Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-16 e-packet~o ,,,.,;~~ ~ °~x S - ~ SPECIAL OINT MEETING o ~, o CITY COUNCIL y~LIFvR~l4' ArTI~ FLAl~TNINO' COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City I-Tall, 400 Grand %~.ven:~e) South San Francisco, California 94Gu3 1Vleetirg to he held at: r~UNICItt~L SErtViCE513uIL~uIIvG CIT`E' COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE `xJEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 6:30 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, -the City Council of the City of South San Francisco and the Planning Commission of the City of South Francisco will hold a Special ~oir~t 1'.~eeting on Wednesday, the 16t" day of September, 2009, 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. 3. Public Comments -comments czre limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. 4. Study Session -Presentation and consideration of preliminary land use concepts for Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real Area Plan. (Approximately 55 acre area between South San Francisco BART Station and A Street near El Camino Real). 5. Adjournment. ity e k, City of outh an Francisco DATE: September 16, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Planning Commission FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION: EL CAMIN.O REAL/CHESTNUT AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council and the Planning Commission conduct a Joint Study Session to receive the Opportunities and Constraints Memo, review three land use and development concepts for the El Camino ReaUChestnut Avenue Specific Plan Study Area and provide comments as appropriate. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The purpose of the Joint Study Session is to discuss long-term development opportunities and urban design ideas in the Study Area. The consultant team and City staff will summarize the background information and Draft Guiding Principles, introduce the three development concepts, and receive comments from the City Council and Planning Commission. Following this Joint Study Session, the consultant will prepare a "Preferred Plan," based on the direction provided. The Preferred Plan will also allow the consultant to prepare the Specific Plan for public comment and undertake the environmental review. The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Specific Plan project comprises a 55-acre Study Area that includes properties owned by Kaiser Medical Center, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, private owners facing Mission Road and parts of El Camino Real, BART, the Chestnut Center, and the Buri-Buri Center. The Specific Plan will provide specific design and development standards for future projects in the Study Area. It will not include any specific projects or development applications in the proposed area since any future project or development applications would be subject to separate applications, environmental review and City approvals. Planning Content and Draft Guiding Principals The Specific Plan process incorporates the previous planning efforts that have occurred along the El Camino Corridor, including the "Grand Boulevard" project, the South El Camino Real Corridor General Plan Amendment, and the Transit Village Plan. The Specific Plan also addresses open space and environmental stewardship, new civic facilities (such as a library), and future Kaiser Medical Center expansion. Reinforcing the planning efforts, the Specific Plan project also creates a set of Guiding Principles to ensure that the steps taken in the planning process will work in concert with the community's Staff Report Subject: Study Session: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Specific Plan Date: September 16, 2009 Page 2 of 4 overall vision. The Draft Guiding Principles are a beginning and they will be revised throughout the public participation process. The Draft Guiding Principles include: Economic Development & Regional Position • Identify appropriate mix of uses, intensity and density in the Study Area to secure South San Francisco's position in the regional economic framework. • Identify the best use to attract and create a regional retail destination. • Build for longevity to create a walkable, functional, beautiful and memorable place that represents South San Francisco into the future. Development Opportunities and Land Use • Development concepts should respond to current and anticipated market trends and environmental consequences and offer creative, joint development solutions for small or oddly-shaped parcels. Protect Existing Uses • New development should support, protect and enhance adjacent neighborhoods such as Sunshine Gardens. Urban and Context Sensitive Design • Create a Master Plan that results in a development framework of multi-modal, walkable and interconnected streets and blocks that can support transit-oriented mixed uses, such as retail, entertainment, office, housing, civic and recreation that establishes a positive identity for South San Francisco along the EI Camino Real and Chestnut area. Connectivity • Enhance pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connectivity between Mission Road and EI Camino Real, and between the Study Area and the BART Transit Village. • Enhance pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connectivity between the Study Area, Chestnut Avenue and Orange Memorial Park. Opportunities and Constraints Memo The Opportunities and Constraints Memo includes five sections that describe the existing conditions in the Specific Plan Study Area: Land Use & Urban Design; Market Overview; Traffic, Transportation & Parking Demand; Infrastructure; and Environmental Settings. The analyses in the Memo are meant to create an existing conditions setting for which the planning process can launch. While the analyses are not intended to result in specific recommendations or conclusions, they may indicate the areas which will require more detailed attention during the formulation of the development concepts. Staff Report Subject: Study Session: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Specific Plan Date: September 16, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Alternative Land Use and Development Concepts During this study session, the consultant will present three alternative development concepts for City Council and Planning Commission comment. The concepts include different approaches to density and land use mixes in the Study Area. Alternative One is intended to analyze the impacts of incremental development in the Study Area. Densities are conservative and may be consistent with existing market conditions. Alternative Two is intended to demonstrate approximate yields that may be achieved by incorporating all properties in the Study Area into varying intensities of redevelopment. The proposed densities are slightly higher than in Alternative One. Alternative Two establishes a civic land use into the mix-use balance. Alternative Three is intended to demonstrate approximate yields associated with commercial yields in conformance with market research. High-rise residential uses and mid-rise office are depicted in this alternative, with the proposed Main Library included as part of a civic center mixed-use in all three concepts. There are also alternative locations that could be considered for a library. The following table includes the calculation of the density and FAR for the mix of uses. The calculation does not include Kaiser Medical Center. Comparison ofAlternahve Concepts Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Total Retail 305,000 sf 407,000 sf 472,000 sf Total Office 188,000 sf (includes civic) 260,000 sf (includes civic) 299,000 sf (including civic) Estimated Residential sf (assumed 1, 000 sf/unit) 887,000 sf 1,550,000 sf 1,850,000 sf Estimated Number of Residential Units 887 units (minimum 30 units per acre average on 38.6 acres) 1,550 units (minimum 40 units per acre average on 38.6 acres) 1,850 units (minimum 50 units per acre average on 38.6 acres) Total S uare Feet 1,380,000 sf 2,217,000 sf 2,621,000 FAR 0.82 1.3 1.55 Community Participation Over the past year, the consultant endeavored to create a collaborative process with City officials, developers, property owners, regional agencies, and residents. The consultant held technical meetings with the City staff, interviews and an introductory meeting with potential developers, property owners, BART staff, and Kaiser representatives, one community meeting with interested individuals and residents from the surrounding neighborhoods, and a joint subcommittee meeting with the City Council Housing Subcommittee and the Planning Commission ECR/Chestnut Avenue Specific Plan Subcommittee. The Project Development Advisory Committee (PDAC) meeting included ten property owners and interested developers. Forty-five people attended a community meeting, held on May 30, 2009. For both meetings, the consultant prepared a PowerPoint presentation that described the existing land use, infrastructure and market conditions in the Study Area. The consultant also prepared several detailed display boards that listed recommendations and provided examples of building bulk and design, open space design, and street improvements. The following topics were discussed at both meetings: Staff Report Subject: Study Session: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Specific Plan Date: September 16, 2009 Page 4 of 4 • Consideration for a new main library • Improved street appearances • Improved circulation and development of new street connections • Plan to site new shopping centers in the area • Where to place new commercial development • The location of new residential development Summary of Joint City Council and Planning Commission Subcommittee Meeting The Joint Subcommittee reviewed three specific development concepts for the Study Area. The consultant prepared an interactive illustration that showed the development concepts from different views. The key issues of discussion included the size of the high-density mixed-use projects on the development parcels, the linkage between the linear park and developments, the location of pedestrian access, the location of potential civic uses, streetscape improvements along El Camino Real, Mission Road, Oak Avenue and Chestnut Avenue and possible solutions to potential parking impacts for future higher density development along Mission Road. Following the presentation, the Joint Subcommittee suggested that City staff present the development concepts to the full City Council and Planning Commission for comment and direction. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council and the Planning Commission conduct a Joint Study Session to receive the Opportunities and Constraints Memo, provide input into the Guiding Principles, review the three land use and development concepts for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Specific Plan Study Area and provide comments as appropriate. ry i Marty Van Duyn ~~ Barry M. Nagel Assistant City Managed City Manager Attachments: 1. Opportunities and Constraints Memo 2. Alternative Concepts Illustrations 0 N O O A O O IQ 0 ~~~ ~.,;/~~ aj~ ~1 ~h rya ~, ~~~ ~, ~r ~~ ~i ~: ~ °°"'r ~~ ~ .~ ~. 1'' l /:, ~~ ~. v ~' ; , "- ~ , !' ,, w~ '- ~~~y ~~ ~ `- `` ~~ ~~~<A ;~ ~fy, ~~.~ . ~ '`' 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ',`,i r t ti r rs1 ' i1~ rV ,,/.r r ; ~# ~ fi~ ,. /~ 1 ~I ~ p ~~ i ~~ I ~: _,Y, / ~ ~'~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~\ ~.r i ~' ~' s i~f - f ..s'J ~~~ r W~' ~ i Yr ~i ~y~~ ~° ~~`~~y ~ ,' O~~~fi ~' j r p~~ 0, ,a~~ ~~~ '~~ i. ,a ' `' ; ~~ ~ .~~~ i ~ ~ TUDY AREA UB-AREAS z ~~.; o i ~- ~ '~ °~tr~oR~~ .~l ~`a~no I~~all Ches~~ut Land ~1se ~ S~ecfic Alan ~ ~ ~~ ~..~ t ~~ r• .~ .,~ 0 ~' ,~ ~,, ~~ ~; ~ r n . ~..\ ~~ 4 ;~ ~;,, ,~, ~: + '' ~ F r ~'~~ {~i ` c 1- •~*~ ~". ~'~ ~~ r; (D ~_ ro m ~~ ~~ .~ p' ~ O O `, r ~~ 1 r N ~A /~ ~I 1 I ~~~~ I~ v R ~ '^4.1 ~"~ ~~~ *n 1 t ~ ~ , :~ ~'r Ts ~~ ~~ ~.~. ~~ r; D m v <' m N N -s TN L v A rt O CT• ~ `V [1 H ~ V O ~~ZIFOR~~ ~``'~ i 1~' s` e ~; ~~~ o~ ~~ ~ 1- I, ~, ~. ~i~~, . ,~ I~~~} i~~ r ~~ a~ A~ M a r ~' a 0 ~~ ~'~, a ~I~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ r~~°C Ii~I! ~~ YJ "' -~. ~A ' ;, ~~ ~ ~u ,~ yc,E:; '~ ~ ~ ~ Opportunities & Constraints Memo AUGUST, 2009 ~/tc 1~ARA~~ I~ ~~~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PCB RT I~1 E R_~ ~rchitect~~re Planning lnteric~rv In a~~ociatior~ v~~ith~ Kirn(ey-Horn & Associat~,es ~ ~~ay Area F~~~onomics ~ !-arr~~~hier-Gregory EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 ~ INTRODUCTION . ~-~ Legal Context . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1 Background Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Location ...................... .........................1-2 T GRAFT GUIDING PRINc:IPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1f Economic Development & Regional Position . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2-1 Development Opportunities /Land Use .. . 2-1 Protect EiiiStlR^y Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . _ . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 2-1 Urban & Context Sensitive Design. .. .. .. .. ..2-1 Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 2-1 Ei Camino Real "Grand Boulevard" Initiative .2-2 Open Space & Enviro~~mental Stewardship. .. .2-2 Civic & Cultural Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .2-2 Kaiser Medical Center . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 2-2 3 RELATED F~LANNING ACTfVITIES ., 3- i South San Francisco Linear Park £x fviaster Plan . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 3-1 Orange Park Master Plan Update (2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3-2 Grand Boulevard !nitiative & The EI Camino Real Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 Oak ;4venue Extension . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. 3-3 Kaiser Medical Center Seismic Upgrades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . 3-3 Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Update. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 3-3 4 BONING, LAND USE Fk OWNERSHIP PATTERP,IS. 4-1f Current Zoning .. .. .. .4-1 General Plan Land Use Designations . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . .4-2 Existing Land Uses . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..4-3 Ownership Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . .. . . 5-1 J~- VISUAL SURVEY ~ URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS Jr- t! Streets......... .................................5-2 EI Camino Real. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . 5-2 EI Camino Real Master Plan Goals . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 5-3 Mobility and Pedestrian/Bicycle Linkages -The Linear Park . . . . . . . . .. .. . . 5-6 Barriers......... .................................5-7 Topography and Flood Control Features . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 5-7 Building Character . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .5-8 Open Space........... .............................5-9 Environmental Stewardship .. ................................ 5-11 Landmarks . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 5-11 li CeL C;AI~!iIlVO REC?L/C!~ESTP~UT L~,Iti!D USE F'LA~! fUVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS HUMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAPJIPHIER-GREGORY G URBAN DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES ~ CONSTRAINTS SUMMARY . . . . . . . s~ if Urban Design Constraints . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 Urban Design Opportunities . .. . 6-2 REFERENCES a~ SOURCES . . - - - - - = 7"'f Image Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 /APPENDIX Niarkei Overview Analysis ....... ....................... ........... Al Traffic, Trar.sPortation & Parking Demand Analysis ... ................... AZ Infrastructure E;:i~ting Conditions Analysis ......... ................... A3 Environmental Existing Setting iviemorandum ....... .... ... ............ A4 _- - EL C~Ai1lill~0 HEAL/CI~IrSTI~P.tT LAi"~® E~~E ~LAt~ (v1VE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS h;IMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Introduction -Specific Plan Overview In 2001 the City of South San Francisco adopted the South San Francisoc ~AFtT Transit t/iilaae Plan. This plan set out new zoning regulations and development guidelines to increase residential densities and intensif`,~ pedestrian oriented uses within a one half mile radius of the station. The BART station opened in 2003, and since that time, hurdresds of units have been constructed, along with street-front, neighborhood-serving retail. Recent station counts indicate that ridership has more than doubled since the South San Francisco station's opening, and further increase is expected. ~Nith the growth expeced in South San Francisco and tivith an increasing sensitivity to the need to address reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as required by SB 375', the City has initiated this: The EI Camino Fceal/Chestnut Avenue Land Use & Specific Plan (fhe Plan). The Specific Plan Study Area covers an approximately 55-a:,re area from First Street, south of EI Camino Reai and Chestnut Avenue intersection to the southern boundary of the Transit Village plan u ea, including several parcels that have been upzoned according to the Transit Village zoning overlay. It is situated betzrreen Mission Road and EI Camino Real with a portion extending westward across E:I Camino Real both north and south of the intersection at Westborough Boulevard the west leg of the EI Camino Real;Chestnut Ave. intersection). The intent of this planning effort is to expand upon the Transit Village and to capitalize on development opportunies that are supported by a transit-rich environment. The area is served by both the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations, as well as by SamTrans regional busses and bicycle and pedestrian access along the Centennial Way linear path between the two BART stations. The goal of the Plan is to create ahigh-density, mixed-use district with uses that stimulate pedestrian activity, increase transit ridership, and enhance South San Francisco's regional retail position. uuiding Principles The Guiding Principles are intended as to be referred to throughout the planning effort. These principles are meant to be a.reference to ensure that the steps taken in the planning process ~~~ork in concert to acheive the greater vision and goals for the community, stakeholders and the City of South San Francisco. The Guiding Principles set a baseline set of goals and are meant to be considered a "living" document that can be reviewed throughout the planning process and updated to ensure that they respond to the broadest level of community and stakeholder input. The first draft of these Guiding Principles have been outli~ ed in this document on page 2-1. Existing Conditions Analyses In the following pages, five memos focus on existing conditions throughout the Specific Plan Study Area. The analyses in these memos are meant to create an existing conditions setting from which the planning process can launch. While these memos are not intended to result in specific recommendations or conclusions for any part of the planning processs, they may in some case begin to indicate areas which will require more detailed attention during the formulation of land use and development concepts. The analyses include: Land Use & Urban Design Analysis; Market Overview Analysis; Traffic, Transportation & Parking Demand Analysis; Infrastructure Existing Conditions Analysis and an Environmental Existing Setting Memorandum. Land Use and Urban Design Analysis Land Use in the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan study area is characterized by a mix of retail commercial, service commercial, civic, medical, office and residential land uses. Due to access, traffic and visibility, land uses near the intersection of EI Camino Real and Chestnut are primarily retail-oriented. Development in the Study Area features construction dating from Post-World War II through the 1960s and is strongly "suburban" in nature. As such, it is characterized by independently-functioning automobile-oriented parcels and activities. With the exception of the medical uses, commercial land use intensities are generally low and typically characterized by one-and two-story structures serviced by surface-level parking facilities. With an emphasis on convenient parking relationships, commercial land uses are frequently disconnected to the public Rights-of-Way. Association of Bay Area Governments; Joint Policy Commiftee, Draft Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375. February 5, 2009. http://www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/Policies%20for%20S6%20375.pdf EL CAI~IILO DEAL/Cl~~v r ~~ ~ ~~tv~ u~~ r~~~~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Existing residential uses nn site and on adjacent properties are generally moderate in intensity with more recent developments featuring subterranean or structured parking. Significant City-controlled under-utilized and vacant properties are present within the study area. l~rban design qualities of within the study area are characterized by a wide-array of unrelated architecture styles, building typologies and landscape improvements. Setbacks are inconsistent with a limited percentage of buildings sited such that a "street-wall" is established while most buildings. are set back behind vehicular parking improvements. Street-scapes also lack continuity with limited street-trees, and inconsistent street furniture, signage, and pedestrian improvements. ;/{arket Overview Analysis Gue to its excellent regional location, transit opportunities and significant und2rsupply of housing relative to employment in the local area, significant demand for new housing is present within South San Francisco in general and within the Specific Plan Study Area location. It is anticipated that the market will be able to support between approximately 1,500 and 3,000 new residential dwellings vrithin the Study Area over a twenty-year time horizon. It is also anticipated that the market will support approximately 150,000-200,000 square feet of additional retail space and 100,000-200,000 square feet of additional commercial office within the Study Area of the twenty- teartime horizon. Traffic, Transportation anal Parking Demand Analysis Although subject to updated data collection, traffic conditions within the Specific Plan Study Area are generally characterized by acceptable levels with current volumes contained within the capacity of its principle roadways. Hovrever, considerable PM peak traffic delays are being observed at the intersection of Ei Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue in the westbound, ~:orthbound and southbound dir~;ctions. Local and regional traffic patterns effecting study area roadways are heavily influenced by the proxi: ~:ity to the 230 Freeway via Westborough boulevard. Surrounding circulation patterns are constrained by the Colma Greek channel, golf course, cemeteries, suburban residential neighborhoods and topographic conditions. Subject to further analysis, opportunities for future on-site road connections may have the potential to reduce congestion and provide needed capacity to facilitate growth within the Study Arta. The Study Area is well serviced by transit with the nearby BART station, extensive existing bus routes and anticipated future improvements in conjunction with the EI Camino Real Grand Boulevard Initiative. The recent implementation of the Centennial Way linear park provides the Study Area with Class I bicycle connections. Existing parking conditions in the study area are characterized by indep~~:dent private facilities supplemented by limited on-street capacity. Opportunities for shared facilities, and reduced requirements based mixed-use development and transit availabilities may enhance the development potential within the Study Area. Infrastructure Existing Conditions Analysis The Study Area represents an in-fill location in an area with existing infrastructure improvements. There are no known deficiencies in capacity for flood control, storm-water, waste water collection, waste water treatment, water supply and electricity. Capacity for growth has been provided within the infrastructure. Any future development within the Study Area will be subject to the implementation of on-site storm water quality improvements. Environmental Existing Setting Memorandum The Study Area is served by on-site police and fire department facilities. Existing public school capacity appears to be adequate to support growth anticipated within the Study Area. While the City has somewhat limited improved park space per capita, the Study Area is located immediately adjacent to the existing 26.5-acre Orange Memorial Park and its proposed 9.5-acre expansion. While the site is subject to regional seismic activity, no known active faults are located within the Study Area. Alluvial soils and relatively shallow groundwater depths may influence future construction techniques on the site. IEI_ +G~MIt''~O I~EI~t_/CI-IEST~ItlT t~,~t: BSE PL~~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS k;IMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY As the site is in an ir.-fill location with existing or prior urbanization, no development restrictions resulting from significant biological resources are anticipated. Limited areas of the site, primarily in the southeastern portion may b~ subject to historic resource evaluation. Due to the presence of archaeological resources in the surrounding vicinity, the Study Area may be subject to further analysis in compliance with CEQA and will require related documentation for the Specific Plan. Prelim: nary ~enclu~ioh and ~bserva#ions The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan Study Area features a number of signifcant factors conducive to future growth and development opportunities: Socah San Francisco offErs ara excellent regional !ocation :~rith corwenient proximity to the City of San Francisco; San Francisco lnternatiora! Airport and local and region al employment centers. It is served by an elaborate nefi::ork of freeways, highways, arterial roadways, railways and transit infrastructure. The Study Area location, strongly influenced by circulation patterns within South San Francisco, effectively creates a "100 percent corner'' that supports local and sub-regional retail land uses as evidenced by the continued viability of existing shoppir:g centers. its central location is also appropriate for civic facilities and other public benefit improvements such as libraries and gathering spaces. The St~!dy Area features close proximity to an existing BART station and is integrated into bus corridors and other public improvements that lends favorably to pedestrian activity, sustainability and "smart growth" as defined by the united Stales Environmental Protection Agency. Strong market demand is present for housing development as well as expanded retail and office development. Infrastructure serving the Study Area, including storm-water, wet and dry utilities, schools, police and fire has capacity to accommodate growth. The Study Area is anticipated to contain litti~ or no biological, archaeological, historic or other such resources that might constrain development. The Study Area, with its convenient adjacency to Orange Memorial Park and incorporation within the ~, „ Centennial Way linear park, creates a live/work/piay setting that is highly desired by potential homebuyers and commercial tenants and promises to further enhance the quality of life for residents and workers within the City. Large under-developed and undeveloped parcels controlled by the City within the Study Area provide an opportunity for real estate activity in the near term. The Study Area's excellent location and likelihood of long term increases to land values, along with existing and potential future local land use policies, is anticipated to provide an environment conducive to re-development and related intensification. As a result, the Study Area promises to become a key location for accommodating future positive growth within the City of South San Francisco and, through consistency with the General Plan and the creation of effective policies and regulations, has the potential become an exemplary mixed used district for the region. -- ~i.. C;r'~~1l6i6~(.3 Et~~IL/laF=~~~ E Et~t~ E c~«~ ~~~ ~~-+~~ 111 MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOP~~ICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY ~~ ~«. ~~ The purpose of the Plan is to create an implementable development vision for the area around the intersection of EI Camino Reai and Chestnut Avenue, extending to the South San Francisco BART station that identifies opportunities to move South San Francisco forward as envisioned in its General Plan through a collaborative process between property and business owners and city and community stakeholders. This U.r'ean Design and Land Use existing conditions memo is preparE:d by MVE in advance of a full Opport~~nities and Constraints memo that will consolidate all discipline fndinys including urban design, and site conditions; land use and economics; transportation, traffic and parking; infrastructure; and a preliminary environmental setting analysis. ? egal Context Authority to Prepare a Specific Plan Specific Plans must comply with Sections 65450-65457 of the government Code. These pre:~isiors require that a Specific Plan be consistent with the adopted general plan of the juriscliction within which it is located. The Specific Plan must include the following: • Land use text and supporting diagrams; • Transportation, Traffic and Parking: • Infrastructure and Utilities; • Energy and Fubiic Facilities • Development Standards; and • Implementation Measures. Required Consistency with the General Plan State law requires that the Specific Plan be consistent with the General Plan. It is anticipated that The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Land Use & Specific Plan ~Alill require a Genera! Plan Amendment. In the General Plan, Chapter 3 -Sub-areas i..cludes a number of policies that focus on areas in and adjacent to the Specific Plan Study Area. These areas include the EI Camino Real corridor, Kaiser Medical Center Hospital, and Sunshine Gardens. Each element of the General Plan have been reviewed, and for urban design related policies, the major referencing elements include: • Chapter 2 -Land Use; • Chapter 3 -Planning Sub-areas; • Chapter 4 -Transportation; • Chapter 5 -Parks, Public Facilities and Services; and • Chapter 7 -Open Space and Conservation Background Reports Reports, documents, plans and other references for existing conditions analyses include: The South San Francisco General Plan (1999), the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan (2001), the Grand Boulevard Initiative Existing Conditions Report (2006) and Guiding Principles, the Orange Park Master Plan Update (2007), the South San Francisco Linear Park Master Plan (2003) and various reports from the South San Francisco Zoning Update (on-going). Other references included Metropolitan Transportation Commission/ABAG Station Area Planning Program Guidelines, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Station Area Planning Manual (2007). A full list of references can be found at the end of this document. 1-1 EL C,~MII~C3 r'~EAL/CHEST~lU T LAfLD USE PLAP~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY ocatior, REgional Context South San Francisco, in San Mateo County is 11 miles south of downtown San Francisco and 45 mites north of San Jose. It is served by interstates I-280 and I-380 and US Highway 101. The EI Camino Real corridor provides access to multiple jurisdictions in the San Francisco Peninsula and South Bay. Public transit is provided by CalTrain, BART and SamTrans which are interconnected to transit providers throughout the region. 1-2 EL G~lMtI~C R~P~/Gt~~S t ~~ E ~.~u u~~ ~~~~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS K:IMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Figure 1.1 Regional context neap EI Camino Real -State P-.Dote 82 -extends from San Francisco to San Jose and runs north-south through the City of South San Francisco. EI Camino Real marks the western boundary of the Specific Plan Study Area, Mission Road its east, Chestnut Avenue its south, and its northern boundary falls along property boundaries to the south and east of the BART station. Specific Plan Study Area !. a x ,~ av 0. J., ~~'~ r(T J ~ ,. C: ~' #~~~ ~ S+. ~ - f ` u f S-. ~ 1.. r/r ~ y .? i'( ~}~ ~~{y c y Fs e t ~ 'r _ ,a .,y...a`v ''`f e.~ . . d t, ...~ t...e"C. i :1 t. ~M,,~ u rt 7 i., v~., F `!~ ~~~ ~ . Figure 1.2 Study Area The gross Specific Plan Study Area is approximately 65 acres in size and is located in the north-central area of the city. It is within 1 mile of the South San Francisco BART station and located 1.5 miles northwest of Downtown. The Study Area is oriented on anorthwest-to-southeast axis between Mission Road which defines its east boundary and EI Camino Real (SR 84) its west boundary. From north to south the Study Area extends from Mission Road near the BART station to the Chestnut Shopping Center along Chestnut Avenue and southeast on EI Camino Real to First Street to include the parcels between EI Camino Real and A Street. South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency owns 23 percent of land in the Study Area, including an 8-acre parcel along Mission Road between Oak and Grand Avenues that was recently transferred from the PUC. Kaiser Medical Center Medical Center owns 20 acres - 35 percent - of land in the Study Area land encompassing a 1/2 mile frontage of EI Camino Real and bounded by the flood channel to its east. Other parcels in the Study Area range from 0.1 acre up to 4 acres, are individually owned. These parcels are generally small, and many are irregularly shaped. 1-3 E~ CAI~II~O READ/CI~ESThIIJT LA6~® IESE P~:F~ f~AVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS k;IMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES I_AMPHIER-GREGORY ' ~ ~ <f [[`may ,k: , ~ t 3"a j, ~~ ..! ~ t~` ~~~~A^Y 1', * ~. Xt ~A;F tt k'~~_~~ ~. -+g . ~ t .. „~.~-rte 1 1fi f ~ 1 1 .~ V j• ii'' ,~ ~ '[ a.y. ~X'-'1"1M"`~tL"~~'.~`lk Xn... r +A{~yR {`e {~~q ~' ,..H ~ ~ ~.i ~'., yy~ ~ i ~ ~,~~pt, i`33 R.~~,ya~~~~~' y~ u, '~ t Planning Districts ~o-~ S~F *~ ! ¢ ,''~ ~~` Transit Related ~~:)-~ . ~` ~~~" Residential/ ,,`` ~^`, Mixed. Use ~`` P~ District `` V ~/ ~~~ t ~ `~~ yyy,,, ~' ~ ~.~ ~~ ~~ -: ~ Coe~amprcial/ ~ ~ `~~ ~~ Residential 2F ~~.~, Q, ~ `~~ ..~~ Mixed Use `..~ .. p`I,~c ~~.~- ~~~ ~: ~ . :;.~ ~` Medical District '~~ -., '~~ g~``~ ... :~~ _i WES~gORO~IGN /~ J ~ >IyS,P~6t ~~ 1` ~;I v~y s 700 .~ po. 9 ~J, N' Figure 1.3 Preliminary Planning Districts Based on an understanding of ownership, circulation and land use patterns, three broad Planning Distircts have been defined for the purpose of the Specific Plan planning efforts. The districts describe general locations of land use concentration in which detailed de~~e!opment concepts and analyses will be prepared as this planning process continues. 1-4 -- EL CAf~II~Q I~~~f./D~~STI~~l" ! ~t~D DSO Ptm.R~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOh/IICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY A first step in The El Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use & Specific Plan is to create a set of guiding principles or goals. This first draft establishes a series of principles that have been extracted and interpreted through site analysis, plan document revie~~s, evaluation of the General Plan and discussions with staff. The following principles are a beginning, and it is expected that they will be revised based on input which will be derived through the stakeholder interview and participation process. A series of interviews and meetings are planned to provide a forum tc gather the insight and listen to the ideas, goals and concerns of the community, Study Area property and business owners, Study Area impacting agencies (transit and CalTrans; and the community. Economic Development & 9egional Position • Identify appropriate mix of uses, intensity and density in the Study Area to secure South City`s position in the regional economic framework. • Identify the best use to attract and create a regional retail destination. • Build for longevity tc create a walkable, functional, beautiful and memorable place that represents South San Francisco into the future. Development Opportunities % Land Use • development concepts should respond to current and anticipated market trends and environmental consequences and offer creative, joint developme~ t solutions for small or oddly-shaped parcels. Protect Existing Uses • New development should support, protect and enhance adjacent neighborhoods such as Sunshine Gardens. Urban & Context Sensitive Design • Create a master plan that results in a development framework of multi-modal, walkable and interconnected streets and blocks that can support transit-oriented mixed uses, such as retail, entertainment, office, housing, civic and recreation that establishes a positive identity for South San Francisca along the EI Camino Real and Chestnut gateway area. Connectivity • Enhance pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connectivity between Mission Road and EI Camino Real, and between the Study Area and the BART Transit Village. ;sue 2-1 EL CA11li6h~Q R~~~/Lt~t~ ~ ~?~ t ~~~ ~~~ w® ~e~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS ~:IMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Define economic development opportunities for the 21st Century. Context Sensitive streefscape design on .M.cLellan Drive resulted in an attractive; pedestrian oriented street with convenience parking that supports a walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment. .•C- .~ Public Art is a cultural resource that can become a community landmark. EI Camino Real "Grand Boulevard" Initiative Design the segment of EI Camino Real along the Study Area as a "model segment" and following the principles for the Grand Boulevard Initiative :Encourage compact mixed-use development and high quality urban design and construction; • Encourage compact mixed-use development and high quality urban design and construction; • Create apedestrian-oriented environment and improve streetscapes, ensuring full .access to and between public areas and private developments; • Develop a balanced multi-modal corridor, with managed parking assets to maintain and improve mobility of people and vehicles along the corridor; • Provide vibrant public spaces and gathering places; • Improve safety and public health by strengthening pedestrian and bicycle connections within the corridor; and • Pursue environmentally sustainable and economically viable development patterns. Cpen Space & Environmental Stewardship • Continue to support the developrne~a of the BART Linear Park with the design of public and semi-pubic open space linkages from new development to the park, and evaluate the potential to include civic or cultural facilities in the mix of new uses. • Define standards and policies that ensure environmentally sensitive developments that promote "green" living. Civic & Cultural Facilities Evaluate civic and cultural uses in the Study Area that work with existing municipal land uses and public open spaces. Kaiser Medical Center Develop a planning process that is inclusive of and cooperative with Kaiser Medical Center's own planning efforts and development needs. Define clear expectations for a process within which Kaiser Medical Center can cooperate to ensure an outcome that is mutually beneficial to both Kaiser Medical Center and the City of South San Francisco, and engage Kaiser Medical Center in a community design process to ensure that they grow in alignment with the vision for the Study Area and EI Camino Grand Boulevard Initiative. 2-2 EL C~4tVlllll® F~EAL/C~EST~UT Lt~~u u5t ~ad~~ I~~VE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Stormwater managemenf in Portland becomes an elament of landscape design and attractive open space. closely with fhe City and surrounding community to creafe a development plan that is beautiful, inferconnected with the community, and includes public retail uses to ensure a safe and active sidewalk environment. Se~ith San Fra,~cisco Linear Parr ~ ll~aster Plan Huntington to Spruce r ~-M~I~r IRF~. II~L ._. '' I 11 - / L 1..~) ~~ .. f ~ 1 i I ! 1 } ~i ~l l..~~,r .- ~ 1 ~.il, . I ~~ Et Cr,t,M~PE. ter f 12 I I l , ' ~ ~ ~' ~ r~fc rl I +ffl~~ J ~.. ~~! ., j 1 'r!~~I~~.i ~f7~lwi~/4 ~ 1, 1 ' I ~tl 1 'II''~ ti ~ I V ~~ I ~ u^sl 1~ 1~ 11i511~f1 ~~ I M ( 17 !' tI 1. Ti4 Ii It 1~ ~ 1 1 a ~ ~ I ~ lI 1 ~-+'~ ~ ~ 1 ~1~ 1 H ~ { 11 1 - IR~ _ 4~t ~ ~~Il f ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~~ ~ I !') f f ~.~ 1 !iI 1 1 ~lY It 1 il` . I f f il it ¢l~ J~ j74 / F s E I o ~ ~ I y t 1 k ~~ I 1~ ~ 1~ }.. .~'1~ ' _. VIII 1 `:1 1 i'l.. 4~~Isl ,, )r _ ~ ~ ;;~ I r I tit ~l:tlllr ' t:I ~ , , 10' TO SGALi-, T- ~`, ~ ~- I I -: I~ I ~ ~ 1 ,~ ~ ~ ~} ~~~tl I ~~ I I jI . 1 1 1 1 ~~ ~-r-r i _I_l I r I~ I I'It 7/, ,.':~ '. }, yl Sal. I 11~ - /. I ~ ('IJ,. ~_ II ,i;~ I r e/' I~, 501,~TH ~5.1N FRAi~.~ ~CO ', I - I '' ' ~t.fl: f ;,, ' ~(i-est. Ia.i~RT STATION` '. Spruce to W. Orange u W. Orange to Chestnut L Chestnut to McLellan The BART linear park -Centennial Way -will extend from the South San Francisco BART Station tc the San Bruno BART Station. The project implementation is divided irto three phases, the first being the construction of the bike and pedestrian pathway and improvement of several key intersections. Phase 1 of the Centennial Way park construction is currently underway through the Study Area, and it will provide an "important non-motorized transportation alternative for this community."' Through the Study Area, the pathway runs from the BP.RT station, parallel to the flood channel until it diverges southeastward to Antoinette Lane and across Chestnut Avenue to the former PUC right of way. Past the Study Area, it extends to connect to Orange Park and on to the San Bruno BART station. Phases 2 and 3 include the addition of lighting, furnishings and landscaping. ?range Park ~1/Iaster Pan (Jpdate (2007) Orange Park lies just outside of the Study Area to the south. The Orange Park Master Plan update reviewed development activity of the park since the 1999 master plan, and analyzed current existing conditions to revisit, refine and update the previous plans goals and programs. The final plan recommended improvements within the park's current site for enhancement and renovation of some existing park facilities with the intent fo create a better connection to the park across Colma Creek. The plan also called for the purchase of a portion of the Cal Water property to extend the park to Chestnut Avenue. This purchase has since taken place and will result in the expansion of the park to Chestnut Avenue, adjacent to the Study Area. CallanderAssociates. Orange Memorial Park Draft Master Plan Update. May, 2007, pg. 1. 3.1 EL CA~~I~O B~AL/CI~ESl"E~UT LAi~B uS~ PLA~~ PAVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Figure 3.2 Orange Park Master Plan Diagram ~l"a11C1 BOUfevar0' Initiative ~: The Ef Camino F~ea1 Master Plan The City of South San Francisco is one of 19 local governments along the 43 mile long Grand Boulevard Initiative plan area that has acted on the initiative's adopted principles. The purpose of the Grand Boulevard lritiative is to revitalize the historic significance of EI Camino Real in California and to "improve the performance; safety and aesthetics of EI Camino Real;" 2 and it is intended to guide cities along the corridor to address multi-modal access, streetscupe design and land use intensities and mixes supportive of its Guiding Principles: 1. Target housing and job growth in strategic areas along the corridor 2. Encourage .mixed-use development and high quality urban design and construction; and 3. rBate a pedestrian-oriented environment and improve streetscapes, ensuring fell access to and between pubic areas and private developments The Specific Plan Study Area includes a 3/4 mile segment of EI Camino Real. The 2006 EI Camino Real Master Plan analyzed the entire length of EI Camino Real Through South San Francisco, and includes streetscape improvement recommendations within the Study Area. This segment is one-sided through much of the Study Area, with a lack of sidewalks and development area along its west side, along the eastern 25-foot bank that separates the Buri Buri neighborhood above from EI Camino Real. A similar grade separation occurs on the east side of EI Camino Real beginning ut Chestn;.~t Avenue and extending to the BART station, creating both physical and visual connectivity challenges between E! Camino Real, Centennial Way and Mission Road. pia( avenue Extel~~sion i YART~ BART Row aow ~ r `, 14'U _ _ _ 1-`.- ~ R-176 -"'12' _ r ia• ~.-- I! \, I ~ ,I i ~ Row TAKE ~\` \~ .\ ~ 1 Q i' 1 1 O Y .~: J j ~ O r?- ~~ / -+o~azorrTA~ oESicy+ saem so ~+ 20. _ ~..~ _ _ - ,r _ .._ - o OAK AVENUE ~' /~ m ;f + o \ I ~ ~ ,P I _._~ I _ O i '. TO ~.__ _. -- -- - -- -- - -- - - ~ - IiORIZUNTAI OE510N saEeu a~ -,~+ i aisvun \ Planning for the extension of Oak Avenue from Mission to EI Camino Real has been in process for years. Plans were proposed in 2003 that provided conceptual design for the extension as it rises 30 feet from its low point at Mission Road to EI Camino Real, across from Arroyo Drive. This concept recommended an at-grade crossing (crosswalk) for the bike/pedestrian pathway along the linear park. Other concepts to pass below Oak Avenue have been discussed, but the final design has not yet been determined. At this time a sanitary easement has been secured, but the easement for the roadway itself has not. Based on its current proposed alignment, he roadway will pass through land owned by BART and Kaiser Medical Center, requiring an easement. 2 Joint Venfure: Silicon Valley Network, Grand Boulevard Initiative Existing Conditions Report, pg, iii., www. http://www. grandboulevard.net/library/GrandBoulevard/GrandBlvd ExistingConditionsReport 103106 FINAL.pdf 3-2 EL CAlt~ll~l0 RI=A~/CREST~t~T bAP~D SSE PL,~I~ IV1VE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KItt~LEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY ,~Caiser It/ledical Center Seismic Upgrades State law SB1953 requires that all hospital buildings in the state must be operational following a major earthquake by 2030.3 In anticipation of related development combined with natural growth projections, Kaiser Medical Center I-ids purchased the three properties to its immediate north, including Broadmoor Lumb~~: Kaiser Medical Center has submitted a use permit application to occupy/develop the sites they own as office/medical. No permit has been granted at this time. Control of these properties by Kaiser Medical Center suyyests that they would be used for purposes other than those existing or that are permitted under their current Transit Village zoning. %~aiser Medical Center does not anticipate immediate major changes or development vvithin these properties, and they anticipate further technological advances/shifts in hospital facility design between now and 2030 would likely i. ~ pact Their final plans.4 Zoning Ordinance Update and general Plan Update The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update is underway to ensure that current standards and guidelines support implementation of the General Plan. Structured as "modules," the update will review and recommend revisions to land use, development standards and administrative procedures. Drafts of Modules 1, 2 and 2a have been released and are available on the City's website: http://www.ssf.net/depts/ecd/planning/zoning/default.asp. T.he EI Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use & Specific Plan Study Area is not included in this update, but it is adjacent to neighborhoods that are. The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use & Specific Plan process could refer to this process as development alternatives are prepared and evaluated, and if appropriate new Specific Plan Study P.rea land uses could fa!! under designations defined by the ordinance update. A General Plan update is underway to add Mixed Use to its land use classification system, and it is intended to accommodate mixed-use deveiopnient in the South ~I Camino Reai area, south of the ~Nestborough Blvd./ Chestnut Ave. intersection. California Healthcare Association, SB 1953 Factsheet, http://www.calhealfh.org/public/press/ Article % 5C103 % 5CS81953factsheet% 20- % 20Final. pdf. Telephone conversation with Stacy Wagner, Kaiser Medical Center, Director of Public Af,airs, San Mateo area. ~_3 ~~ CAMINO ~;~A~/C~iESTt~~UT ~I~B USE PI..f~N HIVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIP.~LEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY f~~iVE & PP,RTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY .. `~ •._ _,_ n' .. -.. t:: ~. ~~ ~~!~ i .~ \l t ~ k ~~~ L ~1 f < ~ `U `'j ~ F r~, `.' tip? ~/ 'E ~v~~ `\ ~`~~ ~>~ . ~ ~ tx y,) TY`\ ~~~r r 7 f4 ~ \) >,/~s J~ h ~, ~ Y 1 > < ;~ r y,. ;: i{~ '."f~, n. 1. ..~ ~ Y..' \ l ~ y~ /~r ~ l t... J ti ~ ~ ..J ~ ~~ ~ a J~~~~~"/ '/r 1 ice; y i 4 ~ r J 4.', . ,. / , . s 1 r >. .( ~! i. " .~ . r. ) ~ > l `( ~ ! !;: !.. ?rte, n r y, •4~C~ r \ ~. ~' ~.:~ ~ N-MD Transit ~Ilage Residential, Medium Density i ,</ / TT.~ i'~i"F ; - ~.~ N-RH Transit Viiage Residenial, High Density r/ '~, .< ~` .~! ': ~ ~'~; `' ~ ? i J-C Transit~r;P~ge Commercal .. r ;^^,:~<.i ; ~l~ ' - Allrnved N-C Commercial Frontage i ?;, ~.~1 ~ '~ ` MU P-C' °hrned Commercal District / _ G1` Retail Commercal Distrid/"MU J .~ '~"~ ~ r~~ r ' ~ ~-L.. i.~_," ~i.L 1yY-..ice/ ,, ~..i..~i`~J _ '~ _~,. • l i~ Vii. G n , ~ ~~~%! = ~ ! !yule T.1 ~ ................. .y ~;ur~ ~~n~ ~~r~i~~~z Current zoning varies throughout the Study Area and includes Transit Village overlay district zoning in the parcels closest to the BART station and along Mission Road, as well as zoning in the southern end of the Study Area which has been in place since 1986. After a complete conceptual master pian has been developed for the Study Area, new zoning for all or part of the Study Area will be recommended as appropriate to acheive the development vision. The current zoning designations in the Study Area include: TV-RM Transit Village Residential Medium Density (30 du/ac) TV-RM entitles 30 dwelling units per acre and 0.75 FAR for non-residential uses and 0.75 parking spaces required per unit. TV-RH Transit Village Residential Hiph Densitv (50 du/acl TV-RH entitles 50 residential units per acre and 1.0 FAR for non-residential uses and 0.75 parking spaces required per unit. N-C Transit Village Commercial TV-C entitles 2.0 FAR for non-residential uses and 30 dwelling units per acre residential density. 1 space per 300 gross square feet in TV-C C - 1 Retail Commercial District C-1 entitles unlimited FAR up to 35 feet in height without a use permit. P-C Planned Commercial District P-C entitles unlimited FAR up to 50 feet in height without a use permit. a_1 EL CAMii~O REAL/CI-fleST~~DT ~AI~® USE Pt_.~.14 (NVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY f~n;~ot'~i ~~1~!'1 ) ;~t~il J' i.CP, l~P..~l(7r7~~lO~S T---- `~ ,' - } ~' ~~ ~~ J) ', ~k~~~~~' r -' Low C~nsity Residential ~~ Medium Density Residential i~ High Density Residential ® Hotel /Motel Auto~reiated or Fast Food Commerda Corrununity Commerdal ~' Business Commerdal C-, ~ilL~ Mixed Industrial ~ ~~ Business and Techndogy Park Transportation Center or R.O.W. ~~ PUbilC Park and Reaeation [_ ~ Open Space P.griculture Vacant ~_ Parking Lot ~~ Parking StrucWre ~ • y,~ .•. .' .". <~ ,,r, ~ Y ~~`~ . x, J, nti ~ ~, Zr't ~ av~ s .~ ` Y G ;~. ~ ~"J C~^. (~':~ ~M1 ~~ ) ~T ^ y: > ~..~ ~ ~.~ r~`v ~ ~h "~tr'..~ `~~f' Cif... ~~ > ~ G ~- 4 ~, Y ~~~~ 1-)_. RAND AL `• ~ ~ r - til c f ~ ~~ N ?f4 ~ ; y//J~f ~rN. A~~ 'li J. ~ ~.. ~~ ~ ~ r' ~ ~ ~ ~~ 7 ~ x~ •t~ ~~ ~ ?r 7 7.. ~ ~ ~ r- ,. ~ t~~ti ~i~ ~ r• y ; 1 rr~ r r ~ .., r li.:..i.;J i...' k..~..1 i T r7~~~~~ Finr~ra 4 7 ;/~ ~ ti ,. ~~. ~.L lye ~~, ~ Jig ~ r7i ~~~+ r. ,l ~i 1` ~ ' .,_ ~ ,, '`,`` J V ~"7 y _Y ~ _ ^r r, i ~ ~ V r~ ~/ i- I ~ ~ -` ..,_~ neral Flan Land Ilse Designation Land Use The General Plan current land use designations are il!~.rstrated in the diagram above. The uses designated are consistent to some existing uses such as "Office" on Kaiser Medical Center properties, "Community Commercial" at Chestnut Center, and "Public" at the Municipal Services Building. ~~ ~ ao~ ~~ pub f ry Mydl bYbM b Free Jv.n m Itl. mq Yv1 b u YJerO M, ap ~iUu. S N w~1q u.~ fa u... .! McW.M.n m Ntr+V.bNY~ MI6. wvmintl~li. YMgM rpY6n binH F M CY/. L69 ~p vtlb a Ffr1.C n igxe l.f: MpnAWMl4{i~LLe6/bit l~ ~F1M1PW~ ~y~~Y/S~ A~~ Figure 4.3 Genera- Tian ~pecia- H~ea nCryni Lrr,n~auvr.~ Height Certain height provisions in the General Plan apply to the Study Area as illustrated in figure 3.3. Heights up to 80 feet are permitted in properties along EI Camino Real from Kaiser Medical Center to the BART station, and heights up to 50 feet are permitted in the Chesnut Avenue "gateway" area. Parcels in the Study Area fall within the 1995 federally accepted 65 dB CNEL noise contour.' 1 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 278-288. 4-2 EL C~MIi~Q RE~;I_;CI~ESTE~UT tJ~f~!!~ USE P~l~! l~JiVE 8 PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAfv1PHIER-GREGORY Existing ~a,~c~ Uses `,~ \../ ^:~)~. 1( 11 .. ~ n ~.~ i ~ . > ~~ ~~y. .) `. ~ . rX < Z.> n ., ~. .~ , r,', 1'~7 ..`1` Y;.. /'-L ., ` ;_i~,. ~--:~ -~- ~ / I ~~ ~.`~, ks ' ;r.~ ,"` C~ ~.l`~>>.t ,~`~ ,~`~~ Y < r ~. Y:.~ ~~~Yi.~~/~~ ~ ~ f~4 ~~ L ,Y ~~?~-n - ~ ~ I )~ `~ .Its. ",! ~i ^yl~~~' < .,t<. J'~ ~.. \~\.~`{ x~..% is ~C ~ <`ti ~ t~ f"~ a ice. /; /, ~\( ~.. i I - ~r, ,~~>._~.\./i vy ~ 4u1 Y.. ^< .<.r `.~, ~.~<. ~7 [•~. v~ .vim' "~ ~ "~l'!~i j <~/_.-~~.~ i ,~~ .,.,~, :` `. -;~~ .~1.L, ~,•~y>'(ti `.`. ~x `. y: ~, T.t -r~~~z.A `J/Y.^,~;" 1~ fr~i. ~ 4 ~Jy~'~' ^ 1 r. ', i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~. '`~'~ '"~~~-+y ~I •• ~f P/>~Y >>",7~`\ ~('~..J \ Y^ v yl_,,,; ~ r i_ ~ ~// i ~'~~ I \l./ ~ _..~.._.. Vii... .y <rY ~r,~ ~ :.pa r,i, ~ ~~." ~~< k ~~o # ~~C~.~Y 1~~.\`'~ ~. ~, - i (~ ~1.~~ 4 ~-~-/,,, ~~ = , ~ `;}~ I~ ~: 7 > -~ ti J r 'S ~ ~~ L ; u Low Density Residential ?. ! /5 •.. ~~ ~,, C ; f' ~ r,_~T ~ ~..~ 1 ~, ~~ j ~ , ~ }.~} ,l-.~, , J 11 J Medium Density Residential "C„qr. ~^ ~ \'•~-~ ~ >.~ w.y - ~__~ ~• :"p• ~,, a` ~ ! ' , , ; ~ ^Cr^~` ~ , ~ r `` is ' ' , ~ ; 0 Hi h Dens,.,hh~' Residential ~ ~^~~ ' '~~g-~ r~~?'r ?avo AvF ~. ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ` ~:'J~ L~ /-7 /,/'.1 J may, ' > , r ~' ' ^y '•7 .~,9Cn n `~ ~~ ~ ,\ ` ~+ i r7'/'j ~. 1 ~J (. ~~ uf: ~ / , r r,T'~` ~ , ' , ~i ~T 'i:' ® Hotel /Motel ,;r^ t` °~Q \ \\\ ,` \~ ~ _ i , ' , ~ , Autoielated or Fast Food Commeraal ~^ ;` „~,~o,~/` ~~ //``''\ ` ~,;-` < P, a' ` ; ~ ~ '' !~,'; Community Commercial <.. '> < ,(~> ~'Q ~ " \ (~,// i ~, 's ,'>' . _ ' ; ;• , ~ ti 7 , J>. 7/<~I'>rlY ~ Fi ~ -'~_` ^; ~'. '~~rJti iGG ~n ;r_ ,:~ ` ,% l ,,,!4. B~!sinessCommeraal ~ a ~.~9 c > > _ ~ Office Chi,. ~^i /~i>'~~`n n~` R `'~~O i/ ~ kt^~C~ ~ .~~, r ~ ~ , , ~ ~ i Mixedlnduslrial ,~)r~/,~n„~1'y ^^,il~ )`~, ``` \ ~G.S ~ J l~V.L `i<,,, r,i;, , Business and Te^.,hnot~y Parts > r J 1 < ' ~ \^ ~"`-1 i., ` ~~ [\~/\~~ ' , i r r ; ~'' L- ,~ nr c. :^!. ~ ^.v ~.a ` 1~~i~1~. ~ `.i : ~ ~ \. `'L~(/, J4~.~ ~ ~L,.i.t ~ l -err„ .ri,. Transportation Center or R.O.W. ~ ;'!. ~'/T"~/~~~n~ t ~~~~~~`.>'•'. 1<j ~ •``~,yc~~ 1. ~, ii,,, Y/T)1/ 0 Public J1 : ,~,,, ` 'k _. _,. ..~'.. .. ~ ~ ` r^inrrrn V. Park and Recreation ~ / ~~ ~ Lj ~ J "~;' rrr/ ~ ~.:~ ,5? r ~' ~: If a°~~ o;~'~ ~ • ,;-.. ~ ~.~N . Li ji ~~ Open Space lF7r~'ct' J' /'~..;l.i(< ~~/)~Tr..,,~2~°( p4',~ (q~ „~ ii ~ Agriculture r/ ?~ ,.Tr y `(i i ~4~~eq,,,~ ~- ~)~ ii L - I' J/.1'(~,/ 1 / ~n~ J Y.x ~ \ IJ . ~ ~"WiTgs ~~/`,f',7^ jG.i=. l - i' ii, I Vacant %J.l..i ~ ~i/7~!%jliC Ji, '~">^` ~ i ~ ~ •~Fry(iF u(~~j~'~j ~ i CL Parking Lot - / /) T. /~. ~ >y pouGH ~ e~ , ,r,..rl.., ~ . <, `./ _. , ~ :~ ; I~~ Parking SWcture I' . ,1,5 '/J.~'~ .h I I' : (./ ` ~\, t" '`~ ~' ` :>. ` .`-i--fir .y ~ ,`,." ~:. ,:>. `.~ - `r.: ;, ~" rigure 4.4 cxisuny ~anu vac r+cuvny Existing land uses were identified using City GIS information and visual survey. The visual survey was used to confrm or identify current (existing) land uses. Current uses in the Study Area are varied and occur in general use groupings of multiple parcels sharing similar uses. While several parcels in the Study Area are currently zoned under the TV Zoning district, none of these have yet achieved the development entitled by that zoning. Existing uses include several multi-family residential buildings focused along Antoinette Lane and Mission Road. The balance of uses are generally non-residential. These include a small farm, 3 shopping centers that contain 2 grocery stores, a hospital, a lumber and landscaping supply business, and a "green" informational service center. A palpable clustering of dental offices along Mission Road, the city's Municipal Services Building (MSB), several automotive-related businesses, and vacant parcels that vary in size from 1/2 to 8 acres are also present. The linear park adds recreational open space to this mix of uses. 4-3 EL CAIV11~4® REALiCFiESTI\!..lT LAI~® t~SE E~LA14 RIVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LP.fV1PHIER-GREGORY ~I~InQr.~hin P~ft2t"i7S -~---~ ,,ham ~. _ _ , _ < ~ ` '~~ `- - ,' X _ tom' . EI Camino Real Redevelopment Area City /Redevelopment Agency owned Property Kaiser-0wned Properly Large Par.~:ls (1.5 acres or more) r~ Parcels with contiguous ownership ~~~~ ~'', ~/? -,~.'I ~C-', I r- ~~ II ~ ~. J' F r L ..y L..~ ~I'r. J ~ ,~ c ~ !` L l ~v ti.~ p. ~ ~~. y i !T r 1 i~~ ~. ~i-i. ,' x.1..1 t *r.1 .. S ~ ' ` r ~.i ,~ ~ ~: , ti :.. Y~ , ~i..~...? ,fir;"~ ~.;r J~ ' ~ /) ~ ~~', r Sys-~:.'~v' !'..,.~_ ~~:..ti..i ~,,,;;1~ rn..,'.;._ a - 7~ ?~,..T r r ,~~ ' h.r ~~c ' TT7l-. J.~: I L l \.i. a~2J:~ i.i~i ~,Si1 , 77l ,.J _ ` `~ ~ ~,.y i- '. -11 Xa, =c.,, Ficure 4.5 City & Kaiser Medical Ce;lter-owned Properties, large parcels and contiguous parcels unaer singie ov/riersn-~u City of South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco and the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (RDA) currently own 15 acres of land in the Study Area (shown in blue in fgure 4.2). Ten acres fail on the south east side of the Study Area along Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue, and 2 acres sit at EI Camino Keai and Arroyo Drive. Much of this City-owned land is contiguous and vacant, expanding the potential for its future use and development. In particular, an 7.5 acre parcel owned by the RDA sits along the west side of Mission Road near the Grand Avenue intersection. It extends southward crossing the flood channel. The General Plan Implementing Policy regarding this property states: 3.10-1-1 Require development of the vacant site between Mission Road and the future linear park on the BART right-of--way to Abe at least 20 du/ac, provide direct access to the linear park, and not include perimeter walls.' This city-owned land turns eastward along Chestnut to include the 1.7 acre former Ron Price auto dealership site which currently is home to the Green Building Exchange. The PUC transferred 2 acres to the City that runs adjacent to the BART tunnel right of way. The Centennial Way linear park has been constructed along a segment of this property that is located south of Chestnut Avenue. The city-owned parcel on Arroyo Drive where the Municipal Services Building sits houses the Police and Fire Department Headquarters, Parks and Recreation Department and Council Chambers. All public meetings for the City are held at the Municipal Services Building, while City Hall downtown houses administrative offices, the Planning Department, Building and Engineering services. 1 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 124. << >~ ~ 1. Y 'y < y'.., y\ ti v ., v 1'Y 1 ~~).~ ..v 1. >' ~~'„~ '~:r~~` ,t'~'~ c .. ~... c.. ~ G: ; i T)17.1 ~ Ul..ji J _, 4-4 -- E' C7~~,~111~{? REl~!/CI°IE~Ti~!UT ~.Qi~l7 USE F~~~6~ f~nVE 8: PARTNERS BA,Y AREA ECONOMiICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LA(JIPHIER-GREGORY Kaiser Medical Center Kaiser Medical Center owns 20 acres of the Study Area and is accessed from EI Camino Real. The northernmost 5.5 acres of Kaiser Medical Center property was recently purchased and included a former motel site, the Red Arrow Trailer Court (now vacant) and the Broadmore Lumber property. The three properties recently purchased by Kaiser are zoned under Transit Village and by right are entitled up to a total of 300,000 s.f. non-residential use and 275 residential units.z Kaiser Medical Center has submitted a permit application to change the zoning from Transit Village to office/ medical. This application is under review and pending council decision. Given the potential loss of this sand use, the City has a goal that any rezoning of these parcels be accomplished with a strategy to recapture these potential revenue-generating uses housing resources in another location, preferably within in the study area. Kaiser Medical Center is a significant and necessary use that benefits the community, but often little benefit to the urban framework of the Study Area. Its massive land area, largel~,r covered by surface parking, creates a site that is challenging to pedestrians, is a barrier to access between Mission Road, Centennial Way and EI Camino Real, and creates a 1/2 mile long stretch of relatively inactive frontage along EI Camino Rea! that is inconsistent with walkable mixed-use, transit-oriented environments. Its configuration is not conducive to access to and from the BART station or Mission Road, and it does not reflect the Grand Boulevard Guiding Principles for EI Camino Real. In its current urban form, Kaiser Medical Center is not conducive to the City's broad vision for Smart Growth that calls for a walkable, transit-supportive, mixed-use urban environment. As noted in Chapter 2: Related Planning Activities, Kaiser Medical Center faces a 20 year horizon within which its facility will be renovated and/or rebuilt. Their purchase of adjacent parcels also suggest Kaiser Medical Center's need for growth and expansion of its facility. The EI Camino Real/ Chestnut Land Use & Specific Plan process is an opportunity to identify and update planning options that support and enhance General Plan goals and policies. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Table 20.27.040: Development Regulations for Transit Village District. 4-5 Et_ C~IVIII~€C I~E~,t_/Ct~ESTt~I~T ~D ~~~ ~~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIP.~LEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Pedestrian experience approacing Kaiser Meaicai ~enrer r, o,-r me easy srce or cr ~.arnrnu r~~a, A former hotel north of Kaiser Medical Center sits vacant and serves to provide Kaiser Medical Center employee parking. Currently a change of use is under review with the City. The site will provide replacement office while the 5th floor cf the hospital is upgraded. From Mission Road, Kaiser Medical Center is the most prominent feature across the BART and Centennial Park right-of--way. General Plan Implementing Policies that inform Kaiser Medical Center planning and development activities include: 3.4-1-13 In cooperation with Kaiser Medical Center Hospital, undertake a program to alleviate orr-street parking shortage. • Many workers and visitors to the hospitals park along EI Camino Reai, some several thousand feet north. Many park on the south side of the street as well; pedestrians crossing the six-lane state highway at non-designated crossings is also a safety hazard. Among tiie possible solutions to alleviate the parking shortage is to reduce the width of the median creating two additional parking lanes along the median (or at least one parking lane on the north side of the ~nedian). This would also slow traffic near the hospital. 3.4-1-74 Work with Kaiser Medical Center Hospital to explore the feasibility of a street connection from the hospital fo Mission Road.. With approximately 1,200 employees, Kaiser Medical Center Hospital is the city's second largest employer and the largest in the area west of U.S. 101. As a full ser~rice health care facility, the hospital also draws visitors, generating much traffic. Currently, the only ?ccess points to the hospital are from EI Camino Real. A potential connection to Mission Road, especially given the planned extension of Mission Road southward (see Chapter 4: Transportation), would both improve accessibility to the hospital and provide some relief to traffic along EI Camino Real. This connection would require traversing the BAR I right-of-way. A large site immediately north of the BART right-of- way is currently vacant; thus, a street connection could be provided without disrupting any existing development.3 Additionally, the City is participating in the Grand Boulevard Initiative. It guides land use and urban design decisions along EI Camino Real, and would influence development along Kaiser's frontage. ~ ~ ~.R` .~ ~„ ti- " _ f ~& i, ~ ~_•- j4 S~L `" -. - ~ ek. ' .. " PUC property along Mission Road viewed from the flood channel provides exc Large, Contiguously-owned Parcels & Parcel Aggregation Opportunities Parcel size is an important factor affecting development potential. A 1.5 acre site is a good size for amulti-family residential development and provides for efficient site planning and parking configuration. Figure 4.5 illustrates parcels that are at least 1.5 acres in pale red. A distinguishing feature of the Study Area are numerous small and oddly shaped parcels. Figure 4.5 also highlights locations where ownership of smaller parcels is contiguous. Contiguously owned parcels that could easily be aggregated are in pale orange. Hatch-marked parcels illustrate parcels that are not under shared ownership but that are in locations that suggest potential aggregation. Figure 4.6 on the following page should be referenced for the following discussion: Pacific Market occupies a 2-acre parcel and shares use characteristics and parking with two other parcels 3 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Genera! Plan, 1999, p 98. 4-b EL CAM16~~ RE~,L/CI~ESTI~UT €-AIlB l1SE P~l~ MVE & PARTt~!ERS BAY AREA ECO~JORAICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY I~^, ~ <<w ~ wESTBGaOWH ` ~ ;~ ~~E<.' LI y.~~ ~'~' 5~,: , _ ~,, ,. Fin;;ra 4.5 Planning Sub Areas that together total 2 acres. These parcels are not cor ~tiguousiy-owned, however their adjacency suggests possible aggregation to create a 4-acre redevelopment parcel: If the MSB were to be added to these to create a full redevelopment area, the total would be S acres (sub-area A). The area defined by Chestnut Avenue, EI Camino Real, the future Oak Avenue extension, and Mission Road (sub-area B) consists of city-owned parcels that include the former auto dealership site that now houses the green Building Exchange, three privately-owned parcels that contain apartments and South City Automotive Sales. The area is bisected north- Chestnuf Center (about 3.85 acres) sits at south by the BART rail right-of-way and the adjacent linear park right-of- fhe southeast intersection of Commercial way (formerly PUC) between BART and EI Camino Real. Not including and Chestnut Avenues. Its major tenant is Antoinette Lane, BART or the Linear Park, this land totals 1.5 acres. As a Safeway. whole not including the channel right-of--way at the east side of this sub- area, the land area is 8.5 acres. Across EI Camino on Chestnut Avenue and Antoinette Lane, the Chestnut Center occupies a 4-acre parcel that includes a Safeway and supporting center commercial uses. It is adjacent to and east of the former PUC right-of-way and Petrocchi parcels which are currently home to the South City Carwash and the vacant, triangular-shaped parcel at the southeast corner of Chestnut and EI Camino Real. The Petrocchi property sits along EI Camino Real to the north of a 0.8 acre Burger King site. Petrocchi also owns a 0.9 acre segment of the former PUC right-of-way that runs north- south between them and the Chestnut Center. Together these parcels total Pacific Supermarket and Fairway Plaza sit on 4 acres at El Camino Real and over 5 acres (sub-area C). Westborough (sub-area A). Recent improvements have been made at Pacific The northwest of the site is defined by Kaiser Medical Center along EI supermarket. Camino Real and the parcels between it and the BART station. The channel defines the back of these parcels. These parcels are organized 4-7 _ - EL C/~kiill~0 REAL/Ct"fESTI~!UT LAr~U USE PLAi~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONGMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATF_S LAMPFIIER-GREGORY with their fronts facing EI Camino Real. Kaiser P~4edical Center's main property is a 14 acre parcel, the former hotel and trailer park make up a 2.5 acre area, and the Broadmore Lumber site is 3 acres (sub-area D). The RDA-owned 8 acre parcel along Mission (sub-area F) makes up the largest land area/redevelopment opportunity along Mission Road. It was a former golf driving range and purchsed from the PUC. The balance of Mission Rcad Parcels (sub-area G) are made up of four, further sub- divided areas, G.1 through G.4. The property at 1256 Mission (sub-area G.1) is a 1.75 acre property on tt-tree parcels. This property is currently used for agriculture and is one of the last sites for agriculture in South San Francisco. It's current zoning, TV RM permits 3C units/acre - 85 units, and 0.75 non-commercial FAR - 92,000 s.f. The Sunshine Center on Mission koad at Holly Avenue occupies two parcels owned by Ucelli totalling 2 acres. Together with the vacant adjacent site (highlighted by hatch marks) at the corner of Sequoia, a 3-acre area is defined (sub-area G.3). This location was identified as a node for medium density multi-family residential and neighborhood commercial in the Soufh San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan. Parcels on the west side of Mission Road and between BART and Holly Avenue (sub-area G.2) present the most challenging parcels due to their awkward shapes and shallow depths. Parcels from Holly to the north of s~!b-area F (sub-area G.4) ar? more normally configured and sized. Two of these parcels are under a single ownership and adjacent to one another. Other Ownership Patterns in the Study Area The balance of the Study Area parcels are owned by various individuals and range from as small as 0.10 acre to slightly more than 1 acre. The small size of these parcels indicates that redevelopment could be challenging without parcel aggregation. From (and including) Burger King (972 EI Camino Real) to 1st Street and the one parcel facing B Street (sub-area E, Figure 1.3), six parcels together total 2.85 acres. These include a vacant parcel formerly "Hank's Rentals (930 EI Camino Real)," the Maltese American Social Club (922/928 EI Camino Real), the Deluxe Inn (920 EI Camino Real), the Fairway Lounge (920 EI Camino Real) and All American Transmission (58/62 B Street). Several, particularly small and oddly shaped parcels fall along the west side of Mission Road (sub-area G.2). These parcels have an average parcel size of 0.4 acres, and their awkward shapes and sizes suggest that parcel aggregation or other create development plans would be necessary for feasible development concepts. 4-$ _ EL Ca6'~li'~C RE~eL/C6°tt=STRUT t-AI~D USE PLf~I~ PAVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOhJIICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Former 8-acre golf driving range that the City purchased from the PUC. The parcel is bisected by the Coima Creek flood channel (sub-area F). Sunshine Center between Sequoia and Holly Avenues and facing Mission Road is adjacent to a vacant parcel. Together these parcels total 3 acres (sub-area G. 3). ~ ~ .~, - } ~ ~ r r~.~~: e~ ,~ F jju ~ i+ ~'y ~° ~° pp tfi ~' (~ ~ ~ I~ I` fit. fi *~f G,~ {{~ al ~~~~~[~~~.... c~~1! ti '~~-~' C._ ~~r'~s.dL° i!~~ ~~~L~(~ ~ .:~~d-yi=c a.lL ~ \ 3/q ~d / i[F. \~SM ,"~TF ~ \ q<k .~ / \ ~ ` ~ ` I Large vacant sites present strong, infill {~~ IAA` -~~ transit-oriented development along r I ~ ~ Mission koad. * l ~' ~~,~ .~~ ~,e ' II / ~ • ~ 1IZ MILE - ~O MINUTE (~/ _ ° ~ A[; Oddly shaped and shallaw parcels present es for redevelopment challan ~~, ~ , South San Francisco-~ ~ 60 • . ~ _ r - g \ r ~o~ t BART Station '` ~ Z` / ~Cack of permeabilty between Mission / `, ~_ ' RoadlSunshine Gardens and Centennial Way. _ _~ Grade uif(erences up to 25 feet are blunt ~~ B •'~ Buildings-along Mission appear underublized t contribute to the d d t d l f and act as barriers behveen places and ~ I ~~ s ~ ~ ~ ~' , r~~ f e an o no -o a and ou - aesthetic ualil of the ublic realm. V y p activities on either side of slope. - ~ ©~ ,b 3 ~ ~ Colma Creek is currently cha^nelized e ~ and not tanned to be tote rated as an p g ~~" It may ~A =- ~ element within Centennial 1Nay V `~' `~ - ~ i~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ Weak sense of gatewaylconnection to Downtown at Grand Avenue. . present future opportunities for ~ ' a ~;; `,~ Open space connections info Centennial Way slormwater management and;or ~ / `~.~ from Mission Road and from new ~~, evironmental restoration _' 4 ~~q Mu s E ~' developments around Chestnut Avenue could ' `~. \ ' NUT be a way to contribute to a connected public realm Paorl defined ed es reduce - ' ? F~L az ~qt ` . t t ~ legibility a!ona EI Camino Real. ~_ 'a' y un City-owned vacant parcel creates cppor ,~~~ "~~~`_ ~ ~ p, ~.tAc for development Thal establishes new \ charachter in terms of architectural scale, I -~d'~' ~ ~ s~ massing, porportion and design. The Planned Oak Avenue Extension will rove connectivity between Mission im ~'~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ Mission Road is wide, lacks definition and does not promote pedestrian activity. p Road and E! Camino Real. ' Existing Civic Node and City of`ces in core of Plan area. ~ I i~ / ` `-'-^- ~~ ~ No sense of a gateway exists at EI Camino --- Buildings do not relate to one another nor to the public realm in terms of i _ i~ Real and Chestnut. !~ ~~ e ~''~ pedestrian movement, visibility, y S ~ sS® •,I connectivity,orpermeability.' ~~~,. s` e ~ ` ~`\ y ` v \ I-II~UI G iJ. 1 LAIJIII II, vvll~Il al vlly v a~.J- ~ aa.. The following narrative is based on visual analysis. It is interpretive and describes the Study Area experientially, rather than technically. It is intended to communicate the Study Area character from the objective perspective of a passerby in a vehicle or by foot. This type of analysis illustrates where deficiencies lie in the physical nature and structure of the Study Area, and begins to provide a basis for approaching the design of new development or redevelopment in ways that improve and define its character. Furthermore, analyzing the entire planning area together rather than on aparcel-by-parcel basis identifies shortfalls in connectivity and the perception of the area as a whole district or neighborhood. The Study Area was defined by virtue of characteristics shared generally between multiple parcels or groups of parcels that suggest opportunities to develop a more vibrant, urban and pedestrian-focused place in South San Francisco. Circulation, relationship to major transportation, recent development activity, and regional presence along EI Camino Real bind parcels in the Specific Plan Study Area together. ~=~ Ef- c~Nt~EI~G F~EAt_/Cf°lleST'i~f.j T l.At~t3 JSE~ PE-A~~ ('~1VE & PARTNERS BP,Y AREA ECONO~ti41CS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Streets EI Camino Real The entire Study Area encompasses approximately 55 acres. It is slightly less than one mile long and'/4 mile wide and is configured in a north-south direction. EI Camino Real -State Route 82 -runs ti~irough the Study Area and bisects it. A 6.5 acre area made up of three parcels is located nn the west side of the high~!ay, and the balance of the Study Area is situated on the east between EI Camino Real and Mission Road. The eastern boundary of the Study Area is bounded by Mission Road between BART and Chestnut Avenue. EI Camino Real is a heavily traveled arterial that is maintained by Caltrans and has historical signifilcance in the State of California. It is a wide, eight-lane road with a median that serves turn pockets. Sidewalks are narrow, and there is little pedestrian activity. On-street parking is permitted in some locations on the segment of EI Camino Real that passes through the Study Area, but it is not clearly marked and may be perceived as unsafe. Pedestrian crossing distances are at least 100 feet at the Chestnut Avenue intersection. The segment of EI Camino Real that runs through the Study Area is particularly unusual in that it is one-sided for much of its length. The Buri Buri neighbor food sits to the west approximately 25 feet abcve EI Camino Real marked by a steep bank along the west side of the street from Del Paso Drive to north of McLellan Drive. Along the highway's east side, the grade falls again quickly from the back of Ef Camino Real's pedestrian sidewalk approximately 15 feet between Chestnut Avenue and Kaiser Medical Center, tapering northward to grade near the BART station. Between Chestnut Avenue and the southern boundary of Kaiser Medical Center property -the future Oak Avenue intersection -the pedestrian sidewalk is lined only with trees and a fence through which this grade variation is visible. It is fair to say and easy to observe. that in its current state, the configuration of development along the street and design of EI Camino Real streetscape do not support the key goals and recommendations found in The EI Camino Real Master Plan, nor those espoused by either the General Plan nor the Grand Boulevard Initiative. These plans all share similar goals focused on improving the design and character along the street: EI Camino Real Master Plan Goals' Goal 1: Improve streetscape Aesthetics • Welcome visitors by creating a Southern and Northern gateway into the city; • Create an identifiable streetscape that celebrates South San Francisco's unique character; • Identify opportunities for public art; • Screen parking areas; and • Develop a street banner program. 1 CallanderAssociates. South San Francisco EI Camino Real Master Plan, July, 2006, pp 36-38. 5.2 EL CA~.~Ii'til® I~EI-~,I_/CI-tESTNJT L,~ND tISE Pt~N MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAI~~IPHIER-GREGORY On the east side near Chestnut and extending to Kaiser Medical censer, the grade raus ~u-~u rear r~eww c~ uaniuw r~Cp~ ~~~,~, o~ ~~~~~ as 5 feet of the back of t"e pedestrian sidewalk in some locations. ~l~ .buildings sit and face the street along this distance. Goal 2: Increase Pedestrian Circulation and Safety • Encourage pedestrian circulation by providing safe access to points of interest such as schools, public transportation, and commercial nodes; • Provide consistent sidewalks that are universally accessibly through out corridor; • Expand sidewalks at intersections to reduce the crossing length; • Provide additional signaled crosswalks to improve pedestrian circulation; • Provide site amenities such as shade and bus shelters; and • Provide pedestrian barriers along medians to discourage unsafe mid-block crossing. Goal 3: Increase the use of p~~~lic franspo~ation system • Increase visibility of transit stops to improve recognition a..d use. Improve the quality of the system by providing bus shelters at stops and amenities such as benches. Goa14: Improve Vel-icular Circulation • Maximize streetscape improvements without sacrificing current traffic patterns; and • Provide traffic calming measure where feasible. General Plan Guiding and Implementing policies that apply to The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use & Specific P!an's reccmmendations and policies are: . 3.4--C- ~ Develop EI Camino Real as a boL,~levard, that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provide identity to the street. 3.4-G-2 Encourage development of a mix of uses, ~rvith pockets of concentrated activity f~hat provide focii and identity to the different parts of EI Camino Real. 3.4-1-7 Develop, and in coordination with CalTrans, implement a streetscape plan for EI Camino Real for its entire stretch through South San Francisco which includes: • Sidewalks, street lights and other pedestrian amenities in designated areas of pedestrian activity; • Consistent double row of median trees and trees on either side of the street for the six-lane stretch of EI Camino Real (generally Kaiser Medical Center Hospital area and south); and • Consistent double row of trees for the two-lane northern stretch (Kaiser Medical Center Hospital to Colma). • Since EI Camino Real is a State Route (SR 82), implementation of a plan will require CalTrans2 cooperation. rite of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 92 5-3 E!, Cf~MI~G REf~~/(d~~~ I tau B ~~~u u~t ~~6~ (VINE & PARTP~ERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIPALEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Chestnut Avenue. On-street parking on EI Camino Real. EI Camino Real begins across from Kaiser Medical Cenfer's parking structure and continues past McLellan Drive. A 10 to 20 foot grade separation occurs to the east of (behind) Et Camino Real along the flood channel. South San Francisco is one of the Peninsula cities to have adopted the Grand Boulevard Initiative's Guiding Principles which focus on the street's visual character and surrounding land use mixes and intensity to ensure an active, pedestrian-oriented, multi-modal street. These principles align with The El Camino Real Master Plan and the General Plan Implementing policy M enhance EI Camino Real throughout the City: 3.4-1-2 Prepare and implement an EI Camino Real overlay district in the City's Zoning Ordinance that provides development standards that further EI Camino's development as a mixed-use use boulevard, accommodating the need for both auto-oriented uses as well as designated pedestrian- orienfed centers. Regulations should include: Consistent maximum height of 50 feet regardless of the underlying use, with a maximum height of 80 feet in two areas: the BART station area, and the ChestnutiEl Camino Real area (see Figure 2-3); No minimum front setback requirements, prcvided active uses are located adjacent to streets, and performance-oriented building transparency and other standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance are maintained; Requirements for awnings, shade, building transparency for designated pedestrian areas; and landscape requirements3. The importance of E! Camino Real in South San Francisco is confirmed by its commitment to the goals and policies of these plans. in order to achieve this vision, new street design standards and updated zoning will be necessary to enable its implementation. As related to the Grand Boulevard Initiative, the portion of EI Camino Real that runs through this Study Area will be treated as a representative segment that could establish precedence for other parts ~f the corridor. 3 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 93 5.4 EL CAll~l~#O 13E~,L/CFiEST~~~T t~~IB BSE PL~ti~ I~~IVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Chestnut Avenue Chestnut Avenue is an arterial that crosses EI Camino Real from and carries traffic between Hillside Boulevard / Hwy 101 to EI Camino Real and on to I-280. As it crosses EI Camino Real in the southwest direction, the street name changes to Westborough Avenue where traffic moves toward I-280. This intersection is known us the busiest intersection in the City, and it is a major circulation gate~vay to South San Francisco. Physically it is a "placeless" intersection. The design of the street itself together with a lack of any urban "street wall" or prominent building features results in an intersection that lacks identity and that is not recognizable as a gateway to South San Francisco. The Specific Plan Study Area includes parcels cn alt corners of this intersection, offering a significant land base for redevelopment opportunities. tike EI Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue as it passes through the Study Area is defined by its width, heavy traffic and a lack of definition along its narrow sidewalks. As a pedestrian on Chestnut, one may feel out of place and unsafe. Though clearly marked and signalized crosswalks exist, they are not highly used because of scale, signal timing, and a lack of destination on either side of the street. 5-5 EL CA~I€~C €~EAL/C~IEST~IfT IaA~I~ SSE PIvAf'~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONO~dIICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LA~~~IPHIER-GREGORY A.n u;,irvifing pedestrian realm along Chestnut to EI Camino Real. Physical definition at the intersection of EI Camino Real and Chestnut is limited to lane striping and traffic signals, and safe and comfortable pedestrian movement is barely supported Crossing Antoinette Lane at Chestnut toward EI Camino Real does not feel comfortable or safe for pedestrians. Mission Road Mission Road connects local and cut-through traffic from Highway 101 and Grand Avenue to Sunshine Gardens and the BART station. Mission Road is palpably ~ti~ide, loosely defined along its edges and does ^ot invite pedestrian use on its narrow sidewalks, where they exist. It carries a mixed bag of uses and activities, passing from residential to civic to commercial to office to neighborhood activity nodes, with a lack of Contir;.aity or specific identity. The South San Francisco BART Trar•~sit Village Plan identified "Mission Road as an important street in South Sar. Francisco in~ conjunction with the Transit Village. The plan also included conceptual streetscape plans that recommend reconfiguration to include narrower lanes, or--street parking, ~~rider pedestrian sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, landscaping, lighting and furnishings.' These concepts included place-making gateway transitions at the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood street intersections with Mission Road, and proposed apedestrian/bike gateway to the linear park in a narrow parcel at the Mission Road and Sequoia Avenue intersection. At this time, none of these improvements have been irmplemented. Qak ~-venue Extension Anew extension of Oak Avenue from Mission Road to EI Camino Real is planned and partially funded. The street will extend from Mission Road at the current uak Avenue intersection westward to intersect with EI Camino Real across from the Arroyo Crive intersection. The extension is currently proposed to be four lanes and will bridge over Colma Creek and "the Linear Park bikeway. It will intersect Antoinette Lane, although as currently proposed, the movements will be restricted to right-turn only to and from Antoinette Lane. The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use & Specific Plan process should include conceptual plans for this street that are based on any development proposals for land that would be adjacent to its final location. Mobility and Pedestrian/Bicycle Linkages -The Linear Park The Study Area is very walkable. No more than a mile long, the area presents a comfortable walk between BART and Chestnut Avenue along either EI Camino Real, Mission Road or the Centennial Way bike/ pedestrian path. Walkability, however, does not equate to a high level of pedestrian activity nor pedestrian desirability. If the streets are not attractive, and the pedestrian realm tends to be poorly defined with narrow sidewalks, marginal landscaping and a lack of lighting or furnishings, neither pedestrian activity nor desirability will result. Buildings that do not line the sidewalks contribute to an inactive sidewalk as well. Centennial Way, when complete, will provide an attractive alternative for pedestrians and bicycles in the Study Area. City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, 2001. pp 35-41 ~_6 EL GAM16~® ~~tk.~/~t~~~1 ~~ t t~.tvt~ u~~ ~~,~'~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Views from Mission Road i;,to fhe BART right-of--way and future linear park are available, but physical access is limited. Access across the flood channel is supported by a pedestrian bridge to the left of this image, but the west sidewalk on Mission Road abruptly ends without a marked pedestrian crossing in sight !see aerial view below). East-west movement across the Study Area between Mission Road and EI Camino Real is limited except at BART Access Road or Chestnut Avenue. Sidewalks on these streets are narrow, and in some locations do not exist, and pedestrian access is secondary to automobiles. There are no bike lanes [confirm]. Two bridge crossings over the channel occur north of Chestnut and extend to the end of Antoinette Lane and serve pedestrians and BART vehicles. The future QakAvenue extension is planned to connect from Mission to EI Camino Real. Pedestrian and bike access may be accommodated on this planned extension, but the final street design is not complete. By virtue of grade separations, irregular parcelization~ along Mission, the flood channel and BART right-of-way, the Study Area retains a strong north-south orientation and limits not only east-west connectivity, but also the scale-defining qualities that would be provided by more closely spaced streets and blocks. farriers Topography and Flood Control Features While physical connectivity between Mission Road and EI Camino Real is low, visual linkages between the two occur along the length of both streets. Uses on EI Camino Real can be seen from within the linear park and BART right-of-way and from some locations on Mission Road, and similarly views down to the area containing the channel, BART tunnel and Centennial Way can be seen along the east side of EI Camino Real, especially in the area south of BART and north of Chestnut Avenue. Despite the clear vistas, barriers exist that limit physical access and contribute to the current lack of physical east-west crossings between Mission and EI Camino Real. Grade separations from 10 to 20 feet occur between EI Camino Real and the linear park path, the flood channel is 25 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and a 3 to 5 foot grade variation occurs between the east edge of the BART tunnel and the rear of Mission Road properties. Currently this condition manifests as a swale-like feature, and is typically fenced off to limit physical crossings. ~~~s~a 5-7 EL C6~k~ll~C t~EAE-/Ci~E~ i i\6t1 i 9~Ai~l~ ~~~ >~~ia MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Walking south along the new pathway in the BART right-cf-way and adjacent to the noon cnanner, ci ~.ainnrv RCa~ n~ao ~~ ~,~~ ,~y~,~ behind the Kaiser Medical Center facility; and Mission Road is clearly visible to the left at the Sequoia intersection. except for two small bridges near Chestnut. in elevation between the BART tunnel and Mission F2oad parcels. One can see parcels on EI Camino Real across Centennial. Way from Mission Road. Building character throughout most of the Specific Plan Study Area is decidedly dated; in some cases to the point of appearing underutilized or vacant, even when occupied. Buildings stand as isolated objects, and their architecture generally respo~ ds neither to their context nor to one anat.cr. Existing development in the Study Area does not reinforce use of or access to public transportation. The form, siting and proportion of buildings does not relate to the scale of the roadway or intensity of traffic on either Ei Camino Real or Chestnut Avenue. Buildings in the Study Area generally do not align with one another or share the formal features that traditionally defin.~ good urbanism: a consistent street wall, perceivable pedestrian activity, visibility and transparency or timeless architectural design. The disparate and run-down condition of buildings in the Study Area demonstrates a lack of recent development activity, but despite the perception of a slovrly evolving urban landscape this situation provides a "clean slate" of opportunities to define a strong, new architectural character for the City. Guided by the General Plan, and begun with the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, this Plan is an opportunity to expand, refine and further intensify the Transit Oriented Qevelopment activity at the BART station along EI Camino Real and throughout the Specific Plan Study Area: 3.4-1-2 Prepare and implement an EI Camino Real overlay district in the City's Zoning Ordinance that provides develo,oment standards That further EI Camiro's development as a mixed-use use boulevard, accommodating the need for both auto-oriented uses as well as designated pedestrian- oriented centers. 3.10-I-1 Require development of fhe vacant site between Mission Road and the future linear park on the BART right-of-way to: Be at a density no less than 20 units per net acre (maximum density shall be in accordance with the land use classification in Chapter 2). Maximize access from individual units to the linear park and trails on the BART tracks. Not include any perimeter walls (including sound walls). Policies established in the General Plan to "address pedestrian state, comfort and sarery~~ ar me ~oum ~a,~ Francisco BART station have resulted in new buildings in the immediate vicinity of the station that illustrate a highly improved architectural vocabulary and that sets the tone for facing, defining and activating streets with pedestrian activity and scale. The realization of this around the BART station is evident in site planning, pedestrian-focused street design and urban, architectural development. 1 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p 96. ~_~ IoL CAlVItNQ DEAL/GI~ESTNtlT LANQ l~SE PLAN MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY r~uilt~ing Character ONen ~}~ace ~r~~ ~ ' ' M kM ~~ ~~ .:: - :___ - - ~~ j "' O PvE " _ t PAN ; W G. , ~ r > i c4~`~`~ 1 _ r ~ ~ . , . Q .~; ,.: ~ :~ 1 f~,- _" ." -"ALiA IOMA DRIVE ~ ', i i ~~ ~ ~i;?~.. ~ ; :~~~ •'~_ ~ rte' ,__ ~~ .. ,` ` '`~ ,.., - 1 ~., , ': Figure ~.2 Centennial Way Pla,~ superimposed on the Study Area with Orange Park fo t"e south east of the Study Area. Centennial Way Linear Park The Specific Plan Study Area has not only the benefit of adjacency to Orange Park, vrhich begins at the intersection of Mission and Chestnut a.^.d extends to West Orange Avenue, b~!t Centennial Way extends through the entire Study fi~rea between the South San Francisco and San Bruno BNt~T Stations. By providing this as a key linkage for pedestrian and bicycle access to both 6ART stations, this linear park addresses the important need for safe and convenient access to transit while also providing access to recreational facilities and natural features. In its current context the linear park exists as a somewhat isolated entity, but it the intent is that the park will remain permeable to create opportunities for secondary connections to future developments along its length. The Flood Channel The flood channel, maintained and controlled by the San Mateo Flood Control District, currently exists in an exposed, boxed culvert that is approximately 25 feet wide and 10 feet deep. Colma Creek runs within the channel, and it is subject to the 100-year flood"'. The newly constructed linear park path sits adjacent to the creek from the BART station to a point approximately midway between Grand and Oak Avenues on Mission - or at the south end of the Kaiser Medical Center parking structure. At this point, the creek diverges east and south toward Orange Park, and Centennial Way heads west toward EI Camino Real, where it crosses Chestnut Avenue and continues in the existing PUC right of way, part of which has been transferred to Petrocchi and part to the City of South San Francisco. From the location of the split, the channel turns southeast to run adjacent to Mission Road, below Chestnut, through Orange Park and eventually to the Bay. This creates a pleasant, if disconnected, space that could be part of ari improved pedestrian system on Mission Road, as it is in this same area that sidewalks on the west side of Mission Road end and pedestrian access disrupted. _ ,j~- ~t=.. _ , 1 Lamphier-Gregory. Chestnut Area Specific Plan Existing Setting Memo, 2008, p. 12. ~_g Et! CAMIi+~® ;SEAL/CI-lEvYi~tJT LAI~lD USE Pt_~I~ fv1VE & PARTNERS [3AY AREA ECONOMICS KIMI EY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Chestnut Avenue. As one walks along the linear park path, adjacent to the flood channel, it is difficult not to envision a more natural configuration of the creek as a natural feature and environmental resource. At the time of this analysis, no plans to naturalize the channel appear to have been pursued in this area, and it is not clear if such an undertaking would be feasible. However, similar efforts to naturalize have been pursued along different segments of the creekz. Gonsidering the major physical presence of this channel within the Study Area, its relationship to the recreational linear park path and current best practices in stormwater management, the possibility of naturalization may present a distinct opportunity in the Study Area. ~'yhile the General Plan does not include specific goals or implementing policies regarding Colma Creek per se, it could be deduced from the following goal that naturalization of the creek would support the habitat and biological resources conservation goals as set forih in Chapter 7: 7.1-G-2 Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, r estore salt marshes and wetlands. Alternative to naturalization, there could be a justification in fully channelizing the channel in some locations. In either case, current conditions suggest that all possibilities of mitigating the channel's negative impacts should be explored. Shelterbelf Builders. htfp://www.shelterbe/tbuilders.com/cs/colma.htm City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, 9999, p. 222 5-10 EL CAf1111~EC €~IeR,L/CE-tESTE~E~T EvAE~® t1SE E~t~6~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY The flood channel is in a deep, :vide culvert and will be behind a 5-foot high fence when the Ilnear parK ~s comp-ereo. Outcome of Alhambra Creek's "daylighting" and naturalization project in downtown Martinez. A small pocket park sits in the California Water Service parcel east of the flood channel at Mission and Chestnut. cnvironr~rental ~te~JVarO'sr~ip Currently the Study Area contains minimal significant natural features. However, a closer look uncovers healthy trees, channelized creeks and even wildlife. Recently Greenv Sustainable Center has occupied the former Ron price auto dealership. The Greenv Sustainable Center "is an eco-hub at the forefront of the green economy, serving Earth-friendly pioneers, business communities, and consumers."' Their presence in this area is a clue to the growing importance of environmental awareness, conservation and stewardship. f_andmarks ! andmarks are features that traditionally fail under the rubric of Urban uesign. They are conditions of direction, can provide orientation, and can be man made or natural. Landmarks can also be planned, as in a huilding or sculpture that results in the termination ~f an important view axis, or t"eir presence can gro4v to landmark status ever time in a particular location, such as a building with unique or distinctly memorable architectural features. Throughout the Bay Area, views often lake on a greater significance with tl-ie intense connection betwean~ developed urban areas and nature. In the Study Area, San Bruno Mountain is a landmark feature to which views are cherished and protected. Significant views to San Brune Mountain exist to the northeast. throughout the Study Area, suggesting that care should be taker. in devetopment concepts to respond to view protection. Within the Study Area itself, however, no significant feature, save perhaps the BART station's unique architecture, stands cut as a landmark. The Study Area's north-south configuration suggests strong axial views in the Study Area and it is easy to e..vision landmark buildings or urban features that could capitalize on its natural configuration. Oddly, one current location that results in an axial termination by a building is looking northwest along Colma Creek. from Chestnut Avenue. That axis is terminated by a view of the Kaiser Medical Center office building tower. Greenv Sustainable Center of South San Francisco websife, http://www. nrcanv rnm/n~ihllc htmt/Ir1dEX.htn1r 5-1 ~ EL CA,i~`ii~6~; KtAI~/~.:~t5 ~ gnu o ~,o~u u~c r~~~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAtV1PHIER-GREGORY The Green Building Exchange at Chestnut and Antoinette Lane. Ducks in the Colma Creek cnanne~ ar Chestnut Ave. Biological resources exist in the Study Area, and they could become fhe focus of a goal for environmental stewardship. The strong axial condition of the Study Area does not terminate in significant landmark views, but the BART station's roof becomes visible when .walking north along the linear park path. Sign Hill is one of the Peninsula's most famous landmarks. 5-12 ~L GP~E1li11~0 RERt~/CHE~T6"~~ ~ ~6~~ t~~t ~~-~ PAVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY Jrban (~es~gn Corrstra~nts Lack of pedestrian focus • Both Chestnut and EI Camino Real are wide streets that carry heavy traffic. They have narrow sidewalks, long crossings and lack definition by buildings. • The segment of EI Gami^~ Rea! in the Study Area presents areas where modiilcations may be difficult due to topography. • I'~4ission Road is auto-oriented, lacks definition, and does not provide strong connections to the linear park. • Streetscape design for the Oak Avenue extension has not been planned as related to potential new development that could occur on either side of the street. North-south barriers • The BAR I rail right-of-way bisects the site and could limit development opportunities. • Colma Creek bisects the site and currently exists as an infrastructure facility (open channel) rather than as a natural, ecological feature. • Physically modifying Colma Creek could be hindered due to potential Flood Control District jurisdiction. Lack of continuity and connectivity • Places, buildings and destinations are organized in a manner that results in a discontinuous public realm. Neighboring low-density neighborhoods • Surrounding neighborhoods are single family, lower density areas. Intense and transit-oriented developments would require careful transitions in scale and intensity, especially along Mission Road. Floodplain • Colma Creek is subject to the 100 year flood. Suburban Character • The Study Area is in a more suburban. area that, despite transit access, has grown with a shopping center, auto-oriented character. Kaiser Medical Center growth pressures • Kaiser Medical Center ow..s the majority of land in the Study Area. and their land holdings are increasing. • Kaiser Medical Center's plans for physical growth and development may not support the vision for amixed-use, multi-modal, interconnected and pedestrian friendly district. Small and oddly-shaped parcels • Many parcels are small, oddly shaped and individually owned, and some locations may not lend themselves to efficient or practical redevelopment. • This condition occurs particularly on Mission Road between the BART station and Holly Avenue and again on EI Camino Real at the southeast corner of the Chestnut intersection Archaeological Resources A Native archaeological village within the Project area is potentially present and may limit development in certain areas. Although inactive, the San Bruno fault bisects the Project Area. Existing utilities The relocation of existing utilities for new development in some areas is costly and could limit prospective opportunities. 6 1 EL CA-tVi16~0 F€EP,L/c;~°it~ ! 9~4U ~ ~.~-,l~u ruar~ r~dv MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECOPJOMICS KIMLEY HCPN & ASSOCIATES LAMPNIER-GREGORY In summary, it is reasonably concluded that tree entire Specific Plan Study Area is ripe with opportunity. Vacant and underutilized land, location in relation to public transit, regional accessibility, and a goal in South San Francisco to grow smartly all contribute to the possibility of a new, more urban transit-oriented district along the EI Camino Real. Smart Growth started in South San Francisco with the Transit Village plan and zoning, and can continue in a similar -even more intense -fashion along EI Camino Real and within a regional setting. EJrt~an D2si~r~ ~ppor~«nities vacant Redevelopment Sites • PUC has transferred ownership of parcels to the City and to Petrocchi (behind the South City Carwash), including a 7 acre site along Mission Road. • Several vacant sites and sites that may be assembled present substantial opportunities for redevelopment and revitalization. • The Oak Avenue extension will create a street ~Nith development opportunities on each side (north and south). It is an opportunity to design a street in coordination with adjacent development so that it serves to support swell-connected and walkable urban place. • Use building form as a way to establish urban design criteria that create a framework aloe g Study Area streets. Transit Access • BART stations at both ends of the linear park offer exceptional choice, and the focus of the Grand Boulevard Initiative will improve bus access along EI Camino Real. • Explore measures to design a safer, more attractive, ri~ulti-modal and pedestrian oriented streetscapes on EI Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road, • Study the opportunity for bike lanes or shared routes on Study Area streets. Linear Park • Work with BART and the Flood District to evaluate all potential opportunities for modifications (changes to the plan and/or new points of access to the park from proposed new developments) that may impact right-of-ways, and identify opportunities that benefit all stakeholders. • Evaluate flood channel naturalization or improvements to it as a feature in the natural urban landscape. • In addition to providing recreational open space and apedestrian-focused transit access corridor, Centennial Way provides a potential natural asset that can enhance the character of the Study Area and serve as a significant amenity. • Explore creative solutions that identify uses alternative to surface parking on the smallest parcels on Mission Road (across from Sequoia). Gateways • At the EI Camino Real and Chestnut intersection, evaluate locations where parcels can be aggregated and/or where joint develovpment opportunities .can be identified. • On the northeast corner, evaluate the feasibility of building over the BART rail right-of-way to create opportunity to connect to EI Caminv Real extend new frontage to better define the street. Other planning activities • Evaluate existing plans and proposals for improvements along EI Camino Real, and develop an improvement concept plan for the segment in the Study Area. • Revisit concept plans for Mission Road streetscape improvements and evaluate new concepts as related to new development or redevelopment proposals in the Study Area. • Work closely with Kaiser Medical Center to allow the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use & Specific Plan process to create conceptual site and urban design plans for their properties. G-2 EL CAMit~O REAL/Cf-iEST~UT LAi~D USE F'Lp:l~ iviVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAP,APHIER-GREGORY Figure 6.1 Opportunities Diagram [~~~~~~~~~~~ ~a ~~~f ~ CallanderAssociates. Grange Memorial Park Draft Master Plan Update. Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. May, 2007. CallanderAssociates. South San Francisco BART Linear Park Master Plan. Prepa-ed for the City of South San Francisco, Parks, Recreation and Maintenance Services. March, 2003. CallanderAssociates. South San Francisco EI Camino Real Master Plan. Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. July, 2006. City of South San Francisco. Website: www.ci,ssf.ca.us, accessed October 2008. Dyett &Bhatia. South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared for the City of Soufh San Francisco. 1999. Dyett &Bhatia. South San ~~ning O~ dinance Update. Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. Currently underway !P.%bsite: http:!/www.ssf.net/depts/ecd/planning/zoning/default.asp Grand Boulevard Task Force. Grand Boulevard Initiative Existing Conditions Repc~~f. October, 2006. http://www. grandboulevard. net/library/GrandBoulevard/ GrandBl.~d Exi stingConditionsReport 101006FINAL. pdf Lamphier-Gregg y Existing Setting Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Soufh San Francisco. Nov2~;~ber 2008. San Mateo County Tax Collector. Secure Property Search Website: http://www.sanmateocountytaxcollector.org/ SNiC~r/PS/pages/secureSearch. jsp Van Meter Williams Pollack. South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, Prepared for the Cify of South San Francisco. August 2001. 7-1 EL C~,ftffE~O REAL,/CHEST~R9T LAI!!® USE ~L,~l~E MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY 7-2 EL C~4Nl16~lO E~EAL/~I~EST~9UT LLP,f~D IJSE PLAN MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAtJIPHIER-GREGORY All images, photographs, diagrams and drawings are by of MVE, except for images in Appendices and as noted below. Study Area base maps and aerial imagery have been provided by the City of South San Francisco unless ~~e i~~ Vise noted. p. 2-2 (top photo) ©2005 ~itephocus, LLC., www.sitephocus.com (middle photo) http://peacefulknitter. wordpress. comi2008/03/28/knitters-thumb-prompts-mushy- memoir/ (bottom illustration) City of Qakland v/ebsite. http:~/www.oaklandnet.com/govern~;~ent/ceda/revised/ planningzoning/majorpro,'ectssection/Kaiser Medical Center.html p. 3-1 (image 3.1) CallanderAssociates. p. 3-1 (image 3.2) CallanderAssociates. Orange Memorial Park Draft Master Plan Update. May, 2007 p. 5-3 (3rd from top) Van Meter Williams Pollack p. 5-6 (lower aerial) Goog/e Maps p. 5-11 (lower images of Sign Hill) http://farm 1.static.flickr.ce,~n/110/269915604_a8b5f7fb~C.jpg?v=0 7-3 EL CA,f11ilF~l® REAL/CI~EST~UT L,~EV[3 USE I~LAI~ MVE & PARTNERS BAY AREA ECONOMICS KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES LAMPHIER-GREGORY ~,^~~.~ t ~V[arket Overz~iewAnaCysis bay Memorandum To: Ken Nilmeier, MVF "dike Lappen, City of South Say ~ Francisco From: Ron ~olem, Serena linger, Janet Smith-Reimer, BAE Re: Revised Market Overview for South San Francisco EI Camino Real Specific Plan Date: May 4, 2009 Purpose of the Market O~•ervievv This market overview has been prepared as part of the Existing Conditions Report, providing background analysis for the City of South San Francisco El Camino Real Specific Plan. This market overview reviews demographic and eco_n_omic trends and current conditions in ±he Specific Plan area ar~d broader market area, and identifies the range of potential development that could be s~.ipported during the planning horizon of approxirriately 20 years far the Specific Plan. The City has a range ofdevelopment-related objectives for the Specific Plan, including promotion of mixed-use transit-oriented development, building o11 the presence of the nearby South San Francisco BART s±ation and its recent development projects; attraction of a broader range of retail destinations meeting the needs and interests of City residents; and development of the key intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Street/WestboroughBnulevard as a gateway entrance to the City. Development Context for Specific Plan Area The El Camino Real Specific Plan Area roughly corresponds to the area with existing commercial, institutional, and multifamily residential uses located between El Camino Real and Mission Street, from just south of the South San Francisco BART Station at the northern end of the Specific Plan area to Chestnut Avenue at the southern end (the area around the BART station, including recent development, is the subject of a separate BART Transit Village Specific Plan). The Specific Plan area also includes property at the southeast corner of Chestnut and El Camino Real, eastwards to the existing Safeway shopping center; as well as the full block at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard with retail and commercial uses and City offices; and commercial properties at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard. ~ Heading westbound, Chestnut Avenue turns into Westborough Boulevard after it crosses El Camino Real. Bay Area Economics Headquarters 510.547.9380 1285 66th Street fax 510.547.9388 San Francisco Bay Area Sacramento New York Washington, D.C. Emeryville, CA 94608 bael@bael.com bayareaeconomics.com The key defining feature of the Specific Plan is the presence of El Camino Real, a major thoroughfare connecting the City of South Say. ~ rancisco with other San Mateo Ccu~ity communities, running from Daly City to San Jose. This major arteriai_ has been the focus of numerous planning efforts aimed at bringing a more cohesive, pedestrian-oriented approach to all of the communities alor_g the street's length. The most recent effort leas produced a vision of creating a Grand Boule~~ard, encompassing 19 jurisdictions including South San Francisco. Principles of the Grand Boulevard initiative include promoting mixed uses, compact development, and targeting job and housing growth at strategic locations along the corridor2. The portion of El Camino targeted by the Specif c Plan offers the ability to implement these Grand Boulevard principles, while better connecting the BART station area with its new development acid retail concentration (e.g., Costco anal small shops), to the key intersection at El Camsno and Chestnut, which in turn provides connections with downtown South San Francisco, Highway 101, and major employment concentrations east of Highway 101. Thus, this section of El Camino represents a strategic area with opportunities for transit-oriented development, pedestrian activities, and iocations for new jobs and housing, while strengthening El Camino Real as it provides a major transportation corridor through the City. The current development pattern in the Specific~Plan area consists of a mix of underutilized lots, older commercial and residential structures, and more contemporary improvements. Along El Camino Real within the Specif c Plan boundaries, the major property owner is Kaiser Permaner~te, operating a 127-bed rriedical center and medical offices in the center of the Specific Plan area. Kaiser has reportedly recently purchased two properties to the north of its existing facility, also along El Camino Real; these acquisitions include a smail motel and the site of Broadmoor lumber and landscaping supply company. The City expects Kaiser to utilize these acquisitions as part of new or renovated Kaiser medical center, although plans have not been provided to the City or the consul±ant team to date. The Specific Plan Area is also notable for its mix of neighborhood and community-serving retail facilities, as well as major destination stores just beyond its boundaries. For example, adjacent to the El Camino Real Specific Plan Area, in the BART station vicinity, two major retailers have recently opened stores: Trader Joe's, as a ground floor use in the new mixed use Archstone project, and Costco. Both of these stores attract a wide range of shoppers from a broader region, traversing along El Camino Real through the Specific Plan area to these destinations. In addition, just beyond the Costco, the Asian-oriented DS Market at the southwest corner of Hickey Boulevard and El Camino Real also attracts food shoppers from the region. Within the Specific Plan boundaries along El Camino, two other notable grocery stores serve the community. These include the Safeway anchoring a neighborhood shopping center on Chestnut Z See: http•//www ~randboulevard.net/ 2 Avenue, and the newly-renovated Pacific Supermarket at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard. Within the Specific Plan boundaries near the intersection of El Camino Real and V~'estborough Boulevard.~Chestnut Avenue, several bank branches have clustered their locations to capture the substantial atao traffic, including branches for First National Bank of I~ortherr~ California (and its headqu ;rters offices), Bank of America, Wells Fargo, an_d Citibank. Additional retail development within th e Specific Plan boundaries includes smaller in-line shops as part of shopping centers, as well as freestanding shop spaces of varying ages and quality that house a range of local serving retail and services in an auto-oriented configuration. Existing residential development within and just beyond the boundaries of the Specific Plan area is diverse. West of El Camino Real and north of Westborough Boulevard is a strong single-family residential neighborhood with housir_g of varying ages. This area includes a number of newer, smaller infill single-family subdivisions with larger, higher-end homes. Small multifamily and commercial buildings front T.~Iission Road, between it and the San Mateo County Flood Control Ch?nnel. There are a couple of small, older apartment buildings on Antoinette Lane, north of Chestnut Avenue. North of the Specific Plan area, in the BART Transit Village Specific Plan Area, extensive multifamily residential development has occurred over the past few years, including rental units with ground floor retail on either side of Lawndale Boulevard, as well as for- sale condominiums to the south of the BART Station, and townhomes to the northeast of the BART station. There are numerous physical deve%opment constraints impacting the Specific Plan area. For example, the Specific Plan area is challenged by two linear development constraints traversing through its commercial zones: the BART right-of--way and tunnel (including a linear park along it), and a San Mateo County Flood Control District surface channel that goes underground as it nears Chestnut Street. In addition, much of the property north of Chestnut Street is considerably below the grade of El Camino Real, making the introduction of side streets from El Camino Rcal ±o improve access to these sites challenging. Properties between the flood control channel and Mission Road are small, with shallow depths, affecting the size and types of development that fit in this part of the Specific Plan area. In summary, the El Camino Specific Plan area offers the opportunity to link the BART station area with its new transit-oriented development to a stretch of El Camino leading to a key gateway intersection at Chestnut, integrating Grand Boulevard principles to create a compact, mixed-use urban environment with improved access and development opportunities. Demographic and Employment Conditions and Trends cefinition of Market Areas For this Market Overview, t:vo market areas were defined. Local l~"arket Area -For Local-Serving Retail and Office Uses In order to look closely at the market demand for local-serving retail in the Specifc Plan area, a Local Market Area was defined as a one-mile radius centered at the intersection of El Camino Real ar~d Chestnut. This one-mile ring extends from the Specific Plan area north to the city limits and includes Hillside Boulevard and its higher-end single-family and condominium residences to the northeast, most of the Downtown area with its numerous independent retailers and restaurants to Spn:ce Avenue to the east and south, and the neighborhoods west to Interstate-280. It should be noted that this Local Market Area may also effectively be able to draw from an even larger radius; due to the limited neighborhood serving retail choices in the neighborhoods west of Interstate-280, as well as the ready access from Interstate-280 via Westborough Boulevard. Off ce develcpmen±, because the Specific Plan Area is not freeway adjacent, is likely to be smaller scale ar~d local business and professional services oriented, as apposed to the extensive Class A office and Research & Development space adjacent to US-101 on the City's East side. Thus, office demand in tine Specific Plan Area was considered relatively iccal-serving, and would draw from a similar one-mile ring for most demand. Citywide .Market Area -For Residential and Destination Retail For residential uses and more destination-oriented and specialty retail uses, a larger market area was also dew nod as the entire City of South San Francisco. This larger geography would encompass additional residents, as well as the large concentrations of employment east of Highway 101. These considerations led to the evaluation of demographic and employment trends for two distinct market areas: a local market area defined as the one-mile radius from the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue/Westborough Boulevard; and a citywide market area encompassing the entire City of South San Francisco. Demographic and employment trends for both of these geographies are analyzed below. Popu!?#ion and Household Trends Table 1 below summarizes population and household trends for the Local Market Area, City, San Mateo County, and the Bay Area. As shown, the Local Market Area contained an estimated nearly 29,000 residents living in just ur_der 10,000 households in _2008. The Local Market Area experienced strong growth in population and households during the i 990s, but slowed to a growth _rate of just under four percent since 2000. The ~`ity of South San Francisco, with almost 63,000 residents living in just over 20,000 households in 2008, showed similar growth patterns during the 1990x; slowing since 2000. Ln contrast, the County grey more slowly than South San Francisco, increasing j«st 1.6 percent in population since 2000. Interestingly, both the Local ~~Iarket Area and. the City of South San Francisco have relatively large average househcld sizes (2.9 and 3.1 persons per household, respectively, ire 2008). In comparison, the County averaged 2.8 persons per household, and the Bay Area just 2.7 persons per household. These differences are underscored further by the relatively strong concentration of family hottsPl-in1_ds (e.g., related individuals) in South San Francisco. In 2008, family households comprised 75 p:,rcent of households in South San Francisco, compared to 6 7 percent in the County, and 65 percent in the Bay Area. These household characteristics suggest the City is attractive to family households and indicate demand for larger, family-oriented housing units. Household tenure patterns show a slightly higher rate of homeowners in South San Francisco than in the County and the Bay Area. In South San F rancisco, homeowners made up 63 percent of households in 2008, higher than the rate of homeownership in the County (61 percent), and five percent higher than the rate in the Bay Area (58 percent). Homeownership in the Local Market Area was slightly lower, at 57 percer.±, ±han citywide. 5 Table 1: Population and Household Trends, South San Francisco, 1990-2008 °5 change °! Chang Local !Uarket Area (a) 1990 (b! 2000 2008 (eat,) 1990-2000 20n0-2008 _ °apulation 24,837 27,901 28,989 12.3% 3.°°a Households 9,226 9,793 9,960 6.1% 1.7% Average Hcusehoid Size n/a 2.83 2.90 Household Type Families 70.4% 702% 7ii.2% ^:on-Families 29.6% 29.8°/ 29.8% Tenure Owner 57.3% 57.2% 57.3% Renter 42.7% 42.8% 42.7% South San Francisco Population 54,312 60,552 62,947 11.5°% 4.0% Households 13,519 1 x,677 20,077 6.3% 2.0% Average Household Size 2.91 3.05 3.1 i n~iiiae hold Type Families 74. i °'0 74.5% 74.5% Non-Families 25.9% 25.5% 25.5% Tenure Owner 61.4% 62.5% 63.0% Renter 38.6% 37.5% 37.0% San IViateo County Population 649,623 707,161 718,304 8.9°% 1.6% Households 241,914 254,103 254,708 5.0% 0.2% Average Household Size 2.64 2.74 2.78 Household Type Families 67.1% 67.4% 67.4% Non-Families 32.J% 32.6% 32.6% Tenure Owner 60.2% 61.4°% 61.3% Renter 39.8% 38.6% 38.7% Bay Area (c) Population 6,023,577 6,783,760 7,092,031 12.6% 4.5% Households 2,246,242 2,466,019 2,556,790 9.8% 3.7% Average Household Size 2.61 2.69 2.72 Household Type Families 64.9% 64.7% 64.8% Non-Families 35.1 % 35.3% 35.2% Tenure Owner 56.4% 57.7% 57.8% Renter 43.6% 42.3% 42.2% Notes: (a) The Local Market Area represents aone-mile radius from the EI Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue intersection (b) For City, County, and Bay Area, 1990 data is from U.S. Census. For Local Market Area data is from Claritas. (c) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Sources: 1990 US Census H-1, H-3, Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008. 6 !~lge Distribution Although the City is family-oriented, with la: ger households, the age distribution of its Yapulation, as shown in Table 2, is only slightly younger than that of residents in the County and the Bay Area. Children age 18 years and younger represent 24 percent of the popula±ien in the Local Market Area and citywide, compared to just over 23 percent in the County and the Bay Area_ At the other end of the age spectrum, the population aver 65 years at 14 percent in the City also parallels that of the County (13 percent) and is only slightly larg;,r trap the Bay Area (12 percent). The Local Market Area has a slightly higher concentration of elderly, at 15 percent. This similarity of the age distribution: among the geographies, ccupled with South San Francisco's larger households, suggesis that families may tend to contain extended family members in the same household. Table 2: Aqe Distribution, South San Francisco, 2005 Local Market Area (a) South San Francisco Age Cohort Number Percent Nuiriuer Percent Under 18 6,923 23.9% 15,093 24.0% 18 to 24 2,365 8.2°~0 5,394 8.6°,~0 25 to 44 7;890 27.2% 17,305 27.5% 45 to 64 7,40%1 25.5% 16,685 26.5% 65 + 4,406 15.2% 8,470 13.5% Total (c) 28,988 100.0% 62,947 100.0% San Mateo Count Number Ferce~~t 168,138 23.4 ~° 56,979 7.9% 194,514 27.1 203,136 28.3% 95;537 13.3% 7 i 8,304 100.0 ~° 39.9 Ba~~ Area (b Number Percent 1,644,471 23.2% 610,013 8.6% 2,070,662 29.2% 1,914,305 27.0% 852,580 12.0% 7,092,031 100.0% 38.1 Median Age 39.3 38.7 Note: (a} The Local Market Area represents aone-mile radius from the EI Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue intersecticn. (b} Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. (c} Totals may not match totals in other tables due to independent rounding. Scurce: Ciaritas, 2008; BAE 2008. 7 Ethnicity As shown in Table 3, the Hispanic (32 percent), White (31 percent), and Asian (29 percent) populations represent the largest ethnic groups in South San Francisco. Moreover, rapid increases in the Asian population in South San Francisco have occurred since 2000, with a concurrent decrease in the proportion of White residerts. Table 3 also showy the. detail of subcategories or Asian ethnicities in Soutri San Francisco, with Filipino and Chinese as the largest groups. The strong ethnic diversity can be seen in South San Francisco's retail stores; which support a number of Asian- and Hispanic-therried retailers in food and.other categories. Table 3: South San Francisco Ethnicity, 2~^n Local Market Area South San Francisco 2000 2008 ~oChange 2000 2005 Ethnicity .:umber °/ of Total Non-Hispanic 18,731 Ei7.1% b'Vhite 10,387 37.2% Blac{u'African American 603 2.2% American IndlanlAias=;an ":alive 108 0.4 Asian 5,705 20.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander 543 i.9% Some Other Race 145 0.5% 2+ Races 1,240 4.4 % Hispanic 9,170 :12.9% Number % of Tota! 2000-2008 Number % of Total Number % of Total 19,153 66.1% 2.3% 41,270 68.2% 42,547 67.6°,~0 8,546 23.5°.~0 -17.7% 18,487 .'.0.5% 15,420 24.5% 556 1.9% -7.8% 1,621 2.7°,/0 1,452 2.3% 98 0.3",u -9.3°.~0 197 0.3°/ 189 0.3% 7,745 26,7% 35.8% 17,312 28.6% 21,393 34.0% 557 1.9% 2.6% 896 1.5% 893 1.4% 143 0.5% -1.4°~0 264 0.4% 270 0.4% 1,508 5.2% 21.6 % 2,493 4.i % 2,930 4.7% 9,838 33.9% 7.3% 19,282 31.8% 20,400 32.4% Change 20oo-2oea 3.1 -16.6 -10.4° -4.1 23.6% -0.3% 2.3% 17.5% 5.8% Total (b) ` 27,90 i 100.0 % 28,991 100.0% 3.9 % 60,552 100.0 % 62,947 100.0% 4.0% Change % Change Asian (Non-Hispanic and Hispanic) Numbe; °: of Total Number % of Total 2400-20C° Number °a of Total Number % of Total 2000-2008 Chinese/Not Taiwan 1,466 5.3% 1,989 6.9°0 35.7% 4,711 7.8% 5,857 9.3% 24.3% Filipino 3,147 11.3°/ 4262 14.7% 35.4% 9,985 16.5% 12,219 19.4% 22.3% Japanese 190 0.7% 258 0.9% 35.8% 499 0.8% 626 1.0% 25.5%0 Asian Indlan 551 2.0% 737 2.5% 33.8% 1,048 1.7°/ 1,334 2.1% 27.3% All Other Asian Categories 434 1.6% 590 2.Oia 35.9 % 1,264 2.1 % 1,572 2.5% 24.4% (a) The Local Martcet Area represents aone-mile radius from the EI Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue intersection. (b) Toteis may not match totals in other tables due to independent rounding. Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE, 2009. 8 Household Income Distrikution South San Francisco is a solidly middle-income city, with nearly SO percent of households in 2008 earning between $35,000 and $99,000 per year (see Table 4). Tl~iis is a larger share compared to the County (43 percent) and Bay Area (40 percent). For higher income households, South San Francisco's households earning over $ ~ 00,000 per year make up a smaller share at 31 percent than in the County (40 percent) and Bay Area (~5 percent). For lower income households, South San Francisco's households eam~irg less than $35,000 per year reNresent approximately 20 percent of all households, which is slightly more than the County (19 percent) but less than the Bay Area (26 percent). The median annual houser~old income of $72,82 in South San Francisco is 13 percent less than the County and two percent less than the Bay Area. Household incomes are on average spread across more famil}~ members due to the larger size hog=seholds in South San Francisco. This is reflected in the City's annual average per capita income of $27,689 in 2008, which is 45 percent less than tree County and 31 percent less than the Bay Area. Lower per capita incomes are often associaied with lower levels of potential discretionary spending far luxuries and specialty items. Table 4: iiouseheld Income t,istribution, South San Francisco, ~00~ Local Market Area (a) Household Income Number Percent Less than $15,000 793 8.0% $15,000 to $24,999 704 7.1 $25,000 to $34,999 740 7.4% $35,000 to $49,999 1,323 13.3% $50,000 to $74,999 1,930 19.4% $75,000 to $99,999 1,723 17.3% $100,000 to $149,999 1,811 18.2% $150,000 to $249,999 793 8.0% $250,000 to $499,999 97 1.0% $500,000 and over 45 0.5% Total (c) 9,959 100.0% Med. HH Income $67,856 Per Capita Income $28,156 South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area (b) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1,270 6.3°,/0 15,184 6.0% 208,322 8.1°,-% 1,249 6.2% 14,104 5.5% 163,949 6.4% 1,410 7.0% 15,541 6.1% 177,443 6.9% 2,568 12.8% 28,036 11.0°,~0 291,229 11.4% 3,867 19.3% 43,466 17.1% 450,515 17.6% 3,498 17.4% 37,377 14.7% 362,903 14.2% 4,080 20.3% 49,644 19.5% 474,017 18.5% 1,800 9.0% 32,545 12.8% 292,620 11.4% 230 1.1% 11,427 4.5% 89,355 3.5% 105 0.5% 7,384 2.9% 46,437 1.8% 20,077 100.0% 254,708 100.0% 2,556,790 100.0% $72,820 $82,373 $74,256 $27,689 $40,224 $36,322 Note: (a) The Local Market Area represents aone-mile radius from the EI Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue intersection. (b) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. (c) Totals may not match totals in other tables due to independent rounding. Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008. The demographic analysis suggests that South San Francisco retail opportunities will be strongest for middle market and value-oriented retailers, with additional moderate potential for upscale or 9 specialty retailers. It should be noted that although South San Francisco compared with the County and Bay Area has slightly lower household in~;o~iies, the general profile for South San Francisco is still relatively affluent compared to the U.S. overall. With almost one-third of South San Francisco's households earning $100,000 or more, the household incomes represent a strong foundation for many types of retail spending. The Local Market Area reflects similar patterns as the city overall, with a somewhat lower median annual rousehold income, at just under $68,000. In the Local Market Area; there is also a slightly higher proportion of lower income households than citywide, and a commensurate lower proportion of higher-income households. A s a result, the Local Market Area's likely target market segments will fall solidly in middle income retail, with a family orientation and diverse ethnic sub- segments. Educational AttainmPnf As shown in Table 5 below, in 2008, 26 percent of South San Francisco adults over age 25 had earned a bacr~elor's degree from afour-year university or higher attainment, considerably less than the County (38 percent) and Bay Area (37 percent). Only six percent of South Sur. Francisco adults over age 25 had obtained a graduate degree or higher compared to both the County and the Bay Area (14 percent). This may be a factor for certain retailers who focus on educational attainment as well as household income. For example, Whole Foods supermarkets target their stores in neighborhoods with high educational attainment, and looks to this demographic characteristic even more strongly than high household incomes. ?'able 5: educational Attainment for Population 25+ Years of Age, 2008 Education Level South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area Region (aj Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than 9th Grade 3,941 9% 36,908 7% 373,577 8% 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 4,496 11% 38,066 8% 418,470 9% High School Graduate 10,131 24% 86,511 18% 862,550 18% Some College, No Degree 9,466 22% 106,182 22% 1,055,.124 22% Associate Degree 3,577 8% 35,681 7% 349,119 7% Bachelor's Degree 8,325 20% 119,333 24% 1,110,786 23% Graduate or Prof. Degree 2,524 6% 70,506 14% 667,921 14% Total 42,460 100% 493,187 100% 4,837,547 100% Notes: (a) The Bay Area includes the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008. 10 Employment Trends South San Francisco benefits from an expandir_g local economy, with rising employment and growing industry diversification. As show in Table 6 below, California Employment Development Department data for the third zuarter of 200 7 (the most recent ?vailable data) shows that South San Francisco had a total of 50,324 jobs, co~~centrated in Manufacturing (24 percen±), ProfessionaUScientific/Techr_ical Services (11 percent}, and Transportationi~Varehousing (10 percent). These patterns reflect the Cit<;'s history as a strong industriai_ and logistics center proximate to the San Francisco International Airport, as well as its evolution into ahigh-tech and bio-tech huh. It is important to note that "Manufacturing" includes most computer hardware and software design, as well as related high-tech a:d bio-tech employment. Job growth iri So>.1th San Francisco has been much more rapid than in the County. Between the second quarters of 2003 and 2007, the City added approximately 9,860 jobs, representing a 24 percent increase. This corr~pares to the County, which experienced a modest six percent increase in jobs :,vcr the same period. The industrial sectors in South Sa;~ Francisco that experienced il:,table gains during the four year period include Accommodations and Food Services (61 percent growth), Arts and Entertainment (59 percent growth), Manufacturing (48 percent) and Constntction and IZeai Es±ate (46 percent growth, although more recent data wi11_ ii_k_eiy show dramatic decline in this sector). Table 6: South San Francisco Jobs by Sector, 2003-2007 (a) Sou th San Francisco San Mateo Count y 03 2003 • 03 2007 % Change Q3 2003 Q3 2007 % Change ii~dustry5ector Jobs %Totai Jabs %Total 2003-2007 Jobs %Total Jobs %Tota12003-2007 Natural Resources and Mining (b) 47 0% 33 0% -29% 2,582 1% 2,081 1% -19% Construction 2,075 5% 3,048 6% 47% 18,174 6% 19,272 6% 6% Manufacturing 8,154 20% 12,053 24% 48% 28,641 9% 30,844 9% 8% Utilities (c) 0 0°0 0 0% 0% 640 0% 787 0% 23% Wholesale Trade 3,510 9% 3,733 7% 6% 12,058 4% 12,213 4% i% Retail Trade 3,525 9% 3,627 7% 3% 35,896 11% 35,876 il% 0% Transportation and Warehousing 4,349 11% 4,893 10% 13% 25,550 8% 26,010 8% 2% Information 761 2% 886 2% 16% 22,536 7% 17,731 5% -2.1% Finance and Insurance 788 2% 599 1% -24% 14,094 4% 15,088 4% 7% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 646 2% 916 2% 42% 6,876 2% 6,503 2% -5% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4,440 11% 5,371 11% 21% 30,785 10% 38,931 11% 2.6% Management of Companies and Enterprises 936 2% 1,037 2% 11% 6,360 2% 5,401 2% -15% Administrative and Waste Services 2,664 7% 3,775 8% 42% 17,213 5% 19,774 6% 15% EducationaiServices 135 0% 168 0% 24% 4,341 1% 4,845 1% 12% Health Care and Social Assistance 3,187 8% 3,294 7% 3% 25,797 8% 26,848 8% 4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 146 0% 233 0% 59% 4,739 1 % 6,009 2% 27% Accommodation and Food Services 1,766 4% 2,841 6% 61% 25,281 8% 29,596 9% 17% Other Services, except Public Administration 1,582 4% 1,706 3% 8% 13,535 4% 14,089 4% 4% Unclassified 0% 0 0% 0% 14 0% 7 0% -50% Government (d) 1.754 4% 2 112 4% 20°0 26.176 8% 28,823 8% 10% Total 40,464 100% 50,324 100% 24% 321,288 100% 340,728 100% 6% Notes: (a) Based on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). Includes all employment covered by unemployment insurance. Does not include the self-employed workers and may exclude certain government workers. (b) City-specific employment data in the sectors of both the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing sector, and the Mining Sector. The employment data for these two sectors has been combined to protect employer s confidentiality. (c) There is no employment in the Utilities sector at the city-level (employment only at the county level). (d) Government employment includes workers in various local, state and Federal sectors, not just public administration. For example, public school staff are it the Government category. Sources: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), California Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE, 2008. 11 The City's largest employers are listed below in Table 7. South San Francisco is home to several large companies having over 1,000 employees including United Airlines (9,000 employees), Genentech (8,000 employees), and iiaiser Permaren±e (1.,100 employees). tour of the top 10 major employers belong to the City's growing biotechnology sector. The growth of biotechnology is a key factor in the Cry's _recent construction boom which is reflected in construe±ion employment gains noted above and also discussed in the real estate rr~arket overview later in ±his report. Table 7: Largest Employers, South San Francisco, 2008 ~u~ber NanT~ of E~rapfeysr Tips ~ Budnsss ~ t..rrtplalissr~ Airlnes l E ed Un in e A ld $.u" ~ pp yy ~~ ~ ~Y.! 1~ 1511 y ~ ~ ~/~/y~~ l~ 1~ .M./Y: y y\ ~I11~\IV Kaiser iAedkuil ~err6~r M1adl[~1 !:enter 1,100 Aeropround Ft+~ipht Hiar~ding~ 800 ®labecttr~oiogy B75 Exeibds 91o~soht~l~Y b60 Cosboo `mil 6D0 Entenrnarn"s~owhaet Food Mrirt~ 600 ~~opet ~ Msdir~l iravibe Elam Pharn~soeutica~ B10feche~doDft 390 Acttud~ ^~xp Bnotayy 300 g~ En~eesdnp Msdlcal Devfoe ~ 300 San Mateo CaaanEyTFartsil District Tlrenspartatlon 300 Sesia Carasies Food ManulacturGng 300 Tdnly Bulldtg 8efYl08e ~~~ 2~5 Fur~m us r~,alsnino z9o Theravertce ~Y 250 Barnes: CiM d South San Francisco, 2006; CA Employrnsr~ DeiMefopmertt De~a-tmsrtt'2008; Oun 6 Bradsirsat. 200 BAE. 2006 Population, Household, and Employment Projections The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) provides population, household, and employment projections through 2035. These projections are based on a regional econometric model that estimates overall population and employment growth, with that growth then allocated to various jurisdictions and subareas based on available.land for development and policy objectives. It is important to understand that these projections are not necessarily market based, but are the best available data source for future population and employment growth. As indicated in Table 8, ABAG projects South San Francisco's population to grow from 61,700 in 2005 to 76,200 in 2035, a 23.5 percent increase over 30 years. Household growth is expected to be even greater, rising from 20,130 to 25,050, a gain of 24.4 percent. While projections for the City's population and households show faster growth than the County, jobs are expected to grow at a slower rate (44.8 percent) than the County (54.7 percent). In comparison to the Bay Area, South San Francisco's population, households, and jobs are projected to grow at relatively slower rates. 12 It should be noted that the City's experience is that actual growth exceeds ABAG's projections. The limited growt'r~ projection reflects ±he built out nature of South San Francisco as compared to other areas of the Bay Area. The projected joC browth far the City would shift the jobs/housing ratio frcrr~ 2.1 to 2.4, a significantly higher ratio than both the County and Bay Area. As discussed in mere detail below, this jobs housing imbalance could have serious implications on the City's future housing needs and traffic congestion. It should be noted that the City's General Plan expects slower population growth than ABAG, with 67,400 people at buildout by 2020, 1,800 people less than A~3AG's projections. However, the General Plan expects significantly greater job growth at the City's buildout than ABAG's projections. In anticipation for higher intensity office, retail, and other similar uses to replace existing lower intensity warehousing and distribution uses, the General Plan provides for 71,400 jobs at buildout, which is 21,270 more than ABAG projects by 2020. T_h_is projection is consistent with the City's experience that its employment growth exceeds ABAG projections. i able $: Popuiaiion, Household, and Job Projections, 1005 to ZO"s5 Total Change % Change South San Francisco 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 205 - 2035 2005 - 2035 Population 61,700 63,400 66,60C 69,200 71,500 73,900 76,200 14,500 24°/ Households 20,130 20,720 21,660 22,530 23,380 24,240 25,050 4,920 24% Jobs 42,240 44,650 46,490 50,130 53,540 56,72C 61,160 18,920 45% Jobs -Housing Ratio 2.10 2,.15 2.15 2.23 2.29 2.34 2.44 San Mateo County Population 721,900 741,000 772,3170 800,700 823,400 842,600 861,600 139,700 19% Households 260,070 267,230 277,090 287,470 296,870 304,660 312,030 51,960 20% Jobs 337,350 363,060 391,910 423,100 454,170 487,420 522,000 184,650 55% Jobs -Housing Ratio 1.30 1.36 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.60 1.67 Bay Area (a) Population 6,936,450 7,246,950 7,730,000 8,069,700 8,592,150 8,712,800 9,031,500 2,095,050 30% Households 2,583,080 2,696,580 2,819,030 2,941,760 3,059,130 3,161,770 3,292,530 709,450 27% Jobs 3,449,640 3,693,920 3,979,200 4,280,700 4,595,174 4,921,680 5,247,780 1,798,140 52% Jobs -Housing Ratio 1.34 1.37 1.41 1.46 1.50 1.56 1.59 Note: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Source: ABAG Projections, 2007; BAE 2008. 13 Commute Pafterns Commute pattern data offer an insight into the match between working residents versus jobs in a place, and indirectly how well those jobs match the employment skills and preferences of local residents, and the potential impact on transpor±ation systems. According to data from the U.S. Census mom 2000, there were over 12,000 more jobs in South San Francisco than there are working residents. [~s sl'.ow in Table S below, 78.8 percent or 22,875 S:,uth San Francisco workers commuted oui of the City for work, while 85 percent or 35,066 workers commuted to South San Francisco from other places. Only 6,165 (or 21 percent) of City employed residents worked at jobs located in the City. The analysis of employment trends and commute patterns indicate that Se~tth San Francisco is a job-rich community with more jobs than employed residents. Coupled with a projected continuing high rate of job growth. this imbalance can contribute to worsening local congestion if the increasing number of new jobs continues to be predominantly held by in~comm~aters from other cities. ~ lower level of housing production relative to job grog*~±h can limit the potential number of new South San Francisco workers who might be enticed to live in the City. T ire cumulative effect of these factors is are increasing number of workers in the City crowding local and regional roads and riighways to get in and out of the City every work day. Table 9: South San Francisco Commute Patterns, 2000 Resident to Place of Work San Francisco South San Francisco Other -Unincorporated CA (a) Burlingame van fvlateo San Bruno Daly City Redwood City Other Cities in CA (b) Out of State Totals South San Francisco Residents Out-Commuting Numher % :porkers from Place of Residence Number 8,495 29.3°lo San Francisco 8,785 21.3% 6,165 21.2% South San Francisco 6,165 15.0% 2,130 7.3% Other -Unincorporated CA (a) 815 2.0% 1,735 6.0% Burlingame 1,065 2.6% 1,360 4.7% San Mateo 2,225 5.4% 1,285 4.4% San Brunc 2,355 5.7% 1,1.90 4.1% Daly City 3,415 8.3% 1,010 3.5% Redwood City 1,080 2.6% 5,573 19.2% Other Cities in CA (b) 15,092 36.6% 97 0.3% Out of State 234 0.6% 29,040 100.0% Totals 41,231 100.0% South San Francisco Workers 22,875 78.8% In-Commuting 35,066 85.0% Note: (a) "Unincorporated CA" does not include Census Designated Places (CDP's), and may not be broken down into localities. (b) "Other Cities in CA" include Census Designated Places (CDP's), and consists of all remaining CA city work destinations for South San Francisco residents. Source: US Census, 2000, Census Transporation Planning Package (CTPP); BAE, 2008. 14 Summary of Demographic and Economic Trends South San Francisco is characterized as largely afamily-oriented, multiethnic city with larger households than the region. The City's households have relatively high levels of homeownership, and center around middle income levels. However, employment trends show significant and continuing job growth with strong representation iri the Ciry's high-tech and biotech sectors and supportive services. This degree of job growth along with the Cit`,~'s demographic characteristics create the potential to support a broader rar_ge of housing types, and related retail space, that could entice people to both live and work in South San Francisco. Particular opportunities include affordable multifamily ownership and rental units for young adults in the City seeking to establish new households, as well as more urban housing targeted to well paid and highly educated workers in the Cit`y~'s growing high-tech and. biotech sectors. The El Camino Real corridor, with its excellent BART and highway access, is well positioned to capture this potential demand, especially from multi-worker households with at least one member ~~hose job is located in the Cit<,~. ABAG projects population and employment to grow moderately compared to the rest of the Bay Area over the ne xt 25 years, with South San Francisco adding 1u,500 more people and 18,820 jobs by 2035. Based on the City's experience with ABAG projections, the actual numbers have the potential to be considerably higher. Per ABAG, jobs are expected to grow at twice the rate of household growth. This jobs/housing imbalance reveals that the large majority of the jobs in the City are held by in-commuting workers with 7~ percent of working residents ccr:,mute out of the City for work. Should these trends continue, they may have serious consequences on local and regional traffic congestion. These findings suggest that the Specific Plan area represents a key opportunity to address the jobs/housing imbalance by creating compact, well designed multifamily residential development for current in-commuting workers, as well as future workers and their families, allowing these households to live closer to their place of work. The Specific Plan area's excellent access to BART creates an additional opportunity to reduce potential future trip generation from population growth through promotion of transit-oriented development. Moreover, the presence of Kaiser within the center of the Specific Plan area, with unknown but likely plans for expansion, suggest opportunities for a range of nearby new housing serving workers at this facility, and offering the opportunity to walk to work. This potential for new residential development, coupled with several obsolete retail facilities in the Specific Plan area, lack of specialty stores, and excellent locational characteristics indicate future potential for increased retail development, along with upgrading of existing facilities. These opportunities are explored in the next section. 15 Real Estate fVlarket Overview This section analyzes real estate market conditions within the City of South San Francisco for residential, office, and retail space. Market research included analysis of databases for residential property sales and rental prices and a s-!rvey of comparable commercial properties for lease. Residential Market For-Sale Housing Market conditions for both single-family and multifamily residential -were analyzed. Single-family residential house prices can affect potential prices for multifamily units of comparable quality, since many households would preff;r a single family home over a multifamily one if they can afford it. As shown in Figure 1 below, home vahaes have risen significantly in Sou±h San Francisco over ±he past 18 years, with grad~aal increases in the 1990's and a sharp upward tuns in 2000 for both single- family homes and condominiums. According to DataQuick Information Systems, from 1990 to 2008 the median sale price for single-family homes in South San Francisco rose from $262,500 to $575,000, and for condominiums from $185,500 to $408,000 (these are inflation-adjusted prices). Overall, ±his represents an average annual appreciation rate of 4.5 percent for both single-family homes and condominiums over the eighteen year period. More recently however, home values in the City have declined, paralleling state and national downturns. Since the 20v^6 peak in median sale prices for single-family homes and condominiums, sales prices have declined by 23 percent and 26.5 percent, respectively, but are still above 2000 levels (see Figure 1). Declines in sales volume correspond with declining prices. South San Francisco saw a 60 percent drop in the number of single family homes and condominiums sold from the previous 2006 peak in sales, and 2007, the last full year for which data is available (see Figure 2). As of the end of 2007, home sales in South San Francisco were at their lowest point in almost two decades, with a total only 329 single-family homes and 78 condominiums sold. This trend reflect declining market conditions in which only sellers who have no alternative (e.g., relocation to another area) will sell their homes. Amidst the turndown in the housing market and current credit crisis, it is challenging to make near term forecasts for housing market conditions. Most observers expect minimal new development activity before the second half of 2010, if not longer. In the medium-term, once the economy rebounds, there should be strength in the local market given South San Francisco's growing economic sectors and its locational advantages. These factors drive the population, household, and job growth projections that drive future potential demand for housing in South San Francisco. 16 Figure 1: Sales Value 1990-2008 (a) $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 m $400,000 c $300,000 m $200,000 $100,000 $~ O O O .:~ ~x_ - /`~ -;~: !' `F~ __--_._. ,.e9~~ ~~4 ,, -- 4` ~~H ~," - --- - - N ~+ c0 ib O N V cD o0 m C: O ~~ O O O O O O O m iT O O O O O ~-- .- .-- .~ N N N N N Year Condos „.-_=~- -Single Family Homes Notes: (a) Data from January I, 2008 through July I, 2008. Source: DataQuick information Systems, Custom Market Report 2008; BAE, 2008. Figure 2: Sales Volume 1990-2008 (a) 900 _ ~, goo °~ -~.; 600 -- -~ -~~ ~~ 500 ~. o _ ~ 400 `- r .~ ~ 300 - 200 --- 100 O N V' (D OD O N ~ (O N Q, O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N Year CondosSingle Family Homes Notes: (a) Data from January 1, 2008 through July I, 2008. Source: DataQuick Information Systems, Custom Market Report 2008; BAE, 2008. 17 Table 10 presents a survey of market-rate asking prices (excluding below market-rate inclusionary units) for currently selling new multifamily, two condo,-ninium projects in South San Francisco, and two condominium projects in Millbrae. The table. also shows individual townhouse developments in Burlingame and San Mateo That are currently for sale. The two cordominium~ projects in South San Francisco occupy uistinct segments. The Park Station project, located across from the South San Francisco BART station, is an entry level development targeting households priced out of San Francisco. It is currently offering only a ore-bedroom unit at $299,000. By comparison, the South City Lights project, on Geiiert Boulevard just west of Interstate-280, is targeti:~g move-up buyers with prices above the City's median price for asingle- family home. The site's elevation offers views from a number of units, although its location is impacted by noise from Interstate-280. Prices at South City Lights range from one-bedroom units at $430,00x^ to two-bedroom units ranging from $530,x00 to $635,000 while three-bedroom units range from $570,000 to $630,000. TJnits in the Park Broadway condorr~iriuin project in Millbrae on El Camino Real are priced higher, ai Premiums of $80,000 or more per unit compared to units at South City Lights. The 8R South Broadway condominiums in Millbrae, within walking distance of the Millbrae BART station, is a luxury product with prices for two-bedroom units ranging from $799,000 to $1.275 million. The ~Jilla Paloma development in Burlingame offers one-bedroom townriouses at up to $649,000 and two-bedroom units at up to $879,000 reflecting tree attractiveness of downtown Burlingame for upscale households. Agents for these new South San Francisco developments reported that a majority of interest has come from a range of buyers including first-time home owners, families, former "city dwellers," "downsizers," and employees from Kaiser and Genentech. The agents also report that interest living in South San Francisco is often due to its connection to BART and proximity to job centers. While absorption rates were not obtained, listing agents indicate that potential buyers are showing substantial interest, but sales are actually slow which may lead to further price reductions and incentive offers to stimulate new sales. 18 Table 10: Comparable Multifamily Residential Properties, 2008 • Square Number Asking Price Monthly Project Name Feet of Units Unit TyPc Price per of Absorption Amerlties South San Francisca Park Station 1410 Et Camino Reai Residence i 665 - 670 50 1 BD/1 oA $299,00^ - $465.000 `'446 NIA Common area amenities i,~:.ludc: Residence 2 946 - 994 38 2 BC12BA $600,000 $604 N!A Owner's lounge Residence 3 1,100 - 1,1 ^9 7 2 BD126A $565,000-$640,000 $577 N/A Fu!!y-equipped fitness room. Residence 4 1.307 - 1.315 4 2 BD/2BA $610,000-$700,000 $532 NIA Shared gourmet kitchenette Total Units 99 BBQ area south City Lights 2200 Gellert Blvd Residence 1 828 48 1 BD/1 BA $429,900 $519 N!A State•of-the-art fitness confer Residence 2 1,026 48 2 BDI'1BA $529,900 $516 N/A Common area patios Residence 3 1,082 76 2 BD/2BA $584,900 $541 NIA Barbsque area Residence 4 1.290 88 3 8D12BA 5569,900 $442 N/A Fully equipped clubhouse Residence 5 1,182 4 2 BD/2BA $634,900 $537 NIA and recreation center Residence 6 1,367 8 3 BD/2BA $629,900 $461 NIA Total Units 272 Neighti"oring Cities Millbrae Park @roadway Residence 1 665 13 1 BDl1 BA $599,880 $902 NlA Outdoor fireplace Residence 2 1.039 18 26D/ 2BA $599,880 $577 NIA Fully equipped exercise room Residence 3 1,079 - 1,276 12 2BD/ 2BA $610,000- $700,000 $549 NIA Relaxing spa Residence 4 1,147 - 1,187 A3 28D/ 2BA $630,000- $720,000 $607 N/A Quldoor BBOs Residence 5 1,600 23 3 BD/ 2BA $820,000 $513 NIA Total Units 109 88 South Broadway Residence 1 1250- 1800 105 26D/ 2BA $799,000- $1,275,000 $708 2-4 24 hour work- out facility square Number Asking Price Monthy Project Name Feet of Units Unit Mix Price /SF Absorption Amenities 8urlingame Villa Patoma 954 12 1 BRl1.5 BA $629,000- $649,000 $666 NIA 12-unit townhouse project. 1300-1360 2 BR/2.5 BA $859,000- 879,000 $650 NIA 1 BR's have eons-car attached garage, 2 8R's have atwo-car attached garage. Close to Caltrain, in the downtown. San Mateo Park Bayshora 1230 21 2 BR/2.5 BA $559,000- $589,000 $467 NIA Two car, private parking garage with 1775 3 BR12.5 BA $680,000 $383 NIA direct access to home. Monthly Association fee 5235. 9 out of 21 total units remaining. Source: Hanley Wood Project Profile; BAE, 2008. 19 Tables 11 aiid 12 provide a snapshot of the residential for-sale market for all properties in Soutri San Francisco, based on full and verified sales through August 2008. wring this period, 112 single-family units and 42 condominiums were sold in t_h_e City, with a large share of units selling in the $500,000 to $Sy9,999 range for single-family homes (38 percent) and in the $400,000 to $499,000 range for condominiums (38 percent). 1'he rria~ority of sales were three-bedroom units for single-family homes and two-bedroom units for condominiums. The median sales price during this period was $585,000 for all single-family units and $410,000 for all condominiums. Tlie three-bedroom single-family units appear to nave a lower median and average sales price than t~aJo-bedroom single-family emits. This anomalous result may arise from the limited marke± activi~y, with a small munber of atypical units affecting median and average sale prices. Table 11: Single Family Residential Sales, South San Francisco, January-August, 2008 ;al All Units 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 + Bedroom Sale Price Range # Units °I° of Total # Units # Units # Units Up to $299,999 1 0.9% 0 1 0 $300,000 to $399,999 1 ,Q.9% 0 0 1 $400,000 to $499,999 14 12.5% 2 9 3 $500,000 to $599,999 43 38:4% 7 30 6 $600,000 to $699,999 36 32.1% 8 i9 9 $ZO4,000 to $799,999 8 7.1% 1 6 1 $800,000 to $899,999 5 4.5% 1 3 1 $900,000 to $999,999 1 - 0.9% 0 0 1 $1,000,000 to $1,099,999 1 0.9% . 0 0 1 -• . $1,100,000 to $1,199,999 2 r 1.8% 1 1 . 0 $1,200,000 or more 0 0.0% 0 0 0 Total 112 100% 20 69 23 Median Sale Price $585,000 $600,000 $582,000 $620,000 Average Sale Price $610,180 $626,225 $598,451 $631,417 Avg. Square Feet 1,477 1,059 1,414 2,028 Avg. Price per SF $413 $592 $423 $311 Note: (a) Represents all verified sales from January 1, 2008- August 1, 2008 in the city of South San Francisco. Source: Data Quick, 2008; BAE, 2008. 20 Table 12: Condominium Sales, South San Francisco, January-August, 2098 (a) All Units 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Sale Price !?~.::ge # Units % of T:,al # Units # Units # Units Up to $299,999 2 4.8% 0 2 0 $300,000 to $399,999 15 35.i% 3 12 0 $400,000 to $499,999 16 38.1 % 1 8 7 $500,000 to $599,999 6 14'.3% 0 5 1 $S00,000 to $iiy9,999 3 7.1% 0 2 1 $700,000 or more 0; 0.0% 0 0 0 i otal 42 100% 4 29 9 Median Sale Price $410,000 $366,500 $400,000 $456,000 Average Sale Trice $42'9,595 38G,250 $424,414 $468,222 Avg. Square Feet 1,105 810 1,033 1,465 Avg. Price per SF $389 $469 $411 $320 Note: (a) Represents al! verified sales from January 1, 2008- August 1, 2008 in the city of South San rrancisco. Source: Cata Quick, 2008; 3AE, 2008. Rental Housing The RealFacts database consists of rental properties with 50 or more units; and is the most readily available data on the local rental market. W1ule this data provides a general overview of the City's rental market, it does not include smaller multi-family rental complexes or rental single-family homes, which constitute a significant proportion of the City's rental housing inventory. For South San Francisco; the Realhacts database identifies six multi-family rental complexes, with a total of 85G units. Table 13 shows a currer:t average monthly rent of $1,30 in South San Francisco, or $2.21 per square foot per month. In comparison, the average monthly rent in the County overall for the same period. was $1,789 (eight percent less than South San Francisco). Rental rates climbed a substantial 25.5 percent from 2006 to 2008, according to RealFacts. While climbing rental rates usually indicate a strong rental market, trends in City occupancy rates have moved in the opposite direction. Occupancy rates were strong unti12006, but declined to 86 percent by the second quarter of 2008. Among the seven San Mateo County cities listed in the RealFacts database, South San Francisco has the lowest average occupancy rate. Thus, South San Francisco's increasing rents amidst declining occupancy rates may indicate that its landlords are trying to benefit from a tightening regional rental market but the available units are not competitive with those in surrounding cities. This may lead to near-term pressure for landlords to lower asking rents. 21 A noteworthy comparable project for new market-ra±e multifamily residential development in the Specific Plan area is a recently built apartment ce*_nplex north of the BART station now owned by Archstone (the project was originallw developed by Fairfield Residential). This is a 360 unit mixed-use "wrap" type building, with ground floor retail and residentiai above. The project is 93 percent occupied, indicating strong demand for this transit-oriented product vis-a-vis other rental complexes in the City. Archstone's rents that are consistent with the market at $1,875 per month for one-bedroom units, and from $2,280 to $2,666 per month for two-bedroom units. 22 Tame 13: Overviev~ of Rental Ho~lsing Market for South San Francisco (a} r:llRRFNT MARKET DATA Percent Avg. Unit Type Numher of Mix Sa. Ft. Stadia 65 7°~ 400 1 BR Townhouse 10 1% x,112 1 BR/1 BA 327 39% 792 2 BR/1 BA 90 11% 814 2 BR/1.5 BA 12 1% 920 2 BR/2 BA 188 22% 1,134 2 BR Townhouse 144 17% 883 3BRTownhouse 24 3% 1,100 Totals 850 100% 874 AVERAGE RENT HISTORY: 2CGo-2007 2Q 2005 2Q 2007 % Change Unit Type Studio 1 BR Townhouse 2 BR/16A 2 BR12BA 2 BR Townhouse 3 BR Townhouse Average Annual Rent: OCCUPANCY RATE Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 Q2 2008 X870 $937 7.7% $1,263 $1,332 5.5% $1,474 $1,574 6.8% $1,873 $1,995 6.5!° $1,396 $1,463 4.8% $1,995 $1,961 -1.7% Avg. Avg. Rent Rent/Sq. Ft. $1,079 $2.70 $2,345 $2.11 $1,875 $2.37 $1,811 $2.22 $1,600 $1.74 $2,490 $2.20 $1,53 $1.88 $2,295 $2.09 $1,930 $2.21 2006-2008 2Q 2008 °a Change X1.079 24.0% $1,875 48.5°~° $1,811 22.9% $2,490 32.90,° $1,663 19.1% $2,295 15.0% $1.288 $1,363 5.8% $1,616 25.5% Average Annual 94.6% 96.3% 97.4% 87.1 °i° 86.0% AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY (by Project) Percent of Year Built Inventory 1960's 83.3% 1970's 0.0% 1980's 0.0% 1990'S 0.0% 2000'S 16.7% Total 100.0% Note: (a) Data represents housing complexes with 50 units or more. (b) Data taken from six apartment complexes in South San Francisco, averaging 141 units each. Source: RealFacts, Inc., 2008; BAE, 2008. 23 Development Activity The pace of residential real estate development in the City has slowed down. Between 1999 and 2007, the City gained 1,745 new residential units. As indicated in Table 14, within the last year (2007 to 2008) only 371 market rate multifamily residential units Have entered or will enter the market, aij of which are in the Specific Plan area or immediate vicinity. Table 14 is based upon tre Cit;~'s current major projects list and indicates that only two residential projects totaling 29 units are currently in the development pipeline. T auiz 14: Recently Compieteci and Plans ed Residential Projects, South Say rr Francisco Project Name Location Completion # of Residential Units and Site Size South City Lights West Side Gellert Blvd./ Completed August 2008 272 Condominiums No of Westborough t3lvd. 6 buildings, 14.9 acre site. Oak Avenue Affordable Housing SW corner of Grand and Oak Avenue (Redevelopment Area) Completed 2007 43 Apartments, 1.14 acre site Park Station Lofts 1410 EI Camino Real (Redevelopment Area, El Camino Corridor) 111 Chestnut Avenue Under Construction `stimated Completion: Winter 2008 Approved 7/05 One Year Time Extension Approved 2008 99 Condominiums, 2.03 acre site 8 Condominiums, 0.45 acre site • .• . Oakmont Meadows Under Review 21 Townhouses/ 4.91 acre site Corner of Westborough Blvd and Oakmont Drive Source: City of South San Francisco, 2008; BAE, 2008. Summary of Residential Market Although new residential development in the City has slowed in line with the regional and national slowdown in the housing market, South San Francisco in the past market cycle has demonstrated the strength of its market for multifamily for-sale housing. Between 2007 and 2008, a total of 371 new multifamily units have been built in South San Francisco. Pricing for these units has been strong, with two-bedrooms units ranging from $529,900 to $634,900 and three-bedroom units ranging from $569,900 to $629,000. The pricing for new multifamily residential, which exceeds sales prices for existing single-fanuly units, suggests that new multifamily development is attracting new types of residents who might not necessarily be interested in South San Francisco's existing housing stock. Sales agents for currently selling projects indicate a strong interest from 24 Genentech and Kaiser employees, as well as those who benefit from the proximity to the BART station. These factors suggest the potential for higher-quality movc-up housing in addition to the more entry-level types of product that have been built to date around the BART station. However, housing prices are high relative to the median household income in the City, mariirg it difficult far many existing South San Francisco families to afford comparable new properties in and around South San Francisco. Creation of more affordable ownership opportunities, including new units through the City's inclusionary housing ordinance; could provide additional housing options for existing residents. The (~.iiy''s inciusionary ordinance requires that for any iiew residential development of four or mere units, at least twenty percent of the total units should be affordability to low- and lower-rr~oderate income households. The City's General Plan identifies the El Camino Real corridor as a prime area for new residential development. The existing low density o1_der auto-oriented development patterns presents opportunities for redevelopment of these properties into mixed-use urban infill developments with ground floor commercial and townhouses or multifamily residential above. High existing land values and limited available sites mean that most new residential development will need to be multifamily units, including townhouses and co_n_dominiums to be fusible. 25 Retail .Market Jvervie~ To assess the commercial (e.g., retail and office) market in the Specific Plan area, BAE conducted site visits to the Specific Plan area and neighboring cities' retail centers and commercial corridors within one and a half miles, revie :x~ed recent brokerage reports, intervie v~~ed area brokers and retailer representatives, and obtair~~d leasing and vacancy data for properties from i,oopNet, an online listing of available commercial real estate for lease ar~d sale. Taxable Retail Sales Nnalysis As a broad brash overview, the analysis for this memorandum explored the City's taxable retail sales compared to other cities in the area, expressed per capita to equalize the data. Figure 3 summarizes this information for South San Francisco compared to nearby cities for the last four quarters available (4th Quarter 2006 through 3rd Quarter 2007) from the California State Board of Equalization. The City's taxable sales for the period at $11,310 was on par with the Bay Area and surnassed Daly City and 1Vlillbrae, indicating a healthy amount of retail sales in South San Francisco. San Bruno and Burlingame have greater sales on a per capita basis due to more extensive retail development, including auto dealers, than South San Francisco. The fact that the City's taxable retail sales compare ~ v;.rably to the overall Bay Area figure, even though the City's annual household incomes tend to be slightly lower than the Bay Area overall indicates a likely attraction of some sales from out of the City, and an ability to support additional retail .uses. Figure 3: Annual Per Capita Re}ail Taxable Sales, Q4 200ti - Q3 20Q7 $25 ,ooo $20,000 ;° $15,000 v a $10,000 $5,000 $0 $22,132 _~ $14,235 $11,310 $11,092 South San Daly City IVlillbrae San Bruno Burlingame Bay Area Francisco Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2008; CA State Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales, 2007; BAE, 2008. 26 Reiail Supply Overview The Specific Plan area includes several retail nodes providing a wide array of stores serving primarily *he Local Market Area as well as employees at Kaiser. At the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard is the Pacific Supermarket, specializing in Asian foods, with small retail space behind it, as well as further north along El Camino Real past Ar!-oyo Drive. There is a small commercial enter with a mix of retail and service businesses on El Camino Real, just south of the Bank of American and First National Bank offices rear the intersection with Westborough Boulevard. East of El Camino Real is the Safeway center off of Chestnut that includes an older Safeway store and ~t~~er neighborhood serving retail Within the Local Market Area, defined as a one-mile radius around the Specific Plan area, there are a number of additional retail nodes. This includes ground floor retail in the Archstone project, with a ~'VaMu (Chase) bank branch, Trader Joe's, Starbucks, and a dentist office to be built. Just north of this project is a Costco, which serves both the Local Market Area and a larger region. Further north at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard is a r_eighborhood shopping center with a DS iviarket supermarket specializi~ig in Asian food, and other local retail and services. So»th of the Specific Plan area along El Camino Real are a variety of stand-alone and small strip retail development. To the east, more than half of the City's Downtown retail core consisting of independent retailers, restaurants ar~d services along Grand Avenue, to Spruce Avenue, falls within the local market area. The Specific Plan area also lies between two concentrations of regional retail, with the Shops at Tanforan regional mall, anchored by Target, Sears, JC Penney, Barnes & Noble, and a Century Theatres multiplex less than two miles to the south. Less than three miles north of the Specific Plan area is the Serramonte Center mall in Daly City, anchored by Macy's, Target, and the former Mervyn's. Adjacent to these regional retail centers are clusters of other value-oriented, large- format retailers. The 280 Metro Center just south of Serramonte includes a Marshall's, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Old Navy, along with other community center tenants. The San Bruno Towne Center, just north of the Shops at Tanforan, includes a Lowe's, Marshall's, Best Buy, and BevMo, as well as other community center tenants. Just over four miles to the north, at John Daly Boulevard and Interstate-280 across from the Daly City BART station, is a Century Theatres multiplex and a variety of complementary food and entertainment uses. Although a detailed store-category analysis of leakage and potential capturable retail sales was not conducted for this memorandum, it should be noted that the substantial amount of local-serving retail found in the Specific Plan area, along with nearby concentrations, and the bracketing of the market area within several large regional malls and value-oriented big box centers all suggest that the Specific Plan area would not support substantial amounts of new additional retail in the form of major shopping centers. The next section further explores local-serving and niche retailing opportunities offered by a notable cluster of ethnic food stores and traditional grocery stores. 27 Retail Real Estate Indicators Wi±hin the Specific Plan area, the only currently available retaii space is in the ground floor of the Archstone project. This in-line space is located on both sides of Lawndale Boulevard traversing the mixed-use project, with less visibility than th,, corner locations facing El Camino Real and Mission Road that have been leased. Asking refits are $3.25 per square foot per month, triple-net or NNN'', which the 1_easing agent a.ckr~owledges as above-market but intended to provide negotiating flexibility. It is likely these asking rents also reflect the small sizes cf the available spaces, as well as the high construction costs of the mixed-use project. Most offers for these spaces, to dale, have been in a range from mid-$2.00 per square foot per month NNN up to and just over $3.00 per square foot per mon±h i~IViv. There has been interest frern food operators such as Panda Express and Quizncs, however while the spaces are designed for food service some of the design quirks cf the ground float retail space have proved problematic, and prospects have expressed concern about availability of parking. The leasing agent noted that although the pace is zoned for high traffic retail, interest has been expressed for medical office (which cauld be captured instead in the Specific Plan area with enhanced parking and proximity to Kaiser). Current asking rents vary widely far vacant retail space in areas near tl'ie Specific Plan area. For example, Fairway Plaza just south on El Camino Real is asking $3.25 per square foot per month NNN, while Gellert Square on Westborough just west of Interstate-280 is asking $2.25 per square foot (although .its retail space has limited visibility because area topography places this shopping center above strut level). Rents at the San Bruno Towne Center, just south of the City boundary on El Camino Real, range from $3.00 to $4.25 per square foot per month, NNN, for space in this community center that also includes large format retail. By comparison, asking rents are considerably lower in the City's Bowntown retaii area on Grand Avenue, with rents for available spaces ranging from $1.25 to $2.00 per square foot per month, NNN, reflecting the older building stock. 3 Triple-net, or NNN, means tenants are responsible for all utilities, maintenance, property taxes, and insurance costs, in addition to rent payments. Iviost retail properties are leased on a triple-net basis. 28 Potential Additioiral Retail: Supermarket Analysis The Specific Plan area and nearby locations are notably well-served by a unique mix of both traditional full service grocery stores, Trader Joe's, Costco, Pak N' Save, clang with several ethnic food stores aimed at Asian market segments. The food store category of retail is important to examine more fully, because this retail category typically serves as an anchor for local- and cornrrrunity-serving shopping centers and smaller "town centers", which in turn fit the profile of available sites and represent a key type of retailing opportunity in the Specific Pi_an area. As shown in Figure 4 on the following page, withir. and nearby io the Speci is Plan area, there are 11 existing and one proposed supermarkets, as well as other large food vendors. Three of these superrilarkets (Pacific, Manila Oriental, and :DS Markel) and the planned new market (Pact c, at the center at Westborough and Callan Boulevards) specialize in Asian food products, reflecting the demographic concentration of this market segment in South San Francisco and nearby communities. The circular areas shown in Figure 4 highlight the overlapping trade areas of these stores. Taking a closer look at the circle surrounding the Specific Plan area (one mile around intersection of F,i Camino Real and Chestnut and the location of a Safeway and Pacific Supermarke±), it is important to note that the Local Market Area demographics found approximately 10,000 households. in this circle.. Typically, a full service grocery store such as Safeway, is supported by roughly 10,000 households, meaning that ±his Local Market Area matches that specirica±ion. In addition, the Local Market Area is served by a second store, Pacific Supermarket, augmenting the food offerings. However, as shown on Figure 4, another concentration of food stores further south along El Camino Real offer an additional location of full service traditional grocery stores, including another Safeway and a Lucky's. These stores' trade areas (traditionally one mile) overlap with the Local Market Area defined for this study, suggesting there may be an over-retailing of these traditional full service grocers. In addition, this cluster offers a Smart & Final, which sells mostly canned and dry goods items. Mori°over, to the north, at the BART station, the area is served by Trader Joe's and Costco. Thus, the Specific Plan Local Market Area can access not only its own local-serving food stores, resident;; also have nearby access to these specialty retailers, offering respectively, low-cost bulk foods (Costco) and a broad selection of specialty items (Trader Joe's). This concentration indicates that the Specific Plan and surrounding areas have become a cluster for food retailing of all types, building; on the likely larger draw of northern San Mateo residents to the Costco and Trader Joe's for frequent weekly shopping trips. While somewhat counterintuitive, this pattern is further reinforced by discussions with area retail brokers, which indicated that other ethnic-oriented food store operators are looking for locations in the Specific Plan area for stores of approximately 30,000 square feet. This interest may indicate that these supermarket and food retailers see the area as offering the potential to attract business and compete with existing stores. However, given the extensive array of stores, the City should move cautiously in this regard, as the 29 addition of another store may weaken one or more of the existing food stores competing for the same market segment. At the same time, the City niay want to specifically target the attraction of a specialty food store serving an underserved market niche, capitalizing on the draw of the Costco and the Trader Joe's in the Specific Plan area. For example, there have beer discussions about the poten±ial to attract ~Jltole Foods to the Specific Plan area. BAE's research with the Whole Foods' real estate location representative indicates that the rornpany is currently only looking for locations that would open in 201? or later, and that while it is interested in a store in northern San Mateo County, its preference is for a location in San Bruno. This preference, however, may be based on an out of date perception of South San Francisco as a working class community, rather than its evolution into a more diverse and affluent comrr~uni~y, and offers a future potential attraction strategy. The attraction of a Whole Foods to the Specific Plan area may hinge on s7abstantiai new residential development, expansion of the Kaiser medicaa center, and general upgrading of properties as a result of the Specific Plan efforts, and will be explored more fully during the implementation phase of the planning process. In addition, the apparent clustering of food stores offers the potential to attract other specialty food retailers, including retailers targeting Hispanic food shoppers with a substantial population base in South .San Francisco. Finally, with the weekly Farmer's Market at Kaiser's site, the options for additional fresh produce and specialty food products attracting from the larger region may be present in the Specific Plata area. 30 Figure 4: Super~riarkets and Barge Food Retailers in Specific Plan and Nearby Areas II t _ ~~/r~ j { eYgNd ,'~i',., rr)f1(\ ~ ' '~+ '' p DSt~tariaet , ~~ Fh t `.',, Joe'sr .^~ ~ r+i',+i~t ~i tl ^i y; I!f~11111 ~ ~';~ ~~ ~ ,Sert2rticf?tP~ (Aaa,r) s ' ~~ ;-' ~h _ fr ~--~-~, j', , ,'l,1,~;~ rJ ~" f~. _' - F`2r'~ ,. ~.. e -, ~ . ,. Gellert ?erk l ~ ,1 ' ~-. 5; ) ,~ F\,, .,./: , ~~~ l _ `~, ~~~ ~it~~~~ -~~~\~'t~, r~ i~ 1vl~ ~(it~ ~ •~. trI< .' rt r~r,~~ r , ~~ v~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ,,•~. Co co i~JC a \ .ti{j,< ~~~ ,< f r ~ ~ tt ~-,~ -. ~'~ ~~~'~ '; ~- ~ ~ t~_ ~ ,= 1'..I I ~ r`r -. ,?yli„~JJ~.', ~ 1 -~. ~ 1 '1 J -7 IL -_ ; T , r ~~~~ taiCk~( ~~~,} x I r __ t~,`, \~ ~-t `I r~ ~. y; .. i`I~~/~` ~~Jfr ~4rr ~ a~ ~ i / , `, rCt, m~C; ~7- . r F r! I r~~i ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~..'. ~y ~ ~ ~ ., y ~ ~l, ' \ ~ + Y 1V~/ ~~~ ~ \ r ~ 1~ ~ ~S'i .. ~ '_ ~ t `~ r rr~ f r . / ? f ~ ~ ~ ' J I :1 ',' ~ ~ ~ ~ „~ „tS . , 1 i ~V,,` ,,+`\1\ a h'''`' y J ` i ~\` ..~ c.1~~1 /%' ~'~'~ ' ~ `;'^. J~'- U ' '~--'~ ~ - -' ~ i ~ r t r(-r Lt/r Cr _ ~' -1~; \r !r 1 y1 ;~--,` ~ ` ^-~~_1' s~1 5 ~!r ;~\~ \~ r~ 1r~• r~ \ ~ , R` +'~ Gr `~..~~ '~ etc r , r ~ h f ~~_ ~ -ti.- `~~] ~.• Pt\ .~\}, ;~~ •/~'~~~-^~., a2'S'~-. ~~ ;nr _~ ~7t--....L/4v .r r i _ , r.. 'f t`} `~ r ~\ Y,,\ S r, Sl. ,1 / y r. /"/r/ :rr_ ?~. a ~Cit ' .,~ ~V 1[ _ 1~... 7i _~ `. 1 i ' ~ i \t t ~r. ~ ~ 3 ~\ yr '-.-1c r r` t ~. ~~- ~ ~,~ , rte"' 6 , ` - , \ 1 T~~/ t\ \ . ~„*r,. •~ (rr ~ .- 3 C r ~ r `~ "• .- ~ ~ r e1 > t Gi -- t' r5 ' ~1 :~~•'t 5', i, ` ~J ~ ~,~ ~, ~~ ~,~J !t~ ~~`~ 1.f ~~' ,~ t J''a iQe~ {rr-~~ ~ - 7r ~ • F .. i .,I~ ~ ~ ~ Manila •.7f ~ n~~n (, t i ~, > ,fl C-..if ', +,r' nonal F:trk~Jf ~ ~~ { r',h:. t1S " ~ Oriental i :.;~ ~. ~~ t~ ~ ti ~, 11 __ /fr -, Pacifc ~ . a.` j~' ~ -ri,~;~ s i L Asian r `` `%/ `~ t?, , >i' f`ir ~ r r i ~1 • ~,'.~,\~ Supermarket 4~ I%I , ~'_'r- ~'( ' j .., ~ ~ I __ ~. fF 1 (41%i' -'1 ~ I // F ~?~.? <`, tl ~ ~ ~, Hvan ~ .y'~' , r 1' ~ ~ J -' '~-~~ 7 I f ..-- ~ I I i ~ I' `~ , t ! ~~~" ~` ~?`. = ~ ',, J ~ ~ 'J ~ c s '~.;~. -~ f ' ~ r ~ ~ c `^~ Jt ~' ~ i ' - '~ L Jt 11 I ~ ~ l +1 'Si5 i 1 , ~ •, i ~ (J I .., i ~.,~. ~ ~,. r ``"``,,` . ? 4 t ,. . ! L SZ " Y - _V ~ ,M J ' ; I t /' t ' ~,. r .. ~i s ~ t- i ~' 1 r-sr- t I ,. ~ ~ 1 • ~7r ,~ ~, ~ yr~ '. '-_- i ~ ~ i i r l ~G~~ 19 : ' ~• ? i ( Uue5lb orough _~ 'i , '` •1 f ~ -~ c -' (i t y ` ! ' r ~-_ J r 1 ~ I"i ~, l\~ ~ '~I~'r ~ - ~ Center I ,~ !` '_ I trl(rllij ~t ~~ 'J( _ ._ l r r, ~, ,.' ~' ~°" II r_- ~ t PakN'Save ~ f ..~. .,'~ J t`~drl F~;Jruti, c'~ ~~ ., ~ ,~ j I`, , __ ~ ti "; -- ~ , Gallan PaYk 5 ' I ` r I' j , t r„ ~ • `-' r J1 j, ~: \ " ' : Westburtouah j I r t r , y_f~. aZ r + _ , iT { ~ S ~~ ~< F?~rk~ _ rty - ~','. 1 ~ _ ~ ~ .,a few a-y ~ , ; ~ `.;~ = dVy ,,' ,gh B}Vtf ~ Sellrck Fay K .- .~ ` ~ ,~, r .~ : ~ t y _ f d,. _y r fzr r" ~ ~ ° ~t.'° 31 'l,rf ~e `,; ~ ~ ...., , i j~ ( I Paafic /~ ~,g( '~i i~ ~~ tl! IJ 1 r ~~Jr7 t ~ `' ~ ~;"~ ~ ,F y; Smart and Final~~~ ~,~ `rr ~ ,_ ~ Luck $Uperr7ra-`2L Sr;.. -~J ~/ I ill If ~11 I f(r' {~~ ?k\~;\~. ' ~ r"; % > . i~ 4,~~ r r ASS, ~ _ lr~~ i J I J y ~•~ ,. ~ s'r r r %r b t r y J,?Ofd (Asian) ;_ 1 J,i ~ ` ,~,k, ;AFtt ,~5't y~~L r ~ ~ r :,I r~ >y{r ~.~':; ~ I~ S'` .J ' (Planned) \, t, ~. -_ ~ . ~ ,r:- I ~; ;1~/ v ~.a \~' ~ r- ~ ~ ~.° "r\ r; \ ~~- _ _ , n'rd^y~ ~~ ~ I I i t;(". // a t ~,, r f , r r t JI I I ll /~ ys\,;;.m~ r 1' ~ - ll ~`rrf 1~ . ~ r'rr` IIS i{~ fr ~,ftll i it j1 /~r'rf/ ~~~ ~'/ _.it Y' II. .I 'r ~+/' l ,. 1 ., , . \ r ,~~ ~~ 'I ~ I I~SL -" ~~~` ' ~ n~T .1 / MMp"11 ~ I { ~ , r 1 I j ,t t^: 1 (~f / ~'\. f I ' " l+ ~(11 ~ i t f r F *~ ,~ +< . ; -_ t:: ~ ' ~. / ~,,\f Z ~ '~', ' '* Goiden Gate-y` ~f'~ TaMwai~ , ~ I y f7Pat~'~~~ rli. ~ /~ 1i, `htorAte '1 G% 1~('~ ~4.;r c:NaUOnei~~~''r.-` ~\~l Park •';t, _ 5 ~ ~ ~ 1{erde Park- f 'i; ~ - r'~ P ~,~cP . s 4 ,. + y , _.Cemeteryr ~.; f 8Y .-,..,. -emu til ,'.' \ ~ ~ \.. r `, ~" ,_. "-,:tiCJ~ `,. Jj'',;~r ; (~ I.j~' . ,i/~r~i ~~: ,, 11~ ~ _..r j- ...~' ~'` ;'"s _p,~ ~ I Fine t(~•y-} ( r r 1 1 ~~ t~-+~. ,•;r`r c'~lf~' ~, Lane Park ~I f' rr ~ I ~ ( ~~ ~ \~' J " ~ rs 1' ~ i ~-_ \=.~ ~ L t ~~ /' Y~,.. ~ ~ J /,' '' \~. jr ! 1 ` `J p~ I~1 \ i,` ~i h y , 1 ,,, ~ ! Y ~ _ 1~ r ,~ 1 ~~t ~ ~1.` Jr, ~ ,~ .,~.j, I~iOPnTOd4rIE Lr~ r t , , , -"t\./1 ~~ ! , .r ~ -_ it ' y~i r _ L_ Id'Cti rt` ~ ' 's II i l PBrI' ~ , i r i . _ ~r COt~9 '+ ~Paclhc'~~--- "\ `, ,' -~ _- .1 r~r .F '1\ $110n 25 \ 1 ~~qqI ,,t~ ~ _ I ~HeighCS~Park 'I ~ ~\ ti i ~ c'`' '~l,~ /!t~ i .~~Ir v f " ~j ~~r ,i~ v OC, ,,,; ,~ , - ~~ .~Sy \+ ,-tt \ . r -Tf r~'~r 1 1 ,•4 t~ / ~t r y ~ ~, , , I '1,. - ~ r ~ ', r ~ '! r (~ r; I'_ ~3t"t 8RX101 , :=,rp P`t~,' \: ' , ( i, ~:''. ` ,yam' ~ ~. Lr_- 5 C'r``-',C`•~ • . r"5C y -_ y j ' ~'a tula e- ~ ~ `~ 'rv~~t'<`~ ~ 7 '~ ~ _ _~ ~ ~ R ~ J ~ `. l+.''t•`~ + r -,~ ~. I iiigKands Park ~ i ~~ ` '. '' , „' \'' ~' ~ \ , .,t ` ,t 'b'tl~f ~ Pafk r,% y ~\. its III ~'`-;,.t ..~, ,t t ~ j•,,',Jyy`-~` c ~ Note: Circles represent one-mile radius, a traditional trade area for full service grocery stores. Source: BAE, 2009. 31 Planned and Proposed Retail Projects Reflecting the current ecc:~omic downturn, there are limited plans fcr new retail development in South San Francisco. The recent Lawe's Home Improvement Center, completed in late 2008, has added a substantial ne•~ regional a±traction elsewhere in the City along Hibhway 101. In addition, a Home Depot has'oeen proposed far a si±e at 9000 Dubuque Avenue in the Downtown Redevelopment Area. Renovation. of the Safeway Shopping Center in the Specific Plar_ area is also current City review. Other Factors Supporting Specific Plan Retail Uses The Specific Plan area ar~d suiiounding communities as discussed above have a wide range of neighborhood and community shopping centers, including those with large format retail, as well as regional centers. I~owever, most of these properties were developed several decades ago, and as such do not represent contemporary retail offerings. Town center Type projects with a mix of uses, including retail as weii as residential and office and community space, have been popular in rriany suburban communities because they can support a more varied selection of retailers, including specialty retail, and also provide community gathering places that give sl-~oppers ar~d residents more diverse oppo~-~tunities ±han typical shopping centers. Town centers are well suited to inclusion of uses such as libraries, post offices, and other civic functions. A potential town center ;in the Specific Plan area could be created through amixed-use development with ground floor retail, potentially a supermarket, with residential and commercial uses above, organized around open space. It would be weii suited to a location near El Camino Real ar~d Chestnut Avenue where it could benefit from high visibility, strong traffic counts, nearby major employment at Kaiser, and accessibility to all areas of the City. 32 Office Merket South San Francisco has an extensive office market featuring Class A office space and Research & Development space catering to the biotech sector and other firms, primarily located along the Highway l01 corridor and Oyster Point areas easi of the highway. This area is home to Genentech (recently acquired by Roche), one of the world's leading biotechnology firms. Roche's intention to relocate its IJ.S. headquarters to South San Francisco, and the continued rapid evolution of the biotech sector, will likely continue to drive demand for Class A and R & D space in this area. In addiiion, scattered throughout Se~uth Sar~ Francisco, Class B and C office and flex space has attracted many light industrial, food. processing, and warehousing activities. These types of spaces also suppcrt start-up bio-tech and other small firms seeking inexpensive, flexible space. within the Specific Fian area, there is a limited amount of office uses, primarily cansisting of bank branches around the intersection of El Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard / Chestnui Avenue (including the headquarters of First National Bank of Northern California, a regional_ bank). There are medical offices in Kaiser's buildings in the Specific Plan area. Most other office uses in the area are located in various commercial buildings within the Specific Pian area or nearby. This includes the City's Municipal Services Building that houses most of the City's office- based staff and is located at the southwest corner of Arroy o Road and F.1 Carriino Real. These factors suggest a very modest potential for substantial newly constructed office space in the Specific Plan area. There are more likely to be opportunities for additional medical offices (including potential Kaiser expansion of its medical office space), as well as offices for smaller firms and professional services above ground floor retail in mixed-use projects. Another opportunity would be development of office condominiums, for-sai_e office space that can be cieveioped in multi-tenant buildings and that is marketed at local owners of creative and professional services and other firms who seek the long-term financial and tax advantages of owning their office space. Asking office rents for smaller spaces in the downtown and other scattered locations range from under $2.00 per square foot per month on a partial gross basis (tenant paying utilities and janitorial) up to $2.75 per square foot per month on a full service gross basis (landlord pays all expenses, including utilities). Potential rents for smaller new office space in mixed-use developments in the Specific Plan area are likely to fall within this range. 33 cevelopme nt Potential in the Specific Pian Area .Residential Develole.~;ent Potential There is likel;~ to be strong market support for new multi-family residential developr~~etit in the Specific Plan area based on South San Francisco's locationai advantages, strong and growing high tech and bioiech employment concentrations, and continued high employment growth. Fu±ure multifamily development is likely to include live.!~~~ork 1_ofts, townhousVs, and mixed-use "wrap" or podium-type projects, with residential above ground floor commercial uses. Denser development, including projects up to 45 dwelling units per acre or more in four stories of residential above ground floor cormnerciai, will be of interest to future developers because it maximizes land value. There is likely to be much more limned demand for mid-rise or taller residential development because of the considerably higher costs of such development, lack of adjacent urban amenities, limited opportunities for Bay views, and potential opposition from adjacent single family residential nf;ighborhoods. Future residential development should accommodate a diversity of product types and price points. It should be noted that the Draft Housing Element, also being prepared by BAE, has identified three Housing Opportunity si±es in the Specif c Plan area for affordable housing. This nee*~ housing, if designed well, will enhance the attraction of additional market rate investment in the area, due to the improved potential appearance of a cohesive streetscape. There is strong market potential for move-up higher quality multifamily housing in the Specific Plan area, complemented by high quality streetscape and connections with BART and surrounding areas. This type of housing would 'be particularly strengthened by a "complete street'' treatment of this section of El Camino, reflecting the Grand Boulevard initiative. At densities comparable to recent development around the BART Station, the Specific Plan area could potentially accommodate as much as 1,500 to 3,000 or more new multifamily dwelling units through 2035. This could accommodate as much as approximately 40 percent of the City's projected population and household growth during this time period. Development at this density would require high quality design and park /open space amenities within the Specific Plan area. Development at this density could, along with redevelopment of other areas in the City, help to reduce the City's jobs/housing imbalance, by adding significant amounts of new residential unit to complement the City's continuing .strong job growth. This would create benefits for reducing worsening traffic congestion as an increasing number of workers in South San Francisco enter and leave the City each day. 34 Retail Cevelopment Potential The active interest of new supermarkets and food retailers in locations in the Specific Plan area, the interest of Safeway redeveloping its store on Chestnut, and the oppor±~anity to attract food stores catering to either more upscale shoppers and~'or Hispanic ethnic-oriented shoppers, creates ±he opportunity for potentially two or more new grocery-anchored retail centers. Placing these uses as ground floor uses in mixed-use developments, with residential, office, or other »ses above would maximize the City's development objectives fir the area.; and has been successfally done at locations elsewhere iii the Bay Area. Supermarket tenants could be complemented by additional specialty food retailers in these projects or elsewhere. Another opportunity would be the creation of a town center-style retail development, particularly dear the gateway irtersectioti of El Camino Real and ~'Vestborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue that incorporates mixed-usP development as welt as other civic uses anci,~or public space amenities to create a unique destination ,with a more lively environment for community engagement than a typical shopping center. New retail development should seek to accommodate a variety of different types and sizes of retail. Large format retail will be limited by the limited number of sites in the Specific Plan area that can accommodate a store of 50,000 square feet or more, as well as the unwillingness of most retailers of this type to locate as a ground floor use in a mixed-use development. Most other types of retailers, however, are compatible with mixed-use development. There may be opportunities to attract specialty retailers in spaces of 10,000 to 20,000 square feet, such as Borders Books and Music. Spaces less than 20,000 square feet can accommodate a range of restaurants, entertainment, lifestyle-related, and specialty retail uses. Based on interest from supermarket operators for new locations in the Specific Plan area, and also considering the relatively small amount of available land in the Specific Plan area, there may be the potential to support a net increase of 150,000 square foot to as much as 200,000 square feet or more of new retail space through 2035. This figure does not include existing retail square footage that may be redeveloped into new types of retail space, in new mixed-use or other development projects. Beyond new retail space development, existing retail buildings will also be renovated to accommodate new retailers; this dynamic is an important aspect of how areas accommodate changes in shopping preferences. Office Development Potential Office space should be designed to accommodate smaller tenants in multi-tenant configurations and offer the flexibility to expand small suites as firms grow. Potential tenant requirements are most likely to be in the range of 500 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Potential tenant types include local professionals (attorne:ys, accountants, medical), creative services firms (e.g., architects, graphic designers), and service providers to the bio-tech and larger Class A tenants east 35 of 101. These types of tenants may support anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of new office space through 203, based on the Specific Plan area capturing as much as five percent to 10 percen± of potential office-based job growth in the City through this time period. Gffice opportunities for public agencies or other institutional uses, including potential redevelopment of the City's Municipal Services Building, could be included multi-tenant office building, as well as single-user office buildings dedicated to their use. Once Kaiser's plans are announced for its site expansion, there may be additional opportunities to attract related medical offices medic;al suppliers, or other health-related firms. 36 ~~.:. ~Iraffic, Transportation c~ ~arkng ~emandAnaCysis ~'xistin~ Conditions 14e~ort E! ~arrino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use Plan and SpAcific Plan Ncvembe~ 2008 Prepared for: City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave South San Francisco, CA 94083 Project No. 097734000 © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2008 Existing Conc~:t~ons Report ~I Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use Plan dnd Specific Plan i`Iwember 2008 Prepared for: City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave South San Francisco, CA 940E~3 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, linc. 517 Fourth Avenue, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 Project No. 097734000 © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2008 ®~ ~ Kimley-Horn ® and Associates, Inc. Tr~-~LE O~ CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTiONT ...< ............................................................................................................................<: 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTi~.~Iv ................................................................. ............................................................ . 1 z.0 Iz~GULATORY FRA1vIEWORIC ......................................................................................................... . 4 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANC'ISCO ............................................................................................................... . 4 Cr~L,TRANS AND THE GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVF ...............................................................:................. . S BART ..................................................................................................................................................... . 5 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF AicEA ...........................................................<....................:::................................ . 7 REGIONAL RO<~DWAY I~IETWORK .............................................................................................................. . 7 EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERN S ................................................................................................................... . 7 ...................... 4.0 EXISTING TRAFN'IC CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 1 ROADWAY ?STET';JORK ........................................................................................................:..................... 1 O EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 10 FIELD OBSERVATi^vivS ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 5.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ........ ...........................................................<........................................ 13 BART ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 SAlvt T RANS .............................................................................................................................................. 14 6.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 17 BIKEWAYS ......................................... ..................................................................................................... 17 PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY ........................................................................................................................... 17 7.0 PARKING ..................................,..................................................................................................... 20 SUPPLY AND DEMAND ............................................................................................................................. 20 PARKING REQUIREMENT'S PER ZONING CODE ........................................................................................... 21 8.0 PREVIOUS PLANNING DOCUMF;NTS/PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................:..... 24 GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATNE .............:................................................................................................ 24 EL CAMIIVU REAL'NIASTER PLAN (2OOi~) .................................................................................................. 24 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLA11 AMENDMENT (2000) ....................................................... 25 BART TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN (2001;1 .................................................................................................... 25 BART LINEAR PARK MASTER PLAN (2.003) ............................................................................................. 26 OAK AVENUE EXTENSION ....................................................................................................................... 29 1 ~ ® Kimley-Horn ~ and Associa!~s, Inc. List of Fig»res Figure 1-i: Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................2 Figure i -2: Project Area ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 4-l: Study Area Roadway Volumes and Classificatio;~s .............................................................................. 12 ..................................................................... 16 Figure 5-1: Pubiic Transportation in the Project Vicinity .................. Figure 6-1: Bikeways in the Project Vicinity ......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8-1: Linear Park Concept Drawings (1 of 2) ............................................................................................... 27 Figure 8-2: Linear Pa,-k Concept T?ra~;rings (2 of 2) ............................................: .................................................. 2Q Figure 8-3: Ouk Avenue Extension Al_ignrnent .........................................:............................................................ 30 List of Tables Table 3-1: Census Tract and County Mode Shar~ ............................................................................::...................... 8 T able 3-2: Census Tract Commute Times ............................................................................................................... 8 1 able 3-3: P_roiect Vicinity Auto Ownership .......................................:.:.:..............................................::..,--•...,.... 9 Table 4-1: Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................:....................................... ;.1 Table 7-1 Select City Parking Requirements ......................................................................................................... 21 11 ^~~ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. .V ~IV~R~~U~ i ~~~ This report summarizes existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the El Camino ReaUChestnut Area Land Use Plan and Specific Flan. This document describes traffic, transit, pedestrian and bike conditions in the area generally bounded by El Camino Real, Mission Road, Chestnut Avenue and the South San Francisco BART station. Sete Figure 1-1 for a depiction of the study area. The document also describes the regulatory framework guiding transportation decisions and discusses previous plans prepared for projects in the area. Proiect Description The City of South Francisco is in the process of developing a land use plan and Specific Plan fora 50 acre area encompassing El Camino Real anct Chestnut Avenue. The plan will incorporate elements of the South San Francisco General Plan, the El Camino Real Redevelopment Pian, the Transit Village Plan, the Grand Boulevard Initiative, and the El Camino Real Master Plan. The goal of the E.1 Camino ReaUChestnut Area Land Use Plan and Specific Plan is to develop ahigh-density mixed-use neighborhood with a strong emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian mobility and utilization of the nearby transit facilities. Tile plan area currently supports a Kaiser Permanence riospital, asupermarket-anchored shopping center and strip commercial uses. The area to be included in the Specific Plan and Land L?se Plan is shown in Figure 1-2. Existing Conditions Report Introduction EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 1 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan a N O Z 4 ~` .C U a ca a~ L a .~ U_ d d' ~~ o~ E "~ SZ c~u T n. a~ -a c co J_ C ca C. U ~_ U Q. N co d Q ±+ ~~ ~, '- , N~ n `'~ 11-I ~. ~ ~/ / ~ `` C~ ~~ ~' ,~ 0 z ~y ` ,~ ~-`\ -~ \ ~~~ ~J: ~~, -G ~~_ N ~ W Rf N ~ Q ~ UI O c `a~ E o~ x a~i v ~ ~ ,~ ®a ® Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. 2.0 R~GU~ATORY FRAMElJ1It7RK City ofi South Gan Francisco Planning and development within the study area. is guided by the City's General Plan. Additionally, the study area is within the El Camino Redevelopment Area, one of four official redevelopmen± areas in the City. The Ci±y, or its Redevehpment Agency, owns several parcels in the projec± area. The City's General Plan Transportation Element contains policies that will guide the development of the Specific Plan's transportation rece:nmendations. Specifically, the following General Plan guiding and implementing policies are par±ic~llart_y relevant to the study area: Street System • Policy 4.2-G-3: Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of--way and the BAP~T right-of--way to establish ne•.v streets. • Policy 4.2-G-~: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improve alternate modes, ar_d enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. • Policy 4.2-G-6: Coordinate local actions with regional agencies, and undertake active efforts to undertake transportation improvements. • Policy 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain LOS D or bet~er on arterial and collector streets, at ail intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. • Policy 4.2-G-10: Exempt de:~c;lopment within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. • Policy 4.2-I-2: undertake street improvements identified in the General Plan including: o Connection between Hillside Boulevard and El Camino Real near the BART station. o Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue connection. o Signal coordination o:n El Camino Real. o Mission Road extension from Chestnut Avenue to South Linden Avenue extension on the BART right-of--way. Alternative Transportation Systems • Policy 4.3-G-1: Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. • Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. Existing Conditions Report Regulatory Framework El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 4 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ® ® Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. • Policy 4.3-I-2: As part of the 13ilceways Master Plan, include improvements identified in the General Plan, and identify additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights-of- way and other potential connections including: o Bike Path on linear park on the BART right-of--way, extending from the South Sari Francisco BART Station to the San Bruno BART station. • Policy 4.3-I ?: Undertake a program ±o improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations-South Sar. Francisco and San Br+ano B A1TLT stations and the Caltrann Station-arid the surroundings. Components of the program should include: o Installin+~ handicapped. ramYs at all intersections as street improvements are being ini walled. o Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use. o Providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking distances across streets in Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas. o Continuing with tree City's cu~ient policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections. o Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. Parking • Policy 4.3-I-12: Amend the Zc-ning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for all projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program. Parking above a minimum amount should be allowed only if additional amenities for bicyclists, r~destrians, transit ard,~or landscaping are provided. • Policy 4.3-I-13: Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required. Potential for this exists for the area dear the South San Francisco BART S1:ation. Transit • Policy 4.4-I-3: Explore the feasibility a shuttle system between the Downtown/multi-modal station and South San Francisco and San Bruno stations. Caltrans and the Grand Boulevard Initiative El Camino Real is designated as State Route 82 and is thus owned and maintained by Caltrans. Any modifications to El Camino Real or intersections along El Camino Real will require Caltrans coordination and approval. Design elements proposed for El Camino Real that do not meet Caltrans standards would require design exceptions. Caltrans, along with the City of South San Francisco, is represented on the Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force. The Grand Boulevard Initiative is a collaboration of 19 cities, San Mateo and Santa .Clara counties attempting to improve the performance, safety and aesthetics of El Camino Real along its route from the San Francisco City Line to San Jose (see Section 8). BART Existing Conditions Report Regulatory Framework El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific S November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ®~;^ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District owns and operates the heavy rail transit line that runs underground through the project area to its terminus at the San Francisco International Airport. BART owns the land under which the rail line runs, although it has entered into agreements with the City for the joint use of the land in conjunction with the dfwelopment of the Linear Paris (see Section $). Existing Conditions Report Regulatory Framework El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 6 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ~~^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. ~.0 ®ES~RI~Ti~?N ~F AREA Regional Roadway ":etwork The study area stretches along El Camino Real within the City of South San Francisco, with additional frontage on Arroyo Drive, Mission Road, Chestnut Avenue, and Antoinette Lane. It is located between the two regional freeways in the area, I-280 and US-101. Access to I-280 is provided either via Westborough Boulevard (the west leg of tYie El Camino Real & Chestnut Avenue intersection) or to the north of project area via Hickey Boulevard (via El Camino Real). I-280 runs parallel ar~d to the west of US-101, connecting San Francisco and San Jose. Within South San Francisco, I-280 has annual average daily volumes of approximately 187,000 (Caltrans, 2007). US-101 is further from the study area than I- 280 and its most direct access from the project area is via Grand Avenue, thre~~gh downtown South San Francisco. US-i01 is a primary north-south stag highway connecting Northern California cities in Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Monterey Counties. Within South San Francisco, US-101 has an annual average daily volume of approximately 203,000. Located between I-280 and US-101, F;l Camino Real (SR-82) stretches from San Francisco to San Jose. Over this stretch, El Ca,~~iro Real carries between 17,000 and 50,000 anr~uul average daily vehicles. Within South San Francisco, it ranges from 17,000 daily trips in the north to approximately Y5,000 daily trips in the south. Locally, Grand Ave~rue, accessed. from either Chestnut Avenue or Mission Road, provides access to downtown South San Francisco. Orange Avenue City Park is located to the south of the study area and is accessed via B1 Camino Real or Grand Avenue. Existing Travel Patterns Year 2000 United States Census journey to work data was used to identify commute travel characteristics within South San Francisco and within the study area. According to the 2000 census, 59% of San Mateo County residents also worked within San Mateo County. Remaining residents primarily worked in San Francisco (20%), Santa Clara County (16%) or Alameda County (4%). The percentage of San Mateo County residents who lived and worked within the county has remained fairly constant over the years, although there has been a general shii_t of workers from San Francisco to other counties, including Santa Clara and Alameda. Census tract data was analyzed for t:he tracts in the vicinity of the project area. These tracts include residential neighborhoods on the west side of El Camino Real and the. east side of Mission Road. The mode split for these adjacent tracts is shown in Table 3-l . Existing Conditions Report Description of Area El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 7 November 2008 Plan/Land r:Jse Plan ~ ^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. Table 3-1: Census Tract and Coun M ..- Drive to Nork 87% ode Share -. • 85% Drove Alone 73% 72% Carpooled ~ Fubiic Transportation 14% 1G% 13% ~ Bus 5%' 7% Heavy Rail 5% ~sicycle , .' 1% 2% Worked at Home 1% 4% I Other ~ ~ 1% ~, Rnurce~ 20(10 I'1S Ce7sus Journey to Work d ata. Compared to San Mateo County as a whole, mode shares within the study area closely reflect countywide travel to work patterns. Transit use is somewhat higher within the study area than at the countywide level. The above data is from the 2000 US Census prig to the opening of the BART extension project in 2003, which included the core ection of South San Francisco. It is anticipated that transit mode share has increased following the opening of the BART extension. The U5 Census Bureau annually conducts an American Cemununity Survey. The 2007 American Community Survey indicates that transit share in San Mateo County as a whole has increased by 3% since Year 2000 (from 7.3% to 10.3%) most likely due to the BART exte~ision, while carpool rakes have dropped and work at home rates have increased. Comrriute times for the census tracts v~/ithin the si.udy area were also referenced from the 2000 US Census and are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: Census Tract Commute Times ..• .,.:, -. ~:- sr~, .,-.., ,~r-~ ,. less than'10~minutes ~o.- . ., - ,-q,.,. 8/ 10 to 19 minutes 36% 19 to 2~ minu#es. ~~17% . 30 to 39 minutes 17% 40 to 59 minutes 12% , One hour or more 9% `.Worked.at'Home 1%~ `:: Source;: 2000 US Census Journey to Work data. Census data was also examined to determine auto ownership in the project vicinity, which is an indication of potential transit use. Table 3-3 summarizes auto ownership rates in the census tracts within the study area. Nearly 45% of households in the; study area have zero to one vehicle. This is an indication that these households have the propensity to lase transit, walk, or bicycle more than households with multiple vehicles. Countywide, there were 1.8.8 vehicles available per household. South San Francisco as a whole was ranked 24 out of the top 25 Bay Area places with the highest share of zero-vehicle households (8% in 2000). Existing Conditions Report Description of Area EZ Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 8 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ®O^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. Table 3-3: Census Tract Auto Ownership ..- No Vehicle ..- . 9% 1 Vehicle 35% 2 Vehicles 39% 3 Vehicles 14% 4 or more Vehicles- 4%' Source: 2000 US Census Journey to Work data. Similar to the mode split data, vehicl., ownership has decreased in tree years foiiowing the 2000 US i ensus. The opening of the BART station and the development of transit oriented development to the north of the BART statior~ are expected to lower auto ownership in the study area. Existing Conditions Report Description ofArea El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 9 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ~~^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. 4.0 EXI~Ti~1C TRAFFIC CC3R~QITIA~1~ Roadway Metwork The following describes tree roadways around the vicinity of the project area El C?rnino Real (SR-821 is a six-lane Major ~^~rterial with a raised, landscaped median. T'ic median has openings for left-turn pockets at all intersections and some major driveways. On-street parking is allowed on some segments oil the roadway. It is classified as a Class III bike route in the City's General Plan. The speed limit is 4Q miles per hcur. Several SamTrans bus routes operate along the segment of El Camino Real with the study area. Gaps iin the side~ual':: system occur on El Camsrlc Real on the wept side between Arroyo Drive and BART Road. Mission Road is a four-lane Minor Arterial with no median or center turn lane, except from Oak Avenue to Chestnut Avenue where a raised median exists. On-street parking is not allowed on this street within the study area. The speed l~i~~it is 30 miles per hour. Mission Road does not nave a sidewalk on the west side of the street between Oak Avenue and Grand Avenue. Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue is a four-lane Major Arterial with a raised median west of Mission Road. Except for a snort segment in the eastbound direction between E't Camino Real and Mission Road, on-street parking is riot allowed. The speed lust is not posted on tl~e street in the area of the project, but is posted ai d5 miles per hour to the west of Camaritas Avenue. In the vicinity of the project area, Westborough Bculevard/Chestnut Avenue has sidewalks on both sides of the street. Arroyo Drive is a two-lane Collector with a double yellcw centerline, except for a short segment with a raised median near El Camino Real. There are Iwo pedestrian crossings with ladder-style markings between Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real. On-street parking is allowed within. the study area. On the south side of Arroyo Drive between Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real, in front of the City's municipal building, the on-street parking is angled. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Arroyo Drive has a sidewalk on both sides of the street within the study area. West of Camaritas Avenue this street is designated as a Class III bike route. Camaritas Avenue is classified as an Other Street in the City's General Plan. It is four lanes between Arroyo Drive and Westborough Road, otherwise it is two lanes. Over the four-lane section, on-street parking is allowed in the southbound direction. North of Arroyo Drive, on-street parking is allowed in both directions. The four-lane section is designated as a Class III bike route. The four-lane section does not have a posted speed limit. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street on Camaritas Avenue. Oak Avenue is a two-lane Collector vvith a double yellow centerline. It has atwo-way left-turn lane east of Commercial Avenue. It has on-stre;et parking on both sides of the street, and the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. This street is proposed to be extended to El Camino Real Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Table 4-1 identifies existing traffic volumes and capacities on streets in the vicinity of the study area. These traffic volumes are from the 1999 General Plan and therefore are significantly out of date. Existing Conditions Report Existing Traff c Conditions EZ Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 10 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ^~~ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. Table 4-1: Existin Traffic Volumes ~ El Camino Real 1 : ~ ~ North of Westborough Blvd 60,000 33,500 0.56 South of .'Vestborough Blvd 60,000 45,500 0.76 Westbornu h BivctiChestnut Ave West of W Orange Ave 40,000 36,800 G.95 South of Commercial. Ave 40,000 15,100 0.38 1`.~Iission Rd ~ West of Holly Ave 36,000 9,700 ~ 0.27 I Grand Ave Mission Rd to Chestnut Ave 18,000 9,700 0.54 Notes: V/C Ratio = Velume to Capacity ratio and is used to det,,rnine roadway level of service i source: South San Francisco Genei^al Plan, 1999 Roadway volumes and classifications are shown in Figure 4-1. Traffic counts have not been conducted in the area since 2003, when the BART station opened. Analysis conducted using those counts did not identify any intersections as def dent within the project vicinity (1410 El Camino Real -Draft TIA, 2003). That analysis did estimate that the intersection of Mission Road and Evergreen Drive would become deficient when incorporating traffic generation projections for projects to be constructed after 2003. Field Observations Observations were made of traffc conditions within the study area during a typical mid-week PM peak hour. A few intersections, particularlly along El Camino Real, were noted to become congested during peak traffic conditions. At the intersection of El Camino Peal and Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, delays were observed to be fairly high for the northbound, southbound and westbound approaches,. with substantial vehicle queuing. Westbound queues apt the closely-spaced intersection of Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue extended into the El Camino Real intersection at times, which impacted westbound thru and northbound left-turn movements and resulted in queues within the intersection. The intersection of El Camino Real and McLellan Drive had moderate congestion during the PM peak hour, with higher vehicle demand in the northbound and westbound directions. A large share of vehicles going in the northbound direction were in the far left lane in anticipation of turning left onto Hickey Boulevard towards I-280. Peak-hour congestion was not observed to be occurring on Mission Road or Arroyo Drive. Pedestrian activity was concentrated near the BART station on El Camino Real and Mission Road. El Camino High School also generated pedestrian traffic in the late afternoon along Mission Road, Evergreen Drive, Sequoia Avenue anti Holly Avenue. Existing Conditions Report Existing Traffic Conditions El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 11 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan 0 ~N ~, c~ co ro a~ Q a v~ U C c is O = N N t¢/! E "~ 4 ~ ~~ N E a a ~@ S g 0 Y ~_® Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 5.0 P~JBLlC TR~l~~P~I~T~TIOl~ Public transportation is provided by BART and the San Mateo County Transii District (SamTrans). BART connects the San Francisco Peninsula with Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, vValnut Creek, Dublin/Pleasanton and other East Bay cities via above- and below-ground heavy rail. From the projeci area, BART provides service to the nori~h to Sar_ Francisco and across the bay. BART' also provides direct access to San Francisco International Airport. SamTrans operates fixed-route bus, community-based shuttles, paratransit, and BART corrunuter shuttles within San Mateo County. A number of bus routes and shuttles operate through South San Francisco and the project vicinity. The study area is also served by Caltrair., a comm~ater rail system connecting Gilroy to San Francisco. A Caltrain station is located approximately 2 miles from the study area, just to the east of US-101 near the Grand Avenue interchange. Transfers between the Caltrain and the; BART system can occur at the Millbrae BART station. Access from the study area is provided to Caltrain via BART er a number of SamTrans bus routes. Public transportation routes, stops and stations within the project vicinity are shown in Figure 5-1. ~~4RT The South San Francisco BART station is located just to the north of the study area. Its primary drop-off area and parking garage are accessed from BART Road via El Camino Real or Mission Road. Pedestrian access is provided via El Camino Reai, Mission Road or McLellan Drive. Additional pedestrian and bicycle access is proposed via the Linear Park currently under construction. The South San Francesca BART s±ation opened in 2003 as part of the BART extension from Colma to San Francisco International Airportr'Millbrae. BART operates underground in the project vicinity; bisecting the project area. It takes 20 nninutes via BART to travel from the South San Francisco station to the Civic Center station in San Francisco and 36 niinutes via BART to travel to the 12'h Street Station in GaU•land. During the day on weekdays, northbound trains to Richmond and to Pittsburg/Bay Point both operate on 15 minute headways. On weekdays, southbound trains to Millbrae and to San Francisco International Airport both operate on 15 minute headways. In the evenings, trains run northbound to Dublin/Pleasanton instead of Richmond, also on 15 minute headways. The last northbound train leaves the station at 12 AM. On weekends, northbound trains to Dublin/Pleasanton and Pittsburg/Bay Point and southbound trains to Millbrae and San Francisco International Airport operate on 15-20 minute headways. Ridership at the South San Francisco station has more than doubled since it first opened in 2003. There was an average of 2,837 exits from the South San Francisco BART in 2008, compared to 1,198 in 2003. The most recent station counts (April t:o June 2008) show there were an average of 2,996 daily exits from the South San Francisco station. The BART station is adjoined by a large, free daily parking garage that is discussed in the parking chapter of this report. Existing Conditions Report Public Transportation El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 13 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ®~~ Kimley-Horn i and Associates, Inc. yarn i rans Bus routes in the project vicinity are operated by SamTrans. A number of SamTrans fixed bus routes and BART commuter shuttles provide local and regional service to the So»th San Francisco BART station. As a result, bus stops within or adjace~.t to the prcect area are served by multiple bus rautes. Route 122 travels between San Francisco and the Seuth San Francisco BART station, providing service to the Colma BART Station, San Francisco State University and a number of retail and medical centers along the way. Ors weekdays, it operates with 20 minute headways during the peak hours and apprcxiniately 30 minute headways far the rest of the day, fra,~~ 6 A~'~'I to 9 PM. It operates an weekends and holidays JVith 30 minute headways. In the project vicinity, it travels on El Cam~.no Real and Al~oya Drive. On school days the route also provides service during school start and dismissal times to Baden High School, located west cf El Camino Real and south of Westborough Boulevard. 1n 2006, Route 132 averaged 2,580 weekday riders (36.9 passengers per trip). Route 130 travels between the Daly City BART station and the intersection of Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue in Soutli San Francisco. It also provides service to the Calma BART and South San Francisco BART stations. On weekdays, it operates with 20 minute headways during the peak hours anal approximately 30 minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:30 AM to i 1 PM. It operates an Safiurdays with 30 minu±e headways and on Sundays and haLdays with 60 minute head~,~~ays. In the project vicinity it travels on Mission Road and Grand Avenue. In 2006, Raute 130 averaged 1,991 weekday riders (24.9 passengers per triip). Route 132 travels in a leap around South San Francisco. Paints on the route include the South San Francisco BART station, the Airport Ba»t_evard & Linden Avenue intersection, City Hall, the City Library and other shopping centers. On weekdays, it operates in each direction on weekdays with 30 minute headways during the peak hours and 60 minute headways for the rest of the day, frain 5:30 AM to 7:30 PM. It operates on Saturdays with 60 minute headways and does not operate an holidays or Sundays. The route travels an El Camino Real, Arroyo Drive, Camaritas Avenue, and West Orange Avenue within the project area. It also aperates two morning busses and one afternoon bias on school days only that provide service to Buri Buri Elementary School and the surrounding neighborhood west of El Camino Real, north of Westborough Boulevard. In 2006, Route 132 averaged 452 weekday riders (10.5 passengers per trip). Route 133 travels between the South San Francisco BART station and the intersection of Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue. It also stops at the Serramonte Shopping Center, the Tanforan Shopping Center and the San Bruno BART statiion. On weekdays, it operates with 30 minute headways during the peak hours and 60 minute headways for the rest of the day, from 6 AM to 6:30 PM. On Saturdays it operates with 60 minute headways and does not operate on holidays or Sundays. The route travels on El Camino Real, Camaritas Avenue and West Orange Avenue with the project vicinity. It also operates one morning and one afternoon bus on school days only that provides service to Alta Loma Junior High School. In 2006, Route 133 averaged 771 weekday riders (19.3 passengers per trip). Route 390 travels between Daly City BART station and the Palo Alto Caltrain station via El Camino Real. Along the route it connects with the South San Francisco BART station, the Millbrae Intermodal Station, and various Caltrain stations„ regional shopping centers and hospitals in the cities of Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San .Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto. On weekdays, it operates with 30 minute headways Existing Conditions Report Public Transportation El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 14 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ~~~ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. during the peak hours and 60 minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:30 AM to 11:30 PM. It operates with 30 minute headways except late evening on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. This route and Route 391 experience the highest ridership demand on the SamTrans system. In 2006, Route 390 averaged 6,288 weekday riders (87.3 passengers per trip). Route 391 travels between Daly City and Redwood City via El Camino Real. During peak periods on weekdays it continues to the north to the intersection of Mission S±reet & 15` Street in downtown San Francisco, providing access to the San Francisco Ti~ar~sbay Terminal. It provides service to the Colma BART station, the South San Franci~sce BART station, the San Bruno BART station, the Millbrae Intermodal Station and various Caltran stations, regional shopping cer_ters and hospitals in the cities of Daiv City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City. On weekdays, it operates with 30 minute headways trLr~~~gho»t the day, from 4 AM to 1 AM. It operates with 30 :minute headways except late evening on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. This route and Route 390 experience the highest ridership demand on the SamTrans system. In 2006, Route 391 averaged x,822 weekday riders (71.9 passengers per trip). Routes 35/36 provide community service from several South San Francisco neighborhoods to Evergreen Drive & Mission Road, a ~acent to the; South San Francisco BART station. They do net provide service to the project area at any point closer thar_ the BART station. This service only operates tr~ree AM loops (one via Route 35 and two via Route 36) and four PM loops (one via Route 35 and three via Route 36). The service is only provided on school days.. In 2006, Route 35 averaged 79 Y.~eekday riders (19.9 passengers per trip) and Route 36 averaged i03 weekday riders (17.2 passengers per trip). Paratransit Service In addition, SamTrans operates demand-responsive paratransit service within the project area. Future Plans According to its Short Range Transit Flan (adopted January 2008), SamTrans is considering the provision of express service on El Camino Real to supplement Routes 390 and 391 but has not yet determined that this service is economically feasible. In addition, SamTrans has considered reducing the headways of bus service on El Camino Real (provided by Routes 390 and 391) from 15-minutes to 10-minutes. Existing Conditions Report Public Transportation EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific IS November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan a c c~ J_ C ca a U ~. U G. ca L Q ++ t U_ ~a ~' N O ~u Z ~, ti~ U N O Q. C O ;«:. O Q C U yC N C ((~ O u 2 iQ/y$, E '~ ~ ~ ,I i. 5 e e 8 S 5 Y ®~ ^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. ~i~ BICYCLE !4nl~ ~~~~ST[~~~N TR~4t~~~PQ~T~TI~!~ BiKe:~~u~/s Bicycle facilities are classified either as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Class I facilities are paved paths separated from the roadway. Class II facilities are bike lanes striped on the roadway and include associated signage. Class III facilities are bike routes along roadways that are designated by signs only and may or may not include additional pavement width ire the roadway. Bikeways in the study area are mostly limited to on-street, non-demarcated bicycle routes. E1 Camino Real is designated a Class III bike route throughout its extents within the City of South San. Francisco. Grand Avenue is designated a Class III bike route from Mission Road to Chestnut Avenue. `vJestborou~h Boulevard has Class II bike lams from Junipero Serra Boulevard, just east of I-280, to Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue. East of Camaritas Avenue, Westborough Boulevard is designated a Class III bike route, which continues on Chestnut Avenue until the street terminates at Hillside Boulevard. A Class III bike route exists on West Orange Avenue which continues on Camaritas Avenue north of Westborough Boulevard before turning; west onto Arroyo Drive. A Class i bike path is currently under construction from the San Bruno BART Station to the South San Francisco BART station. The path will be built within the BART easement, under which runs the BART track. This bike path, to be called Centennial Way, will be a part of the Linear Park, described in greater detail in Chapter e. This project was identified in both the City's General Tian and the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan. The Class I bike path will establish the northern section of the North-South Bikeway that is planned to run the length of San Mateo County. Bicycle trails in the project vicinity are; shown in Figure 5-? . Pedestrian llllobiiity Most roads within the study area have pedestrian sidewai_ks and are ADA accessible'. All signalized intersections in the area have pedestrian crossings at all or most approaches with pedestrian signals and pushbuttons. There are currently no walking trails within the vicinity of the project area, although the Centennial Way trail will be a mull:i-use bicycle and pedestrian path through the study area when completed. There are a few gaps within the sidewalk network in the vicinity of the project area. Most prominently is the lack of a sidewalk on the west side of El Camino Real from BART Road to just north of Arroyo Drive. This is identified and an improvement is recommended by the City's El Camino Real Master Plan, prepared in 2006. There is also a lack of a sidewalk on the west side of Mission Road from approximately Oak Avenue to Grand. Avenue. The need for this walkway may be reduced with the construction of the Linear Park, although with the development of parcels on the west side of Mission Road and the extension of Oak Avenue;, there may be a need for a sidewalk adjacent to the roadway. There are limited pedestrian crossing I-oints of El Camino Real. Only one crosswalk is provided between BART Road and Arroyo Drive, at the Kaiser Hospital Driveway. The lack of marked crosswalks results ' Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Existing Conditions Report Bicycle and Pedestrian El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 17 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. in a number of illegal pedestrian crossings, particularly rear Arroyo Drive, according to the El Camino Real Master Pian. The crosswalk at 1:he Kaiser Hospital Driveway is heavily used to access the bus stop on the west side of El Camino Real. Access from the Buri Buri neighborhood, located west of El Camino Real, to the study area is limited to Arroyo Drive and a stairway opposite; the BART road due to steep grades between the neighborhood and El Camino Real. Access from the east side of Mission Road to the s±~ady area is currently limited to Chestnut Avenue and a pedestrian bridge near Oak Avenue to Antoinette Lars uue to the Colm~a Creek channel cutting through the study area.. Existing Conditions Report Bicycle and Pedestrian El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 18 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan N 0 ~u i a .c U v.r U N O ~, ~_ m N V) C J_ C ca a U 4= U d Q. c6 Q C ~-+ N L U_ a~ 0 c .~ ca U Q. rn C 'm rn c Y 0 .~ u`. c t «~ 0 0 lU ui v 0 a~ E ~ o ~~ d ~ -o ~~ ~~ ~ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. 7.~ P~4~~1~!~ Supply and Demand The area around the project vicinity has two parking gur~.gons and several large privately-owned surface parking lots serving sever?1 high parking demand generators in the area. There are no off-street municipal parking facilities within the study area. Existing on-street and off-street parking locations are shown in Figure 7-1. Located to the north of the projec± arF;a is the BART station, :which currently provides a large amount of free daily parking on-site for BART c~~stomers. The BART station h?s small surface lots in the northeast and southeast corners of the station site and athree-story garage on the southwest corner of the site. The surface lots and garage are generally lull, or nearly fiall, on weekdays. The garage was observed to have spaces available on a portion of the trop level on a Friday n:id-morning, although the garage as a whole was o.~er 95% occupied. Parking in the garage is frce, although it is limited to 24-hour in uuration, and requires validation within the paid fare area of the BART station. The 24-haur maximum is in response io people using the BART garage for long-term parking when traveling from the San Francisco international Airport. The other major parking generator is the Kaiser Permarente Medical Center, located within the s~ady area. The hospital has multiple surface parking lots, utilizes the par'xing spaces at the former mays Inn site to the north, and has a five-level parking garage. The surface lots and adjacent lot to the north are consistently fully occupied during the day and the lower levels of the parking garage were observed to be nearly fully occupied. The roof level was not fully occupied, with approximately 75 vacant spaces at the time of observation. rarlirg at each of these lots is free but for use by Kaiser Permanente staff and customers. In addition to the on-site parking spaces, a number of hospital workers and visitors use the on-street parking on El Camino Read along the hospital's frontage. The or. street parking along the project frontage is consistently fully utilized, although there were observed to be some vacant spaces to the south, closer to Arroyo Drive on earthbound El Camino Real. Public on-street parking is provided on a number of the streets within the project vicinity. El Camino Real has on-street parking in the northbound direction only in the study area, which is heavily utilized by hospital patrons and workers. Chestnut Avenue has some spaces in the eastbound direction east of El Camino Real. These spaces were observed to be fully utilized. Arroyo Drive has short-term parking in front of the City's Municipal Building. These spaces were mostly occupied, although with frequent turnover. On-street parking restricted. to two hours to the west of the Municipal Building was observed to be under-utilized. Antoinette Larie has two-hour parking northbound and unrestricted parking southbound. This parking was mostly utilized, possibly as a parking area for workers currently constructing the Linear Park. There is also parking on Del Paso Drive/El Camino Real frontage road that was approximately half-utilized. This parking is restricted to two-hour parking during the day, likely to prevent all-day hospital staff parking. The study area also contains a number of private parking lots. These include the Buri Buri Shopping Center and the Chestnut Center (Safeway Center). Neither of these shopping center parking lots was fully utilized at the time of observation. Other major uses in the study area or in the vicinity of the study area that may influence parking demand are El Camino High School, the San Mateo County Court House, Costco, and Trader Joes. None of the parking lots related to these uses were at capacity at the time of Existing Conditions Report Bicycle and Pedestrian El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 20 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ^~® Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. observation, indicating that it is not anticipated. that they were generating surplus demand that would affect parking supply within the study area. ~arking Requirements Rer Zoning Code The City's off-street parking requirements and regulations are contained in Chapter 20.74 of the City's Municipal Code (zoning). This section. discusses the City's existiing parking requirements bo±h outside of and within the Transit ViLwge Zoning District. The Transit Vi11_age Zoning District applies to all land within the Transit Village Plan, which extends up to one-half mile from the South San Francisco BART Station. The study area is fi:rther than '/4 r~,ile from the BART Station and no parcels within the study area are incorporated into the BART Transit Village Plan, although a portion of the study area is located within the ''-/2 mile rad~as. Table 7-1 s~~.mmarizes the municipal codes parking requirements applicable to the study area. Table 7-1 Select City Parking Requirements Family~Resi~ential I ~ pr fewer units per dwelling 2 to 3 spaces per unit 4 or more units per dwelling 2 spaces per unit plus 0.25 guest spaces per unit _ Single family a;:d toe,~;nhouse units 2.25 to 4.25 spaces per unit , in planned developments Commercial Vs~s . detail and General Commercial 1 space per 200 SF GFA plus one for each delivery vehicle Administrative, Business and 1 space per 300 SF GFA Professional Multi-Tenant retail/Commercial 4 to 5 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA SF =Square feet. GFA =Gross floor area. Source: South San Francisco Municipal Code The Transit Village Zoning District has the following four zoning classifications: • TV-R -Retail • TV-C -Commercial • TV-RH -High Density Residential • TV-RM -Medium Density RE°sidential The Transit Village Zoning District allows for a number of reductions in the citywide parking requirements, depending on the zoning classification. The code has the following criteria for parking requirements within the Transit Village: (n) Required Parking. Parking requirements below and in Chapter 20.74 may be reduced up to twenty-five percent (25%) in TV District, with approval of a use permit. Additional reduction of parking requirements maybe granted for shared parking, with approval of a use permit. Existing Conditions Report Bicycle and Pedestrian El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 21 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ®® Kimiey-Horn ® and Associates, Inc. (1) P•To off-street parking is required for allowable commercial uses occupying less than fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. (2) Qn-street parking along a ;parcel's corresponding frontage lines shall be counted towards the parking requirerr~ents. (3) In the TV-R and T'V-C sub-districts, one space per Three hundred (~00) gross square feet shall be required. (4) In the TV-RM sub--district; one covered space per uni± shall be required and up to two spaces per unit allowed. (5) Ir. the TV-RH sub-district, be~ween 1.0 and 1.75 spaces per unit shah be required, depending on provisio~a of access to transit facilities. The above regulations allow for a substantial reel>>ction in parU~ng requirements for 'coth residential and conunerci~l uses within the Transit Village area. Existing Conditions Report Bicycle and Pedestrian El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 22 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ~. .:. r~ ~,~. -. Yom` . "`,~/ / ~/ l o-~ G„j ~ V W.~7 `~/' .- 1 ,-. i. ~~~ ~~ ~- ~ _ ~ ~~~y~J/~~~ a 0 ~y z ~~~~ ~~.~~ ~- . ~~~`~ ~.. ~ \~ ~( ~,~; ~ ~-_ ~' 5 1' ~buelg..~ ~~<. i ti ~~ \~ J~ ~ ., , ~~ , ~a ~- ~ ~~~ o ter: ~~\ ~~ ~~ ~~ u y ..,' ~o ~: . ':- ,~ c ;' y. ~ • ~ u' Y C / ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ Y a m ,,, ` v a ° t ~' o. > a .' ~ 3 °; .~ + ~; ' ~ ~~ ~ v .? ~ ¢ a ~ O ¢ '~ C d C1 ~ J ~ c 0 as ~ o ~ J ~ _' c~ r~ VJ a m c 0 c .~ u a`~ c m o '~ x~ a~i ~ ~ g © Y ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. 8v0 P~E00!®US PLAlVNilVG l3GCUMElVTSiIPL~N!`JE~ lMPROVEIiiIElVTS Several relevant planning documents have been completed that consider lard use and transportation improvements in the study area. Some improvements contained in these plans are already under construction or have been constructed; others will be useful in guiding the preparation of the Specific Plan. Grand Bo~!ievard initiative 'The Grand Boulevard Initiative is a collaboration of 19 cities, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties attempting to improve the performance, safety and aesthetics of El Camino Reai along its route from the San Francisco City Limits to San Jose. The Initiative Task Force meets quarterly to discuss the corridor vision and coordinate development grid improvement projects. In October 2006, the Grand Boulevard Initiative released an Existing Cornditiions Report which disc~zssed the existing demographics, lard use, transportation infras±ructure and identity along the corridor. The existing conditions analysis looked at the corridor, as well as a '/a mile buffer on either side of the roadway. The existing conditions analysis contained a substantial ar~.ount of information about the existing corridor as a whole, but the Initiative has yet to produce any documents that will guide the transportation elements of this Specific Plan. However, the Grand Boulevard initiative, in conjunction with SamTrans and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), has initiated aMulti-Modal Corridor Study for El Camuno Real. This study includes the preparation of development prototypes and design guidelines for the transportation dements of the state highway. The design guidelines are being prepared in coordination with Caltrans and are intended to expedite the state approval process by determining acceptable ranges of street dimensions, and identify design elements that can be approved through the design :,xception process. EI Camino Real Master Plan (2006) The South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (July 2006) analyzed the nearly three-mile stretch of SR-82 within the City of South Sart Francisco. The document analyzed existing conditions, identified opportunities for improvements, prepared concept plans, developed streetscape standards, and considered costs and funding sources. A few of the recommendations contained in the Master Plan are directly relevant to the project. Two of the El. Camino :Real segments analyzed in the report lie within the study area, the Kaiser Hospital Area segment and the Buri-Burt Center Area segment. Opportunities noted for the Kaiser Hospital Area segment include extending the sidewalk on the west side of the street, enhancing the median to improve aesthetics .and prevent midblock crossings, and improving the hospital frontage. The report noted that hillside slopes acid existing street light infrastructure and other utilities may result in high costs for the sidewalk extension. Over the Buri-Buri Center Area segment, opportunities noted include landscaping improvements, median barriers to prevent midblock crossings, enhancing pedestrian safety, and connection to the Centennial Way Trail project. The report noted limited existing building setbacks and the costly nature of utility relocation as constraints in the area. The report had the following specific infrastructure improvements on El Camino Real within the project area: • Provide a new 8 feet sidewalk on the west side from the Greenridge stairs to Arroyo Drive with street trees planted 25 feet on center. This improvement will require a retaining wall. South of Existing Conditions Report Previous Planning Documents/Planned Improvements El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 24 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ^~^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. Arroyo Drive, plant street trees 30 feet on center in existing sidewalk. From Westborough Boulevard to Southwood Drive, widen the sidewalk to 10 feet. • Widen the sidewalk on the east: side of El Camino Real south of B ART Road to the Kaiser north driveway to 10 feet with street trees planted 25 feet on center. • Plant trees 2~'-30' on center in median on El Camino Real. • Provide median pedestrian barrier to prevent mid-block pedestrian crossings on El Camino Real between ti3e Kaiser north driveway and Arroyo Drive. Also install pedestrian barrier bet~Leen Chestnut Avenue and Country Club Drive. • Remc :~~ or.-street parking from the BA.R T Station to the north entrance. of Kaiser to allow for a wider sidewalk and street trees. • Provide curb bulb-outs at the :Kaiser Hospital crosswalk to reduce crossing length and improve fedestrian safety at th:~ bus stop. • Irstail colored crosswalk at BART Road, Kaiser Driveways, Arroyo Road aild Chestnut Avenue. • Install traffic signal at Southwood Drive/ls` Avenue to improve pedestrian access and add curb bulb-outs at intersection. From this intersection it is about 1,000 feet north or south to the nearest crosswalk at a signal. • Encourage lot re~orsolidation. Improvements, including the widening of sidewalks and the provision of pop-outs at Intersections, particularly across El Camino Real and Mission Road, apply General Plar_ Transportation Elemera policy 4.3-I-7, which strives to improve pedestrian connections between rail stations and surrounding areas. EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment (2000) The study area lies within the El Camino Redevelopment Area. Adopted in 2000, the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment updated the Rede~~elopr~~ert Plan to be consistent with the General Plan adopted iri 1399. The Redevelopment: Project Area is approximately bounded by Hickey Boulevard, El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Mission Road. The Environmental Impact Report for the El Camino Real Redevelopment Area identified several impacts that resulted from the Plan Amendment. The impacts included a significant level of service (LOS) impact to the El Camino ReaUWestborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection in the PM peak hour. The EIR did not find any feasible improvements within the existing curb-to-curb width for the approaches at the intersection. Alternatively, it suggested adding a southbound right turn lane on El Camino Real, which has since been constructed, and extending Oak Avenue from its current terminus at Mission Road to the El Camino Real /Arroyo Drive intersection. The report also stated that a signal at the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive/BART Access intersection was warranted. This signal will be implemented in the near term. It further warranted the installation of a signal at the Mission Road /Grand Avenue intersection. The EIIt identified measures to improve safety on El Camino Real, including minimizing the number of driveways serving new developments and providiing right-turn deceleration areas on the El Camino Real approaches to new major driveways. BART Transit Village Plan (2001) The BART Transit Village Plan, adopted in 2001, outlines zoning district standards and design guidelines for the area within %2 mile of the South San Francisco BART station. The BART Transit Village Plan Existing Conditions Report Previous Planning Documents/Planned Improvements El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 2S November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan ~~^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. does not include any of the parcels included in the Specific Plan area, even though a portion of the study area lies between %4 and''/2 mile from t:fse BART station. The policies included in the Transit Village Plan include "creating a pedestrian oriented `main street' district along McLellan Drive", developing a linear park along ±he BART right-of--way with a direct connection to the BART station. and establishing "Mission Road as a significant street and community connection that also buffers the adjacent neighborhood from Transit Village activity and traffic". The plan defined Ei Camino Real and a portior_ of Hickey Boulevard as regional streets, r'rand Avenue, Mission Road, and McLellan Drive as local streets, and Evergreen Drive, Sequoia Avenue, and Holly Avenue as neighborhood streets. The plan suggests adding and widening sidewalks, reducing the speed limit, adding pedestrian lighting, street trees, clearly marked ar~d signalized pedestrian crossings, striped or signed bike lanes, and on-street parkking on the regional streets. The plan says that local streets are net intended to provide the most efficient ;route for vehicles alone. It suggests not extending Mission Road to the south to South Linden Avenue to prevent it from carrying regional traffic currently oil El Camino Real. For El Camino Real, the Transit Village Plan suggests placing development on minimum setback line, with sidewalks at least 10 feet wide anal with trees 30 feet on center or closer. it suggests the use of street parking as a pedestrian buffer and the: use of lighting, street trees and sidewalk signage to er~riance that buffer. Medians should be landscaped with trees. For Mission Road, the plan envisions. Mission Road as apedestrian-oriented street ~x~ith 10 foot sidewalks anal street trees, wi±h Higher than existing density for residential and commercial uses. It suggests implementing parallel parking on orie or both sides of the street where feasible. It also suggests eru'~ancing crosswalks to the Linear Park with special paving and/or signage. B~-RT Linear Park Master Plan X003 The BART Linear Park Master Plan includes illustrative drawings and concepts that were used to design the currently under-construction Linear Park. The Master Plan split trio Linear Park, stretching from the South San Francisco BART station to the San Bruno BART station, into seven sections. For each section, it outlines existing conditions and the proposed development program. Sections 5, 6 and 7 are in the study area. See Figures 8-1 and 8-2 fir the Master Plan illustrative concept drawings of the Linear Park. The Linear Park approaches Chestnut Avenue from the south near Antoinette Lane. An access point to the trail will be built from-the end of :lst Street, east of El Camino Real. There is a pedestrian connection from the Chestnut Center to the park at the southwest corner of that center. The bike path crosses Chestnut Avenue at the El Camino F:eal intersection and follows El Camino Real for a short distance before shifting to the east just south of~ the Arroyo Drive intersection. The Master Plan suggests removing on-street parking on El Camino Real. to provide a sidewalk, pathway, and buffer along this stretch of roadway. The bike path will go under the Oak Avenue extension a little to the east of where the extension will connect with the Arroyo Drive / El Camino Real intersection. The existing trail between Mission Road and the Colma Creek channel, north of Chestnut Avenue, will be expanded to become amulti-use trail. The Linear Park and the path on. the west side of Mission Road converge after the bike path bridges over the Colma Creek channel. The. Linear Park continues along the eastern edge of the creek, with an access point provided to the Kaiser Hospital via a bridge over the creek and an access point to Mission Road near Sequoia Avenue.. The bike path then terminates at BART Road at the South San Francisco BART station. The project is currently under construction. Existing Conditions Report Previous Planning Documents/Planned Improveme~zts El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 26 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan 0 N i N~'~ O .~ Q +,. Q U C O U o S m .a N r a° 8 J ~_~ 8 Y N O u Z f0 a v +~ ~o v J ~--" Q 00 O V N_ U ~O LL N v. O ~. .~ O ~-.~ n Q~ U C O u U C ~ ~ S d ~ ~ ~ ~ a" ~_R~ a F Y ®~ ^ Kinney-Horn ® and Associates, Inc. Oak Avenue Ex#ension Design of the Oak Avenue extension from Mission R Lad to El Camino Real is currently ;:r~derway. Oak Avenue will intersect El Camino Real at the existing Arroyo Drive intersection. The extension is currently proposed to be fo~_~r lanes and will bridge aver Colma Creek and the Lir~~ar Park bikeway. It will intersect Antoinette Lune, althouglh as cul-rei~tly proposed, the movFments will be restricted to right- turn only to, from Artaineite Lane. ThE; alignment of the proposed extension is shown in Figure 8-3. K:\TPTO\097734000\Docu~,.ents`Wx;stirg Corditiens Report l 1-10-08.uucx Existing Conditions Report Previous Planning Documents/Planned Improvements EZ Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 29 November 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan i i 1 4 I ~G: 1 ~3~ ~ II I I i_ 7D1 ~ I~INI N I ! I I I ' 1 I!~~ ('.~ I I ~ I I i ~ I Q ~ 1 I I ' ~~ ~ I _~ ~ I i ;~ i I ' ~ i vu ~ I 1 ~ n~ . ) (, t~o IC I / ~ "' I ~~ {+o dx ~~ ~~ i~~ ' ~ ~ I ' °~~ ` ~ / jn ~ `, ~ 00 ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ i ~-_`, , i i k \ /~ °°\ ~ i /~ ~ ~t ~ 1 g~•GG t. _- - _ ~ f _--- -- I n, ~ 'N1 3~13N1O1Nb -___- -- I --- _ T.. A4~p.; -- I I ;' _ jl I~ a u w 0 0 z ~, . \\ / '~ J l y ~ ~ f ~ ~1.N. ~. ~ ', ,~ m¢ ~ 1,90 ' 1 ~ ~_ l/ C v N . -. - ~ jy I I ~I ~ Ih < ~' ( C O Y m ~ _.1 ;_ ._..~ C N ~ ~ \ bG: ~ - m C t . . - .-i-' _ - - ~A1- ~ ' ~ f E~ CAMS a 7 O In M '" C W N W i ._~ _~ Q ~ ~ .~ C W Q~ C C Q Y c E~ o ~~ E "~ ~ R No 5 e 0 8 0 Y ~. Infrastructure Existing c~A~cy.~ Existing Conditions 14epo~t ~o~ ~u~lic Utilitics EI Camino Real/chestnut Ares Land ~Jse Plan and Specific Plan Q~tober 2008 Revised Jure 2JC9 Prepared for: City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave South San Francisco, CA 94083 Project No. 097734000 ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. Ta~ie of Contents ................. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................~.._:.........................:. 2.0 FLOOD CONTROL AND STORM DRAINAGE .~ ..:.......................... 2 FLOOD CoNTROL ........................................................................................ 2 STORM llRAINAGE ........... ............................................................................ 2 STORM WATER TREATMENT ....................................................................... 2 3.0 WASTE WATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT .::.:............... ~+ ~~`JASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM .......................................................... 4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY .......................................... . 4 4.0 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM .......................... i ~vVATER SUPFLY .......................................................................................... 7 s.0 SOLID `'FdASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................. 6 6.0 POWER SUPPLY - EI~ECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS..........6 '! .Q lN~R~~UCTtQN The El Camino ReaUChestnut Area. Specific Plan area is shiated in an existing developed section of the City of South San Francisco and as such the infrastructure needed to provide public utilities and services is already in place. This existing conditions analysis focuses on public utilities including storm drainage, waste water, domestic water, solid was±e disposal and ;,over supply. '$~. s. SAN FRANCISCO BART STATION ~~ PROJECT 3lTE o ~~ SPECIFIC PLAN a:a ~w~ ~ C>b~ ~ EL CAMlNO REA!lCHESTNUT AREA PROJECT SI'T'E AND VICINITY su+ unTto cou-rtY o~rn+ ar, ate: ~ ocroe~ a~ro~ ~: ~: KGt -~ wn34ooo I„IC. LOC. ul~at++u oarerrs/soea~e alai Existing Conditions Report Introduction EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 1 October 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan Revised June 2009 2.0 FLOOD CONTROL AND STORM DRAINAGE Flood Control Colma Creek which runs through the Plan Area is channelized and handles much of the City's stormwater flows and all of the Plan Area surface water run-off. Flood control and maintenance of stream channel improvements is the responsibility of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (SPvYCFCD). Downstream of the Plan Area, limited, localized flooding adjacent to the C~lma Creek channel has occurred in the past duri ng periods of heavy rainfall. however, recent improvements by the SMCFCD as part of a larger Colma Creek Improvement Project have increased capacity and the channel now is able to contain the 50 year recurrence interval storm, plus t~=/o fcct of free board. The Flood Insurance Rate Map,(FII~lI~) which shows areas of fload hazard zones as designated by the Federal Emergency ManageriYent Agency (FEMA) is being updated to reflect the reduced area of the 1 GO year floodplain as a result of the Colma Creek Improvements. The previous FIRM reflected areas s~~:bject to ponding during a lu0 year storm, ?one AII, between Mission Road and Colma Creek, downstream of the Plan Area. Storm Drainage Within the Specific Plan Area, the ;Majority of the storm water run-off is conveyed to a ne ~•/ork of drain islets and pipes that discharge to the Colma Creek. Because the Pian Area is largely developed with impermeable surfac;es and the native soils are typically clays with low permeability, there is likely very little ground infiltratio~i. Tile storm drain system as mapped by the City is shown in Figure 2.1. No new facilities are currently planned by the City and there are no areas of known deficiencies. Storm Water Treatment Surface water run-off in urbanized area is now subject to pollution control before discharge into a water body. This run-off is regulated through the National Poll~atar.± Discharge Elimination System permit process which is administered through the State ~JVater Resources Control Board. In response to the new regulations the City has developed a Storm Water Management Plan and joined the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. The City has selected a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which have been implemented for City owned drain inlets and will be required for all new development or redevelopment to reduce contaminants from entering the City's storm water system. Any new construction projects would require localized improvements to collect run-off as well as incorporate storm water quality treatment provisions, BMPs, in accordance with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Existing Conditions Report Flood Control and Storm Drainage EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 2 October 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan Revised June 2009 Figure 2.1: Storm Drain System Et Camino RPaI/Chestnut Area Specific Plan/Land Use Plan ___~._ lI _ F I I ~~`` II i~ Avenue __ _ _ _._- ~~. ._. ,_ V. it ~ ~ ; . .~~ ,.,- -~ i i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~F _--_ ___----__-__- ___ -___ _--_-_ ___ _~.___.__ -5 Figure 2.1 z. '~ K1n118y-Hom Exist(ng Storm Drain '= ~ ~ ___ and Associates, Inc. -~, ~ Sire _ _ Existing Conditions Report Flood Control and Storm Drainage El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 3 October 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan Revised June 2009 3.0 WASTE WATER C~LLE~Tl~N ANp TREAT!!~lENT Waste V'Jater Collection System The Ciiy of So~lth San Francisco owns and maintains the wastewater collection system. The network of sanitary sewer pipes that: services the -Plan Area is shown in Figure 3.1. Current capacity of the collection system is ;adequate to serve the existing users. According to ±he public works department there are no knov~rn areas of de riency; limited capacity or planned upgrades to the system ±o serve the existing users in the Plan Area. In wv7, a new 18-inch sewer line was constn:cted in the location of the proposed alignment of the Oak Avenue extension. The City has adopted a Sewer Master Plan for future capital improvements. Waste':iiater i reatment slant Capacity The wastewater treatment p1_ant, which is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, has sufficient capacity to handle existing conditions and planned growth. A major upgrade and plant expansion was completed approximately 6 years ago. The waste water of both cities is treated along with v/astewater mom the Town of Colma and a portion of Daly City. Discharge from the treatment plant is monitored for compliance with state and federal mandates for water quality control. Existing Conditions Report .Waste Water Collection El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 4 October 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan Revised June 2009 fr'igure 3.1: R'aste Water Collection 3ystern Existing Conditions Report Waste Water Collection EZ Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 5 October 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan Revised/une 2009 Et Lamino ReaUC~iestnut Area Specific Nlan/Land Use Flan ' Se~ua;ia Ave ~p .__ t I _ s-.--.__ ~ r -~ _. ~~.~~~ ~ ~ ~~ x C ~h~ Y iq _ i' ~~~ ~, ~8- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. FIGURE 3.1 Existing Sanitary Sewer Not to Scale Existing Conditions Report Waste Water Collection El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 6 October 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan Revised June 2009 4.0 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SVSTEIIiI Water Supply Potable water supply for the Plan Area is provided by Cal Water Service Company Peninsula District (Cal Water). Cal 'vVater is contracted with the San Francisco `JVater Departmeni and their allocation is sufficient to provide fear planned future growth as projected in the updated General Plan. Although rr-iucl~ of California is in a drought, and some agencies are encouraging or mandating water conservation, cui-rer_tly there are no allocation restrictions for the City of South San Francisco. The distribution network of water supply lines within the plan area consists primarily of 8", 1_ ~" and l b" pipelines within the streets. Cal Water does not release water system plans for public review. 5.0 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The City of South San Francisco contracts with Scavenger Company to collect solid waste from homes and businesses. The Scavenger Company operates a materials recovery facility and transfer station (MRF/TS) where trash is sorted. Materials that cannot be recycled are transferred to a landfill owned by Browning-Ferris Industries, the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill located near Haif ivloon Bay. The IVII~F/ T S and the landfill 'have available capacity. 6.0 P0IPJER SUPPLY - ELECTRIDITY AND NATURAL GAS Pacific Gas and Electric Company operates and maintains the distribution facilities for power supply including gas and electric transmissiort facilities. There are transformers and supply lines within the Plan Area that do impact planning for future land uses. These facilities will need to be relocated or future development will accommodate them in their existing location. Existing Conditions Report Public Utilities El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Specific 7 October 2008 Plan/Land Use Plan Revised June 2009 A4 EnvironmentaCExisting Setting ~VLemorandum (~t 1~.,! !~Y OF SOUTH Ar•! R/~NClSCC.~ EL ~A,MlN(~ ~E:AL ~ F-~EST~~UT f~~Ea ~PE~IFI~ ~L~l~! Exiting Setting Memorandum ~- ,, I~~f`~:~~~r~. November 2008 N1cLarand, Vasquez, Emsiek & Partners .350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94612 ,{ -- ~:~~ . EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM CI I Y OF :SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EL CAMINO REAL I CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN T.~IcLarand, Vasquez, Emsiek & Partners 3.`i0 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94612 Lamphier-Gregory November 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER NUIl~lBER PAGE INTP.ODUCTlON ............. ..................................................................................1 2 LOCATION AND LAND IJSE Location ..........................................................................................................................2 Land ?~e .........................................................................................................................2 3 LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES South San Francisco General Plan .................................................................................6 El Camine Real Master Plan ..........................................................................................7 El Camino Corridor Redevr;iopment Plan .....................................................................7 South San Francisco BART' Transit Village Plan ..........................................................8 South San Francisco BART' Linear Park Master Plan ...................................................8 4 INFRASTRUCTURE Water ....................... .....................................................................................................10 Wastewater ...................................................................................................................11 Storm Drainage ............................................................................................................12 Solid Waste ..................................................................................................................13 5 PUBLIC SERVICES Parks and Open Space.......,. ..........................................................................................15 Schools .........................................................................................................................15 Fire Protection ..............................................................................................................17 Police ...........................................................................................................................18 6 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Air Quality ...................................................................................................................19 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................21 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................22 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................24 Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................26 7 REFERENCES Sources .........................................................................................................................28 Report Preparers ...........................................................................................................29 EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECil=1C PLAN EXISTING SETT{NG MEMORANDUM LIST OF FIGURES EiGURE NUii~ii3ER PAG E Project Location and `Jicinity ......................................................................................4 Specific Pian ~rea ........................................................:..............................................5 EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFLC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 1 IR~TRODUCTION This report compiles information from various City of San Francisco planning documents to establish the existing environmental setting for the proposed Specific Plan Area. The information contained in this report will establish the exis±ing environmental setting for use in a subsequent environmental analysis document to be prepared for this Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.). The City of Souih San Francisco planning documents utilized far this report include the City aj South San Francisco General Plan (1999), the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelop~~Pnt Plan Amendment 0000), and various oth er iYlaster Plan, Specific Plan and CEQA docun~.ents prepared for the City that apply to the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Area. A. description of the planning documents utilized in this memo is provided in Section 3, Land Use Pi'ane and Policies. Additionally, a full last of references is provided at the end of this document. EL CAMINO REAL ~ CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 2 LOCATION AND LANG USE LOCATION The Chestnut area planning area is approximately 55 acres in size and located in the northerly portion of the City of South San Francisco in the vicinity of El Camino Real and the South San Francisco BART station. The area is oriented on anorthwest-to-southeast axis; the northeast boundary is roughly defined by Mission Road, the southwest boundary is El Camino Real (SR 82), the northwest boundary is 1256 Mission Road, across from ±he B ART station, and the southeast boundary includes the Chestnut Shopping Center along Chestnut Avenue, and extends southeast on El Camino Real to First Street to include the parcels between El Camino Real and A Street. The Project area is located approximately 1.5 miles west of US Hwy O1 and 1.12 miles east of Interstate 280 (Junipero Sera ~ reeway). Access to the site from US Hwy 101 is provided via Grand Avenue, which: intersects with Chestnut Avenue. A ccess to the site from I- 280 is provided via Hickey Blvd, which connects to El Camino Real. The Project location and vicinity is shown in Figure 1, and the proposed Specific Plan Area is shown on Figure 2. LAND USE CURRENT LAND USE Land uses in the Project area include a somewhat disjointed mixture of commerciaUoffice uses, high-density residential uses, automotive repair shops, vacant parcels, a former auto dealership, two shopping centers, and the City's Municipal Services Building. Kaiser Hospital comprises perhaps the most prominent use, occupying approximately 15 acres roughly in the center of the Project area. Another prominent feature of the Project area is the South San Francisco BART Linear Park, which is currently un<ier construction. Within the City of South San Francisco, the BART Linear Park follows the 2.85-mile BART right-of--way between the South San Francisco BART station and the San Bruno BART station. The Project area encompasses approximately nine-tenths of a mile of the Linear Park alignment. Colma Creek, a regionally significant water body and flood control facility, is also within the Project area. Proceeding southeast from the South San Francisco BART station, the Linear Park runs adjacent to Colma Creek for approximately four-tenths of a mile before branching off toward the southeast to continue along the BART right-of--way. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM The South San Francisco General Plan (i 999) identifies a range of land use designations within the Project area, including High Density Residential, Community Commercial, Office, Public and Park and Recreation. l ADJACENT LAND USES According to the South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element the Project area is located primarily wiihin the El Ca~~ino planning sub-area with the southern portion also extending slightly into the Orange Park planning sub-area.2 West of the Project area is the Winston-Serra planning sub-area,'South San Francisco's largest residential neighborhood mainly developed with single-family homes, which includes the Winston-Serra, Buri Buri, and Promenade subdivisions. South of the Project Krea is the Avalon planning sub-area, which includes the Avalon, Southwood and Brentwood single-family neighborhoods; and the California Golf and Country Club, which is in unincorporated San Mateo County. East-southeast of the Project area is the Orange Park planning sub-area. The Orange Park piamiiiig sub-area is located approximately in the center of the City. Housing in the Orange Park sub-area is primarily singie- family, comprised of the Town of Baden; Mayfair Village and Francisco Terrace neigh'orhoods. The Orange Park sub-area also includes public services inchading Orange Memorial Park, the City's Corporation Yard and South San Francisco High School. North of the Project area is the Sunshine Gardens planning sub-area, which includes the Sunshine Gardens subdivision. Within this area, multi-family housing is concentrated between Chestnut Avenue and Wiliow Avenue. Sunshine Gardens also includes the single-family residential developments of Chestnut Estates and Heather Heights. Public facilil:ies include Sunshine Garden School and El Camino High School. ' City of South San Francisco, South San Franczsco General Plan, Figure 2-1, 1999, p. 31. z Ibid., Figure 2-6, p. 46. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM aorYk ,NZpa ~., Falfield , Pemvma ~ - ~ SC un H lol VAllel~ .evv. ,p Novato I PI[uburg A tlwn ' fllchmond ~COncord ~ I ~WII Valley ~ - ~~ Project' \~ Location I , San Francisco ~- l seo_/ I . Hayward ~uvermore I I PazlRU \ I jy, ion Mat(ro .FrPmnnt ~~ ~ ~ ~ r \\~ P wood\..t -~ - ii U U ~MOPhu N ., _, .~.~5~ 1 ~ " ~ 'I r i 1 .~ ~~ ~ _ r~~"' ~. o'y4v~ ~ I `t _ ~ f r ; j ~ f '~ `~' ~' ~ o~y6+~ ~~ ~ ~rn~~ li Y' ~1 ~ 'y±~.€~tr v' ' lryt ~z~ ~~ ~~'I ~ ~~ake Mmec`P r~ ~ ~~i ~~ x{ ~ 1.2 I ~' ~I I ~i t~t le ' ~~ llhomton ~ .~_~Cof"~'~7. a~ ' '~ liLt ~ / r ~ ''~' `~ Ji:t,_ 's t +' ~~~35 1 l ~F'~' ~ 1 .C ... s_ j ~ pp Ste¢e eeftl _ . ~ ~ f r ~ , i~ ,-~ ~ r 'r, 'r _ ~. ,; f+ iM ri^ BtoadrrloOf ~ °II~Lf 1LG11 7~ (, I, d ~; ' + - ~ tt ffpu ~ E SeiC gF~i f i ~¢ ~ I ~ '~.s, _ r~ 7 ll~LU 1J I.l~t= ) ~`~~' ~~~ yf ~ _ I _, ~+ ~ E / 7 ~4 ~` -. S ~ ~ ~ L ~ r r ~~.I: ~~ ~v~Nf l 1~~~+a' S~~".~'. ~ _ ~ BflSbilflq~ { ~ - ~ ~ c+6vef l ,". Mt StBtetBnrl ~ . `( ,_I ,~ Daly Crtyr- i ~'`~, }-~ 'b~ Memorwl P:rx a u : C,ourr~ Perk '. . r` r ~~ ~~ ~....1 i3 ~i~r ~- wogdxro V - ; s"~ _ ;"` ~ ~`~ ~ ` ~~ ~•: ~-~r a 'I (t ~i - 1 ~e~,a,rr o~ ?> ;`~. - rYv r~ ~~ a~'~d ~; v~r ~r ~ ; r 1 i J`' ~ r a; 1.` I Alfa ~ ~ ,• / o, y~ ~-~ ~~ ,k .`' y ,I,-''';~ itockP,atk ,.~ ~ ;~Senam«we~, Colma FioPy Cross,: jpecific Plan I ` ` ~ Cmbir Cyprecc Lawn ~~°ry,~~. ?: ~ ~ ,.,~ ~ --- i T : ~ Cemet6ry ~ i'i ~G; , Area ~ s.:_..-s~3L+ U~\~ .~~. ~t.) 4 ~"'~.. ~•ti'vr /%), JI Cf t'" *1 ,~~ i ~~ ~"bf'.gh~f ,t...' ~. f r 1 ~ r j ~ ~ tr~. ~ I 'ti\ 1~e~F- I \n t v47:1 ~ )~ Gi jr, C a,CN~ ~< ~~~ Park ,, - ~ ~I \t c~~!lltr ~ .: d o4'I ~1 o I lF~.~, hf ~ t v~/itlr6~'~w .._ I~ ~ ~t -~ I] '.:~ d r~-l, erl~sr ~4 -. c-C! GfT .r nr+.~ ,~ ~~ ¢ }. r '_ I'~~~ 3i..~jL V s ~ l l ~ ~ ~. \ ar't ~ a ~ l3r S-r. `ff / li .i'~3'% fi - ~ 4r~ r., ~.~ ~ /' ~ ~ i -.-`-°sP~'c-r Qrj~e_'7'. C~~~~E-i -- ~ ~ +-~• ' J'~' ` <` c l 'i ~,~~t\ti rti ~ Pz r t-.. Aya b_ ~F. ! r r > F r Lti-7, ti y. l \n ~ ~, ~ LJ \ b ~ - '~i>.. ~ ~ ~Fti ~~ ,~ ry ~ C,`r r J~ I - ., I~ rr ~' ti ?~ ~'~ i~l Ilr ~~ ~ A `- t - _~ t ~;A, mane! Pe~it~ ~ r r ~ ~C11~'1Jflr1 ~ •. ~. r: .. ,~, r~`'~" C~~, If I / /n. 3s ~~1 rr ~ ~>~ IF . 9 `k~ -._ ! Frand$co~I ~'~'~ 1 a ` ~ ) v'-•LLtl~ r, r ~ {: r~l +i vjljp 1 {tA~TtSpt~~yr .r~~,tit t~~s t" , I~~• ~~~ ~s` i I q r'~~~ ~j ~~~`r`-x'~ x '+91'P t~Jp ~~ `CT11 V~`~'s 33 '1 -~'` (' ~~?}r^`~~ (:lfffO7ili~yy~9 (C~ofr.~~~~3 ~~~li 1~1/rn~;~! W ` ~T-~ i"""` _. t ~ ~ ^. },li. ~> I- 1 r~ ..~anfFranasco, - ). ; % - l r~ 'rllr{ l 1. ~s:.- ~- `~-~: ~~„+ ~~ it > ~' ~ ~~ ~~r ` ; ~~ ! " Ili 1y ~ ~~~ 1 ~,T :~;~~ _, V`,~•.. ~_.~~ f ,C~ 1~(~}tom- j'Pj , 1~~ 7~ )` 1 ,1 ~FSanBn:,o ~, Mllagra' ~33'j'h"6~~°fi"-.'17i~i~~r,1C{(~i`'~ ~le,~l ~` ~ ~$ ~sv y , r --1 'Canal ' Rldge ~ T~ ~I ~a c G o ~> ai {(~~ rh^ ~ ~°°' ,df~ .r`~C~~l~ ~~°~i+S11111ia,,~rrroF:n ~ 1W ~ o. ~ 1 (~ ~ ~< ~ A ^ ~ ~ ~Gdden Ga1e~ Peik , ~ _ A - '.~-~i'-ri"'' ~i ~+~} ~ ~ ~r/~, <~~'~ Iit/ f`rCemelcry-~,y~ c ~ r `'. _ ( ~ ~-.< $~i11 ~~' ~ '~{~ t4j;~ (% ~~''' '\ ~R«~„a II''''~r-r-'I - s~^o+ane ~Ln rsr-=-`.~ 9k _ f~ `i js o ~~ r -~ ~tist1^ +YLI~~~a~ :_~ ~ Maba CW! (Co ~ J1~~\' C\at `~~ r r~1'4 u ~ L~ '_ ,. 1l~cF/(I f /~-/ T t\: 1 vty~. t ~y ~ x, i tom. ~ Shefp Perk ~t, +~1'~ ~~yit ,r /I~ t ~, d + 2 ~V ~dO~t c ,~,1u1.~11; r, I ,,f ;r,..,~y,: a~~ -~[ s>a~r, FFanusco _ ~° ~ tlic~rh ~,~ ~~~;, `{l~>jy\,~~~~~,~ `. ~ InPlArrport. '-. C °~ ' + ~ &~+1o Ave _ ~'0 <~\ 1 \, `4) A~ ~~ (~ I .+' ~~' PBC~ICB . iY _"'` \ ` ,r'1 ~ lC rp~:t sjs 'P7,~o - °x' t Figure 1 Source: Google Project Location and Vicinity 1 3 ' nA M~ ~ 4 ~\ '' a~ f ~~' .1 r I ~ s. +?y , to ,$ - .¢, £ 1 ~ ~1` ! 7! t ,~ ~ U ~~ r 1r Ys~ ~ + - ~ ;=Y ~A. ~ ~ ~- r Y 1..Y y s ~ ~'~~ w~ .:: A ,;_ ~~~~~ ~~` ~' ~ ~. .~ Y ~ •~~ { ti "S .. z ~°. ~~~ ~ i +_~ ~~ _' _i~ ,i { ` w ,~~. ° S 1 1 ~ 1 + 4 f l l f' ~'.. /.rb r ~.+ }. # 0~ i 3 ', ~. ,.. AY ~~~ ~»~- ~' ~', ~ y~+. ~,~ gig` ~ ro.r ,~_ ._ ~ ~ ~ a.: ~ ~ -.. x f ~ ~ r .~ 3' ~~ ~ ~ ,, '; ' ~ ` ~1 ~" i ~` ' ~ ~~"~ r , f ~ ~ a ~ " ~ . is # ` ? " r t J d '" 1~ S ) ~i r h.. ~~,. s~ rr ti ti ~,,< I.i. R._, ~ F~ ...~ `! ' ~ ~ '~ (~~` 7 i ` c~ € '3 ~ - ~~ x .~... is ~,~.. ~ { ~~: y ~+ ~~ Y F " r ' t`~ ~- F _ * 1 +J Ir Y • _ _ i L C ^ro LL W i 0 (d C ^^~ 1.1. N U ~ U ~_ ''^Q^ V/ 3 LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ~iENERAL PLAN The S~zrth San rranc~s;:u General Pla~~ is the current, applicable General Plan for the City. Adopted in 1999, South San rYancisco General Plan provides strategies and specitc implementing actions that serve as th.e basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, s~~ch as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, acilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans. It also allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the :,ommuni y, preserve and enha~~ce critical environmental resources, and minir~iize hazards. LAND iJSE DESiGNATlONS The approximately ~5-acre Project area is comprised of the following General Piar land use designations:3 Low Density Residential: Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per net acre. Typical lots would be 6,000 square feet, but the minimum would be 5,000 square feet, and smaller Lots (4,500 square feet or less) may be permitted in neighborhoods meeting specified community design standards, subject to specific review requirements. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The Zoning Ordinance may iriiclude a separate district for estate-type or zero-lot-line developments. High Density Residential: Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units per net acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including single-family attached development subject to standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and is intended for specific areas where higher density maybe appropriate. Community Commercial: This category includes shopping centers, such as Westborough, and major commercial districts, such as ]~1 Camino Real, and regional centers along South Airport 3 General Plan, pp. 37-44. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM Boulevard. Retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments, commercial recreation, service stations, automobiile sales and repair services, financial, business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are permitted. An "R" designation on the General Plan Diagram indicates that the site is reserved for region-serving commercial uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5. O f~ ~;, uses are encouraged on the second and upper floors. Office: This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices in locations proximate to BART or CalTrair~ stations. Support commercial uses are permitted, subject to limitations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Site planning and building design shall ensure pedestrian comfort, and streets shall be fronted by active uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specif c transportation demand management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. These bonus standards are shown in Table :?.2-1 of the General Plan Land Use Element. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instances where existing buildings are rehabilitated for office use and are Linable to meet the structured parking or specified design standard criteria. However, the maximums (with incentives, as stipulated in General flan Table 2.2-1) shall not be exceeded. P•.~hlic/Institutional: To provide far schools, government offices, transit sites, airport, and other faciLties that have a unique public character. Kel_igious facilities are not called out separately on the General Plan Diagra~r~, bu± are instead shown with designations on adjoining sites; these facilities maybe specifically delineated on the Zoning Map. The City's Municipal Services Building is the only building with thus designation in the Plan area. Park and Recreation: Parks, recreation complexes., public golf courses, and greenways. EL CAMINO REAL MASTER PLAN The El Camino Real Master Plan includes the entire length of El Camino Real (SR 82) within the limits of South San Francisco, extending from Arlington Drive at the north to Noor Avenue at the south. The 1999 General Plan update included a strong vision statement for El Camino Real to develop it as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provides identity to the street. -The Master Plan is intended to guide development and create a streetscape plan that meets Caltrans standards while providing a community supported vision. The Master Plan provides design concepts and streetscape standards to support this intent. EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Large portions of the Plan area lie within the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area. The El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in 1993, EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 7 during the planning process involving BART, San Mateo County Transportation Commission (SamTrans), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA} to extend BART from Daly City to San Francisco International Airport I;SFO). During this planning process, the City of South San Francisco advocated an underground subway configuration through the El Camino Corridor from the northern City limits to Si~Uth Spruce Avenue. In 1992 BAn T , SamTrans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the covered subway option for the South San Francisco segment of the extension as the locally preferred alternative, subject to tree contri'oution of funds by the Cite of South San Francisco. In order to secure funding for the BART extension and to achieve other transit-oriented planning and econorrlic development goals four the El Camino Corridor, the City of South San Francisco and the Redevelopment Agenc;~ of South San Francisco proposed to establish the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, w hick resulted in the preparation of the El Camino Corridor t~eclevelopment Plan. The overall intent of the Plan was to foster economic and physical rehabilitation in the EI Camino Corridor area and to facilitate the development of transit-oriented housing near the new South San Francisco BART station. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART TRANSIT VILLAGE PLAN Portions of tl~e Project area are within the South San Francisco MART Transit Village Plan, adopted in August, 2001. The South San Francisco General Plan called for development of the BART station area as a vital pedestrian oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a. regional center.4 The Transit Village Plan area covers approximately aone-half mile radius from the BART station and approximately 40 acres of development or potential development land, including the South San Francisco BART Linear Park. The Transit Village Plan includes zoning standards, design guidelines, and implementation recommendations. The Ti~ansit Village Plan recommends major traffic engineering and streetscape design changes to two streets in the area -McLellan Drive and Mission Road - as the basic elements of the pedestrian focused village. Mission Road defines the northern boundary of the Transit Village Plan area. In the Transit Village Plan, lane configurations, width, and street design become the structure for future development anti dictate the potential nature and character of the place. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART LINEAR PARK MASTER PLAN In October 1997, the South San Francisco City Council approved a Comprehensive Agreement between BART and the City of South San Francisco relating to the BART/SFO Airport ~ City of South San Francisco, South San F'raneisco BART Transit Village Plan, prepared by Van Meter Williams Pollack, August 2001, p. i. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 8 Extension. Within the agreement, the City acknowledged that BART and SamTrans have entered into an agreement whereby the transit agencies will implement a bike path along the entire length of the BART/SFO Extension project. The Comprehensive Agreement between BART and ±he City contains wording indicating the bike path will contain amenities such as benches, lighting, minirrial lurdscaping and occasional trees. The concept for a Linear Park along the segment of the BART/SFG Extension alignment that runs through the City was intredaced to the community during the update process for the 1999 General Plan. The Linear Park is a designated land use in the 1999 CTeneral Plan. The South San Francisco BART Linear Park Master Plan is the result of a four-phase planning process involving public input, site analysis, preliminary designs. The Master Plan document guides the design and construction of the SSF BART Linear Park by establishing goals and objectives in a development p1_an for all segments of the park. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 9 4 f~•l FRASTRUCTU RE ~NATER South San Francisco has two :eater suppliers. Tl~e California Water Service Cor_rspany Peninsula District (CWSC) serves that portion of the City east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of the Cifiy~'s area. The CWSC also serves Sari Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation amcng these communities. The company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SF`s L) entitles the City to 42.? million gailcns per day (MGD) per year. An additional 1.4 IV1GD can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of I-280, an area not targeted for growth in the Cit<;~'s 5 Ger_eral Plan. Water use has increased steadily, and at a rate faster than increases in the number of users. Water use has rebounded significantly from. the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down considerably. While residential users comprise approximately 90% of the water accoun±s in South San Francisco, less than half of the total consumption may be attributed to these users. On the other hand, industrial users comprise only 0.46% of the water accounts but use 1 i% of tl'ie total water. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in South San Francisco is the predominance of biotechnology firms in the City. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires extremely pure water, and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water purity levels. The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 MGD to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the hif;hest projected demand.6 General Plan, p. 193 Ibid., p.194. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 10 WAS T SWAT E R The South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant, located in the easterly terminus of Belle Air road, just south of Colma Creek, is jointly operated by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The Plar_t provides treatment service for the City of South San Francisco, the City of San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport, the Town of Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. The Plant has been upgraded and expanded to accommodate growing employment uses in the Plant's service area and to meet Regional Water Quality Board discharge requirements. The expansion added three new primary clarifiers, an additional secondary clarifier, removed obsolete equipment, and resulted in a~ dry-weather operational capacity of 13 MG17. The City's sanitary sewer collection system has an interconnecting network of gravity sewers, force mains and pump stations that fianction together to bring wastewater from individual properties to the treatment plant. A number of the City's sewer lines are older and experience infiltration and inflow during wet-wErather conditions, pal-ticularly in the area of the City adjacent to and west of Highway 101., upstream of old pump stations. These sewer lines have since been rebuilt to accommodate the wet weather flo~,~~s so that pump station capacity during wet weather no longer occurs. ~ The existing wastewater system serving the Project site and surrounding community is operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. The complete sewer network consists of approximately 155 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch diameter pipes, which convey flows from the cities c-f South San Francisco, San Bruno, and portions of Daly City and Colma to the Soutli San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant ('dVQCPI located at the end of Belle Air Road in South San Francisco.g Much of the existing South San Francisco sewer collection system is over sixty years old, and portions of the system are in need of repair. In the area east of Highway 101, subsidence of sewer lines has resulted in reduced capacity though these issues are being addressed through an area master plan to replace or repair these lines. An upgrade to Pump Station #4 is currently under construction. At completion, lit will approximately double the sewer capacity for the East of 101 area. The pump station serves the South San Francisco area north of Colma Creek and east of South Airport Boulevard.9 ~ City of South San Francisco Inter-office Memorandum. Terry White, Director of Public Works. January 28, 2009, p.2. $ City of South San Francisco, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, May 2008, p. 12-2. 9 Ibid. EL CAMIND REAL ~ CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 11 Since 1997, the City of South San Francisco has been under a Cease and Desist Grder (CDO) from the San Francisco Bay Regiona]! Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to upgrade its facilities in order to protect the environmental quality of the Bay. The required work at the WQCP has been completed; the remaining work within the sewer collection network was completed by November ~, 2007.10 Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 50 million gallons per day in wet weather. Average dry weather flows to the plant are 8.8 MGD; peak wet weather flows approach 40 MGD.11 Wastewater treatment at the WQCP consists of screening, grit removal, c',hemical addition to aid settling of solids, primary settling under vacuum., aeration, clarification, and disinfection by chlorination. Excess chlorine is neutralized prior to discharge of the treated water 1 miles offshore in San Francisco Bay.'" In an ongoing Recycled Water Feasibility Study conducted by the City of South San Francisco and other agencies, the WQCP is considered as a potential source of recycled water to serve portions of South San Francisco, San. Bnmo, and Colma. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of developing a recycled water treatment and distribution system to reduce the demand on the potable water supply ire the San Francisco Peninsula area. The Recycled Water Feasibility Study is ongoing and in the Facilities Planning state; however, the study considers implementation for large irrigation uses only at this time and is not likely to be in a position to provide or to request recycled water capability for the »rban uses expected in the proposed Specific Plan Area.13 STORM DRAINAGE The City of South San Francisco maintains a series of drainage pipes and culverts throughout the City to accommodate storm water nmoff. East of 280, storm water flows into Colma Creek, which conveys it to the San Francisco Bay.14 The Project area is east of 280 and Colma Creek bisects a portion of the Project area. Periodic flooding that occurs in South San Francisco is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek. Since South San Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. The Project area is io City of South San Francisco Inter-office :Memorandum. Terry White, Director of Public Works. January 28, 2009, p. 2. "Ibid., p. I2-3. 12 South San Francisco Public Works, SSF Water Quality Control Plant webpage http://www.ci.ss£ca.us/news/displayne;ws.asp?NewsID=305 13 Andy Tan, Associate Civil Engineer, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department, personal communication, 10/30/2008. is Park Station Lofts Initial Study/Mitigated Negative .Declaration, p. 57. EL CAMINO REAL ~ CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 12 located in the vicinity of the creek and site runoff would be within the Colma Creek watershed. Therefore, the Project area would be susceptible to flooding during a 100-year storm. SCILID WASTE COLLECi.iON AND RECYCLING Solid waste is collected froir~ South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the Scavenger Company's materials ~~ecovery facility and transfer station (MRF/TS). Materials that cannot be recycled or composted~~ are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris In:iust!-ies, owner of the Cx Mountair! Landf'_.l, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ux Mountain. `'~rnen the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon will be expanded further or Apanolio canyon will be opened for fill.ls The Scavenger MRF/1 S, approved in April 1999, is pe~i~~itted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility will give the Scavenger Company increased capability to recover valuable materials frem~ wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge. The Blue line Transfer Station has a recycling center for newspaper, cardboard, glass, mattresses; and waste oil. The City of South San Francisco coordinates recycling of newspaper, ahlminum, €;lass, and waste oil. There are also certified recycling centers at South San Francisco's two Safeways, Bell Market, and Reynolds Aluminum.16 Sewage sludge produced at the Soutll San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant is hauled to Livermore as alternative daily cover. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS 'vJASTIE Hazardous waste is generated in homes and businesses alike, and includes products ranging from used motor oil to infectious compounds to dioxins. Management of hazardous waste in San Mateo County occurs under the 1991 Hazardous Waste Plan.l~ Although most hazardous waste is generated by larger commercial and industrial enterprises, wastes generated by households and small businesses are of particular concern, since these wastes are more likely to be handled. improperly and disposed of in a landfill or sewer. Although the amount of household and small business hazardous waste is relatively small, these wastes are of particular concern because they a:re more likely to be handled improperly, such as disposed of 'S General Plan, p. 258 '6 City of South San Francisco, Solid Waste' Management Plan. p. VIII-5-6. 17 Elizabeth Rouan, San Mateo County Environmental Health Division, personal communication 11/3/2008. EL CAMINO REAL ~ CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 13 in a landfill or sewer. The County operates a household hazardous waste education program and established a household hazardous waste transfer station for county residents in 1989. GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT With an expected buildout pop~alatior.~ of 67,400 residents in South San Francisco, the City will ge~~erate approximately 38,000 tons of solid ~x~aste each year, based on the assumed generation rates used by the County~.'s 18 General Plan, Table 8.3-1, p. 259. EL CAMINO REAL ~ CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 14 5 PlJBLIC SERVICES PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The South San Francisco General Plan provides for new parkiand in South San Francisco by maintaining the existing parkland standard for new residents and setting a new standard for new employees. This provision is made with the recognition that the City's ability to provide these facilities maybe limited since the City is largely built out. The General Plan also seeks to increase shoreline accessibility and foster the creation of an integrated network of parks and open space. South San Francisco currently includes 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents. This includes 70 acrf;s of developed parkland (community, neighborhood, mini, and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space, and 81.2 acres of school lands. While the overall amount of parkland appears adequate to meet the community's needs, closer analysis reveals that only 1.2 acres of developed parkiand, excluding school parks and open space, is available per 1,000 residents. There are four community or neighborhood parks within one-half mile of the Project area and, as described above, approximately nine-tenths of a mile of the South San Francisco BART Linear Park, currently under construction, is ~x~ithin the Project area. The four community or neighborhood parks within one half-mile of the Project area are: • Alta Loma Park (6.8 ac.) • Orange Memorial Park (26.5 ac. + 9.5 ac. planned addition) • Buri Buri Park (6.5 ac.) SCHOOLS South San Francisco Unified School District (District) operates all public schools serving South San Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno. The District is the largest school district in San Mateo County. Three elementary parochial schools are the only schools in the City that are not under the jurisdiction of the District. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 15 In addition to educational services, school facilities provide recreation opportunities for all residents of the City. School parks represent 25 percent of the park and open space area in South San Francisco. While all but two schools currently operate within student capacity, projections indicate that this capacity is not likely to be reached or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential development-a.nd recent State-directed class size reduction efforts-are likely to add new students, an aging population and a trend toward smaller families in South San Francisco wih_reduce the student population. Some schools have recently been closed since they are no longer needed, and additional scr~ools may need to be closed in coming years for the same reason. CURRENT ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY There are 9,356 students currently enrolled in South San Francisco schools.l9 With adistrict- wide capacity of close to 11,115 students, enrollment exceeded capacity at only one elementary school and one high school. The District regula±es school capacit:~ based on class size rather than school size, and there is no upper limit on enrollment in each elementary, middle or high school. The current class size standard is 29 students per classrec~~.~ for grades K-5, and 28 students per class for grades 6-12. Since school facilities have been built to meet this standard, the State 20:1 elementary school Mass size reduction program may create the need for additional portable classrcoms at elementary school sites. While only 1:wo schools are currently over student capacity, several e1ei.~entary schools are approaching the standards set by the District. SCHOOL FACILITIES SSFUSD operates i 5 schools, inchad.ing ten elementary (K-5), three middle (6-8) and two high schools. Other facilities include a continuation high school, an adult school, and several child care centers. The District owns two closed schools, Serra Vista, and Southwood. A Facilities Use Study is being undertaken to determiine future uses for these sites. These schools are currently used by the County for special education programs. There are six schools and one adult school within one half-mile of the Project area, including two high schools, two middle schools, and two elementary schools: • Buri Buri School, 120 El Cainpo Drive • Sunshine Gardens School, l~?00 Miller Avenue 19 Josey Isvoranu, Senior Assistant to the Superintendent, South San Francisco Unified School District, personal communication, 10/30/08. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 16 • Alta Loma Middle School, 116 Romney Avenue • Parkway Heights Middle School, 825 Park Way • El Camino riigh School, 132!) Mission Road • South San Francisco High School, 400 B Street • South San Francisco Adult School (Southwood School - closedl, 825 Southwood Drive FIDE PIZOTECTIG~`J Fire protections services are handled by the City of Soutri San Francisco Fire Department. The South San Francisco Fire Department's mission is to prevent or reduce the loss of life and prope~~ ~y due to fire, sub-standard building construction, natural disasters, hazardous materials, and emergency medical incidents by means of direct response, public education and code development and enforcement. The South San Francisco Fire Department is headed by Chief Philip White and staffed b,' 85 members. The Soutii Safi Francisco Dire Department provides a fait emergency medical services program with certified paramedics on the fire engines and quintuple combination pampers ("quints"} as well as staffir_~ two full time Advanced Support ambulances. The department staffs three engine companies, ttvo quints and a battalion chief in addition to the two ambulances. Minimum on duty staffing is 20 persons.20 The Fire Prevention Division is headed by Fire Marshal Luis Da Silva and is responsible for fire investigations, fire inspections, code enforcement and fire plan checks. The Deputy Fire Chief heads the EN[S division. The Deputy Fire Chief position is currently vacant. The day to day operations are supervised by the EMS Captain Tim Bateman. The Training Division is headed by Battalion Chief Chris Campagna and is responsible for all in house training. The closest City fire station to the Project area is within the Project area, located at the City's Municipal Building at 33 Arroyo Drive, at the corner of Arroyo Drive and El Camino Real. The fire station is staffed by five firefighters and paramedics per shift. This station also serves as the SSFFD headquarters. 20 City of South San Francisco website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=258. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 1 7 POLICE The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. Two unincorporated pockets, including thE; California Golf and Country Club, are tinder the jurisdiction of llie San Mateo County Sheriff's office. As of X008, the Department had a total of 116 employees, with 79 sworn officers and 37 police units. The current ratio of officers is :L25 per 1,000 residents.' The Police Department also ?ras one station located in the ivlur~icipal Building at 33 Arroyo Drive, which is within the Project area. The Department is generaiiy able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the department's response time goals. The entire cit,~ is patrolled except for the undeveloped Sierra Point area.. The Department typically works afour-beat system, b»t the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by aone-officer unit: with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for baclc~ap and overlap. 21,Blanca Avelard, Chief Administrative Assistant, South San Francisco Police Department, personal communication, 10/30/08 and 11/03/08. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 18 6 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AIR ~UALiTY SAN FRANCISCO 3A~ AREA AIR LASIN South San Francisco is located within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air qualit<~ in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality~Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for criteria ai_r pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. TJrider the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can classi~y an air basin or a portion thereof, as either in "attainment" or "nonattainment." This classification is based on whether or not the basin meets national ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a basin is classified under the California Clean Air Act with respect to the achievement of State ambient air quality standards. The Bay Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered "nor~attainment" for State standards for ozone and suspended particulate matter (PMIO).The Bay Area Clean Air Pian was developed in 1991 to address the State requirements of the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated periodically since then, the most recent update occurred in 2000; however, the BAAQMD is currently in the process of preparing the 2009 update to the Clean Air Plan, with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives.22 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA has established national standards for six criteria air pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PMIO, and lead. In addition, under State law, the Air Resources Board has established State standards for ambient air quality that are more stringent than the corresponding national standards. The Air Resources Board also sets standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride, pollutants for which no national standards have been set. While no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, BAAQMD samples za BAAQMD, website, http://www.baagmd.gov/pln/plans/ozone/2009_strategy/index.htm. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EX{STING SETTING MEMORANDUM 19 local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco. Monitoring station measurements indicate that air quality in the vicinity of South San Francisco performs well against State standards fer criteria air pollutants. No violations of the State standard for ozone occurred between 2002 and 2007, although locally generated emissions of ozone precursors, reactive gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides (NOX), affect downwind areas where violations do occur.23 With respect to carbon monoxide, again the State siandard was not exceeded. However, since 71 percent of the carbon monoxide emitted in the Bay Area comes from on-road motor vehicles, concentrations in the vici~~ity of congested intersections and highway segments would be expectedly higher than the monitoring data indicates. Ambient PM,o concentrations do violate the State standard cn occasion in the vicinity of South San Francisco. PM~o in the atmosphere is the result mar_y of dust- and. flame-producing industrial and agricuill~ral operations, constn~ction, fugitive sources (such as roadwa;~ dust), and atmospheric photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOX. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS Unlike criteria air pollutants, ambient air quality standards have not been established for toxic air contaminants. These pollutants are t`~pically carcinogens, m~utagens, or reproductive toxins. Regulation of toxic air contaminants is achieved through federal and State controls on individual sources.24 The preferred technique fir reducing toxic air emissions is source reduction, and as part of a local control strategy in the Bay Area, all applications for new stationary sources are reviewed to ensure compliance with required emission controls and limits. BAAQMD maintains an inventory of stationary sources of toxic air contaminants in the Bay Area. There are 17 such sources listed within South San Francisco, 14 of which are dry cleaners. The remaining sources include the South San Francisco/San. Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Shell Oil Company Distribution Plant, and the Superior .Aluminum Body Corporation. Many other commerciaUindustrial facilities in South San Francisco are so~?rces of toxic air contaminants, but none result in a substantial risk to the public. As noted, BAAQMD regulates toxic air contaminants from stationary sources through a permit process. Mobile sources of toxic air contaminants are regulated indirectly through vehicle emissions standards and fuel specifications. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Some people are more sensitive than others to air pollutants. Heightened sensitivity maybe caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and duration of exposure to air pollutants. Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollution. Hospitals, schools, zs BAAQMD website, Bay Area Pollution Summary -- 2002-2007, accessed 10/14/2008 za Federal environmental laws refer to "hazardous air pollutants" and California environmental laws refer to "toxic air contaminants". Each of these two teens encompasses the same constituent toxic compounds. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC. PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 20 convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality as people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods. ~IC1LC-GICAL RESOURCES The natural environment in South San Francisco has undergone drastic change during its history of urbanization. Although virtually the entire city is developed with urban. uses, the City and the immediate surroundings are known to support remnant areas of high biological value, notably San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetlands. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Historic vegetation in South San Francisco included native grasslands, coastal scrub, oak woodlands, riparian communities, and coastal salt and brackish rr~arshes. Human inter.~ention and development have altered the landscape, restricting natural vegetation to isolated, scattered parcels. South San Francisco's vegetative communities include annual grasslands, seasonal wetlands, fresh and saltwater marshes, mud flats, disturbed grasslands, and significant stands of trees. Much of tree vegetative area is landscaped. Fresh emergent wetland is limited to channelized portions of Colma Creek, and potential saline emergent wetland habitat includes the tidal salt marshes along the Bay frin€;e. Primary threats to vegetative communities in the City include: • Further intrusion of urban development into wildlife habitats; • Non-native vegetation originally introduced as landscaping, such as French broom, eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress, which currently threaten habitat for threatened and endangered plant and animal species; and • Toxic contaminants from corrirriercial or industrial facilities that could result in risks to sensitive waters and nearshore communities of the Bay. The vegetative communities support habitat for a wide range of animal species, including those under federal and State protection. The best-known of these special status species are the threatened and endangered butterflies on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill, including the special status Mission Blue, Callippf; Silverspot, San Bruno Elfin, and Bay Checkerspot butterflies. San Bruno Mountain supports many threatened or endangered plant species, and the City's salt marshes provide foraging habitat for seven special status bird species and may include redlegged frogs and two species of protected plants. Grassland and scrub habitat in the area attract a variety of reptile, amphibian, and bird species for breeding and foraging. Some reptile and amphibian species, as well as birds and small mammals, such as raccoon, skunk, and fox, may use wetland habitat. The nearshore tidal flats of San Francisco Bay, as well as the open waters, provide habitat for many spe-cies of plankton and other invertebrates, birds, fish, and mammals. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 21 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS (HCP) South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species: the southern base of San Bruno ivuuntain within the City limits, and the portion of Sign Hill currently designated parkland by the City. The purpose of the HCPs is to conserve and enhance as much of the remaining natural habitat ors San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill as possible. The plans allow for limi_te d development in strict accordance with the provisions of each HCP, ensuring enhancement of habitat through the transfer of privately held lands to the public, and through the provision of funding for conser<~ation and enhancement activities outlined in each HCP. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN VICINITY OF PROJECT AREA Much like the rest of the City, there is little natural biological resource value within the Project area or its vicinity. As described in t'r~is document, Colma Creek, which largely bisects the Project area, is channelized and paved in cerr~ent. Considering that a segment of the South San Francisco BAR T Linear Park shares an alignment with the creek, the presence of the concrete channelized creek within the Project area presents an opportunity for enhancing the si±e's biological resources. The South San Francisco General Plan provides Figure 7-2, which depicts areas of the City where special environmental studies area required prior to granting development permits. No portion of the Project area is within ar. area that requires special environmental studies.2s CULTURAL RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Consistent with its history as an Ohl~one settlement location, South San Francisco has Native American village sites and shell mounds scattered around the City. Known resources include: A Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA-299) located within the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area that contains household items, projectile points, dietary debris, and.human burials. A large shell mound (CA-SMA-40) and one small shell midden (CA-SMA-40) near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. The shell mound is considered a significant archaeological resource. South San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes thE; existence of additional prehistoric and historic 2s General Plan, Figure 7-2, p. 227. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC: PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 22 arcr~aeological resources likely. While the City is essentially built out, archaeological surveys may be appropriate as part of large project redevelopment activities. HISTORIC RESOURCES South San Francisco's growth is notable for the close relationship between industry and community. The development of a residential town in support of new industrial plants was the calculated strategy of local industrialists. ~'Vth the success of the City's industries, South San Francisco earned an important role as "The Industrial Ciiy" of the region. The conservation of this unique history is the objective of'historic and cultural preservation in South San Francisco. In addition to Sign Hill, designated resources in South San Francisco include several residential and commercial buildings in the downtown ar?a. The City's Municipal Code and State and federal law, protect these local, State, and national historic resources from alteration and derr~olition. The Historic Preservation Commission oversees the protection of these resources. As such, designation is an important tool for preserving reminders of the past that contribute to the City's identity. Equally central, ar~d pe_r_h_aps more difficult, is the broader goal of conserving the City's unique industrial heritage. Historic Landmarks South San Francisco's only national historic landmark-Sign IIiil-is also its best known feature. Sign Hill has proclaimed the City's identity since 1891 when the J. Dunn Real Estate Company, South San Francisco's fir:;t realtor, initially installed the sign. After a period of several years during which the sign was absent, the Chamber of Commerce had the words "South San Francisco The Industrial City" whitewashed onto the hillside. The concrete letters were installed in 1929. The sign has become a regional landmark, clearly visible to travelers on nearby freeways and to those flying pinto and out of San Francisco International Airport. Local Landmarks South San Francisco's older buildings display a wide range of architectural styles, emblematic of the shifting styles that characterize the periods of the City's growth. Queen Anne, Victorian, Neoclassical, Craftsman, Spanish and Mission Revival, Moderne, as well as contemporary styles, are all represented in the City's central neighborhoods. The City has several historic homes .and commercial buildings. Most are located along Grand Avenue near the Civic Center, and around the intersection of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. In addition, many of the structures in downtown along Grand, Linden, Baden, and Miller avenues were identified as potential historic resources in a comprehensive survey completed in 1986. These buildings are representative of an architectural period, are of local historic prominence, or are well restored examples of vernacular architecture. Regardless of their role, these buildings contribute to the overall scale and character of the area, and are included on the City's list of potential historic resources, giving the Historic Preservation Commission an opportunity to review all requests for demolition permits in the area. Although industry played a EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 23 critical role in South San Francisco's history, no industrial buildings or sites are currently designated historic resources. PROJECT AREA AND VICINITY As discussed in this document, the Protect area is located within the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area. As described above, a Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA- 299) is located within this area. It is not known at this tii~~e whether CA-SMA-299 is located within the Project area, per se; however, the presence of a significant cultural resource within the site's vicinity indicates the need for further analysis in the CEQA document. Although there is a potential far the presence of significant archaeological resources within the Project area, the site is outside either the historic downtown core or the waterfront industrial area. The minimum age for consideration for a structure as historic is 50 years; although, for CEQA purposes, due to the length of~time the environmental-review process typically takes, consideration is often initiated if a structure is 48 years old. The Project area is characterized by development extending perhaps to th.e late i960s; however, with the presence of the new South San rrailcisco BART Station and Transit Village (including high-density single-failiiiy residences and a Trader Joe's store), Kaiser Hospital's recent expansion, and the ongoing construction activities along the SSF BART right-cf t: gay (Linear Park), much of the development within the Project area has occurred within the last decade or two. The soutl-ieast portion of the Project area is adjacent to a post-WWII working class single-family neighborhood. Uses in this portion of the Project arse characterized by automotive repair shops in buildings that appear to be of a similar age as the adjacent post-WWII single-family neighborhood. Based on a pedestrian site visit of the Project area, this area appears to have the highest potential for structures that meet the State and national criteria for historic resources. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Project area is located in the northeast portion of the San Francisco Peninsula, which lies within the Coast Range Geomorphic; Province. The Coast Range consists of northwest trending mountains and valleys. The region has undergone a complex geologic history of sedimentation, volcanism, folding, uplift and erosion. This geologic province is thought to have been formed by northwest-southeast tectonic forces caused by the intersection of the North American Plate moving northwesterly and the Pacific Crustal Plate moving southeasterly. The contact between these two plates is the San Andreas Fault Zone. REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The City of South San Francisco, along with the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area, is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Several major faults traverse the region, including the San Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, the Hayward fault, the Calaveras fault, the Coyote Point fault and the: Hunters Point fault. None of these faults are located within EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM )4 the Project area. The Project area is not within an Earthquake Safety Zone (formerly Alduist- Priolo Zone), however, Figure 4.11-3 of the General Plan EIR shows the inactive San Bnmo Fault bisecting the Project area.2~ SOILS CONDITIONS The soil type underlying the Project area is identified as alluvium on Figure 4.1 i-3 contained iii the General Plan EIR. Alluvium consists of deposited material caused by hydrological action of a water course, Colma Creek in this i~~stance.27 GROUNDWATER The California Department of Water :[resources (DWR} defines state groundwater'oasins based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the Project area is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands and the Colma Formation, which are overlain by a relatively impermeable clayey formation of Bay Mud and f 11 materials. The Bay Mud layer represents the base of the shallow groundwater layer. Groundwater is typically encountered within a few feet of the surface with a general r`Iow direction of southwest.28 While ground~~~ater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with drinking water quali~y standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant lf;vels.z9,3o Following site remediation in the 1980's, currently detectable chemical concentrations above Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) include Trichloroethene (T CE), Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and vinyl chloride.31 z6 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan EIR, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia in 1999, Figure 4.11-3, p. 4-49. 27 Ibid. 2s ENVIRON, Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring Report -February 2007, March 12, 2007 29 Phillips, Steven P., Scott N. Hamlin, Eugene B. Yates, 1993, Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Estimation of Ground-Water Recharge in San Francisco, California 1987-92. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4019. 3o Department of Water Resources, 2003, California Department of Water Resources, California's Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Update 2003. 3i ENVIRON, Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring Report -February 2007, March 12, 2007 EL CAMINO REAL I CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 25 ~-lAZARDO~US MA T ElRlALS Numerous industrial and commercial operations, both past and present, have manufactured, handled, stored and disposed of hazardous materials in South San Francisco. Hazardous material sites include manufacturing operations, active and abandoned landfills, facilities with leaking underground storage tanks (USTsI, permitted dischargers, and genera±ors of hazardous waste. The presence of hazardous materials ~or hazardous waste in soil or groundwater in the City's commercial and industrial areas could constrain develcprr~ent of certain areas due to the actual or perceived threat to human health and the costs associated ~~ith site cleanup. The actual health threat. at a giver. site depends upor~ a :number of factors such as the quantity and toxicity of contaminants, exposure, and the available pathways for contaminants to affect human health. Cleanup of hazardous waste sites is mandated by law and enforced by the appropriate regulatory agencies in order to protect human health, resources, and the environment. GENERATION Many hazardous waste sites are idenl:ified on the Cai/EPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Siie List (Coriese List). The Cortese list includes 164 known sites in South San Francisco; however, 129 of these cases are closed. Thirty-five sites are listed as "open" and in varying stages of remediation.32 The East of 101 AYea Plan EIR identified 57 permitted generators of hazardous waste within its project area. In addition there are ten. companies east of 101 that are permitted to emit toxic pollutants. In addition, four sites in tine East of 101 area have major hazardous materials concentrations, including the Koll, Gateway, Shearwater, and Wildberg Brothers sites. These sites are in various stages of study, remediation, and redevelopment. The East of 101 and Lindenville areas are known to have a high water table, increasing the risk that on-site contamination will leach into groundwater and spread to other properties or to the Bay. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL San Mateo County is responsible for issuing hazardous material storage permits, and throughout San Mateo County, Hazardous Materials Management Plans must be prepared for the County by businesses that use or store hazardous materials. The County provides copies of Business Plans to the local fire department. The San. Mateo County Health Services Department (HSD) issues permits for installation of USTs. Thf; County HSD and the South San Francisco Fire Department regulate the removal of USTs. Before a tank may be removed, the applicant must prepare a closure plan and submit it to the County HSD. Upon approval of the plan, the County. HSD 32 California, California Environmental Protection Agency, GeoTracker Database, https•//geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed 10/30/08. EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 26 issues a permit for tank removal. While USTs are primarily associated with service statio~is, they may also be found in connection with hospitals, companies with a backup power supply, and older industries. TRAFvjPORT Transport of hazardous waste and hazardous materials is regulated by federal and state agencies, primarily the California FIighway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation. South San Francisco has no ordinances that: address the transport of hazardous materials in the City: Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, located in the Project area, is known to receive shipments of radioactive substances on a regular basis. The County is responsible for issuing hazardous material storage permits. EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 2% 7 REFERENCES S(;URCES Avelar, Bianca. Chief Administrative; Assistant, South San Francisco Police Department. Personal communicatio_n_, October 30, 2008 and November 3, 2008. Bay Area Air Quality Management L)istrict. Bay Aren_ Pollution Summary - 2002-2007. Website: www.baagmd.gov, accessed October 14, 2008 California Department of Water Resources. California's Groundwater, Bulletin 118. Update 2003. California Environmental Protection. Agency. GeoTracker Database, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.~ov/. Accessed October 30, 2008. Callander Associates. Orange 1'/Iemorial Pa;-k draft Master Pla~~ Update. Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. May, 2007. Callander Associates. South San Francisco BART Linear Park Master Plan. Prepared for the City of South San Francisco, Parks, Recreation and Maintenance Services. March, 2003. Callander Associates. South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan. Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. July, 2006. City of South San Francisco. Website: www.ci.ssf.ca.us, accessed October 2008. Dyett &Bhatia. South San Francisc~~ General Plan EIR, Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. 1999. Dyett &Bhatia. South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. 1999. ENVIRON. Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring Report -February 2007. March 12, 2007. Grand Boulevard Task Force. Grand Boulevard Initiative Existing Conditions Report. October, 2006. http://www. ~randbouLevard.net/library/GrandBoulevard/ GrandBlvdExistingConditionsReportl 01006FINAL.pdf EL CAMINO REAL ~ CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING SETTING MEMORANDUM 2$ Haag, Jerry. Park Station Lofts Initicri' Study/Mitigated Negative Declaraiion, prepared for the City of South San Francisco. September 2004. Impact Sciences. El Camino Corrido~~ Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR. Prepared for the City of South. San Francisco. March 2000. Isvoranu, Josey. Senior Executive Assistant to the Superintendent, South San Francisco Unified School District. Personal Co?:ununication. October 30, 2008. Lamphier-Gregory. 249 East Grand Ave EIR. Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. May 2008. Phillips, Steven P., Scott N. Hamlin, :Eugene B. Yates. Gevhydrology, T~'ater Quality, and Estimation of Ground-Water :4echarge in San Francisco, Cali~ornia 1987-92. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4019. 1993. Ronan, Elizabeth. Sa~~ Mateo County Environmental Health Division. Personal communication November 3, 2008. South San Francisco Public Works, SSF Water Quality Control Plant webpage http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/news/displa~news.asp?NewsID=3OS Tan, Andy. Associate Civil Engineer.. City of Sou±h San Francisco Public Works Department. Personal communication, October 30, 2008. `Jan Meter Williams Pollack. South S`an Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, Prepared for the City of South San Francisco..August 2001. REPORT PREPARERS LAMPHIER-GREGORY 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 Tel: (510) 535-6690 Jason Chaffin, Associate Planner EL CAMINO REAL /CHESTNUT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EX{STING SETTING MEMORANDUM 29