Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-24 e-packet A GENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment:For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item noton the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. MARK N. ADDIEGO Mayor KEVIN MULLINPEDRO GONZALEZ Vice MayorCouncilman RICHARD A. GARBARINOKARYL MATSUMOTO CouncilmanCouncilwoman RICHARD BATTAGLIAKRISTA MARTINELLI-LARSON City TreasurerCity Clerk BARRY M. NAGELSTEVEN T. MATTAS City ManagerCity Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARINGIMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to anopen session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATION Proclamation in honor of World Health Day Open Streetsaccepted by Prudencia Nelson, Parks and Recreations Commissioner. Red Cross Month Proclamation Mary Bates –Chair of San Mateo CountyLeadership Council, Tricia Clement –Member of the Council. Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day accepted by Patrick Rosenthal, CommanderVFW Post 4103, MMC(SW) U.S. Navy (ret). Proclamation honoring National Library Week presented to Library Board President Francisca Larios Hansen. Certificate of Recognition for long-time resident of South San Francisco Levia Mangini, presented to Lola Migliore. AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Announcements. Committee Reports. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.Motion to approve the minutes of March 10, 2010. 2.Motion to confirm the expense claims of March 24, 2010. 3.Waive reading and adopt an Ordinance repealing Section 10.56.020 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, related to the open carry of Firearms. 4.Waive reading and adopt an Ordinance approving an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council of the City of South San Franciscoto provide for a two-tier retirement system for miscellaneous and safety members. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGMARCH 24, 2010 AGENDAPAGE 2 5.Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $12,864 in grant funding to support Project Read Services and to amend the Library Department's 2009/2010 Operating budget. 6.Resolution to accept a grant in the amount of $1,811,925.00 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) assistance to Firefighters Station construction to rehabilitate Fire Station 63 and amending the FY 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Project Budget. 7.Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $3.731million with the lowest responsible bidder for the 2010 Street Resurfacing Project and amend the 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Program Budget. 8.Motion to approve a License and Use Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory High School. PUBLIC HEARING 9.So El Camino Real General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco/Applicant Southern portion of El Camino Real from Chestnut Avenue to Noor Avenue (see attached map) P08-0076: GPA08-0001, ZA08-0007, RZ08-0001 & EIR08-0004 General PlanAmendment, Zoning Amendment, Rezoning and Design Guidelines for the southern portion of El Camino Real between Chestnut Avenue and the City's southern boundary to allow for high intensity mixed-use development throughout the corridor. The proposed amendment and supporting zoning and design guidelines aims to target higher intensities and densities in the southern portion of El Camino Real to stimulate revitalization and transition the corridor into a thriving, pedestrian-oriented area with a mix of uses. The existing General Plan Land Use Designation is largely Community Commercial and the Zoning District is primarily (C-1) Retail Commercial. The existing land use designation and zoning promote and support low intensity, single-use development. The proposed South El Camino Real Land Use Designation and (ECRMX) El Camino Real Mixed-Use Zoning District promote and support revitalization by allowing buildings 80- 120 feet tall (with incentives), requiring a minimum amount of development for sites larger than 20,000 sq.ft., and by requiring active uses to be positioned at ground level. The proposed Design Guidelines illustrate the proposed zoning regulations to ease understanding and implementation. Resolution making findings and certifying the EnvironmentalImpact Report, including adoption of the Statement of Overriding Consideration for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and related Zoning and Design guidelines. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGMARCH 24, 2010 AGENDAPAGE 3 Resolution making findings and adopting the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment(GPA08-0001) and related design guidelines to allow and establish regulations for mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real Corridor. An Ordinance making findings and amending the City of South San FranciscoZoning Map(RZ08-0001) and addingChapter 20.25 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code (ZA08-0007), related to the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, to allow and establish regulations for mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real Corridor. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 10.Waive reading and introduce Ordinancesrepealing sections 2.18.020 and 2.18.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section to dissolve the Surplus Property Authority and the Industrial Development Authority. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 11.Transmittal of Annual Financial and Audit Reports. 12.Transmittal of Mid-Year 09-10 Financial Report and Resolution amending the 2009-10 Budget. CLOSED SESSION 13.Conference with Legal Counsel –Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9) Cuadra v South San Francisco Baykeeper v South San Francisco 14.Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6) Unrepresented Employees: City Manager and City Attorney COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGMARCH 24, 2010 AGENDAPAGE 4 Bldg. Length: 50% of building face 125’ Max. in mid zone stepped back Up to 120’50% Stepback With Discretionary Approval Up to 80’ By Right 75º Mid Zone Base: 35’ Max 60º 75º 75º 15’ 50% Stepback Base Zone Rear Property LineMin 25’ BikParallel k e Sidwalk e laneParking Avg: 16’ SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO: SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS | ZONING | DESIGN GUIDELINES f D t ra March 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 2: Land Use This element of the General Plan outlines the framework that has- making, provides the General Plan land use classification systemcitywide land use policies. Policies for each of the 14 individual sub-areas that comprise the General Plan Planning Area are in Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas). 2.1CONSTANCY AND CHANGE South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that refldecision to initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another development tre arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with s-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multif those same corridors and on hillsides. MAGNITUDE AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING USES As part of the General Plan preparation process, an existing land use database for the city wa prepared and a land use analysis was performed. South San Francisco’s City limits encompass 4,298 acres. Single-family residences are the predominant land use, occupying 33 percent of the land (net, that is, exclusive of streets, water, and other rights-of-way) in the city. Industrial uses, including warehouses, manufacturing areas and business parks, comprise over a quarter area. The land use analysis also found that: Parks and open space occupy over 10 percent of the Planning Area concentrated in Sign Hill Park and the California Golf and Count Many of South San Francisco’s growing or highest priority land u relatively little land. Business parks for high-technology research and development (R&D) and manufacturing use occupy only 173 acres, or 14 percent of th classification. Commercial areas occupy approximately eight perc can be found on only 37 acres, or ten percent of the land in the commercia classification. Only a handful of sites in South San Francisco—totaling 167 acres, or less than four percent of land within the Planning Area—are vacant. About half of this acreage is in Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater) and Sierra Point - two large sites at the northernmost tip of the city, with substantial soil contamination and under r 2-1 several years. The majority of the remaining vacant land comprisch as in Westborough, that have steep slopes. Thus, virtually all growth redevelopment or intensification; and Development that is approved or under review includes 1,150 hous million square feet of non-residential space. CONSTANCY AND CHANGE With all land in the east of U.S. 101 area (East of 101 area) an unsuitable for residential development because of aircraft opera International Airport (SFO) and established residential neighborhoods in much of the rest of the city, the General Plan attempts to balance regional growth o residential and industrial neighborhoods. Development is targete fulfill the City’s objectives of enhancing quality of life and economic established areas are not unduly impacted; and to support the ex investments in transit represented by extension of BART to the c-scale issues such as the character of new development and better linka neighborhoods are also explored in this and other plan elements. 2.2LAND USE FRAMEWORK The land use framework of the General Plan is guided by several s: Conservation of the existing land use character of the city’s re Promotion of Downtown as the focus of activity, including throug opportunities. Policies that promote development standards that owntown’s traditional urban pattern are identified. Integration of land use with planned BART extension, by providin- oriented village around the South San Francisco BART station, to regional access that will result from extension of BART to the city. Provision of selected areas in the city where industrial uses, m regional objective and are related to the SFO, can continue and Encouragement of mixed-use redevelopment along principal corridors, such as El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Encouragement of a new mixed-use neighborhood center at Linden Avenue/Hillside Boulevard to increase accessibility of Paradise Valley/Terrabay residents to convenience shopping. 2-2 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use Designation of new Business and Technology Park district to prov continued evolution of the city’s economy, from manufacturing an warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology. Encouragement of employee serving amenities to provide identity a lunchtime and quality of life needs of the growing employment ba area. Provisions of a new live/work overlay district adjacent to downtoader mix of housing opportunities and promote small-business and multimedia incubation. Designation of a new Business Commercial district, that will inc serving airport clientele, and regional commercial uses clusteree Avenue, Oyster Point, South Airport and Gateway boulevards. GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM The principles outlined on the previous page are represented in (Figure 2-1). The Diagram designates the proposed general location, distriand extent of land uses. As required by State law, land use classifications patterns, letter designations, or labels the Diagram, specify a building intensity for each type of designated land use. These density/intensity standards allow circulation and public facility needs to be determined; th environmental carrying-capacity limitations established by other elements of the Genera Plan. The Diagram is a graphic representation of policies contained in the General Plan; it is to be used and interpreted only in conjunction with the text and the General Plan. The legend of the General Plan Diagram abbrevi classifications described below, which represent an adopted part of the General Plan. Uses on sites less than two acres in size are generally not depi interpretation of consistency with the General Plan on sites les done through the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map. (Table 2.2-1 is currently after DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS) DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS The General Plan establishes density/intensity standards for eac Residential density is expressed as housing units per net acre. Maximum permitted ratio of gross floor area to site area (FAR) is specified for non-residential uses. FAR is a broad measure of building bulk that controls both visual prominence an be clearly translated to a limit on building bulk in the Zoning Ordinance and is independent of the type of use occupying the building. FAR limitations are a land use classifications in order to relate housing size to lot 2-3 FAR standards shall apply in such instances. Building area devoted to parking (if any) is not included in FAR calculations for non-residential developments. However, parking garages are included in the FAR limitations for The Zoning Ordinance could provide specific exceptions to the FA low employment densities, such as research facilities, or low pe-hour traffic generation, such as a hospital. In addition to density/intensity standards, land use classifications stipulate allowable building types (such as single-family residential) as well. The density/intensity standards do not imply that development pr the maximum density or intensity specified for each use. Zoning regulations consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce developm stated ranges. Airport-related height limits also restrict development, as shown in Fig-2. In addition, Figure 2-3 establishes height limitations in specific areas, including Downtown, the El Camino Real Corridor, and near BART stations; these limit and land use-based height limitations (in the Zoning Ordinance) shall not app outside the ones shown in Figure 2-3, height limitations shall be in accordance with the use- based limitations specified in the Zoning Ordinance. These heigh viewshed analysis for the Planning Area, which revealed that thel, the base of San Bruno Mountain, and the east face of Point San Bruno most areas of the city, as shown in Figure 2-4. Gross density standards and assumed averages for residential categories are listed below. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The classifications in this section represent adopted City polic enough to give the City flexibility in implementation, but clear direction to carry out the General Plan. The City’s Zoning Ordin contains more detailed provisions and standards. More than one zoning district may be c General Plan land use classification. Three residential land use classifications are established for a provide for development of a full range of housing types (Downtown classifications are included later in this section). Densities a units per net acre of developable land, excluding areas subject , environmental, or geological constraints, and areas dedicated for creekside greenw provided that at least one housing unit may be built on each exi for residential use. Development would be required within the density range (both maximum and minimum) stipulated in the classification. Development stand Zoning Ordinance may limit attainment of maximum densities. 2-4 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use Second units permitted by local regulation, State-mandated density bonuses for provision of affordable housing, and a 20 percent density bonus for residenti within a 1/4-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (BART or Caltrain) station are in addition to densities otherwise permitted. Assumed average densities listed are used to calculate probable housing unit and p holding capacity. Neither the averages nor the totals constitut types (which are included here for illustrative purposes only, apted City policy) are shown in Figure 2-5. Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units pe would be 6,000 square feet, but the minimum would be 5,000 squar (4,500 square feet or less) may be permitted in neighborhoods meeti design standards, subject to specific review requirements. This intended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The Zoning Ordinance may include a separate district for estate-type or zero-lot-line developments. Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre, with a of net area (i.e. exclusive of streets, parks and other public r-of-way) required per unit, and a minimum lot area of 6,750 square feet. Dwelling types may nclude attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, apa condominiums. Multifamily housing type is not permitted. (Amende Resolution 148-2000, Adopted November 21, 2000) Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30. designation would permit the full range of housing types, includ-family attached development subject to standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and is intended for specific areas where higher density may be appropriate. DOWNTOWN This designation provides for a wide range of uses in commercial including retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, com entertainment establishments and theaters, financial, business aels, educational and social services, and government offices. Residen second and upper floors only, and subject to a use permit. The m 2-5 for all uses and mixes (residential and non-residential) is 3.0; the Zoning Ordinance may or may not establish maximum residential densities or minimum housi- use developments. The Zoning Ordinance may also specify specific eating and drinking establishments would be required uses at the ground level. In addition to housing type and density standards stipulated bel may establish development standards and parking and other requir residential development different from residential development elsewhere in the City. Three categories are included and are shown on the General Plan Downtown Low Density Residential. Single-family (detached or attached) residential development with densities ranging from 5.1 to 15.0 units per net acre. Multifamily development is not permitted. Downtown Medium Density Residential. Residential development at from 15.1 to 25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing ty Downtown High Density Residential. Residential development at densities ranging from 25.1 to 40.0 units per net acre for lots equal to or greater tha-acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots smaller than H acre, maximum density shall be A maximum of 25 percent density bonus may be approved for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities d housing that meets community design standards that may be specif Ordinance. Maximum density with all bonuses shall not exceed 50 units per net acre. OFFICE This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative professional, medical and public offices in locations proximate Support commercial uses are permitted, subject to limitations esta Ordinance. Site planning and building design shall ensure pedest shall be fronted by active uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio isses may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting speci management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. These bonus standards are shown in Table 2.2-2. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instance rehabilitated for office use and are unable meet the structured standard criteria. However, the maximums (with incentives, is stipulated in Table 2.2-2) shall not be exceeded. 2-6 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use COMMERCIAL This category includes shopping centers, such as Westborough, an districts, such as El Camino Real, and regional centers along Soport Boulevard. Retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments, comme stations, automobile sales and repair services, financial, busin 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. Office uses are encouraged on the secon This category is intended for business and professional offices, and visitor serv establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include for administr professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional commercial centers, restaurants and related services to appropriate standards. This category is intended for the emer district along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevarpruce corridor. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishme meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Maximum FAR for hotel developments sh to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified Business/professional services, office, convenience sales, restaurants, public marketplace, personal/repair services, limited retail, hotel/motel with a coa facilities, and marinas. Maximum FAR is 0.5 for retail, recreati eating and drinking establishments, 1.0 for offices, and 1.6 for hotels. All development will be subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Uses and de Oyster Point will be regulated by the Oyster Point Specific/Mast MIXED USE This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real area. Retail and departm drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financiasonal services; residential; educational and social services; and offi The frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses—uses that are accessible to the general public 2-7 and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedest Uses that generate pedestrian activity include retail shops, res performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, child care services, l For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for al substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to- or low-moderate-income households. The maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of housing and substantily above-grade structured parking shall be 2.5, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.5 for specified criteria. Residential density is limited to 60 units per acre, with increa per acre for development meeting specified criteria. For parcels Real, between First Street and West Orange Avenue, either a mix of uses as permitted under this classification or residential use only (up to 40 units per INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Two categories are proposed: Business and Technology Park, for t of East Grand Avenue, and Mixed Industrial, for the areas south of East Grand A of 101 and Lindenville. This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printi-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research establishments, or for development meeting specific transportation demand m (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial l manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and and service commercial uses. Industries producing substantial am 2-8 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use odor and other pollutants are not permitted. Unrelated retail anuses that could be more appropriately located elsewhere in the city w for offices, subject to appropriate standards. Small restaurants be allowed as ancillary uses, subject to appropriate standards. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.4, with an increase to a total FAR of 0.6 for development s TOMprogram as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the Zoning Ordinance may include performance standards to minimize potential environmental impacts. PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL To provide for schools, government offices, transit sites, airpo a unique public character. Religious facilities are not called oGeneral Plan Diagram, but are instead shown with designations on adjoining si specifically delineated on the Zoning Map. PARKS Parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. OPEN SPACE This designation includes sites with environmental and/or safety constraints. Included sites with slopes greater than 30 percent, sensitive habitats, w to flooding, and power transmission line corridors. Where otherw aircraft safety or other environmental standards, residential de permitted at a density not to exceed one housing unit per 20 acr 2-9 Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity Land Use Designation Minimum Residential Density Maximum Permitted Maximum Permitted with Incentives and 1 Required (units/net acre) Non-Residential FAR Bonuses FAR Units/Net AcreFAR (See Table 2.2-2) 2,3 Residential Low Density - up to 8.0 0.5 10.0 - Medium Density - 8.1-18.0 1.0 22.5 - High Density - 18.1-30.0 - 37.5 - Downtown 4 Downtown Commercial - - 3.0 - - Downtown Residential - Low Density - 5.1-15.0 0.7 15.0 - Medium Density - 15.1-25.0 1.25 31.3 - 3 High Density - 25.1-40.0 - 50.0 - 5 Office - - 1.0 - 2.5 Commercial - Community Commercial - - 0.5 - - 5 Business Commercial - - 0.5 - 1.0 Hotel - - 1.2 - 2.0 Coastal Commercial - - - - - Retail - - 0.5 - - Office - - 1.0 - - Hotel - - 1.6 - - Mixed Use 678 99 El Camino Real Mixed Use0.6 up to 60.0 2.5 up 3.5 8 to 80.0 Industrial 106 Business and Technology Park - - 0.5 - 1.0 117 Mixed Industrial - - 0.4 - 0.6 1 Including garages for residential development, but excluding par-residential development, except for El Camino Real Mixed Use. . 2 20 percent density bonus is available for development within ¼-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (CalTrain or BART station or City-designated ferry terminal). 3 25 percent bonus isDensity bonus in accordance with state law, is available for projects with affordable housing or,housing for elderly residents. 25 percent bonus is available for with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specif the Zoning Ordinance. 4 Residential uses may be permitted on second and upper floors onl 5 Required parking must be structured. 6 Permitted for research and development uses with low employment 7 6 Permitted for uses with low employment intensity, such as wholesFrontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses. Residential not permitted at ground level along El Camino Real except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Avenue, subject to conditional use permit approval. 7 For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for al-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active use restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. 2-10 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use 8 Included within FAR limit. 9 Includes residential and substantially above grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking. 10 Permitted for research and development uses with low employment 11 Permitted for uses with low employment intensity, such as wholeswarehousing, and distribution. Table 2.2-2: Standards for Density and Development Intensity Land Use Minimum Base Incentive-based FAR Bonuses Available Total Maximum Designation Floor FAR Floor Maximum Other Specified Area Area 12 Attainable FAR Design Standards Ratio Ratio with (FAR) (FAR) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Office - 1.0 1.3 0.2 2.5 Business - 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0 Commercial 344 El Camino Real 0.6 2.5 0.50.53.5 2 Mixed Use Business & - 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0 Technology Park 51 Hotels - 1.2 0.6 0.2 2.0 Costal - Commercial Retail - 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0 Office - 1.0 0.5 0.1 1.6 Hotel - 1.6 0.4 0.2 2.2 1 The Hotel FAR listed for Base, Maximum Attainable FAR with TDM, Maximum FAR is applicable for all hotels located in all General 2 1 Discretionary; based on criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and upon review by Planning Commissionconditional use permit approval. 2 Frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses.Residential not permitted at ground floor level along El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Avenue, subject to conditional use permit approval. 3 For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR sha FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the ued and affordable to low- or low- moderate-income households. 4 Includes residential and substantially above-grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking. 5 The Hotel FAR listed for Base, Maximum Attainable FAR with TDM, Maximum FAR is applicable for all hotels located in all General . 2-11 2.3PLANNING SUB-AREAS Land use information presented in the section that follows is pr have been collectively derived from analysis of land use and urb need for focused planning efforts and activities. These subareasown in Figure 2-6. In some cases, the City’s traditional neighborhood planning areas t schools planning were aggregated where adjacent neighborhoods ar their land uses, age of development, and current activity level. The East of 101 area, which comprises a single City neighborhood planning area because there into four subareas for presenting planning information. The are 1.Avalon 2.Downtown 3.East of 101 4.El Camino 5.Gateway 6.Lindenville 7.Orange Park 8.Oyster Point 9.Paradise Valley/Terrabay 10.Sign Hill 11.South Airport 12.Sunshine Gardens 13.Westborough 14.Winston-Serra Descriptions of these areas and detailed policies for each sub-area are included in Chapter 3. 2-12 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use 2.4GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT BUILDOUT Development consistent with the General Plan resulting from appl densities and intensities for the different land use classificat potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities is described in Table 2.4-1. The time at which full development (“buildout”) will occur is not specified Designation of a site for a certain use does not necessarily mea built/redeveloped with the designated use over the next 20 years, the horizon of the Plan. Table 2.4-1 shows by each of the 14 sub-areas described in Section 2.3: Projects with current development approvals. This includes about more than half have been proposed in Terrabay, and about 3.4 million square feet of non- residential floor space. Hotels, with about 1.1 million square f and offices, with 0.9 million square feet of approved space, rep- residential uses. Additional development under the General Plan. This results from application assumed densities/intensities (shown on the table) to vacant sit potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities. Potential include 2,4701,630 housing units, concentrated mainly in El Camino Real, Sunshine Gardens, and Downtown. Potential non-residential development includes 9.28.9 million square feet of new space; with an expected decrease of 3.3 milli space, the net increase will be 5.95.6 million square feet. About 3.1 million square feet (56 percent) of this net increase is expected to be in the four Eastof 101 sub-areas (East of 101 area, Gateway, Oyster Point, and South Airport). Combined approved development and additional development. This r the two above categories, and represents the expected General Pl will result in an increase of 3,6202,780 housing units and 15.315.0million square feet of non-residential space to the city’s current inventory of an estimate units and 18.1 million square feet of non-residential space. CHART Population and Employment; 1997 and Buildout *Chart to be updated in Indesign File 2-13 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use BUILDOUT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT South San Francisco, at buildout, will accommodate a population mately 67,40069,810, an increase of 14 18 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200. Table 2.4-2 shows the current and projected populations for South San Fran were to occur over 20 years, South San Francisco will moderatelycrease its share of the San Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 8.78.4 percent. Population growth rate over the plan horizon will be much slower than growth experienced by years. The chart on the following page shows a graphic depiction of South San Francisco’s historical and projected population growth as well as its share While non-residential building space in South San Francisco will increase current 18.1 million square feet to 24.924.6 million square feet at buildout (an increase of 31 37 percent), the General Plan at buildout will accommodate an emplo 39,100 currently to as much as 72,10071,400 at buildout (an increase of 8483percent; including construction and at-home workers), primarily as sites with low-intensity warehousing and distribution uses (with an estimated average 960 South San Francisco) are succeeded by higher intensity office, r and other similar uses. This level of employment attainment will likely take place over -period that may extend beyond 20 years. Table 2.4-3 shows existing and buildout employment by broad land use categories. Table 2.4-2 Buildout Population 1990-1990- 1990 1998 1998Buildout 2020 Share of Annual Share Annual CountGrowtof Growt Population Population y h Rate Population County h Rate South San 8.78.4 Francisco 54,312 59,208 8.3% 1.0% 67,40069,800 % 0.80.6% San Mateo County 649,623 715,382 100% 1.2% 798,600 100% 0.5% 2-17 Table 2.4-3 Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout Estimated 1997 Increase to Buildout Land Use Employment Buildout Employment Commercial/ Retail 10,400 3,100 13,500 Hotels/ Visitor Services1,800 3,900 5,700 Office + Bus. Park (inc. Medical) 5,700 23,500 29,200 El Camino Real Mixed Use - 700 700 Warehouse/Mixed Industrial 13,400 (3,200) 10,200 Public and Schools 1,500 - 1,500 Construction and Miscellaneious 2,500 1,800 4,300 Others (including at home workers) 3,800 3,200 7,000 Total 39,100 33,000 72,100 32,30071,400 Table 2.4-4 Jobs/Housing Balance Estimated 1997 Employment Buildout Jobs 39,100 71,40072,100 Employed Residents 27,900 32,35233,000 Jobs/Employed Residents 1.4 2.2 2-18 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use CHART South San Francisco Historic and Projected Population, 1940-2020 CHART Jobs/Employed Residents Balance; 1997 and Buildout *Chart will be updated in Indesign File 2-19 REVISED BUILDOUT & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (2001) In 2001, the City Council adopted the General Plan Amendment and Management Ordinance, which incorporates a revision to the appro the East of 101 area. The Amendment includes the following concl Total buildout will nearly double from existing development: 12.82 mill in 2001 to 23.32 million square feet in 2020, due mainly to the Office/R&D development. The revised East of 101 area buildout as new Office development. The Amendment anticipates that the East of 101 area will suppor million square feet, over the buildout that is projected in the Plan (1999). The additional development was based on the major projects lists (2000- 2001), the Gateway and Genentech development plans, and determin properties that would convert from industrial to Office/R&D by 2 Employment in the East of 101 area will increase by 2.4 times, f880. This increase is due to both increases in floor space in the East of and Office/R&D uses having a much higher employment intensity th development. The projected employment is based on Commercial at feet/employee, Office/R&D at 450 square feet/employee, Office at 3 feet/employee, Hotel at 420 square feet/employee and Industrial feet/employee. JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE Where once the residential and commercial portion of South San Fcisco was a company town for the “beef trust” packers on Point San Bruno, improved t extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco into a commuter suburb. Today only 23 percent of employed residents work in the city, despite a surplus of jobs, indicating regional jobs-housing inter-dependencies. As Table 2.4-4 shows, the city has continued to add jobs at a faster rate than population for the l were 13,610 more jobs than employed residents in the city. In contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall shortage of jobs; however, during the last jobs/employed residents ratio in San Mateo County has crept clos Given that much of the land in the city—including all of the East of 101 area— is not suited for residential development, it is unlikely that a balance betwe attained. However, continued job growth in the city will promote between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, and in the near future BART and ferry se—employment growth in the city will support regional transit as well. Noneth 2-20 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use South San Francisco serves not only regional interest, but is imperativ- technology and biotechnology jobs that the city seeks. Increased within the city will help partly alleviate traffic impacts resulth, and provide residential opportunities to those that work in the city but liv Plan seeks to maximize residential development opportunities on 2.5DETAILED PLANS AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS AREA AND SPECIFIC PLANS In addition to policies articulated in the General Plan, area, s direct planning in certain parts of the city. Figure 2-6 shows area, specific, and redevelopment plan areas. These include: The East of 101 Area Plan, which applies to all parts of the city east of U.S. 101 an includes a Design Element and policies; Specific master plans for key development areas, including Genen Terrabay, Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater), Sierra Point; and Redevelopment plans for many of the areas with the greatest pote including Gateway, Downtown/Central and the El Camino Real Corri These plans will continue to play key roles in shaping areas of Certain aspects of some of these plans may need to modified to ensure consiste 1999 General Plan. PLANS AND PROGRAMS INOTHER JURISDICTIONS External impacts from land uses and activities in surrounding ci influence development in South San Francisco as well. By and large, none of the surrounding cities have planned uses that are likely to have a direct physic Francisco. In its General Plan, the City of Brisbane outlines a bayside parcels similar to South San Francisco’s strategies in the East of 101 affecting South San Francisco’s future development potential. If Brisbane could compete with South San Francisco for office spacerease traffic in the area; however, Brisbane still needs to overcome m environmental constraints before this development is likely to b for a mix of office and hotel uses for the West Division propert-quarter mile south along El Camino Real, that is currently being used by the U.S. N Impacts of this are likely to be localized. San Francisco International Airport has major direct and indirec Francisco’s land use and economic prospects. Airport-imposed height restrictions and noise 2-21 limit land use options in some parts of the city (see Figure 2-2). However, a greater impact could stem from airport expansion, fueling growth in airport-supportive or -dependent uses such as freight forwarding, and the resulting demand for housing San Francisco. Noteworthy plans and programs of other agencies that influence or place limitations on development in South San Francisco include: The 100-foot strip of bayshore, inland of the mean high tide line, for w Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) establishes polic The area around and including the Terrabay project, which is within the San Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Area; and The area constrained by the Federal Aviation Administration Part primarily East of 101 area, in Lindenville, and in the Country Club Park area. 2.6LAND USE POLICIES Because land use policies for each of the planning sub-areas are spelled out in Chapter 3, policies here focus on citywide issues and those of a programmat GUIDING POLICIES 2-G-1 Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. Protection of residential neighborhoods is a General Plan theme. parts of the city are expected to undergo change over time, the s to ensure that existing residential neighborhoods are fully prot elsewhere. 2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increase result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. Locating uses that can support transit ridership and providing high development intensities around transit stations is not just in South San Fra but a regional interest as well. 2-G-4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service sses at specific locations. 2-22 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use The City recognizes that many existing manufacturing and warehou distribution uses perform a regional function as well, and seeks as conforming uses in specific locations. 2-G-5 Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities. 2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including th redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where would support transit, in locations where they would provide inc neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new deve promote alternative transportation modes. 2-G-9 Facilitate development of childcare centers and homes in all areas, and enc inclusion of childcare centers in non-residential developments. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES 2-I-1 Update the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations c Municipal Code for consistency with the General Plan. A complete revamping of the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary, establishment of new base districts; establishment of new overlay districts, including for coastal zo environmental protection and review processes, selected mixed-use areas (such as the Loft Overlay District), and transit-oriented development centers; new development regulations that reflect policy direction contai throughout the Plan; and Minimum and maximum development intensities as stipulated in the Land Use Classifications. This policy is especially critical given the limited land availa development. Approval of developments at lower than stipulated d be accomplished by map amendment to the General Plan, not by providing exemptions from stipulated densities. 2-23 2-I-2 Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated on-3. For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately by underlying These are areas that are central from a community perspective or areas change is expected. The intent is to provide to achieve unified regardless of underlying uses. For building heights East of 101 Section 3.5: East of 101 area. 2-I-3 Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means community design standards, not to circumvent development intens While in recent years established development intensities have b achieving prevailing intensities in the region, and even in the city, the need for planned developments, intensities established in th reflect development that is appropriate given both the local and context. This should obviate the need for planned developments merely as a tool to achieve higher than otherwise attainable standards. 2-I-4 Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. The requirements of the TDM Program are detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. (Amended by City Council R-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) The requirements of the TDM program for projects seeking an FAR bonus are based on the percentage trip reduction that is achieved. 2-I-4a Establish design requirements to achieve an FAR bonus as set forth in Table 2.2-2. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) 2-I-5 Examine the potential for establishing performance-based standards for industrial development to minimize resulting impacts. These would address issues such as noise, glare, odor, air quali parking and loading areas. Establishment of these is especially industrial uses come in contact with other uses, such as the Mayfair, Orange Park, and downtown neighborhoods near Lindenville. 2-I-6 Undertake a comprehensive review of the parking standards and es reduced parking for mixed-use developments, for development that meets specified TDM criteria, and Medium- and High-Density Residential development. Differing standards could also be established for downtown and specific transit- centered areas, such as within 1/4-mile of BART and CalTrain, and ferry terminal. 2-I-7 Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strate 2-24 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use Standards are items that can be mapped or measured and are mandatory. Guidelines are suggestions and may also provide the basis for de the Planning Commission and/or the basis for awarding design bon established by policy 2-I-4. Current city efforts in this area are uneven. While the City has residential design guidelines in place, these do not address issues such as domination of streets, or the introverted or gated nature of som developments. Also, while some other adjacent cities (such as Br design guidelines in place for warehousing and distribution uses, Francisco does not have such guidelines and standards. Because new development is expected only in targeted areas, inst to prepare all encompassing citywide guidelines, efforts may probably be better directed at standards/guidelines focused on specific geog These could include: Lindenville. A simple strategy would be to extend guidelines for development that apply to the East of 101 area to Lindenville as well; Downtown; El Camino Real Corridor; and The two (South San Francisco and San Bruno) BART station areas. Policies outlined in Chapter 3 for each of these areas would pro point. 2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve the community orientation of new development. A community orientation calls for greater attention to the relat residences, streets and shared spaces, and does not require sacrr amenities. Specific steps could include: Not permitting gated developments; Allowing sound walls only along freeway and arterial streets, as Chapter 4: Transportation; and Requiring parking in all non-industrial and business and technology park areas to be tucked behind buildings. 2-I-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual ne 2-25 Examples of urban patterns in South San Francisco that deviate f contemporary practice that would not be permitted under current several and include: Southwood Center, one of the few examples o center outside of downtown built to the street edge; residential developments in downtown built to the street edge which would be proscribed unde standards; and small-lot subdivisions such as in the “Town of Baden” subdivision, built before the City was incorporated. Several tools are available to structure the Zoning Ordinance to be respons the city’s urban fabric rather than imposing a unified set of st community character based districts; special districts (base or areas with unique development characteristics, as well as performance-based standards that allow flexibility. These options will need to be the Zoning Ordinance update (Policy 2-I-1). 2-I-10 Establish regulations to permit second units in single-family residential developments in accordance with State law. Requirements for this are spelled out in California Government C 65852. 2-I-11 Undertake a comprehensive update of the City’s Sign Ordinance. Efforts need to be focused primarily in two areas: downtown and Corridor. See also policies for signage for the business areas 3.5: East of 101 area. Unified sign programs should be required -tenant projects. 2-I-12 Undertake comprehensive efforts to promote development of childc should include: Permitting childcare centers in all districts; Developing criteria for incentives for childcare facilities, as specified TDM programs (Policy 2-I-5); Exploring the feasibility of assisting child care providers and and develop potential sites; and Preparing a childcare start-up guide. Regulations would also need to be in accordance with criteria foily day care homes established in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.6, Division 2 of Health and Safety Code. 2-26 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 2: Land Use 2-I-13 As part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas-2 in Chapter 7), require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. In addition to ensuring that development is environmentally sens facilitate development review approval by allowing development t General Plan environmental review, and not undertake all encompa environmental reviews, except where otherwise necessary or appro 2-I-14 Establish a Geographic Information System (GIS) based land use p information system. In addition to the more common development tracking system, this system c designed to provide clear direction regarding plan implementatio 2-I-15 As part of the General Plan Annual Report, monitor the rate and residential, commercial, and industrial development, and site availability for future development. The monitoring program should include a database linked to the c 2-I-16 Work with San Mateo County to resolve issues relating to land us unincorporated “islands”. Churches and other institutional land uses in the unincorporated park subdivision have been creating conflicts with surrounding r Parking, noise and traffic within City limits are exacerbated by of churches in this small area. Policy 3.6-I-4 stipulates that if this area were to incorporate, it would be as a whole, with infrastructure improve the County or by property owners. 2-I-17 Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing cont extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum. Most of the level properties in the City have been developed. Ma remaining vacant properties contain steep slopes which exceed 30 percen Many of these steep slopes are visually prominent and have unsta Such slopes should, therefore, be substantially preserved in the 2-I-18 Senior Citizen housing projects may be allowed to be constructed to a maximum density of 50 units/acres and off-street parking may be provided at a ratio lower than that which is otherwise required. 2-27 2-I-19 The benchmark density (units per net acre of land) shall be the umber of dwelling units proposed on a specific site for each 43,560 square feet of land allocated for public streets and submerged land. When the site is between 20 percent and 30 percent, the City may reduce tet density of a residential project up to fifty percent of the benchmark density grading and destruction of natural hillside environment. 2-I-20 Initiate a nexus analysis with the intent of creating a revenue to be used to provide new child care facilities and programs. 2-I-21 Initiate a study to increase provision of public art throughout the community through imposition of either on-site improvements or in-lieu fees. 2-I-22 Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use P for the environs of San Francisco International Airport. 2-28 v v South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas 3.4 EL CAMINO REAL El Camino Real (State Route 82) was the first highway and automobile route through the Peninsula. It developed parallel to the former Southern Pacific Pacific) that linked the “railroad suburbs” of San Mateo County corridor continues to be an important movement route through the Peninsula. The downtowns of most of the County’s cities—including San Mateo, Burlingame, Redwood City, Belmont, Atherton, San Bruno and Millbrae—are located on or adjacent to either El Camino Real or the Union Pacific tracks. El Camino Real, almost two miles long through its stretch in the most diverse area in terms of land use. Reflecting the regional commercial uses such as hotels, fast-food restaurants, and shopping centers selling home furnishing and comparison goods- predominate. Residential uses, offices, and service commercial uses are located in small pockets. El Camino Real is commercial center; all but one of the city’s neighborhood shopping centers are located in the corridor. In addition, the area contains the See’s Candies manuf Permanente Medical Facility, the County Government Center, and t Francisco BART station. New housing developments along El Camino Real include the Promenade and Greenridge. Policies for El Camino Real in the General Plan refer to North El Camino Real and South El Camino Real. The North El Camino Real area refers to portions o First Street and includes the following subareas: South San Franci Kaiser Hospital Area and Buri Buri Center Area. The South El Cam portions of El Camino Real south of First Street on the western side and up to Chestnut Avenue on the eastern side of El Camino Real, and include the following subareas: South San Francisco High School/Baden Area and See’s Candies/South Spruce.the following five sub- areas: NORTH EL CAMINO REAL SUBAREAS 1. South San Francisco BART Station Area. This is the northernmost part of the corridor, and site of thefor the planned South San Francisco BART station and adjacent mixed-use transit village. The mixed-use transit village comprises apartments with ground floor retai including a grocery store, café and bank. Also along El Camino Real is Costco Shopping Center and Treasure Island Trailer Court.Development is set-back from the streets and is extremely auto-oriented; there are no sidewalks or other pedestrian amenities a- street parking is allowed. Development opportunities are in the e and in addition to the BART station, include the former Macy’s S 3-1 2. Kaiser Hospital Area. Kaiser Hospital is one of the city’s principal employers. El Camino Real in this area is six travel lanes wide, landscaped me parallel parking on both sides of the street. On-street parking is competitive. This area is very stable, and unlikely to see many land use changes as a result of BART extension. 3. Buri Buri Center Area. This area, with the intersection of El Camino/ Chestnut as its focus, has a highthe highest concentration of activity along the El Camino Real, and includes the northernmost point in the city where El Camino can be crossed. El Camino is fronted by non-residential uses throughout this stretch, including office plaza, a funeral chapel, gas stations, motels, delis, and some fast-food establishments. Buri Buri Shopping Center, containing PacificBellMarket, as well as the Municipal Services Building, Fairway Plaza, and Chestnut Plaza are also in the area. Redevelopment opportunities lie in the area between El Camino Real and Antoinette Lane. SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL SUBAREAS 41. South San Francisco High School/ Baden. Commercial uses in this area generally fall into three categories – retail/market, fast-food and auto-related uses such as gas stations or auto-repair shops. Also located along this stretch of El Camino Real are a funeral parlor, several motels/hotels and Dominated by the High School, this stretch of El Camino includes some of the oldest, bungalow-style houses in the city, part of the Baden neighborhood. Commercial uses in this area generally fall in two categories – comparison goods such as home furnishings, and a large number of fast-food stores catering to student clientele. Southwood Center, is also located here and is one of the few examples of a shopping center outside of downtown built to the street edge. Any new developmen result from reuse. Non-commercial development along this stretch of El Camino Real incls South San Francisco High School and some of the oldest, bungalow-style houses in the City, part of the Baden neighborhood. 52. See’s Candies/ South SpruceTanforan. This area contains both some of the newerst commercial uses along El Camino Real and NoorHuntington Avenue, as well as one of the oldest business establishments in the city – See’s Candies, which is a major employment center. Also located along this section of the corridor are here is a Safeway, Longs Drug StoreCVS Drug Store, and the acity’s onlymultiplex movie theater and the Brentwood Shopping Center. While redevelopment opportunities in this area are limited, Tthe planned San Bruno BART station is within a walking distance of much of this part of E corridor. 3-2 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Table 3.4-1 El Camino Real: Development, Population, and Employment Under th Approved Additional Total Population/Employment (Housing Units/Floor Area in Square Feet) Residential Low Density 180 - 180 530 Medium Density 30 10 40 120 High Density -520 520 1,530 El Camino Real Mixed Use -840 8402,410 Total 210 1,370530 1,5807404,5902,180 Non-residential -- -- Business Commercial (Hotels) -- -- Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial) - -- Coastal Commercial -- -- Downtown Commercial -- -- Office 134,000 134,000 415 Business & Technology Park - - -- Industrial -- -- Community Commercial 160,000 145,000 305,000 610 El Camino Real Mixed Use -288,900 288,900700 Total 160,000 567,900 727,9001,725 GUIDING POLICIES: EL CAMINO REAL 3.4-G-1Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard, that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provide ident 3.4-G-2Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentr provide focii and identity to the different parts of El Camino Real. 3.4-G-3Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital ped-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area’ regional center. 3.4-G-4Develop more east-west crossings El Camino Real that connect the city’s neighborhoods, and a continuous parallel street on the eastside travel routes. 3-3 3.4-G-5Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. 3.4-G-6Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a va and non-residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment. Work with Caltrans and other agencies to implement the El Camino Real Landscape 3.4-1-1 Conceptual Master Plan for the entire stretch of El Camino Real Francisco. Develop, and in coordination with CalTrans, implement a streetsc 3.4-1-1 Camino Real for its entire stretch through South San Francisco which includes: Sidewalks, street lights and other pedestrian amenities in desig pedestrian activity; Consistent double row of median trees and trees on either side o the street for the six-lane stretch of El Camino Real (generally Kaiser Hospital area a Consistent double row of trees for the two-lane northern stretch (Kaiser Hospital to Colma). Since El Camino Real is a State Route (SR 82), implementation of plan willrequire CalTrans’ cooperation. Prepare and implement an El Camino Real overlay district in the 3.4-1-2 Ordinance that provides development standards that further El Ca as a mixed-use use boulevard, accommodating the need for both auto-oriented uses as well as designated pedestrian-oriented centers. Regulations should include: Consistent maximum height of 50 feet regardless of the underlyin maximum height of 80 feet in two areas: the BART station area, a Chestnut/El Camino Real area (see Figure 2-3); No minimum front setback requirements, provided active uses are to streets, and performance-oriented building transparency and other standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance are maintained; Requirements for awnings, shade, building transparency for desig areas; and 3-4 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Landscape requirements. BART Station Area In partnership with property owners, area residents, and BART an 3.4-1-3 develop the approximately eight-acre McLellan Boulevard Extension area (north of the BART station between El Camino Real and Mission Boulevard; see F-4) as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses. Permit big-box or other regional commercial activities north of the pedestrian-oriented 3.4-1-4 center, but not in the center. Establish transit-supportive development requirements for the approximately eight-acre 3.4-1-5 station area that include: Designation of the area as a transit-overlay zone, with specific development requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance; Transit-oriented design and development standards that address pedestria comfort and safety, including maximum setbacks or “build-to” lines, and building transparency requirements; Inclusion of child care facilities; Prohibition on auto-oriented and drive-through establishments; and Minimum density and development intensity requirements. Prepare a focused plan for public improvements that includes: 3.4-1-6 Streets and other infrastructure improvements; and Sidewalk design and construction within a 1/2-mile of the BART station to integrate the station with the surroundings. Work with BART and other agencies to ensure that the proposed pl 3.4-1-7 improvements includes: Direct pedestrian connections and access to the El Camino High School and d pedestrian connection at the terminus of Evergreen Drive to the These connections are currently not incorporated in the station-area layout. As currently designed, pedestrian connections will occur through a kiss-and-ride parking lot. 3-5 Continuation of the two-mile long bikeway (included in Section 4-3: Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking) at the surface of BART track terminal building/bicycle parking area; and Concessions fronting the entire northern frontage (which faces t parking structure. Require any new development/redevelopment within 1/2-mile of the BART station at a 3.4-1-8 density of no less than 30 units per net acre for residential uses, or an FAR of 1.5 for non-residential uses, or an appropriate combination of the two. Main intensities where specified otherwise in the General Plan. Ensure that the development program for the (approximately 2.5 a 3.4-1-9 of the block that includes the BART station includes: Mix of uses, with retail and other concessions at the ground flo minimum of 100 housing units at upper floors; and Active retail uses/concessions along the north, east, and south of the property. Ensure that the development program for the former Macy’s wareho 3.4-1-10 Active retail/concession uses along McLellan Boulevard Extension northern part of the street); Intensive residential and/or office uses at upper floors within 400 feet of McLellan Boulevard; and A variety of commercial uses in the portion of the site that ext feet of McCellan Boulevard. Work with BART on the potential for joint development of the pro 3.4-1-11 former Macy’s warehouse site, and north of McLellan Boulevard Extension a right-of-way adjacent, with transit-oriented uses. Explore the feasibility for joint development other areas. Encourage redevelopment of the Treasure Island Trailer Park as Msity 3.4-1-12 Residential development; permit no more than 50,000 square feet at the site, fronting the intersection of McLellan Boulevard and Kaiser Hospital Area In cooperation with Kaiser Hospital, undertake a program to alleiate on-street parking 3.4-1-13 shortage. 3-6 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Many workers and visitors to the hospitals park along El Camino several thousand feet north. Many park on the south side of the pedestrians crossing the six-lane state highway at non-designated crossings is also a safety hazard. Among the possible solutions to alleviate the p to reduce the width of the median creating two additional parkin median (or at least one parking lane the north side of the mediaould also slow traffic near the hospital. Work with Kaiser Hospital to explore the feasibility of a street 3.4-1-14 hospital to Mission Road. With approximately 1,200 employees, Kaiser Hospital is the city’ employer and the largest in the area west of U.S. 101. As a full service health care facility, the hospital also draws visitors, generating much traf only access points to the hospital are from El Camino Real. A po connection to Mission Road, especially given the planned extension of Mission Road southward (see Chapter 4: Transportation), would both impro accessibility to the hospital and provide some relief to traffic Real. This connection would require traversing the BART right-of-way. A large site north immediately north of the BART right-of-way is currently vacant; thus, a street connection could be provided without disrupting any exist Buri-Buri Center Area Connect Arroyo Drive to the west of El Camino Real with Oak Avenue to the east. 3.4-1-15 This will provide a new east-west connection parallel to Chestnut Avenue. In addition to providing traffic relief, this connection will help Sunshine Garden neighborhoods. Maintain a plurality of uses in the area; permit mixed-use development in the area 3.4-1-16 southeast of Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real, provided no residen at the ground level, and El Camino Real is fronted by active use. Area Wide Policies Require that any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses in this area is in 3.4-1-17 the form of pedestrian-oriented high intensity active use or mixed-use development (with active uses fronting El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor at the ground level and a range of compatible uses at upper leve behind active uses.) Retail or other active single use developments are allowed, provided they meet minimum FAR requirements. 3-7 For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Drive, either a mix of uses is permitted or residential u permitted. Active uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, airline ticket agencie services, libraries, museums and galleries fronting El Camino Re ground level, and a range of compatible uses such as additional office, and hotels/motels at upper levels and in portions not fronting El Camino Real. 3.4-1-18Requireany development/redevelopment on sites larger than 20,000 square FAR of no less than 0.6, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be devoted to active uses. The req minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the un restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. 3.4-1-19Encourage concentrated higher-intensity activity on highly visible locations—such as corner sites around intersections, and adjacent to the Centennial Way Linear Park—to provide foci and identity to the South El Camino Real area as a pedestrian-scaled environment. Development around intersections and the Linear Park should comp buildings that define the public realm and relate to the streets, and not su parking lots or parking structures. Establish development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for Sout 3.4-1-20 Require a minimum percentage of the frontage of a site to be deved to active uses. Ensure that depth and height of the provided space is adeq accommodate a variety of tenants and provide flexibility for the Allow buildings up to 80 feet by right, and up to 120 feet (alon as specified in Chapter 2) based on discretionary design review the Planning Commission. Maintain a consistent building base/streetwall along El Camino Rl and side streets. Maintain build-to lines, with step-backs to minimize bulk. Require buildings to be finely articulated and visually engaging Maintain large lot sizes to accommodate high-intensity mixed-use development. 3.4-1-21 3-8 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Encourage lot consolidation in the area, either through active redevelopment, or 3.4-1-22 through owner participation. Promote visually intricate development, using horizontal and vertical building 3.4-1-23 articulation that engages pedestrians; and diversity in color, m and building volumes. Maintain an open, walkable environment throughout the area by pr 3.4-1-24 ground level for enhanced pedestrian connections, either through internal semi-public pathways. Limit curb cuts along pedestrian routes, so that pedestrian circulation and safety are 3.4-1-25 not compromised by vehicle access to parking. Locate parking so that it is not a dominant visual feature of th 3.4-1-26 environment. Encourage underground parking by including all area a building substantially above-grade devoted to parking in maximum FAR calculations. South San Francisco High School/Baden Require development be oriented to El Camino Real, with the ground floor of buildings 3.4-1-27 designed so that pedestrians can see shops, restaurants, and act along the sidewalk. Encourage any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses on the east side of 3.4-1-17 El Camino Real in this area in the form of mixed-use development, with retail/office uses at the ground level and residential uses at upper levels. R oriented to El Camino Real, and the street fronted by active use Encourage lot consolidation in the area, either through active r 3.4-1-18 through owner participation. As part of the streetscape master plan for El Camino Real, uUndertake efforts to slow 3.4-1-28 traffic near the High School, and provide an adequate number of crossings across El Camino Real. See’s Candies/South SpruceTanforan Require development be oriented to El Camino Real, with the ground floor of buildings 3.4-1-29 designed so that pedestrians can see shops, restaurants, and act along the sidewalk. The ground floor of buildings along Huntington, Noor, and South 3-9 Spruce avenues should also be designed to provide visual interes pedestrian comfort. Recognize See’s Candies as a transitional use; permit it as a conforming 3.4-1-193.4-1-30 use, allowing for expansion or contraction as necessary. Require the site to be in conformance with the El Camino Real Mixed-Use District, non- industrial and sensitive to the residential uses to the north. 3-10 v South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services 5.1PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Parks and recreational open spaces provide opportunities for bot organized or informal sports, and passive recreation. Despite th parkland in South San Francisco, a broad range of outdoor recrea opportunities exist, each reflecting the variety of the city’s landscape and pattern from shoreline open space on San Francisco Bay, to Sign Hill Park, situated at an elevation of more than 600 feet. In addition, the San Bruno Mountain County Park—a major regional open space resource and prominent visual landmark—lies directly north of the city. The General Plan provides for new parkland in South San Francisco by maintaining the ex- isting parkland standard for new residents and setting a new sta This provision is made with the recognition that the City’s abil may be limited since the city is largely built out. The Plan also seeks to increase shoreline ac- cessibility and foster the creation of an integrated network of open space. EXISTING FACILITIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS South San Francisco currently includes 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents, for public use, as shown in Figure 5-1. This includes 70 acres 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 community’s needs, closer analysis reveals that only 1.2 acres od- ing school parks and open space, is available per 1,000 residents. Table 5.1-1 provides an in- ventory of the City’s parks and open spaces. Community and recreation centers provide space for many of the cd services that are central to South San Francisco’s recreation programs. The City h buildings, some of which are used for specialized services such Magnolia Center, public meetings at the Municipal Services Building, and Boys and Girls Club programs at the Paradise Valley Recreation Center. The City also has an indoor p pool at Orange Park. Outdoor pools at South San Francisco High School an School supplement Orange Pool in the summer. A new public gymnasiu 5-1 1998 as part of the Terrabay project. The City offers a variety of recreation and special programs, ra-school day care to senior activities. Both indoor and outdoor recreational programs occur in a combinat of school and City facilities. The types of programs offered ranm- petitive swimming to classes and performances in the cultural an offers programs geared toward specific age groups, such as teenagers camp, preschool, and after-school programs for children. Under the direction of its 1990 and 1997 Park, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Master Plans, the City is addressing the specific deficiencies in park Present efforts are focused on improving and expanding the city’ Orange Memorial Park, as well as developing and improving two newly acquired park site The City also intends to improve bayfront access at new shorelini- cycle and pedestrian access throughout the city in a system of linear parks, and continue its ongoing safety and accessibility upgrade program. PARK AND RECREATION DEFICIENCIES Deficiencies in park and recreation facilities stem from both th of parks and community centers. The 1990 and 1997 PROS Master Pls identified major de- ficiencies within neighborhoods: A lack of community and neighborhood parks in downtown, home to 20 percent of the city’s population. The PG&E easement between Armour and Linden, improved in 1997, is partly helping to alleviate this shortage; Inadequate Bayshore access and public parking; Lack of traditional park facilities in the Sign Hill/Paradise Valley Area. Development in Terrabay will help alleviate this situation. Access to Sign Hill The Sunshine Gardens/Mission Road area is served by schools but lacks parkland, with no apparent opportunities for park acquisition; The Avalon/Brentwood and Buri Buri/Winston Serra neighborhoods both have neighborhood parks at the edge of the neighborhoods, reducing th many neighborhood residents. Acquisition of surplus school land at Avalon and Alta Loma Schools has helped address this problem. Development and improve the park sites will be accomplished in 1999; and 5-2 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services Park facilities have been upgraded (1997-99) to address deferred maintenance and for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and th Products Safety Commission (CPSC) Handbook for Public Playground Also, the need for parks and recreation opportunities in employment areas has recently emerged as a concern. The 1994 East of 101 Area Plan calls for estan- dards for parkland in employment areas. CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS The General Plan defines six classes of parks and recreational open space areas: Community Parks. Community parks serve a citywide population and usually include sports facilities, such as lighted fields, courts, swimming pool and other special use facilities. Restrooms and off-street parking are generally pro- vided. Although community parks have a much larger service area than neighborhoo parks, they often serve a neighborhood function as well. South S and maintains three community parks. Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks are devoted primarily to serving a small portion of the city, usually within easy walking and biking dist These parks are designed for unorganized and unsupervised recrea equipment, open turf areas, and picnic tables may be provided, although restrooms and off-street parking may not. Neighborhood parks typically measure between th and seven acres in South San Francisco. There are five existing designated in the city. Mini Parks. Mini parks are small play areas or green spaces, usually acres in size, designed for small children or for visual purpose equipment, these parks may provide active recreation opportuniti or basketball. There are 12 mini parks scattered throughout South S Linear Parks. Linear geographic features, such as watercourses a utility and transportation rights-of-way, provide unique opportunities for parks. These corridors often provide formal access to the features they the basis for a network of formal trails that link other parks aopen space areas. While these lands are most often used for passive recreational pursuits, play equip- ment, open turf areas, and picnic tables may be provided, depend of the corridor. There is currently one linear park in South San Francisco, located 5-3 along the bayfront. A second linear park is in development along the Colma Creek between Orange and Spruce avenues. School Parks. School playground facilities are available for pubn- tains a Joint Powers Agreement with the School District for the playfields for school sports and City recreation programs. Schoolc- count for approximately 25 percent of the park and open space area in South San Francisco, measuring between 3 and 11 acres in size. These areasnhance the City’s complement of neighborhood parks and athletic fields. Recreational Open Space. These lands are most often used for passive recreatic- tivities, such as walking or hiking. Improvements are generally San Francisco’s unusual geographic features provide numerous oppo unique open space areas, such as the Sign Hill Park. Over the years, the City has taken advantage of these opportunities, and is continuing to put effort into improving access to the bayfront and the hills. General Plan park standards are established in Table 5.1-2. These include standards for parks in residential areas (3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new resi- dents), supported by residential development, and in employment areas, with new parkland to be funded by requirements based on employment generated (0.5 acres per 1,000 new em- ployees). With the expected addition of 8,200 residents and 27,500 employees over t horizon, approximately 38 acres of new parkland will be needed. will result from creation of new linear and mini-parks, for which no specific standards are established in the General Plan. While new parkland should gener service area standards outlined in Table 5.1-2, because opportunities for new parkland are extremely limited, size and service area adherence is not required. The General Plan proposes several new parks to meet the needs ofm- ployees, as well as linear parks along old railroad spurs and above the underground BART tracks. While some of these proposals recognize direction establ Master Plan, others are located to maximize opportunities resulte- lopment. Parkland proposals are discussed in detail in policies that follow: GUIDING POLICIES: PARKS AND RECREATION 5.1-G-1 Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas l meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and employees. 5-4 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services 5.1-G-2 Improve bayfront access along its entire length and endorse the important natural asset. 5.1-G-3 Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open space; improve access to existing facilities where feasible. 5.1-G-4 Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvemen existing public utility and transportation rights-of-way. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: PARKS AND RECREATION 5.1-I-1 Maintain the PROS Master Plan as the implementing tool for General Plan p recreation policies and proposals. Park proposals and standards in the General Plan should be reflected in the next update of the PROS Master Plan. 5.1-I-2 Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new located in employment areas. The standards set out in this policy will generate a need for 13.5 a parkland in employment areas, and 24.6 acres of new parkland in residential areas, as shown in Table 5.1-3. The residential standard is in compliance with the Quimby Act. While park facili- ties are currently required for new residential development, thee- menting regulations will need to be amended to incorporate park standards for employment uses as well. 5.1-I-3 Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on Figure 5-1. Opportunities for park dedication with new residential developme In-lieu fees are intended to give the City flexibility to purchase available parkland elsewhere in the city. 5.1-I-4 Develop new parks in locations and sizes shown on Figure 5-1. The General Plan proposes several new parks in existing residentemploy- ment areas that would meet this need, as indicated in Table 5.1-4. These include: 5-5 Residential Areas Southwood School (Baden Continuation High School). This site, pr an ideal opportunity for the City to jointly use all or a part or- ty. Measuring four acres, the site is located near El Camino Real and is adjacent the California Golf and Country Club. This site is in an area with parkland deficiency and located within a half-mile of severalnew residen- tial development sites in the El Camino Real corridor. A Head Start pro- gram facility could be included on the site. Colma Creek Linear Park. The stretch of Colma Creek between Orange Memorial Park and Spruce Avenue is currently being developed as a linear park. Downtown Park. A two-acre park in the downtown area would provide important aesthetic benefits to the area. Benches, paths, and an area should be included. Although a specific location for this p been designated in the General Plan Diagram, this should be established in the future through the PROS Master Plan process. Employment Areas Railroad Avenue Linear Park. This rail-to-trail conversion, stretching from U.S. 101 to East Grand Avenue would significantly improve access to East of 101 area and the bayfront. Measuring 7.5 acres in size, should be of ample width to support the placement benches, pavedh- ways, and exercise stations. This park is part of the Railroad Avenue Ex- tension proposed in Policy 4.2-I-2 of the Plan. Lindenville Linear Park. Another rail-to-trail conversion, this park meas- ures 2.0 acres in size and is located between South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue near the City boundary with San Bruno. This park should provide picnic facilities and benches for nearby office workers. These provisions should allow the City to more than double its drk- land acreage to 177.6 acres (see the chart to the right). Likewi parkland provided for every 1,000 residents represents an increa one acre for every 1,000 residents. The current ratio is 1.2. 5.1-I-5 Use the PROS Master Plan process to achieve additional parkland to meet the residential parkland need at General Plan buildout. 5-6 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services As indicated in Table 5.1-3, the 27,500 new employees and 8,200 new residents expected at Plan buildout create the need for about 38 acres of new parkland. Park sites shown on the General Plan Diagram meet the entire need for parkland in employment areas, providing 13.5 acres. Park sites on the General Plan Diagram provide 14.0 acres of the 24.6 acres required in residential are PROS Master Plan process should be used to provide the remaining required, as necessary. Sites for these are not shown on the General Plan Diagram. 5.1-I-6 Work with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and the SFPUC to lease and develop linear parks on existing public utility and transportation rights-of-way in the city, where appropriate and feasible. The proposals for potential linear parks are shown on the General Plan Diagram; some of these proposals are not new, and are included in the 1997 PROS Master Plan as well. These include: BART Linear Park. The City will need to work closely with BART to make the linear park on the surface right-of-way for the BART extension to San Francisco International Airport a reality. This two-mile long corridor would provide about 30 acres of passive recreation space, paved paths, a bikeway, and open turf areas. This linear park could become a primary greenway linkage in the city’s central area. Pacific Gas and Electric Corridor. Located in the northeast port city, this 5.5 acre right-of-way would link the new Terrabay residential development with a new City park established at Linden Avenue anAir- port Boulevard. The varied terrain of this site makes it ideal a recreation area. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Corridor. This right-of-way is located in the Winston-Serra area of the City. This corridor is already un- der development as a linear park from the city’s western boundary to Hickey Boulevard. The PROS Master Plan proposes the extension of park to the Alta Loma School site. Opportunities for this extens be limited by the fact that residences are located along this ri-of-way. Nevertheless, this proposal should be explored. Bayfront Linear Park. Several portions of the bayfront in South San Fran- cisco have already been developed as linear parks, and include paved pathways, benches, parking areas, etc. As more sites are developed, the provision of a continuous shoreline band of open space will become a re- ality. The area of existing parkland is 29 acres, which would do 5-7 acres upon completion. While privately owned, it is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), which must approve new development plans on land 100 feet from the mean high tide level. Existing parkland has been established by requiring open space dedication along the shoreline. 5.1-I-7 Develop a network of linkages, as shown in Figure 5-1, to connect existing and proposed parks and open space, school facilities and other significant features to extent possible. The parkland proposals of the General Plan and the PROS Master P the basis for a continuous network of linkages to connect existi open space areas, school facilities, the bayfront, and San Bruno Mountain. This network would facilitate movement between these features, improv perceived access, and better incorporate more distant landmarks. Linkages would comprise landscape features—such as existing and proposed linear parks and open space—and hardscape features—such as existing and proposed city streets and connections. This network of linkages would also provide the basis for a bicy route system in South San Francisco. See Section 4.3: Alternativ Systems and Parking. 5.1-I-8 Improve the accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill Park and the bayfront. Appropriate departments in the City should study issues of access, safety, ar- rounding neighborhoods in conjunction with enhanced access progr use of Sign Hill Park does not create unacceptable impacts to surrounding areas. Sign Hill Park and the bayfront are the City’s most significant however, access to these features is difficult due to the locati that these areas are off limits. Sign Hill While Sign Hill is clearly visible from most locations in the ci by residential development and access is limited to one point at and Rocca Avenue. This access should be enhanced to provide trai such as signage, a map board, an interpretive display, waste receptaclesp- portunities to formally establish other access points should be access points should be indicated on approach roads and on bicyce- strian route system maps. Bayfront 5-8 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services The bayfront is South San Francisco’s most significant natural fr- mal public access points currently exist, including Oyster Point Marina, Oyster Point Business Park, and at SamTrans. While access will improve shoreline sites are redeveloped, U.S. 101 significantly hinders from accessing the bayfront. The General Plan proposes three sol for in- creased bayfront access: The creation of two new east-west street crossings of U.S. 101 at Railroad Avenue and Victory Avenue (Policy 4.2-I-2). The Railroad Avenue extension will be further enhanced by a linear park along its length in East of 101 area, and the proposed extension of the Colma Creek Linear Park (Policy 5.1-I-4) will provide a direct parkland linkage to the bayfront. The location of activities on the bayfront, such as a Campus Center and park that will draw people to the shoreline (policies 3.5-I-8, 3.5-I-9); and A shoreline overlay zone for design review of bayfront proposals t improved access (Policy 3.5-I-13). 5.1-I-9 Review the current regulations for the dedication of parkland in that requirements are adequate to meet the standards of the General Plan at Plan buildout. The City’s regulations apply population density, determined to be the average number of persons per household, to calculate the appropriate de parkland in subdivisions. The current requirement is the dedicat parkland for every 1,000 new residents. According to Department of Finance estimates, the current average numbe persons per household in South San Francisco is 3.07. According c- tions, this number is expected to increase slightly through 2005 fall again to 3.07 by 2020. In addition, the trend toward higher density residential development—due to smaller households and the fact that South San Francisco generally built out and most new residential development will be density ranges—means that more parkland per housing unit will be required to maintain the parkland standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. 5-9 5.1-I-10 Explore methods to improve connectivity to open space and enhanc recreation opportunities along South El Camino Real Corridor. This is an area identified for mixed-use development, with potential addition of 2,300 residents. Possibilities to enhance open space and recreat for new residents include: Increasing connectivity to the South San Francisco BART linear park by im- proving Orange Avenue and Spruce Avenue to be more pedestrian fr Working with the South San Francisco Unified School District on shared school/neighborhood park at the South San Francisco High site; Continuing in-lieu fees to provide the ability to add to parkland citywide; and As part of Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan update, lo- cused opportunities for mini-parks along South El Camino Real Corridor. 5-10 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 9: Noise Chapter 9: Noise Noise is an important and complex issue in South San Francisco. is susceptible to noise impacts, due mainly to the presence of major noise generators. Signifi- cant sources of noise in the city include San Francisco International Airport (SFO), major transportation corridors such as U.S. 101 and I-280, and extensive industrial uses. The city’s land use pattern generally accommodates these conditions with in to the airport, separated from relatively noise-sensitive uses by U.S. 101. This element is in- tended to ensure compliance with State requirements and promote a comprehensive, long-range program of achieving acceptable noise levels throughout South San Francisco. 9.1 NOISE MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING Noise can be defined as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise varies widely in its scope, source, and volume, ranging from individual occurrences such as a barking dog, to the intermr- head aircraft, to the fairly constant noise generated by traffic on U.S. 101. Many uses are noise sensitive, such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. Noise needs to be controlled around other uses as well, although levels rarely exceed the recom- mended maximum. The known effects of noise on humans include hearing loss, communica- tion interference, sleep interference, physiological responses, When noise levels are reported, they are expressed as a measurement over time in o account for variations in noise exposure. Levels also account for varying degrees of sensi to noise during daytime and nighttime hours. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn) both reflect noise exposure over an average day with weighting to reflect this sensitivity. The CNEL is the refenoise law and is used to express major continuous noise sources, such as aircraft or traffic. 9.2 NOISE SOURCES AND PROJECTIONS For the purposes of this Plan, sources of noise are categorized as being either air- craft-generated or locally-generated. Existing and projected noise levels are depicted on noise contour maps. Each contour reflects linear bands subject to siminoise levels. Fig- ure 9-1 depicts existing and projected aircraft-generated noise levels in South San Francisco. 9-1 NOISE SOURCE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS Aircraft overflight noise is a particularly important issue in South San Francisco due to the city’s proximity to San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Aircraft noise continues to re- ceive considerable attention in the city, due in part to the mas project and to significant expected increases in average daily aircr Average aircraft noise levels measured in 1997 indicate that areas in the southwe the city experience noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL. A smaller area in the viciEl Camino Real near the San Bruno border has noise levels in excess of 70 dB CNEL. Existing and projected noise contours, as well as the Noise Insulation Program area, are shown on 1 Figure 9-1. Assuming no change in SFO’s runway configuration, aircraft noise contours are projected to shift gradually eastward by 2010. As a result, areas east of thet flight path may expe- rience an increase in average noise levels. At the same time, the 70 dB CNEL contour are ex- pected to shrink, no longer impacting South San Francisco. Noise contours are based on average noise levels. Single event noises such as aircraft flyovers need to occur frequently and at very high volumes in order to brnoise levels to 65 dB CNEL. Even areas outside the 65 dB CNEL contours are impacted by flyovers. Thus, even the 65 dB CNEL noise contour is expected to shift eastward, flyovers will still throughout the southwestern part of the city to high noise levels. ALUC’s 1995 SFO Land Use Plan establishes the 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFO, consistent with noise restrictions in the California Administrative Code, Title 21, Subchapter 6 “Noise Standards.” Local plans, policy actions, or development activi- ties that affect areas within that boundary must receive ALUC ap a finding of overriding consideration prior to local permit issuance. ALUC de boundary by examining both federal and State noise impact boundaries: Federal Impact Boundary. The federal 65 dB CNEL boundary is base Noise Exposure Map (NEM),2 as accepted by the FAA under the Federal Aviation Regula- tions (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. This 65 dB contour serves as the basis for FAA determination of local agency eligibility for fede noise insulation projects. State Impact Boundary. The State boundary is the 65 dB CNEL bouns defined 9-2 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 9: Noise by the required airport noise monitoring system. The monitoring system consists of 27 off-site noise monitors, plus two additional monitors near the runway end noise contour is updated each calendar quarter and submitted to San Mateo County and the State Division of Aeronautics. ALUC uses the latest SFO quarterly noise re- port to determine the compatibility of land use plans. ALUC is now completing an updated land use plan for the airport, which is expected in early 1999.3 The updated plan will be based on the 1995 Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) that were approved by the FAA. The 1995 noise contours—65 dB and 70 dB—are shown in Figure 9-1. Large portions of the city fall within the 1995 federally accepted 65 dB CNEL noise contour. The 70 dB CNEL contour impacts a small por- tion of the City’s eastern industrial area near the San Bruno border. Local plans, policy actions, or development activities within the 65 dB CNEL boundary re- quires the approval of the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prior to local permit issuance. To assist this process, the ALUC has estanoise/land use compa- tibility standards as the basis of plan review (see Table 9.2-1). The City also applies these standards in its review of development applications located with The City’s General Plan will be subject to ALUC review. All local land use pla designated noise impact area (NEM 65 dB CNEL contour) must receive explicitp- proval, and all plans within the larger ALUC planning area must be compatible with the SFO Land Use Plan. ALUC uses established noise/land use compatibility standards (Table 9.2-1) as the basis for plan review. According to these standards, commercial uses would be acceptable within the 65 dB FAA-approved contour, and residential uses would be acceptable with noise insulation. In addition, according to the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding betwSFO and San Ma- teo County jurisdictions, residences constructed after 1992 with 4 are required to be insulated to meet the 45 dB interior noise standard. Residential noise insu- lation would also be required pursuant to any separate agreement between the City SFO. The primary sources of noise generated within South San Francisco itself are streets an highways, rail, and industrial uses: Traffic Noise. One of South San Francisco’s most important locational ad its excellent road access; however, this access also results in noise impacts over much of the city. Traffic noise depends primarily on traffic speed—high fre- quency tire noise increases with speed—and the proportion truck traffic—which ge- nerates engine, exhaust, and wind noise. The proximity of freeways and major streets, and the large amount of truck traffic serving industrial, warehousing, and freight for- 9-3 warding uses in the city, make South San Francisco susceptible t 9xxx illustrates roadways in the city producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. Railroad Noise. The Southern Pacific Railroad line is heavily used and gea- tively high average noise levels in surrounding areas. Caltrain runs 68 commuter trains each day through South San Francisco, and Southern Pacific freight trains also use the line. Since the line runs adjacent U.S. 101 and is geners- trial and commercial land uses, rail operations have a negligibl South San Francisco. Industrial Noise. Industrial uses in the city are an important part of the noise envi- ronment in South San Francisco. Industrial noise is generated from onsite activities or from associated truck traffic offsite. While industrial uses in East of 101 and south of Railroad Avenue do generate noise, impacts on noise-sensitive uses is minimal. In any case, these industrial areas are largely located within the 65 dr- craft noise. This element prohibits industrial development that will result inoise levels of 60 dB CNEL or greater at noise-sensitive uses, a situation that could occur in the industrial a west of U.S. 101, that border on residential uses north of Railroad Avenue and within the Mayfair Village subdivision. 9.3 NOISE PROJECTIONS It is important that this element address not only the existing noise conditions in South San Francisco, but also the projected conditions over the horizon ofIt is possible to project future levels of both aircraft- and locally-generated noise. The 1989 SFO Master Plan outlined significant expansion and improvements toa- pacity, including a new international terminal, modified parking and circulation, and addi- tional maintenance and support facilities. These improvements are underway and will result in the annual aircraft operations indicated in Table 9.3-1. Table 9.3-1 indicates thate projected decrease in the population impacted by overflight noise is expected to decrease, even though the overall number ofSFO will increase. This decrease is a function of a smaller 65 dB CNEL co elimination of Stage 2 aircraft (see Figure 9-1). SFO is currently preparing new contours as part of the analysis of aircraft operations expansion. These stu formalized soon, indicate that the currently projected noise contours (see Figure 9-1) represent a conservative estimate, and the contours are likely to shrink, impror- craft-related noise conditions in South San Francisco. 9-4 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 9: Noise Although the elimination of Stage 2 aircraft will result in a nenoise, much of this reduction has already occurred. Overall noise levels are actually projected to in- crease by one-half dB by 2006, with nighttime levels expected to increase by 1n- creased operations. These increases are not considered perceptib or significant. While overall average noise levels will be reduced, single-event flyover noise will continue to be problematic in South San Francisco. With the increased number-event flyover noise is expected to become more frequent. SFO will implement mitigation measures to reduce flyover noise, including the potential revision of departure routes overSan Mateo County and the potential reduction in use of Runway 28, which points in the direction of 5 South San Francisco. It is possible to project future levels of locally-generated noise over the horizon of this Plan simply by considering current and projected land use trends.Figure 9-2 depicts future local- ly-generated noise levels in the city. Traffic Noise. Traffic noise depends primarily on traffic speed and the proportion truck traffic. Traffic volume does not have a major influence on traffic noise levels; a doubling of traffic volume results in a 3 dB to 5 dB increase innoise levels. As a result, projected traffic increases on U.S. 101, Interstate 280, and major arterials within South San Francisco should have not have an appreciable impact onoise levels in the city. And as traditional industrial uses make way for less intene- velopment activities, it is expected that truck traffic will decline in South San Francis- co, particularly in areas east of U.S. 101 and south of Railroad Avenue. Railroad Noise. The number of trains passing through South San Francisco Southern Pacific Railroad line is not expected to change signifi ridership is expected to increase through 2010, it is unknown if increase in the number of trains. In any case, the impacts of railroad noise are negligi- ble due to the proximity of the line to U.S. 101, and the fact tr- round by industrial and commercial land uses. Industrial Noise. It is expected that industrial activity in South San Francisco wn- tinue its shift away from traditional manufacturing and warehousing toward biotech and high-tech activity. This transition toward office-based uses will result in reduced levels of industrial noise in East of 101 and south of Railroad Avenue. Associated truck traffic and noise should also be reduced. These industrial areas will also l remain within the 65 dB CNEL contour for aircraft noise. BART Extension. The BART extension to SFO will pass through South San Francisco. The route will descend underground from the South San Francisco s- cend to the surface at the San Bruno station at the Tanforan Shopping Center. Since 9-5 BART will remain underground through South San Francisco, airbornoise impacts are expected to be minor, provided mitigation along surface lengths is implemented as planned. Ground-borne noise and vibration impacts have also been determined by BART to be minor, as several mitigation measures (floating trackl- able. This assessment is based on standards set by BART for both airborne and ground-borne noise. 9-G-1 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing t noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. 9-G-2 Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to miffects of noise on adjacent land uses. 9-I-1 Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. The simultaneous increase in aircraft operations at SFO and decrease in average noise levels resulting from improvements in jet engine technologsents a challenge for South San Francisco. The current 65 dB CNEL bounda an average noise level and provides the basis for FAA noise abatement funding and land use planning controls. As quieter jets cause this boundto become smaller, FAA funding for retrofitting homes within the 65 dB CNE will also decline. At the same time, expected increases in air t increased single-event noise occurrences in the city. As a result, residents in some areas of South San Francisco not included in the 65 dB CNEL noise contour will be increasingly impacted by the single-event flyover noise. Homes in these areas would not be eligible for noise abatement funding under the current standard. The City should consider adopting a -event noise standard to complement the existing 65 dB CNEL standard to impacts of noise in these areas through land use planning and noise abatement programs. 9-I-2 Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls. A lower average noise standard for aircraft-based noise mitigation and land use controls would address the impacts of aircraft flyovers in areas outside t 65 dB CNEL boundary. The current 65 dB CNEL boundary provides th FAA noise abatement funding and land use planning controls limiting 9-6 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion Chapter 9: Noise noise-sensitive uses. The City should work with the FAA and SFO to determine if the current average noise standard is adequately mitigating the impacts of aircraft noise in South San Francisco. A lower average noise standard could be used in conjunction with the single-event noise standard proposed in Policy 9-I-1. 9-I-3 Pursue additional funding sources and programs for the noise insulation retrofit of homes not completed before the expiration of the Memorandum of Understanding in 2000. The Memorandum of Understanding between SFO and San Mateo County juris- dictions, and the specific 1991 Agreement for Aircraft Noise Mitigation between the Airports Commission and South San Francisco establishes the parameters for the City’s retrofit program. This agreement requires the City to (to be matched by SFO) to retrofit noise-impacted homes constructed prior to 1983 with noise insulation. The Agreement runs out in 2000 and between 1,2 and 1,500 homes will still require retrofitting. This program is beneficial and has significantly reduced noise-related impacts in residential areas. The City should begin to pursue the extension of the current agreement and possible boundary adjustments to include homes impr- craft noise beyond the 65 dB CNEL limit. 9-I-4 Ensure that project applications for all new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifi- cations), including hospitals and residential units proposed wit CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, ps- sional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise matures to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achiev not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room, based on the lat SFIA noise contours and on-site measurement data. 9-1-5 Ensure that project applications for new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifica- tions), including schools and places of assembly, proposed withi CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, ps- sional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features included in the design and construction of these uses, to achiev not more than Leq 45 dB for the noisiest hour of normal facility Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producinnoise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL (Figure 9-3), incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. 9-I-56 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise 9-7 generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis measures. 9-I-67 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, 9-I-78 Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design, landscapin hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments dnoise generators. 9-I-89 Work with BART to ensure that its extension of the transit line to SFO through the city results in minimal impact from noise and ground-borne vibration. 9-I-10 Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in 70 dB+ CNEL areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria. 9-I-11: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA-accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. 9-8 El Camino Real Mixed-Use District Draft for Review and Discussion El Camino Real Mixed-Use District PURPOSE The purposes of the El Camino Real Mixed-Use district are to: 1.Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a va- residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment; 2.Ensure that active uses are located along and oriented towards E engaging pedestrian-scaled environment; 3.Ensure that new mixed-use development is designed to minimize traffic and parking impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods and is appropriate to the site and the area where the project is proposed; 4.Offer additional opportunities for housing for residents as well range of facilities and services for surrounding residential neighborh 5.Encourage the development of mixed-use projects that incorporate environmentally sensitive features and amenities to benefit the public as well as meet thes. LAND USE REGULATIONS Table 1 below prescribes the land use regulations for the El Cam-Use District. TABLE 1: EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT UseECRMXAdditional Regulations Permit Key: P-Permitted, MUP-Minor Use Permit, C-Conditional Use Permit Numbers in parentheses refer to limitations listed at the end of Residential Use Types See sub-classifications below Single-Unit Dwelling Single- Unit Detached (1) Second Unit (1) See Second Dwelling Units Single- Unit Semi-Attached (1) Single-Unit Attached P (2) See sub-classifications below Multi-Unit Residential Duplex (1) Multi- Unit P (2) Senior Citizen Residential P (2) P (2) Elderly and Long-term Care See Group Residential Facilities MUP (2) (3) Domestic Violence Shelter See Domestic Violence Shelter See sub-classification below Family Day Care Home Small P (2) 1 TABLE 1: EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT UseECRMXAdditional Regulations MUP (2) Group Residential See Group Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below Residential Care Facilities General C (2) See Group Residential Facilities Limited C (2) (4) Senior P (2) See Group Residential Facilities Public and Semi-Public Uses Colleges and Trade Schools, MUP Public or Private Community Assembly, 2000 See Community Assembly Facilities MUP Square Feet or Less Community Assembly, More See Community Assembly Facilities C Than 2000 Square Feet Community Garden P(5) Cultural Institutions C P Day Care Centers See Day Care Centers Government Offices P See sub-classification below Hospitals and Clinics Clinics C Park and Recreation P Facilities, Public Schools, Public or Private C MUP Social Service Facilities See Social Service Facilities Commercial Uses Animal Care, Sales and See sub-classifications below Services Pet Stores P See Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary P See Animal Care, Sales, and Services Artists’ Studios P Banks and Financial See sub-classifications below Institutions Banks and Credit Unions P (6) Check Cashing Businesses MUP See Check Cashing Businesses Business Services P Commercial Entertainment and Recreation C 2 El Camino Real Mixed-Use District Draft for Review and Discussion TABLE 1: EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT UseECRMXAdditional Regulations Eating and Drinking See sub-classifications below Establishments Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges C Coffee Shops/Cafes P (6) See Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Full Service P (6) See Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Limited Service P (6) See Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail P (6) Sales Live-Work Units P See Live/Work Units See sub-classifications below Lodging Bed and Breakfast MUP See Bed and Breakfast Lodging Hotels and Motels C Maintenance and Repair Services P Nurseries and Garden MUP Centers See sub-classifications below Offices Business and Professional P Medical and Dental P Walk-In Clientele P Parking, Public or Private P Personal Services P See sub-classifications below Retail Sales General Retail Sales P (6) Large Format Retail C Off-Price Merchandise C Second Hand Store C Employment Uses See sub-classifications below Recycling Facilities Collection Facility C See Recycling Facilities P Research and Development 3 TABLE 1: EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT UseECRMXAdditional Regulations Transportation, Communication and Utilities Uses See sub-classifications below Communication Facilities Antenna and Transmission See Antennas and Wireless Towers MUP (7) Communications Facilities See Antennas and Wireless Facilities within Buildings MUP Communications Facilities Utilities, Major C Utilities, Minor P Other Applicable Use Regulations Accessory Uses See Chapter Accessory Uses Home Occupations P See Home Occupations Nonconforming Use See Chapter Nonconforming Uses Temporary Use See Chapter Temporary Uses Limitations: 1.Permitted if existing. New units are not allowed. 2.Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along Elside of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to appro 3.Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 victims and may no violence shelter. 4.Subject to State licensing requirements. 5.Subject to site evaluation based on prior use. 6.Drive-through facilities are not allowed. 7.Only building-mounted or completely enclosed in building. Not permitted on gro DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Table 2 below proposes the development standards for the El Camino Real Mixed-Use District. Individual letters in the table cells refer to subsections that Standards” column lists additional standards that apply in the din this column refer to other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, while individua directly follow the table. The “Additional Standards” are listed following the table. 4 El Camino Real Mixed-Use District Draft for Review and Discussion TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT Standard ECRMX Additional Standards Lot and Intensity/Density Standards The consolidation of substandard parcels is Minimum Lot Size (sq ft) 20,000 encouraged even if the consolidated parcel size is less than the minimum lot size. Minimum Lot Width (ft) 50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6 exclusive of areas For the purposes of this chapter, “site” is Minimum Floor Area Ratio, sites devoted to parking, of defined as a lot or group of lots on the larger than 20,000 square feet which a minimum 0.3 same block that is proposed for FAR shall be active uses concurrent development approval in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and is in a single ownership or under unified control. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR 2.5 (3.5 for mixed-use of active uses does not apply to projects Maximum Floor Area Ratio buildings with incentive where 30% of the units are restricted and program (A)) affordable to low- or low-moderate- income households. See Section Rules of Measurement Maximum Density (dwelling units/net acre) 60 (80 with incentives Mixed-Use Buildings See Affordable Housing Regulations program (A)) Residential-only Buildings 40 See Affordable Housing Regulations Building Form and Location Height (ft) Minimum Height 25 (B) 80 (B) (120 for mixed- See Heights and Height Exceptions and Maximum Height use buildings with Supplemental Standards incentives program (A)) Yards (ft) Front (El Camino Real Frontage is Minimum 12; Building always considered the front of the See Building Projections into Yards Average: 16 (C) lot; measured from curb) Minimum Interior Side (measured 0, 10 when abutting a See Building Projections into Yards from property line) residential district Minimum Street Side (measured 10 See Building Projections into Yards from property line) Minimum Rear (measured from 15 (B)(D) See Building Projections into Yards property line) Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot) 90 See Rules of Measurement 5 TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT Standard ECRMX Additional Standards Additional Standards Minimum Usable Open Space (sq ft 150 per residential unit) Minimum Amount of Landscaping 10 See Landscaping Requirements (% of site) Additional Development Standards: A.Increased Density, FAR and/or Height for Mixed-Use Buildings. A maximum FAR of 3.5, density of 80 dwelling units per net acre, and height of 120 feefor buildings that contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses through a combination of the following, subject to conditional use permit approval: 1.0.5 FAR, up to 10 units per acre and/or 20 feet of height for th Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures specified in Cha120, Transportation Demand Management. 2.0.5 FAR, up to 10 units per acre and/or 20 feet of height for the following subject to Planning Commission approval: a.Projects that include high quality, innovative design and produc maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use. b.Provision of off-site improvements. This may include off-site amenities and/or infrastructure (other than standards requirements and imp such as funding for public safety facilities, libraries, senior community meeting rooms, child care or recreation, or new or enh public spaces. c.Provision of green building measures over and above the applicable green building compliance threshold required pursuant to Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. B.Heights and Building Stepbacks. 1.Ground Floor Height. The minimum ground floor height for buildings along El Camino Real with non-residential uses at ground level is 15 feet, measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of the property al the finish floor elevation of the second floor, with a minimum 12 foot clearance from floor to ceiling The minimum ground floor height shall be 12 feet for buildings containing ground floor residential uses. 2.Street Wall Height. The minimum height of the street wall is 25 feet. The maximum height of the street wall is 35 feet. 3.Building Stepbacks: a.Front. A minimum of 50 percent of the street facing building frontage s stepped back within the area defined by a 75 degree angle origin the top of the base zone/street wall to a point 80 feet from the average level of the highest and lowest point of the property along El Camino Rea Planner may approve a reduced stepback percentage of 45 percent provided 6 El Camino Real Mixed-Use District Draft for Review and Discussion that a public plaza with a minimum depth of 25 feet, landscaping and seating amenities is provided on the ground level at grade; or other com public amenities are provided. Exceptions beyond that are subjec Commission approval. b.Rear. Structures shall not intercept a 60 degree daylight plane inclined inward from the rear property line. C.Front Yards. 1.El Camino Real Frontage and Front Yards Adjacent to Non-Residential Districts. Buildings shall be setback a minimum of 12 feet, measured from the curb, with an average setback of 16 feet, measured from curb. The area between the building and curb along El Camino Real shall be paved with tile, stone, brick comparable material. The Chief Planner may approve a reduced average setback of 14 feet to allow for efficient site layout and configuration, provided that a ten-foot clear sidewalk width is available (clear of landscaping, outdoor seati Exceptions beyond that are subject to Planning Commission approv 2.Front Yards adjacent to a Residential District. Where a site abuts a residential district on a street other than El Camino Real, the minimum front setback, measured from the property line, shall be seven feet for the property str residential district. D.Rear Yard Landscaped Planter. A landscaped planter, a minimum of five feet in width, shall be provided along all rear yard property lines. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS A.Building Length and Separation. The maximum dimension of the portion of a building above 45 feet from finished grade shall not exceed 125 feet and must be separated from another building by 30 feet. Exceptions and modifications to dim ten percent may be granted by the Chief Planner, based on the fi features have been incorporated to create visual variety and void a large-scale, bulky or monolithic appearance. Exceptions beyond ten percent are subject approval. B.Required Commercial Frontage. A minimum of 65 percent of the frontage of a site along El Camino Real shall to be devoted to active uses (such as retail shops, r and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, airline ticare services, libraries, museums and galleries). The Chief Planner may approveof 50 percent to allow for fire access, driveways, and for efficient site layout and site configuration. Exceptions beyond that are subject to Planning Commission approv C.Depth of Required Commercial Frontage. The minimum average depth of the required commercial frontage shall be 75 feet. The Chief Planner may appr depth of 65 feet to allow for efficient site layout and site configuration. Exception that are subject to Planning Commission approval. D.Building Articulation. Buildings shall provide adequate architectural articulation and to avoid a bulky and “box-like” appearance. Building facades shall include building projections or recesses, doorway and window trim, and other deta architectural articulation and design interest. 7 E.Building Transparency and Required Openings. A minimum of 60 percent of street facing building facades containing non-residential uses and a minimum of 70 percent of street facing building facades containing retail uses shall provide tra the following: 1.Comprised of clear, non-reflective windows that allow views of indoor space between two and 12 feet above the sidewalk. 2.Windows of portions of windows, located between the sidewalk and the sidewalk may be glazed. F.Blank Walls. No street frontage wall may run in a continuous plane for morefeet without an opening. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall h provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbi into window displays that are at least three feet deep. 1.Exceptions. a.The maximum length of the wall may be 40 feet if it includes app artwork approved by the City through the design review process. b.The maximum length of the blank wall may be 30 feet for retail establishments with a gross floor area of 25,000 square feet or greater. G.Exterior Building Materials and Colors. 1.A unified palette of materials shall be used on all sides of bui 2.Exterior building materials shall be stone, brick, stucco, concrete block, painted wood clap-board, painted metal clapboard or other quality, durable materia the City as part of the project review. H.Building Orientation and Entrances. 1.Building frontages shall generally be parallel to El Camino Real primary building entrances shall be located on El Camino Real. Corner en oriented to within 45 degrees of a line drawn parallel to El Cam 2.Entries shall be designed so that they are clearly defined and d street. 3.Building entrances shall be emphasized with small entry plazas, architectural elements such as awnings, arcades, or porticos. 4.In residential mixed-use developments, entrances to residential units shall be physically separated from the entrances to the permitted commercial uses and clearly marked with a physical feature such as a recess or projection in building or appropriately scaled element applied to the façade. I.Limitations on Location of Parking. 1.Buildings shall be placed as close to the street, or public plaza or open along street, as possible in compliance with the required setback, with park either underground, behind a building, or on the interior side or rear of the site. 8 El Camino Real Mixed-Use District Draft for Review and Discussion 2.Above ground parking may not be located within 40 feet of a street line. Exceptions may be granted with the approval of a conditional use permit when the following findings can be made: a.The design incorporates habitable space built close to the public sidewalk to the maximum extent feasible; and any parking within 40 feet of t facing property line is well screened with a wall, hedge, trelli landscaping. b.The site is small and constrained such that underground parking parking located more than 40 feet from the street frontage is no 3.The maximum height of a parking podium visible from El Camino Re from finished grade. J.Parking Lot Access. Parking lot access shall be provided according to the general standards of Chapter TBD, On-site Parking and Loading, as well as the standards of this subse Parking lot access shall be provided from a side street or alley shall be minimized and located in the location least likely to impede pedestrian circulation. K.Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access must be provided accordin the following standards. 1.Internal Connections. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any on-site open space areas or pedestrian amenities. 2.To Street Network. Regular connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk shall be provided. 3.To Neighbors. Direct and convenient access shall be provided from commercial a mixed-use projects to adjoining residential and commercial areas to th extent feasible while still provided for safety and security. 4.To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided fro transit stops to building entrances. Sidewalk “bulb-outs” or bus “pull-outs” may be required at potential bus stops. 5.Pedestrian Walkway Design. a.Walkways shall be a minimum of five feet wide, shall be hard-surfaced, and paved with permeable materials. b.Where a required walkway crosses driveways, parking areas, or lo it must be clearly identifiable through the use of a raised crosnt paving material, or similar method. c.Where a required walkway is parallel and adjacent to an auto tra must be raised or separated from the auto travel lane by a raise four inches high, bollards, or other physical barrier. L.Standards for Residential Uses. 1.Entrances. All units located along El Camino Real shall have the primary en either individual or shared, facing El Camino Real and shall inc 9 (e.g. porch or stoop) or recess at least 40 square feet in area, with a minimum depth of five feet. Alternative designs that create a welcoming entry fea such as a trellis or landscaped courtyard entry, may be approved or Design Review Board. 2.Setbacks. In order to provide light and air for residential units, the fol minimum setbacks apply to any building wall containing windows a interior side or rear yard. The following setbacks shall be pro a.For any wall containing windows, a setback of at least ten feet shall be provided. b.For any wall containing bedroom windows, a setback of at least 1 be provided. c.For any wall containing living room or other primary room window setback of at least 20 feet shall be provided. d.The required setbacks apply to that portion of the building wall and extending three feet on either side of any window. 3.Usable Open Space. A minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open space. Private areas typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced yard outside the residence. Common areas typically consist of landsca swimming pools, barbeque areas, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the develo be located at the ground level, on parking podiums, or on roofto adequately landscaped. a.Minimum Dimensions. i.Private Open Space. Private open space located on the ground level (e.g., yards, decks, patios) shall have no dimension less than 1 Private open space located above ground level (e.g., balconies) have no dimension less than 6 feet. ii.Common Open Space. Minimum dimension of 20 feet. b.Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdo living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable co lawn, garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or other servieable, dust- free surfacing. Slope shall not exceed 10 percent. c.Accessibility. i.Private Open Space. The space shall be accessible to only one li unit by a doorway to a habitable room or hallway. ii.Common Open Space. The space shall be accessible to the living units on the lot. It shall be served by any stairway or other accesswa qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room. 10 El Camino Real Mixed-Use District Draft for Review and Discussion M.Truck Docks, Loading, and Service Areas. Truck docks, loading areas, and service areas must be located at the rear or interior side of buildings and be screened so as not to be visible from public streets. N.Screening of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment. All exterior mechanical and electrical equipment and antennas shall be screened or incorporated into th so as not to be visible from the street, highway, BART tracks, CalTrai districts. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited-mounted equipment, utility meters, cable equipment, telephone entry boxe preventions, irrigation control valves, electrical transformers, pull boxes, conditioning, heating, and blower systems. Screening materials s exterior colors and materials of the building. HEIGHT AND FAR RULES OF MEASUREMENT A.Measuring Height 1.Measuring Building Height. Building height is measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of the property along El Camino Real to the roof ride, or parapet wall. 2.Measuring Height of Other Structures. The height of other structures such as fences is the vertical distance from the ground level immediately under top of the structure. Special measurement provisions are also pr a.Measuring the Height of Fences on Retaining Walls. The height of a fence that is on top of a retaining wall is measured from the ground level side of the fence and wall. b.Measuring the Height of Decks. Deck height is determined by measuring from the ground to the top of the floor of the deck. B.Determining Floor Area. The floor area of a building is the sum of the gross horizontal of all floors of a building or other enclosed structure. 1.Included in Floor Area. Floor area includes, but is not limited to, usable basements and cellars that are below the roof and within the outer surface principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines of party wal buildings or portions thereof or within lines drawn parallel to eet within the roof line of any building without walls. In the case of a multi-story building that has covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts, th features shall be counted only once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent. 2.Excluded from Floor Area. Floor area does not include mechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms that do not exceed 2 percent of th floor area; areas that qualify as usable open space; and areas used for off-street parking spaces or loading spaces, and driveways, ramps between f- level parking garage, and maneuvering aisles that are located be the property. 3.Non-Residential Uses. For non-residential uses, gross floor area includes pedestrian access interior walkways or corridors, interior courtyards, walk corridors covered by a roof or skylight. Non-residential gross floor area does not include arcades, porticoes, and similar open areas that are located at or near street 11 level and are accessible to the general public but are not desig display, storage, service, or production areas. C.Determining Floor Area Ratio. Floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the floor area, excluding the areas described below, of all principal and accessory buildings on a site to the site area. To calculate FAR, floor area is divided by site area, and typically expressed as a decimal. For example, if the floor area of all buildings on a site totals 20,000 square feet, and the site area is 10,000 square feet, the FAR is expressed as 2.0. 1.Excluded from Floor Area in Calculating FAR. a.Basements. Usable basements and cellars below finished grade. b.Parking. Parking areas located below finished grade or finished floor where the vertical distance between finished grade and finished floor less. 12 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 2009062070 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO JANUARY 2010 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 2009062070 Prepared for the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94111 415 956 4300415 956 7315 JANUARY 2010 Table of Contents 1Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Organization .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 Process ........................................................................................................................................ 1-2 2Comments on the Revised Draft EIR ................................................................... 2-1 3Response to Comments on the Revised Draft EIR ...................................... 3-1 Agencies ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Organizations/Individuals ........................................................................................................ 3-2 4Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR ........................................................................ 4-1 Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft General Plan .............................................. A-1 1Introduction This Program Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of South San Francisco (City) in accordance with the California Env (CEQA). The City is the lead agency responsible for ensuring tha Camino Real General Plan Amendment (Amendment) complies with CEQA. PURPOSE The Final EIR includes the Revised Draft EIR, for which a NOP wa 2009, and this document, which includes Responses to Comments on and minor corrections and clarifications to the Revised Draft EIR. The Revised Draft EIR includes revisions to the original Draft EIR for which a NOP was public scoping meeting was held July 1, 2009, and was published 2009. A few comments were received on the previous Draft EIR. Although part of the administrative record, the previous comments do not require a wrten response in the Final EIR. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Final EIR only contains responses to significant environmental issues raised in the comments received on the Revised Draft EIR. It is intended to disclose to City decision makers, responsible agencies, organizations, and the general public, the potential impacts of implementing the propos program level analysis addresses potential impacts of activities of the Amendment, which are described in Chapter 2: Project Description, of EIR. The primary purpose of the Final EIR is to revise and refine the Revised Draft EIR, published November 25, 2009, in response to cceived during the 45-day public review period. The review period for the Revised Draf No. 2009062070) was from November 25, 2009 to January 11, 2009. document, combined with the Revised Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR on the project. This Final EIR amends and incorporates by reference the Revised Draft EIR, which is av document from the City of South San Francisco Planning Division,315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco and online on the City of South San Francisco website at http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=365. ORGANIZATION This document contains the following components: Chapter 2 lists all of the agencies and individuals that submitt the Revised Draft EIR; reproduces all comments and provides a unique number for each EIR comment in the page margin. Chapter 3 provides responses to comments, numbered, and in order comments in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 lists revisions to the Revised Draft EIR by chapter and page, in the same or- der as the revisions would appear in the Revised Draft EIR. Actu 1-1 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report Revised Draft EIR appear at the end of the section, also in the would appear in the Draft EIR. Appendix A lists revisions to the Draft General Plan. PROCESS Upon publication of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission and C hearings to certify the EIR and to consider adoption of the prop Commission and Council will determine the adequacy of the Final EIR, and, if determined adequate, will make findings and certify the document as complia Copies of the Final EIR have been provided to agencies and otheries that commented on the Draft EIR or have requested the Final EIR. The Final EIR is also avail South San Francisco, Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco. 1-2 2Comments on the Revised Draft EIR This chapter contains copies of the comment letters received on proposed Amendment. A total of five comment letters were received during the 45-day comment period. Each comment letter is numbered, and each individual comment is assigned a number in the page margin. Responses to each comment are provi document. Some commenters commented on both the Amendment and th note that only comments on the Revised Draft EIR are addressed inal EIR. Where appropriate, the information and/or revisions suggested in these incorporated into the Final EIR. These revisions are included in Where comments are on the merits of the proposed Amendment rather than on the Revised Draft EIR, this is noted in the response. Some of these comments the proposed General Plan, as summarized in Appendix A. Comments Received on the proposed South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Com-Date Agency/Organization Commenter ment # Agencies (Federal, State Regional, Local) (A) A1 January 5, 2010 San Francisco International Airport James Ilnicki A2 January 7, 2010 Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Lisa Carboni A3 January 11, 2010 City/County Association of Governments of David Carbone San Mateo A4 January 11, 2010 SamTrans Hilda Lafebre Organizations/Individuals (B) B1 January 11, 2010 SyWest Development Elizabeth Puccinelli 2-1 COMMENT LETTER A1 A1-1 A1-2 A1-3 COMMENT LETTER A2 A2-1 A2-2 A2-2 COMMENT LETTER A3 A3-1 A3-2 A3-3 A3-4 COMMENT LETTER A4 A4-1 COMMENT LETTER B1 B1-1 B1-2 B1-3 B1-4 B1-5 B1-6 B1-7 B1-8 B1-9 B1-10 B1-11 B1-12 B1-13 B1-14 B1-15 B1-16 B1-16 B1-17 B1-18 B1-19 B1-20 B1-21 B1-22 B1-23 B1-23 B1-24 B1-24 B1-25 3Response to Comments on the Revised Draft EIR This chapter includes responses to each comment, and in the same Chapter 2. The responses are marked with the same number-letter combination as the comment to which they respond, as shown in the margin of the comment letters. AGENCIES A1:SanFranciscoInternationalAirport A1-1:This is a comment on the Amendment, rather than the Revised Draf information purposes, in response to the comment, the General Pl policy has been updated to incorporate reference to airport height limits in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the env Francisco International Airport. A1-2:This is again a comment on the Amendment, rather than the Revise information purposes, in response to the comment, the General Plan Amendment policy has been updated to incorporate reference that avigation granted to the City and County of San Francisco, as the propriet International Airport. A1-3:In response to the comment, the Regulatory Setting in 3.2 Noise has been updated to include a description of the City of South San Francisco’s grant condition of receiving federal funds from the Federal Aviation A Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for noise insulating programs. A2: Department of Transportation (Caltrans) A2-1:The information requested is already provided in the General Pla Impact Analysis Report prepared by DKS Associates, which is included in the Appendix of the Revised Draft EIR. A2-2:The Regulatory Setting in 3.1: Traffic, Circulation, and Parking existing policies and regulations. Pages 3.1-12 to 3.1-13 provide a summary of improvements outlined in the South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan, prepared by Callander Associates in July 2006. The General Plan proposing any improvements or changes to the public right-of-way. A3: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo A3-1:In response to the comment, Table 2.3-1, Footnote 1 has been updated to incorporate reference to the environs of San Francisco International Airport A3-2:See response to comment A1-1. 3-1 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report A3-3:See response to comment A1-2. A3-4:This is a comment on an Amendment policy rather than the EIR. Plse note that in response to the comment, the General Plan Amendment policy has b provide more clarification regarding policies and criteria conta Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. A4: SamTrans A4-1:Comment noted. ORGANIZATIONS/INDIVIDUALS B1: Elizabeth Puccinelli (SyWestEnterprises) B1-1:This is a comment on the Amendment rather than the Revised Draft that modifications to the General Plan Amendment have been inclu flexibility for the El Camino Real Mixed Use land use designation. B1-2:The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Traffic Report) prepared by analysis of traffic impacts in the immediate Planning Area and a Planning Area that may be impacted by the proposed Amendment. The Traffic Report includes signalized intersections within and adjacent to the Pla analysis of traffic impacts at all approaches. The Traffic Repor segments within and adjacent to the Planning Area, including I-280, I-380 and US 101. Caltrans provided detailed comments on the previous Draft EIR, a additional intersections that should be analyzed, all of which a Revised Draft EIR. The Revised Draft EIR recognizes that potential development may impact areas outside of the immediate Planning Area and has ther intersections and roadway segments outside of the immediate Plan The trip generation for the proposed Amendment is described in S the Traffic Report. It was based on either the number of units or square footage of land use in the development area, and standard trip generation e retail, office hotel, and condominium use, as published by the I Transportation Engineers in the Trip Generation 8th edition. The P include approximately 288,900 square feet of new non-residential development and 835 new housing units. Tables 8 and 9 of the traffic report provide a summary of the tr generation forecast. The direction of approaches and departures for project trips rel Area has been estimated based on existing traffic patterns in th area. Table 10 of the Traffic Report shows the trip distribution patterns assumed for the Planning Area. Trip ends would be spread out along El Camino Rea Drive and South Spruce Avenue. It was projected that eight percent of project- generated trips would use Spruce Drive east of El Camino Real anhree percent of project-generated trips would use Sneath Lane east of El Camino Real. Noor Avenue is between Spruce Drive and Sneath Lane and also provides access be Real and Huntington Avenue, but the access is limited due to lef-turn restrictions 3-2 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR from Noor Avenue onto El Camino Real as well as the lack of a tr facilitate easier turns overall. Project-generated traffic was assumed to use either Spruce Drive or Sneath Lane as both of these intersections would provide easier access for vehicle turning on t El Camino Real. There are no project-generated northbound right turns from El Camino Real in this segment of roadway, and therefore no northbound project trips ar Noor Avenue. For southbound project-generated trips, the traffic signals at Spruce Drive or Sneath Lane would provide easier access than Noor Avenu project-generated trips turning right onto El Camino Real, there is the some vehicles may use Noor Avenue instead of Spruce Drive or Sneath Lane. However, based on the projected project-generated traffic volumes on Spruce and Sneath, and the fact that these are right turns, the potenti Noor Avenue or Huntington Avenue would be minimal. Traffic on Huntington Avenue would travel along either South Spruce Drive or Sneath La traffic impact is captured in the analysis of the intersections Spruce and El Camino Real/Sneath. B1-3:The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo Travel Demand Forecasting is set for the year 2030; the Revised Draft EIR clea Methodology & Assumptions section on Page 3.1-16 that traffic will most likely worsen from 2020 to 2030 when considering regional growth, indicating that if anything the EIR provides a more conservative, worse than worst case scenario and assuming 2030 conditions in 2020. In addition, see Response B1-4 and B1-5 for discussion regarding mitigation measures. B1-4:The Traffic Report includes a comparison between existing inters the mitigating geometry for the impacted intersections. In all c require additional travel lanes and acquisition of public right-of way. For El Camino Real at Westborough, mitigation would require the widening of approaches. El Camino Real southbound and El Camino Real northbo require an additional two lanes. Westborough eastbound would req two lanes while Westborough westbound would require an additional lane. Mitigation at the southbound El Camino Real approach would result the subst parking for the Pacific Supermarket. In addition, it would requi property of from a site designated as a Housing Element site in the 2009 South San Francisco Housing Element, which would result in a loss of housi South San Francisco. Additional lanes at Westborough would requi portion of the Chevron Service Station site. For El Camino Real at West Orange Avenue, mitigation would requi all four approaches. El Camino Real southbound would require an while El Camino Real northbound would require an additional thre Orange eastbound would require an additional four lanes and West Orange wes would require an additional two lanes. Mitigation may require th Shell and Olympic service stations if there is no longer suffici underground fuel tanks. 3-3 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report For El Camino Real at Ponderosa, mitigation would require the wi approaches. El Camino Real southbound would require an additiona El Camino Real would require an additional two lanes. Ponderoa R westbound would require an additional lane each. Mitigation would resu substantial loss of parking for the Southwood Shopping Center. I require the taking of property from South San Francisco High Sch For El Camino Real at Country Club Drive, mitigation would require the widening of an approach at El Camino Real. El Camino real southbound would r additional lane, resulting in a eight lane approach at El Camino result in the substantial loss of parking for La-Z-Boy. For El Camino Real at South Spruce Avenue, mitigation would requ four approaches. El Camino Real southbound would require an addi while El Camino northbound would require an additional lane. Sou eastbound would require an additional lane and South Spruce Aven would require an additional two lanes. Mitigation would require from a gas service station and would result in the substantial l Candies as well as demolition of the See’s Candies entrance. For El Camino Real at Sneath Lane, mitigation would require wide approaches. El Camino Real southbound would require an additiona Lane westbound would also require an additional lane. Mitigation would require the taking of land from the Golden Gate national Cemetery. For El Camino Real at Westbound I-380 off ramp, mitigation would require the widening of the I-380 off ramp, resulting in a five lane off ramp. Mitigation would require the taking of land from the Tanforan Shopping Center, wh City of San Bruno. As stated in the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures sect-1 of the Revised Draft EIR, the mitigations necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels are incapable of being accomplished, given economic, environmental, legal and technological factors. The Planning Area is an urbanized area that is already fully developed with operating businesses. The acquisition of su additional travel lanes would be prohibitively costly given the expense associated with acquiring the land, costs of relocating businesses, and payment for loss of bu good will. The acquisition of property from a site designated as in the 2009 South San Francisco Housing Element would result in loss of housing opportunities in the City of South San Francisco. Additionally, as discussed in the Revised Draft EIR, the widenin conflicts with the project’s goals, which is to make the El Cami pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented corridor. Also, it conflicts with the El Camino Real Master Plan, which focuses on expanding pedestrian facilities, a Principles adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force as part of Initiative, which aims to transform El Camino Real into a smart growth corridor 3-4 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR CEQA Guidelines § 15364 defines feasible as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking int environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines § 15091 provides guidance on the findings required when a project is pro with remaining significant impacts. Subsection (a)(3) identifies an appropriate finding as “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the fi” The economic expense of taking property, the economic impacts on existing operating businesses, as well as the social impact of reducing housing opp Francisco make the mitigation measures infeasible, as concluded EIR. Furthermore, the mitigation measures conflict with the project objectives, asone of the core goals is to make El Camino Real more pedestrian and transit fr than widening it to accommodate even more automobile traffic. In addition, see Response B1-5. B1-5:The Revised Draft EIR does not attribute the infeasibility of thon measures to the fact that El Camino Real is under the jurisdicti discussion in Mitigation Measures sections on pages 2.1-21 and 3.1-27.) The Revised Draft EIR does state that the mitigation measures would be econo which is explained in greater detail in Response B1-4. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(2), the findings require proposed to be approved with remaining significant impacts may b “changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.” Changes to El Cam the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, not the City of As El Camino Real is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Caltrans approval would be required for construction of intersection improvements necessary for mitigation. Currently there is no identified plan or project to implement th is there a financing plan in place to fund the improvements. Mitigation measures adopted by an agency must be fully enforceable. (Public Resource Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)) Therefore, even if the mitigation measures were feasible (which they are not), since the City of South San Francisco cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact, as it is identified in the Revised Draft EIR, would regardless remain significant and unavoidable. The City currently does not have a fee collection program for th Planning Area. Even if the City of South San Francisco prepares a fee collection pro projects in the Planning Area could contribute, or obtains fundi cannot assure actual mitigation of the impacted intersections. Without jurisdiction and without Caltrans permission, the City cannot insure that mitigation measures will be implemented, even if funding is required by the EIR. (Tracy First v. City of Tracy, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2009)). 3-5 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report The City/County Association of San Mateo County (C/CAG) and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority currently do not have a fee collection program or a plan for improvements along the impacted intersections. B1-6:As discussed in Response B1-5, the City of South San Francisco currently does not have a traffic impact fee for the Planning Area. The City of South Sa does not have impact fees for public transit facilities. The Planning Area is already served by public transit and no new public transit will be necestated by the project. Page 3.1-8 of the Revised Draft EIR discusses the current public transit within and around the Planning Area. B1-7:See Response to B1-4 and B1-5. B1-8:The Traffic Report compares existing baseline conditions to the proposed Amendment. The existing baseline condition is referenced as “Existing Condition” ihe Report and the Draft EIR and it is based on traffic counts conducted in 2009. The proposed Amendment is referenced as “2030 Cumulative with Proposed Projec the Traffic Report and Revised Draft EIR. B1-9:The reference to the Sunnyvale West Neighborhood v. City of Sunnyvale, San Mateo County Superior Court, November 5, 2009 case in the comment lett error. The case is currently in the Santa Clara County Superior Court (Case Number 1- 08-CV-127528). The complaint brought up by the Sunnyvale West Neighborhood was the use of General Plan 2020 build-out traffic numbers for the baseline instead of current conditions in the EIR. The South El Camino Real Revised s current conditions as the baseline, not General Plan build-out traffic numbers. Traffic impacts are inherently cumulative in nature as an indivi to impact traffic conditions directly. Traffic resulting from bu to occur over time and regional traffic cannot be assumed to stay c occurs. If the Revised Draft EIR evaluated the impact of traffic Amendment, without accounting for regional traffic growth, it wo representation of traffic conditions at build out. Therefore, traf in the context of projected traffic conditions in 2030, which ac from existing volumes and roadway system changes over time. AccoG’s Policy on Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), the C/CAG Countywide Tr Forecasting Model should be used to forecast traffic demand for plans. Therefore, the traffic analysis was conducted using the C Travel Demand Forecasting Model. B1-10:Table ES-1 in the Traffic Report shows the existing baseline condition in column. The Draft EIR compares the existing baseline condition “Existing Condition” which is based on traffic counts conducted in 2009 and the proposed Amendment “2030 Cumulative with Proposed Project Condition.” The Revised Draft EIR does not minimize the impact of the Amendment as it concludes that impact and unavoidable. 3-6 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR B1-11:Table 3.1-10 describe the increase in Delay (seconds per vehicle), not the percentage change from No Project Conditions. As the tables are set up, the that Delay increases from Existing Condition to the 2030 Cumulat Project Condition. Table 3.1-11 describes the measure of effectiveness (average travel speed) for El Camino Real and describes the measure of effective freeway segments. For El Camino Real, the reader can clearly see average travel speed decreases in the 2030 Cumulative with proposed Amendment Condition. For the freeway segments, the reader can clearly see v/c ratio increases in 2030 with proposed Amendment, which means of effectiveness. Table 2.4-2 has been updated to include baseline conditions. B1-12:In response to your comment, there is currently no adopted or ev for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan area. Land use des Camino Real/Chestnut area remain as designated in the existing General Plan. Impacts of those land use designations have already been evaluated in th the City were to consider adoption of a Specific Plan for the El Street area, such a plan would be subject to its own environmental review. B1-13:The Revised Draft EIR uses Community Noise Equivalent Level metr evaluate noise impacts, not Single Event Noise Exposure Level (S CNEL metric is the scale specified by the State of California an by local agencies in California to assess aircraft noise/land use compatibility.” Land Use Plan 1996, Amended 1998.) Because the proposed Amendmen land use plan, CNEL was used to assess compatibility. SENEL is typically used for a development project that is parcel specific. SNELs wo vary significantly throughout the Planning Area and a SNEL study helpful in showing how the overall Planning Area is impacted by proposed Amendment is not a site-specific project, but rather an areawide land use plan, CNEL, the scale specified by the State of California, the and the City’s General Plan was used to evaluate noise impacts. In addition, as discussed in the Revised Draft EIR, the City of South San Francisco and the 1996 San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, amended 1998, d criterion value for maximum single-event noise levels. Therefore, there is no adopted standard to evaluate the impact of single-event noise exposure. B1-14:The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan (1996, Amended 1998) aircraft noise/land use compatibility criteria. It acknowledges normally involving both outdoor and indoor activities, such as tl uses, the noise environment outdoors usually remains unchanged, result solution to the problem.” While acknowledging the issue of exter Land Use Plan also states that residential uses are conditionalle in the 65 to 70 dB CNEL range. Therefore, according to the San Mateo County A Plan, residential uses in the Planning Area within the 65 to 70 conditionally compatible, despite exterior noise. 3-7 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report The State of California Noise Standards (21 CCR § 5012) establish a CNEL level of 65 decibels as the acceptable level of aircraft noise for people li The 65 CNEL contour around an airport represents the “noise impa Noise Standards (21 CCR § 5014) states that residential uses are incompatible within the “noise impact boundary,” unless certain conditions are met. § 5014. Incompatible Land Uses Within the Noise Impact Boundary. For the purpose of determining the size of the noise impact area the following land uses are incompatible: (a) Residences, including but not limited to, detached single-family dwellings, multi- family dwellings, high-rise apartments or condominiums, and mobile homes, unless: (1) an avigation easement for aircraft noise has been acquired by the airport proprietor, or (2) the dwelling unit was in existence at the same location prio 1989, and has adequate acoustic insulation to ensure an interior aircraft noise of 45 dB or less in all habitable rooms. However, acoustic treatment alone does not convert residences having an exterior C or greater due to aircraft noise to a compatible land use if the exterior normally cognizable private habitable area such as a baatio, or balcony. Or, (3) the residence is a high rise apartment or condominium having CNEL of 45 dB or less in all habitable rooms due to aircraft noi circulation or air conditioning system as appropriate, or (4) the airport proprietor has made a genuine effort as determined by the department in accordance with adopted land use compatibility pla appropriate laws and regulations to acoustically treat residence exterior CNEL less than 80 dB (75 dB if the residence has an exterior normally occupiable private habitable area such as a backyard, patio, or acquire avigation easements, or both, for the residences involve property owners have refused to take part in the program, or (5) the residence is owned by the airport proprietor. The proposed Amendment policies that would require residential d between 65 and 70 dB CNEL to grant an avigation easement, the pr residential development in 70 dB+ CNEL areas, and the requiremenof residential development to achieve an interior noise level of not more than ensure that residential development meet the conditions required21 CCR § 5014, rendering residential development conditionally compatible withi impact boundary.” In addition, see response B1-13 regarding discussion on SENEL. 3-8 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR B1-15:Please note that the General Plan Amendment has been updated to commercial uses only, which will allow development flexibility c noise contours. B1-16:The EIR in Los Angeles Unified School district v. City of Los Angeles (1997 th 4 1019 concluded there would be no significant impact on the schools fr traffic noise. However, because the existing ambient noise at the school site already exceeded the Department of Health's recommended maximum of 70 dB could not conclude that an increase by another 2.8--3.3 dBA at build-out would be 1 "insignificant." 2 The existing ambient noise maximum at South San Francisco High School is 70 dB CNEL. Approximately the first 15 feet of the South San Francisco Hig along El Camino Real is in the 70 to 75 dB CNEL range; however n located within that range. There is a landscaped setback of approximately 30 feet from El Camino Real, and a parking lot after the landscaped setback. approximately 100 feet away from El Camino Real. In addition, t Camino real is significantly lower than the South San Francisco site, which further reduces noise impacts to South San Francisco High School. In 203 Amendment, the existing ambient noise at South San Francisco Hig to be 70 dB CNEL or less. The first 18 feet of the frontage of touth San Francisco High School Site along El Camino Real will be in the 70 to 75 dB classroom space will still be in the less than 70 dB CNEL range noise is less than three dB; therefore the impacts, as identifieised Draft EIR, are less than significant. The existing ambient noise at the parcels along El Camino Real is currently less than 70 dB CNEL According to the South San Francisco General Plan Table -1 Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas, residential uses are compatible in areas less than 65 dB CNEL and conditionally compatible in the 65 to 70 dB CNEL noi Commercial development is compatible in areas less than 70 dB CN and conditionally compatible in the 70 to 80 dB CNEL range. As discussed previously, the frontage of El Camino Real is in the 70 to Range. The proposed Amendment requires active uses on the ground Camino, which are conditionally compatible uses, and require res chooses to include residential uses, above or behind active uses. In 2030 with the proposed Amendment, the ambient noise at the parcels along El Ca remain within the 60 to 70 dB CNEL range and the frontage of the the 70 to 75 dB CNEL range, and the increase in noise is less than three dB. (The thre dB threshold is used because according to the 2009 Caltrans Tech 1 California Natural Resources Agency, http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/1997/la_unified.html, accessed January 14, 2010. 2 For simplicity, all noise levels in the Section 3.2 Noise of the however all noise levels presented are A-weighted. 3-9 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report Supplement, it is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely pe level changes of 3 dB.) Therefore the impacts, as identified in the Draft EIR, are less than significant. B1-17:The Revised Draft EIR is complete, and entirely supersedes the D EIR should not be referred to for any purpose. For your informat wording is a stylistic change to better convey the result of the actual the word “may” does not change the threshold of significance use proposed Amendment nor does it change the analysis or the conclu B1-18:The most recent FAA-accepted San Francisco Airport noise exposure map is from 2001; therefore it was used for the Revised Draft EIR. AccordingBert Ganoung, Manager of Aircraft Noise Abatement for the San Francisco Intern email correspondence dated January 25, 2010, the San Francisco International Airport is still working on the 2008 noise exposure map and upon complet to submit them to the FAA for approval. B1-19:The issue is discussed in Section 3.8 Land Use and Housing. B1-20:According to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a), an EIR “need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project….There is no ironclad rule scope of the alternatives discussed other than the rule of reaso§ 15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is “governed by a ‘r of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alterna reasoned choice.” The Revised Draft Amendment identifies two alternatives – the No Project Alternative, which has a lower development potential than the proposed Amendm Employment Center Alternative, which assumes the same overall de potential, but a mix of different uses. These two alternatives p out scenarios and represent a reasonable range of project alternatives In this case, the No Project alternative in the Revised Draft EIR results in fewer compared to the proposed Amendment. According to CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(d), “among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are most of the basic project objections, (ii) infeasibility, or (ii significant environmental impacts.” An alternative, in addition to the no project alternative, that assumes a lower overall development potential proposed Amendment) would not be able to avoid significant impac quality, seeing as those impacts are already significant in the Project alternative. Therefore, an alternative, other than the No Project alternative development potential was not considered in detail in the EIR. B1-21:See response B1-16, B1-5, B1-22, B1-23. B1-22:Section 3.3 Air Quality of the Revised Draft EIR addresses the potential impact of increased vehicle emissions associated with the additional resid 3-10 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR development in Impact 3.3-1, and concludes that overall air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable. In regards to air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, the Revised Draft EIR identifies General Plan policies and City cons permitting procedures that would ensure that exposure to substan concentrations is less than significant. B1-23:The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guide December, 1999 is the most recently adopted version of the Guide were used for the Draft EIR. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update P Thresholds of Significance dated December 7, 2009 is still in draft form. The BAAQMD has deferred adoption of the Guidelines until at least April 2010, for the express purposes of allowing further consultation with local gov earliest the Guidelines could be adopted is April, and they would not likely be effective until 90 days after that, this project will be considered for ap thresholds are incorporated into CEQA. Further, because there wi consultation on the matter, the thresholds may change between now and the time they ultimately become effective, and what constitutes an environment before the adoption of the document. The Revised Draft EIR in Section 3.3 Air Quality contains analysis regarding the proposed Amendment’s consistency with current Air Quality Plan and concludes that the overall air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable.raft EIR contains Greenhouse Gas Emission calculations and shows that Service Population resulting from the proposed Amendment is 4.3 COe per service 2 population, which is less than the proposed BAAQMD threshold of e per 2 service population. For information purposes it should be noted that the Dec. 7, 2009 Guidelines (which are not used in the Revised Draft EIR), would per capita approach (see pages 21-23 of the Guidelines), which would result in less than significant air quality impact. The proposed BAAQMD Guidelines does not require the calculation of construction related emissions at the plan level. B1-24:As discussed in Section 3.5 Public Services and Utilities, “long-term local water planning is not a burden that must be taken up anew, for CEQA pu development is proposed; rather, cities and counties may rely on existing urban wate management plans, so long as the expected new demand of the deve included in the water management plan's future demand accounting(Vineyard Area Citizens For Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)) The Revised Draft EIR demonstrates that the service area populat the proposed Amendment is slightly lower than the population pro service area for 2020 in the 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for the California Water Service Company (UWMP), showing that the projected growth proposed Amendment has been accounted for in the UWMP. Therefore Draft EIR can rely on the existing UWMP, and as the expected new proposed Amendment was included in the UWMP’s future demand accoun additional water supply assessment is not required. 3-11 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.5 Public Services and Ut Amendment is a broad land use plan that does not authorize any specific project; therefore the Revised Draft EIR need not demonstrate certainty o “The burden of identifying likely water sources for a project va project approval involved; the necessary degree of confidence involved for approval of a conceptual plan is much lower than for issuance of building pe(Vineyard Area Citizens For Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) As the proposed Amendment is a broad plan, some uncertainty regarding the availability of water supplies, such as the uncertain effect of global warming on water supply, can be tolerated in the Revised should not be understood to require assurances of certainty rega-term future water supplies at an early phase of planning for large land deve projects.…Requiring certainty when a long-term, large-scale development project is initially approved would likely be unworkable, as it would requi outpace land use planning.” (Vineyard Area Citizens For Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)) B1-25:The Revised Draft EIR is complete, and entirely supersedes the DThe attachment refers to the Draft EIR. 3-12 4Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR This chapter includes the revisions to the Revised Draft EIR. Th in response to comments or based on review by the EIR preparers. the order they appear in the Revised Draft EIR. Text additions are noted in underline and text deletions appear in strikeout. The City has refined the proposed Amendment based upon agency an changes to the Plan as described in Appendix A do not alter the in the Revised Draft EIR regarding impacts or mitigation measures and t recirculation. Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR are described -1 and organized by chapter, page and table or figure, where applicable. Certain revd pages have been appended to the end of this chapter, for clarity purposes; these pages ar CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Chapter 2/Section 2.3, Page 2-6/Table 2.3-1 Footnotes: 1.For areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights must be in accordance with the limits indi- cated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco Interna- tional Airport. 2.0.5 FAR Bonus with Transportation Demand Management Program, 0.5 Far Bonus with other specified design stan- dards 3.Residential limit in addition to FAR limit. For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First StAvenue, maximum density is 40.0 du/ac if residential use only. Chapter 2/Section 2.4, Page 2-10/Table 2.4-2: Table 2.4-2: Non-Residential Development and Jobs at Buildout General Plan Existing Conditions General Plan Buildout w/ (2009 Planning Area Buildout Amendment Non-Residential Development 3 24.3 27.1 27.4 +0.3 (million s.f.) 1 Jobs.43,100 71,400 72,100 +700 2 Employed Residents 27,670 32,352 33,509 +1,157 Ratio (Jobs/Employed Resident) 1.56 2.21 2.15 0.61 1.Jobs at buildout rounded to the nearest hundred. 2.Employed residents at buildout for the proposed Amendment were calculated using the ratio of employed resi- dents to total population as estimated for the current General P 3.Assumes that the approved development listed in the 1999 Generalof the additional development under the 1999 General Plan has been deve. 4-1 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report Sources: ABAG Projections, 2007; City of South San Francisco Gen Chapter 2/Section 2.5, Page 2-10: 2-I-22 Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in to the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport. Chapter 2/Section 2.5, Page 2-11: 3.4-I-26 Establish development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for Sout Require a minimum percentage of the frontage of a site along El eal to be de- voted to active uses. Ensure that depth and height of the provid accommodate a variety of tenants and provide flexibility for the Allow buildings up to 80 feet by right, and up to 120 feet (alonR as specified in Chapter 2 and in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land UsePlan for the environs of San Francisco In- ternational Airport) based on discretionary design review and approval by the Planning Commission. Maintain a consistent building base/streetwall along El Camino R ranging in height between 25 and 35 feet. Maintain build-to lines, with step-backs for development exceeding 35 feet in height. Require buildings to be finely articulated and visually engaging. Chapter 2/Section 2.5, Page 2-13: 9-I-12 Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA-accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL SFO noise contoursaircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to grant provide an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. CHAPTER 3 SETTINGS, IMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES SECTION 3.2 NOISE Page 3.2-7: Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement Program The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides grants to public — and, in some cases, to private owners and entities -- for the planning and development of public-use airports 4-2 Chapter 4: Revisions to the Draft EIR that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). When airport owners or sponsors, planning agencies, or other organizations ac- administered airport financial assistance programs, they must ag assurances). These obligations require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditio in the application for Federal assistance and become part of the covenants to property deeds. The duration of these obligations depends on recipient, the useful life of the facility being developed, and assurances. The City of San Francisco currently runs an Aircraft Program with their AIP grant. South San Francisco’s assurances include taking “appropriate act including adoption of zoning laws, to the extent reasonable, to or in the immediate vicinity of the Airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal Airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft” a land uses within its jurisdiction that would not reduce the comp federally financed noise compatibility measures.” 4-3 Appendix A: Revisions to the Proposed Amend- ment This Final EIR document responded to comments on the Revised Dra identified relevant changes to the Plan and Revised Draft EIR. The table below describes changes made to the proposed Amendment. Many of these changes were also discussed in Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Re documented in Chapter 4: Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR. It is organized by chapter/element and only reflects substantive changes. (Typos, f updated cross-references are not recognized in the table.) Statements in bold, are followed by actual General Plan text and/or edits. Page, table, figure, goal, and policy numbers refer to the numbers in the May 27, 2009 Public Review (PR) Draft. A-1 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report Revisions to the Draft General Plan Chapter- PR Table/ Page Figure Correction Chapter 2: Land Use Updated land use designation to provide flexibility. MIXED USE El Camino Real Mixed Use This designation is intended to accommodate high intensity active uses and mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real area. Retail and depart- ment stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educati social ser- vices; and office uses are permitted. The frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector Streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses – uses that are accessi- ble to the general public and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contri- bute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Uses that generate include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, travel agencies, child care services, libraries, museums and gal(such as retail, eating, and drinking establishments, and personal service establishments). For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for al of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restrf- fordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. For sites larger than four acres, the frontage of a site along El Camino Real and a minimum FAR of 0.30 overall are required to be devoted to active uses. The maximum FAR Floor Area Ratio for all uses, inclusive of housing and sub- stantially above grade structured parking shall be 2.5, with increases to a maxi- mum total FAR of 3.5 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density is limited to 60 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of 80 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First Stst Orange Avenue Drive, either a mix of uses as permitted under this classification 2-7 to 2-8 or residential use only (up to 40units per acre) is permitted. A-2 Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft General Plan Chapter- PR Table/ Page Figure Correction Add policy regarding conformance with the San Mateo County comprehen- sive Airport Land Use Plan 2-I-22 Require that all future development conforms with the relevant h aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria c most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County ComprehensAir- 2-28 port Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas 3-8 Updated policy to incorporate reference to airport height limits in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. 3.4-I-24 3.4-I-26 Establish development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for South El Camino Real: Require a minimum percentage of the frontage of a site along El i- no Real to be devoted to active uses. Ensure that depth and heig the provided space is adequate to accommodate a variety of tenants and provide flexibility for the future. Allow buildings up to 80 feet by right, and up to 120 feet (alon higher FAR as specified in Chapter 2 and in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport) based on discretionary design review and approval by the Planning Comms- sion. Maintain a consistent building base/streetwall along El Camino R side streets, ranging in height between 25 and 35 feet. Maintain build-to lines, with step-backs for development exceeding 35 feet in height. Require buildings to be finely articulated and visually engaging A-3 South El Camino Real Final Environmental Impact Report Chapter- PR Table/ Page Figure Correction Updated policyto allow for retail only development: 3-7 3.4-I-1 3.4-I-7Require that any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses in this area is in the form of pedestrian-oriented high intensity active use or mixed-use development (with active uses fronting El Camino Real and ot Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor at the ground level and a range of compatible uses at upper levels and behind active uses.) Retail or other active single use developments are allowed, prov they meet minimum FAR requirements. For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Drive, either a mix of uses is permitted or resin- tial use only is permitted. Active uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters anr- forming arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, airline tin- cies, child care services, libraries, museums and galleries fron Camino Real at the ground level, and a range of compatible uses as additional residential, office, and hotels/motels at upper levels and in portions not fronting El Camino Real. 3.4-1-17 Require that any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses in this area is in the form of mixed-use development, with active uses such as retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, co recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, travel agencies, airline ticket agencies, child care services, l and galleries fronting El Camino Real at the ground level, and a range of compat- ible uses such as additional residential, office, and hotels/mot and in portions not fronting El Camino Real. For parcels on the Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Drive, either a mix of uses is permitted or residential use only is permitted. Chapter 9: Noise 9-8 Updated policy to incorporate reference that avigation easement shall be granted to the City and County of San Francisco, as the proprietor of San Francisco International Airport. 9-I-11 9-I-12 Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA-accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL SFO noise contours aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to grant provide an avi- . gation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO . A-4 DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94111 415 956 4300415 956 7315