Alts 2 and 3) Strong preference to preserve industrial (63% chose Alts 2 and 3) 76% think housing and jobs balance is important Current General Plan -6% Alternative 1 –31% Alternative 2 –19% Alternative 3 –44% Current General Plan Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Rating out of 5 stars East of 101 -CAC Comments Land Use Alternatives Comments Strong preference to add housing, with appropriate amenities and services (Alts 2 and 3). Strong preference to keep business diversity and industrial space, allowing them to intensify over time (Alts 2 and 3) Consider transitions between housing + industrial Concern about increased BTP intensity will significantly impact traffic and infrastructure Do not over retail area Vision + Policy Comments General support Add industrial + housing / affordable housing policy Discuss connection with the rest of the City Define innovation Ensure benefits of growth are broadly shared Current General Plan: 0% Alternative 1 -0% Alternative 2 -42% Alternative 3 -42% Other -17% Lindenville Proposed Vision + Policy An enhanced mixed-use district that maintains a base of middle- wage jobs and promotes the creative economy, while capitalizing on access to Downtown and BART Preserve a core area of light industrial and service uses that provide middle-wage jobs for South San Francisco residents Proactively support the industries, artists, institutions, and programs that spur the creative economy Sustain a diverse mix of uses with higher intensities close to Downtown, the San Bruno BART station, and along S Spruce Ave and Highway 101 Proactively build long-term resilience to sea level rise and Colma Creek flooding Maintain a well-connected district with high-quality transit, walking and biking paths, and high-speed internet Maintain mixed industrial core area Allow business / technology park Allow mixed- use to Colma Creek Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Lindenville Comparison Allow mixed use along S Spruce Ave Allow office Create higher-density, mixed-use core around Colma Creek Allow higher- intensity industrial Allow mixed-use south of Colma Creek (to Victory) Allow residential- focused mixed use Allow mixed use along S Spruce Ave Lindenville -Vision + Guiding Policy Fear of losing small businesses Emphasize housing Potential impacts on Downtown Focus more higher intensity development on El Camino Real and near BART Station Emphasize pedestrians, bike, and transit improvements (Active Transportation) Add language about promoting quality of life Emphasize affordable housing Emphasize industrial preservation 38% neither agree or disagree and 38%disagree on the vision statement Lindenville -Land Use Alternatives Place more housing near Tanforan and San Bruno Bart Station Maintain small businesses Strong support for Colma Creek residential area (67% chose Alt 2 or 3) Very strong support to maintain industrial area (75% chose Alt 1 or 3) 56% think housing and jobs balance is important Current General Plan -33% Alternative 1 –0% Alternative 2 –25% Alternative 3 –42% Current General Plan Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Rating out of 5 stars Lindenville -CAC Comments Land Use Alternatives Comments Strong preference to add housing (mixed use) Consider moving the boundary north Consider areas closer to San Bruno BART Concern about housing close to Highway 101 Strong preference to keep business diversity and industrial space, allowing them to intensify over time Consider transitions between housing + industrial Little interest in expanding office / BTP Grow incrementally, a lot of change Vision + Policy Comments Add housing / affordable housing policy Redefine “middle wage” jobs Center people in the vision statement Current General Plan -0% Alternative 1 -18% Alternative 2 -0% Alternative 3 -73% Other: 9% Downtown Proposed Vision + Policy A revitalized Downtown that promotes new residential, mixed-use, and employment uses, focuses new improvements on Grand Ave, and improves pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain and East of 101 through the implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Maintain mixed use Downtown core Allow mixed- use to Colma Creek Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternatives Comparison Allow medium density, mixed use along N Linden Ave Create mixed use center @ Airport and N Linden Allow mixed use gateway along Airport Create mixed- use, transit- oriented community at Caltrain Allow medium density, mixed use along N Linden Ave Create mixed use center @ Airport and N Linden Allow mixed- use to Colma Creek Allow higher- density mixed- use to Colma Creek Create mixed- use, transit- oriented community at Caltrain Create mixed- use, transit- oriented community at Caltrain Downtown -Vision + Guiding Policy Emphasize existing residents, culture, history, diversity Looks good for pedestrians Accessible public transportation is important Emphasize local culture and existing residents Preserve affordability Emphasize open spaces, parks, and trees Add bike and ped improvements Emphasize public transit improvements 42% agree on the vision statement Downtown -Land Use Alternatives Gentrification concerns in Downtown Develop mixed-use housing along El Camino, near SSF and San Bruno BART stations Have East of 101 employers support housing Need more bike infrastructure Maintain existing and expand Downtown parks Distribute high-density housing in other areas like El Camino, East of 101, and BART Concerns about high-density mixed use near Colma Creek 65% think housing and jobs balance is important Current General Plan -25% Alternative 1 –25% Alternative 2 –5% Alternative 3 –50% Current General Plan Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Rating out of 5 stars Downtown -CAC Comments Land Use Alternatives Comments Support limited change to Downtown sub-area consistent with community comment Support residential mixed-use towards Colma Creek Ensure transitional densities around existing Downtown residential area Support for an Alternative 1b, combining mixed-use @ Linden Ave / Airport Blvd with Alternative 1 Be strategic about growth in the area Vision + Policy Comments Address displacement and gentrification Celebrate history and culture of residents, centering people Connect to Colma Creek, Lindenville + East of 101 Remove words like infill and intensification Current General Plan -0% Alternative 1 -42% Alternative 2 -17% Alternative 3 -25% Other: 17% El Camino Proposed Vision + Policy A dynamic and re-envisioned boulevard that is a safe and healthy place for transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists, with a diverse mix of commercial and residential uses Improve travel along and across El Camino Real for all modes with Improved sidewalks, street trees, and crosswalks for pedestrians Improved access to city and regional destinations for cyclists Well-managed parking and traffic flow Accessible BART and bus service Create pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use centers with pockets of concentrated activity at South San Francisco BART station The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area The South El Camino area Create visual transitions and improve transportation connections to adjacent neighborhoods Transform Colma Creek into a public amenity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 El Camino Comparison Allow more density @ BART Allow residential on County- owned site Allow low density residential in unincorporated county Allow residential adjacent to Safeway Reduce allowable heights Allow transitional mixed-use area Allow residential on former Serra Vista / Foxridge schools Create a mixed-use center Create a mixed-use center Allow low density residential in unincorporated county Reduce allowable heights Allow transitional mixed-use area Allow residential on former Serra Vista / Foxridge schools Create a mixed-use center Create a mixed-use center Maintain El Camino designations with allowable heights El Camino Real -Vision + Guiding Policy Emphasize affordable housing Should be a destination for people and not just a thoroughfare for cars Improved connections to Colma Creek More public parks and open spaces Focus on high density affordable and middle-income housing Set maximum 5-story mixed use buildings Emphasize pedestrian, bike and transit improvements Keep Country Club Park zoning 50% agree on the vision statement El Camino Real -Land Use Alternatives Emphasize affordable housing development Increase density around BART and increase building heights along El Camino Real Buildings no more than 5 stories Remove former schools as housing sites No change in Country Club Park designation Strong support for no or limited change to the designations (64% Current GP and Alt 1) Strong support for 3 distinct mixed-use centers along El Camino Support for higher density around BART Current General Plan Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Current General Plan -20% Alternative 1 –44% Alternative 2 –12% Alternative 3 –28% Rating out of 5 stars El Camino -CAC Comments Land Use Alternatives Comments Strong support for 3 distinct mixed-use centers along El Camino Remove former schools as housing sites Support for higher density around BART Vision + Policy Comments Strong desire to see the vision become a reality Current General Plan -0% Alternative 1 -69% Alternative 2 -23% Alternative 3 -8% Other: 0% Citywide Alternatives Alternatives Summary Current General Plan Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Getting Worse MoreLess Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Improving MoreLess Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance About the Same MoreLess Alternative 1 Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Getting Worse MoreLess Citywide -Land Use Alternatives 80% of participants responded that they either agreed or strongly agreed with the draft vision statement Priority Big Ideas Produce workforce and affordable housing -47% of the votes Maintain the City as an economic engine for the region – 37% Reinforce Downtown as the heart of the community -37% 59% think housing and jobs balance was extremely or very important Strong support for more housing production and keeping industrial areas (77% chose Alt 2 or 3) Remove former schools as housing sites Current General Plan -3% Alternative 1 –28% Alternative 2 –21% Alternative 3 –56% Current General Plan Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Rating out of 5 stars Alternatives Summary 40,000 98,000 2.5 3 103,000 13.9m 50% Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 total housing units total jobs jobs per housing unit greenhouse gas emissions per service population (MTCO2e)* total population square feet of industrial space % walk, bike, transit 43,000 100,000 2.3 3 110,000 15m 52% Existing Current GP 26,000 85,000 3.3 3 85,000 16m 46% 35,000 98,000 2.9 3 94,000 13.8m 49% 22,000 57,000 2.6 6.4 64,000 15.5m 44% *service population = population + jobs Preliminary Fiscal Analysis All three growth alternatives are estimated to result in a net positive fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund Alternative 1 is estimated to result in the highest net revenue as % of total revenue Differences in net revenues associated with the alternatives are largely explained by the higher quantities of housing units included in Alternatives 2 and 3 $77.3m $13.3m 15% $90.7m Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 $95.5m $10.7m 10% $106.3m $59.8m $21.4m 26% $81.2mtotal revenue total expenditures net revenue net revenue as % of total revenue Source: Strategic Economics, 2020 Preliminary Travel Analysis All three alternatives reduce vehicle miles per service population (VMT/SP) without additional transportation demand + complete streets measures Alternative 3 is estimated to have the highest VMT but the the lowest VMT/SP -3.7% 9% 32.6 26.2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 -5.1% 10% 32.4 25.8 -1.5% 9% 34.8 26.8VMT per service population % change from Current General Plan transit mode share E101 VMT per service population Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 Current GP NA 8% 36.2 27.2 -9.9%-10.5%-3.9%E101 % change from Current General Plan NA Next Steps + Discussion Upcoming Meeting Schedule / Process Joint Council + PC Study Session on Alternatives + Proposed Direction (August 19) Close surveys August 2020 Develop Preferred Alternative CAC Meeting #15 Sept 2020 Community workshop on Preferred Alternative PC Meeting on Preferred Alternative October 2020 CC Meeting on Preferred Alternative November 2020 Discussion Questions Do you have specific comments on the vision statement and policy direction for the planning sub- areas? Specific Questions: Do you agree with allowing new residential neighborhoods in Lindenville? In East of 101? If so, what should its extent be? Do you agree with maintaining industrial areas in the East of 101 (Alts 2 and 3) and/or Lindenville (Alts 1 and 3)? Should it be allowed to intensify? What is your preferred alternative for each planning sub-area? Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 8/19/2020 Item # 2 Remote Public Comments From:Marcus Gilmour To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Aug. 19 Special Meeting, Item 2 – Report regarding the General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives – PUBLIC COMMENT Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 11:53:49 AM Dear Honorable Mayor Garbarino, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners: On behalf of Lane Partners, we are currently working with City staff on proposed entitlements and an EIR for the SOUTHLINE project, a 2.8M square foot office/R&D commercial campus in the Lindenville area. We appreciate the City’s forward progress on the General Plan Update. Under the City’s current General Plan, the project site is designated as “Office” and allows for a maximum Floor Area Ratio of up to 2.5. We are pleased to see that the SOUTHLINE project site would remain designated for office and related land uses under each of the proposed Land Use Alternatives. This site, which is very close to BART and Caltrain, is an ideal location for an innovative, transit-oriented employment center, and a transition between more industrial uses on the north and east, and residential neighborhoods to the south. Consistent with the City’s current General Plan, SOUTHLINE proposes to construct “Southline Avenue”, a new east-west street that would bisect the Project site and create a connection between Sneath Lane and South Linden Avenue to serve as the gateway between Downtown and San Bruno BART Station. We agree it is appropriate for this roadway connection to be shown in each of the Land Use Alternatives. As stated in the current General Plan, this connection “would dramatically increase access to Lindenville and enable trucks to get to I-380 without going through Downtown,” and would “ensure connection between Downtown and the BART Station.” We recommend that this policy be carried forward in the City’s updated General Plan. The SOUTHLINE project intends to implement the City’s vision for the area as reflected under both the current General Plan and proposed General Plan update. We look forward to the City’s continued progress on the General Plan update and request that the City continue to consider SOUTHLINE as it moves forward with this planning effort. Regards, Marcus Gilmour MARCUS J. GILMOUR | Principal LANE-PARTNERS.COM From:Sarah Kinahan To:All at City Clerk"s Office; Planning Commission Comments Cc: CostaSanders, Lisa Subject:Shape SSF General Plan Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 3:06:03 PM Attachments:image001.png SSF General Plan Letter 08-20.pdf Dear Mayor Garbarino, Members of the SSF City Council, and SSF Planning Commissioners, Please see the attached letter regarding SSF’s update to its General Plan and recommendations for policies that support child care development. Sincerely, Sarah Kinahan Coordinator, Child Care Partnership Council www.smcoe.org Pronouns: she/her/hers Should the City have a need for additional data or resources related to child care in your community, the CCPC can be a resource to you. Please contact me at or Sincerely, Sarah Kinahan Coordinator, San Mateo County Child Care Partnership Council CC: Vice Mayor Mark Addiego Council Member Karyl Matsumoto Council Member Mark Nagales Council Member Buenaflor Nicolas Planning Commissioner JulieAnn Murphy (Chair) Planning Commissioner Alan Wong (Vice-Chair) Planning Commissioner Robert Bernardo Planning Commissioner Michele Evans Planning Commissioner Norm Faria Planning Commissioner Sam Shihadeh Planning Commissioner Alex Tzang Lisa Costa Sanders, General Plan Project Administrator